Encyclopaedia Biblica Vol I to IV

«CTD
Libra of. Addber College
Western: Rest Vaversity

I

ENCYCLOPADIA BIBLICA

A DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE

VOLUME IV

ENCYCLOPEDIA
BIBLICA

A CRITICAL DICTIONARY OF THE LITERARY
POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS HISTORY
THE ARCHAEOLOGY GEOGRAPHY
AND NATURAL HISTORY
OF THE BIBLE

EDITED BY

Tune Rev, T. KR. CHEYNE, D.Lrrr., D.D.

ORIEL PROFESSOR OF THE INTERPRETATION OF HOLY SCRIPTURE AT OXFORD
AND FORMERLY FELLOW OF BALLIOL COLLEGE
CANON OF ROCHESTER

AND

1. SUTHERLAND BLACK, M.A., LL.D.

FORMERLY ASSISTANT EDITOR OF THE ‘ENCYCLOPADIA BRITANNICA”

VOLUME IV
Q to Z

Neto Fork
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
LONDON: ADAM AND CHARLES BLACK
"1903

All rights reserved

95E355

CopyRIGET, 1903,

By THE MACMILLAN COMPANY,
First edition, May, 1903.

a.l.î,

Noriocol Press
3.8. Cushing & Co. — Berwick & Smith
Norwood Mass, U.S.A.

TO THE

MEMORY

OF

WILLIAM ROBERTSON SMITH

5080 .

PREFACE

THE idea of preparing a new Dictionary of the Bible on critical lines for the

benefit of all serious students, both professional and lay, was prominent in the

mind of the many-sided scholar to whose beloved memory the

present volume is inscribed. It is more than twelve years since

Prof. Robertson Smith began to take steps towards realising this
idea. As an academical teacher he had from the first been fully aware of the
importance of what is known as Biblical Encyclopedia, and his own earliest
contributions to the subject in the Excyc/opedia Britannica carry us as far back
as to the year 1875. If for a very brief period certain untoward events arrested
his activity in this direction, the loss of time was speedily made up, for seldom
perhaps has there been a greater display of intellectual energy than is given in
the series of biblical articles signed ‘ W. R. 5. which appeared in the Encyclopedia
Britannica between 1875 and 1888. The reader who is interested in Bible
study should not fail to examine the list, which includes among the longer articles
BisLe, CANTICLES, CHRONICLES, DaAvip, HEBREW LANGUAGE, Hosea, JERU-

‘ saLem, JorL, JupGes, Kincs, Levites, MALACHI, ΜΈΒΒΙΑΗ, ΜΊΙΟΑΗ, PHILIS-
TINES, PrIEST, FroPHET, PSALMS, SACRIFICE, TEMPLE, TITHES, ZEPHANIAH ;
and among the shorter, ANGEL, ARK, BAAL, DECALOGUE, ELI, Eve, HaGcGa],
LAMENTATIONS, MELCHIZEDEK, MoLocH, NABATZANS, NAHUM, NAZARITE, NINE-
VEH, OBADIAH, PARADISE, RUTH, SABBATH, SADDUCEES, SAMUEL, TABERNACLE,
γον.

Nor should the students of our day overlook the service which this far-
seeing scholar and editor rendered to the nascent conception of an international
biblical criticism by inviting the co-operation of foreign as well as English con-
tributors. That names like those of Noldeke, Tiele, Wellhausen, Harnack, Schurer,
Gutschmid, Geldner, appeared side by side with those of well-known and honoured
British schelars in the list of contributors to the Encyclopedia was a guarantee of
freedom from dangerous eccentricity, of comprehensiveness of view, of thorough-
ness and accuracy of investigation.

Such a large amount of material illustrative of the Bible, marked by unity
of aim and consistency of purpose, was thus brought together that the £wcyolope-
dia Britannica became, inclusively, something not unlike an Excyclopedia Biblica.
The idea then occurred to the editor and his publishers to republish, for the
guidance of students, all that might be found to have stood the test of time, the
lacuna being filled up, and the whole brought up, as far as possible, to the high
level of the most recent scholarship. It was not unnatural to wish for this; but
there were three main opposing considerations. In the first place, there were
other important duties which made pressing demands on the time and energy of

Genesis of the
Encyclopedia.

viii PREFACE

the editor. Next, the growing maturity of his biblical scholarship made him less
and less disposed to acquiesce in provisional conclusions. And lastly, such con-
stant progress was being made by students in the power of assimilating critical
results that it seemed prudent to wait till biblical articles, thoroughly revised and
recast, should have a good chance of still more deeply influencing the student world.

The waiting-time was filled up, so far as other occupations allowed, by
pioneering researches in biblical archaology, some of the results of which are
admirably summed up in that fruitful volume entitled Te Religion of the Semites
(1889). More and more, Robertson Smith, like other contemporary scholars,
saw the necessity of revising old work on the basis of a more critical, and, in a
certain sense, more philosophical treatment of details. First of all, archaeological
details had their share — and it was bound to be a large share — of this scholar’s
attention. ‘Then came biblical geography —a subject which had been brought
prominently into notice by the zeal of English explorers, but seemed to need the
collaboration of English critics. A long visit to Palestine was planned for the
direct investigation of details of biblical geography, and though this could not be
carried out, not a little time was devoted to the examination of a few of the more
perplexing geographical problems and of the solutions already proposed (see c.e.,
APHEK, below, col. 191 f.). This care for accuracy of detail as a necessary pre-
liminary to a revision of theories is also the cause of our friend’s persistent refusal
to sanction the republication of the masterly but inevitably provisional article
BisLe in the Excyclopedia Britannica, to which we'shall return later. The reader
will still better understand the motive of that refusal if he will compare what
is said on the Psalter in that article (1875) with the statements in the first edition
of The Old Testament in the Jewish Church(1880), in the Encyclopedia Britannica,
article PsaLms (1885), and in the second edition of Te 0/4 Testament in the
Jewish Church (1892).

It is only just, however, to the true “begetter’ of this work to emphasise the
fact that, though he felt the adequate realisation of his idea to be some way off,
he lost no time in pondering and working out a variety of practical details —a
task in which he was seconded by his assistant editor and intimate friend, Mr.
1. S. Black. Many hours were given, as occasion offered, to the distribution of
subjects and the preparation of minor articles. Some hundreds of these were
drafted, and many were the discussions that arose as to various difficult practi-
cal points, which have not been without fruit for the present work.

In September 1892, however, it became only too clear to Prof. Smith that
he was suffering from a malady which might terminate fataliy after no very dis-
tant term. The last hope of active participation in his long-cherished scheme of
a Bible Dictionary had well-nigh disappeared, when one of the present editors,
who had no definite knowledge of Prof. Smith’s plan, communicated to this friend
of many years’ standing his ideas of what a critical Bible Dictionary ought to be,
and inquired whether he thought that such a project could be realised. Prof.
Smith was stili intellectually able to consider and pronounce upon these ideas,
and gladly recognised their close affinity to his own. Unwilling that all the
labour already bestowed by him on planning and drafting articles should be lost,
he requested Prof. Cheyne to take up the work which he himself was compelled
to drop, in conjunction with the older and more intimate friend already mentioned.
Hence the combination of names on the title-page. The work is undertaken by the
editors as a charge from one whose parting message had the force of a command.

PREFACE ix

Such is the history of the genesis of the Exeyc/lopedia Biblica, which îs the
result primarily of a fusion of two distinct but similar plans—a fusion desired by
Prof. Robertson Smith himself, as the only remaining means of
realising adequately his own fundamental ideas. With regard to
details, he left the editors entirely free, not from decline of physical
strength, but from a well-grounded confidence that religion and the Bible were
not less dear to them than to himself, and that they fully shared his own uncom-
promisingly progressive spirit. ‘The Bible Dictionary which he contemplated was
no mere collection of useful miscellanea, but a survey of the contents of the Bible,
as illuminated by criticism —a criticism which identifies the cause of religion
with that of historical truth, and, without neglecting the historical and archso-
logical setting of religion, loves best to trace the growth of high conceptions,
the flashing forth of new intuitions, and the development of noble personalities,
under local and temporal conditions that may often be, to human eyes, most
adverse, The importance of the newer view of the Bible to the Christian com-
munity, and the fundamental principles of the newer biblica! criticism, have been
so ably and so persuasively set forth by Prof. Robertson Smith in his Lectures
that his fellow-workers may be dispensed from repeating here what he has said so
well already. ‘There remaineth yet very much land to be possessed.’ Let us
assume, then, that the readers of this Ewceyc/lopedia, whatever be their grade of
knowledge or sphere of work, are willing to make an effort to take this widely
extended land in possession.

Every year, in fact, expands the narrow horizons which not so long ago
limited the aspirations of the biblical scholar. It is time, as Prof. Robertson
Smith thought, to help students to realise this, and to bring the standard books on
which they rely more up to date. It may seem hopeless to attempt this with an
alphabetically arranged encyclopedia, which necessarily involves the treatment
of subjects in an isolated way. By an elaborate system of cross references,
however, and by interspersing a considerable number of comprehensive articles
(such as, in Part I., ApocaLyPTIC LITERATURE, CAINITES, DRAGON), it has
been sought to avoid the danger of treating minute details without regard to
their wider bearings. Many of the minor articles, too, have been so constructed
as to suggest the relation of the details to the larger wholes. Altogether the
minor articles have, one ventures to hope, brought many direct gains to biblical
study. Often the received view of the subject of a ‘minor article’ proved to be
extremely doubtful, and a better view suggested itself. Every endeavour has
been used to put this view forward in a brief and yet convincing manner, without
occupying too much space and becoming too academic in style. The more com-
prehensive articles may here and there be found to clash with the shorter articles.
Efforts, however, have been made to mitigate this by editorial notes in both
classes of articles.

It will also doubtless be found that on large questions different writers have
sometimes proposed different theories and hypotheses. The sympathies of the
editors are, upon the whole, with what is commonly known as ‘advanced’ criticism,
not simply because it is advanced, but because such criticism, in the hands of a
resourceful scholar, takes account of facts, both literary and archaeological, which
the criticism of a former generation overlooked or treated superficially. They
have no desire, however, to ‘boycott’ moderate criticism, when applied by a critic
who, either in the form or in the substance of his criticism, has something original

Principles of the
Encyclopsedia.

x PREFACE

to say. An ‘advanced’ critic cannot possibly feel any arrogance towards his
more ‘moderate’ colleague, for probably he himself held not very long ago
views resembling those which the ‘moderate’ critic holds now, and the latter
may find his precautionary tests end in his adopting, as nearer approximations
to truth, views that now seem to him difficult. Prof. Robertson Smith's views of
ten years ago, or more, may, at the present day, appear to be ‘moderate’ criti.
cism; but when he formulated them he was in the vanguard of critics, and
there is no reason to think that, if he had lived, and devoted much ot his time
to biblical criticism, his ardour would have waned, and his precedence passed to
others.

There are, no doubt, some critical theories which could not consistently have
been represented in the present work; and that, it may be remarked, suggests
one of the reasons why Prof. Robertson Smith'’s carly Encyclopedia Britannica
article, BisLe, could not have been republished, even by himself. ‘When he wrote
it he was still not absolutely sure about the chronological place of P (Priestly
Code). He was also still under the influence of the traditional view as to the
barrenness and unoriginality of the whole post-exilic period. Nor had he faced
the question of the post-exilic redaction of the prophetic writings. The funda-
mental principles of biblical criticism, however, are assumed throughout that fine
article, though for a statement of these we must turn to a more mature production
of his pen. See, for example, The Οὐαὶ Testament in the Jewish Church®, pp. 16
È; (cp ist ed. pp. 24 f.), and notice especially the following paragraph on p.17:—

‘ Ancient books coming down to us from a period many centuries before the invention of
printing have necessarily undergone many vicissitudes. Some of them are preserved only in
imperfect copies made by an ignorant scribe of the dark ages. Others have been disfigured by
editors, who mixed up foreign matter with the original text. Very often an important book
ell altogether out of sight for a long time, and when it came to lisht again all Anowledge of its
origin was gone; for old books did not generally have title-pages and prefaces. And, when
such a nameless roll was again brought into notice, some half-informed reader or transcriber
was not unlikely to give it a new tille of his own devising, which was handed down thereafter
as îf it had been original. Or again, the true meaning and purpose of a book often became
obscure în the lapse of centuries, and led to false interpretations. Once more, antiquity has
handed down to us many writings which are sheer forgeries, like some of the Apocryphal books,
or the Sibylline oracles, or those famous Epistles of Phalaris, which formed the subject of
Bentley's great critical essay. In all such cases the historical critic must destroy the received
view, in order to establish the truth. He must review doubiful titles, purge qui interpolations,
expose forgeries ; but he does so only to manifest the truth, and exhibit the genuine remains of
antiquity în their real character, A book that ts really old and really valuable has nothing to
fear from the critic, whose labours can only put its worth in a clearer light, and establish its
authority on a surer basis)

The freedom which Prof. Robertson Smith generously left to his successors
has, with much reluctance, yet without hesitation, on the part of the editors, been
exercised in dealing with the articles which he wrote for the £Eweyelopedia
Britannica. The editors are well assured that he would have approved their
conduct in this respect. Few scholars, indeed, would refrain from rewriting, to a
large extent, the critical articles which they had produced some years previously;
and this, indeed, is what has been done by several contributors who wrote biblical
articles for the former Encyclopadia. The procedure of those who have revised
our friend’s articles has in fact been as gentle and considerate as possible. Where
these articles seemed to have been destined by himself for some degree of per-

PREFACE xi

manence, they have been retained, and carefully revised and brought up to date.
Some condensation has sometimes been found necessary. The original articles
were written for a public very imperfectly imbued with critical principles, whereas
now, thanks to his own works and to those of other progressive scholars, Bible
students are much more prepared than formerly to benefit by advanced teaching.
There is also a certain amount of new material from Prof. Smith’s pen (in two or
three cases consisting of quotations from the MS of the second and third courses
of Burnett Lectures), but much less, unfortunately, than had been expected.

Freedom has also been used in taking some fresh departures, especially in
two directions — viz., in that of textual criticism of the Old Testament, and in that
of biblical archaeology. The object of the editors has been, with the assistance
of their contributors, not only to bring the work up to the level of the best
published writings, but, wherever possible, to carry the subjects a little beyond
the point hitherto reached in print. Without the constant necessity of investi
gating the details of the text of the Old Testament, it would be hard for any one
to realise the precarious character of many details of the current biblical archae-
ology, geography, and natural history, and even of some not unimportant points
in the current Old Testament theology. Entirely new methods have not indeed
been applied; but the methods already known have perhaps been applied with
somewhat more consistency than before. With regard to archacology, such a
claim can be advanced only to a slight extent. More progress perhaps has been
made of late years in the field of critical archaeology than in that of textual criti-
cism. All, therefore, that was generally necessary was to make a strong effort
to keep abreast of recent archaological research both in Old Testament and in
New Testament study.

The fulness of detail with which the data of the Versions have been given
may provoke some comment. Experience has been the guide of the editors, and
they believe that, though in the future it will be possible to give these data in a
more correct, more critical, and more condensed form, the student is best served
at present by being supplied as fully as possible with the available material. It
may also be doubted by some whether there is not too much philology. Here,
again, experience has directed the course to be pursued. In the present transi
tional stage of lexicography, it would have been undesirable to rest content with
simply referring to the valuable new lexicons which are now appearing, or have
already appeared.

With regard to biblical theology, the editors are not without hope that they
have helped to pave the way for a more satisfactory treatment of that important
subject which is rapidly becoming the history of the movement of religious life and
thought within the Jewish and the Christian church (the phrase may be inaccurate,
but is convenient). Systems of Prophetic, Pauline, Petrine, Johannine theology
have had their day; it is perhaps time that the Bible should cease to be regarded
as a storehouse of more or less competing systems of abstract thought. Unfor-
tunately the literary and historical criticism of the New Testament is by no means
as far advanced as that of the Old Testament. At no very distant date a real
history of the movement of religious life and thought in the earlier period may
be possible. For such a history for the later period we shall have to wait longer,
if we may infer anything from the doubtless inevitable defects of the best existing
handbook of New Testament theology, that of the able veteran critic, H. J. Holtz-
mann. The editors of the present work are keenly interested in the subject at

xii PREFACE

present called ‘ Biblical Theology’ ; but, instead of attempting what is at present
impossible, they have thought it better to leave some deficiencies which future
editors will probably find it not difficult to supply. They cannot, however, con-
clude this section without a hearty attestation of the ever-increasing love for the
Scriptures which critical and historical study, when pursued in a sufficiently com-
prehensive sense, appears to them to produce. The minutest details of biblical
research assume a brightness not their own when viewed in the light of the great
truths in which the movement of biblical religion culminates. May the reader find
cause to agree with them! This would certainly have been the prayerful aspira-
tion of the beloved and lamented scholar who originated this Ewceyclopedia.

To the contributors of signed articles, and to those who have revised and
brought up to date the articles of Prof. Robertson Smith and other deceaseà
scholars, it may seem almost superfluous to render thanks for the
help they have so generously given. It constitutes a fresh bond
between scholars of different countries and religious communions
which is surely of happiest augury. But the special services of the various mem-
bers of the editorial staff require specific acknowledgment, which the editors have
much pleasure in making. Mr. Hope W. Hogg became a contributor to the
Encyclopedia Biblica in 1894, and in 1895 became a regular member of the edito-
rial staff. To his zeal, energy, and scholarship the work has been greatly indebted
in every direction. Mr. Stanley A. Cook joined the staff in 1896, and not only
has contributed various signed articles, which to the editors appear to give promise
of fine work in the future, but also has had a large share in many of those that are
of composite authorship and unsigned. Mr. Maurice A. Canney joined the staff
in 1898; he also has contributed signed articles, and has been eminently helpful
in every way, especially in the reading of the proofs. Finally, the editors desire
to acknowledge their very special obligations to the Rev. Henry A. Redpath, M.A,,
editor of the Concordance to the Septuagint, who placed his unrivalled experience
at their disposal by controlling all the proofs at a certain stage with special
reference to the LXX readings.

Acknowledg-
ments.

T. K. Chevne,

J. SUTHERLAND BLACK.
2zotk September 1899.

POSTSCRIPT

IF in what was written more than three years ago by way of preface to the
Encycdopedia Biblica any modification were to be thought desirable, it would
chiefly perhaps be in the sentences devoted. to the immediate prospects of
Biblical Theology. It is becoming more and more obvious that the yearly
advancing study of the apocryphal and apocalyptic Jewish literature is destined
to have considerable effect within the near future on the treatment of the
religious ideas of both parts of our Bible. Nor can we doubt that the progress
now being made in the investigation of the early Christian literature will also
turn to the advantage of the Biblical Theology of the New Testament. It is on
this ground that the editors have ventured to include in Vols. III. and IV.
a number of introductory and descriptive articles connected with this new
subject. To meet a possible objection, it may perhaps be added that the
researches into the original text of the Old Testament with which the name of
one of the editors is specially connected are by no means necessarily unfavour-
able to the study of Old Testament Theology. For even if the religious contents
of parts of the Old Testament in their original form should turn out to be
somewhat less rich and varied than is agrecable to traditional idcas, yet the text
in its present form, even if not the original, has an independent right of existence,
and the interpretation put upon this text by Jewish and early Christian students
deserves the most respectful attention. The Old Testament was surely not a
dead book to the Jews of the great post-exilic age, but was full of light, and
susceptible of the most varied and edifying adaptations. At the same time, the
historical student may justly cherish the hope that by the researches into the
underlying text of precious passages in psalms and prophecies (not to add,
narratives) which have just now been referred to, the course of historical develop-
ment may become more comprehensible than it has hitherto been, while those
who have the best of all enthusiasms—the enthusiasm for religion—will be
stirred up to more and more admiration of the wonderful dealings of God in the
religious training of that Israel within Israel to which the Christian church is
under perpetual obligations. The Editors would also take this opportunity
of expressing a natural regret that the discovery of the ‘oldest code of laws in
the world,’ that promulgated by Hammurabi king of Babylon (2285-2242 B.C.),
and disinterred in Dec. 1901-Jan. 1902 by M. J. de Morgan on the site of
the ancient Susa, was not made a year or two earlier. This code is the most
valuable single contribution of recent years to that study of ancient Semitic laws
and usages with which the name of Robertson Smith is specially connected,
and will not only throw fresh light on the legal codes of the Israelites, but
also give a fresh impetus to the critical study of the Hebrew origzzes. On all

POSTSCRIPT

accounts they are sorry not to have been able to make this new find helpful to
the readers of the Encyclopedia.

To attempt any discussion of the criticisms, whether favourable or adverse,
which have been made upon the methods employed or results set forth in the
Encyclopedia would manifestly be out of place here. Other opportunities will
occur; and time, too, will doubtless exercise its mellowing and reconciling
influence. It may even be hoped that the confusing practice of denominating
some critics super-naturalistic, others naturalistic, some critics sober and safe,
others extravagant and unsafe, may soon pass away in the light of a fuller com-
prehension of the meaning of critical results, the complexity of critical problems,
and the variety of legitimate and necessary critical methods. There are
some other things of a more general nature which the editors would fain say in
all simplicity and earnestness, but they prefer to ask leave to quote a passage
from Dr. Hort's Zuzroduction to the now famous edition of the New Testament
by himself and Bishop Westcott, with the spirit of which they are in deepest
sympathy, and the expressions of which, especially in the closing sentences, they
can heartily adopt as their own.

“7 only remains to express an earnest hope that whatever labour we have been allowed to
contribute towards the ascertainment of the truth of the letter may also be allowed, in ways
which must for the most part be invisible to ourselves, to contribute towards strengthening,
correcting, and extending human apprehension of the larger truth of the spirit. Others
assuredìy în due time will prosecute the task with better resources of knowledge and skill, and
amend the faults and defects of our processes and results. To be faithful to such light as could
de enjoyed in our own day was the utmost that we could desire. How far we have fallen short
of this standard, we are well aware: yet we are bold to say that none of the shortcomings are
due to lack of anzious and watchful sincerity. An implicit confidence în all truth, a Been sense
of its variety, and a deliberate dread of shutting out truth as yet unknown are no security
against some of the wandering lights that are apt to beguile a critic; but, in so far as they are
obeyed, they at least quench every inclination to guide criticism into delivering such testimony as
may be to the supposed advantage of truth already inherited or acquired. Critics of the Bible,
if they have been taught by the Bible, are unable to forget that the duty of guileless workman-
ship is never superseded by any other?

In conclusion, the Editors desire anew to express their gratitude for the in-
valuable services of the members of the editorial staff—Messrs. Hogg, Cook, and
Canney—which have been continued with unabated zeal to the termination of
the work; as also, their great indebtedness to Dr. Redpath for having read the
proofs with a special reference to the readings of the LXX. In connection with
the maps their thanks are due not only to the authors of various articles to which
these relate, but also to Prof. Max Miiller, particularly for help in the preparation
of the map of Syria according to the Egyptian monuments, to Col. Billerbeck for
two maps of Syria according to cuneiform documents, and in a very special
degree to Mr. (now Prof.) Hogg, who has throughout superintended the whole
map-work in the Exey/opedia, including the indexing.

T.K.C
J.S.B.

27th March, 1903.

GENERAL EXPLANATIONS

THE labour that has been bestowed on even minor matters in the preparation of this Excyclofedia
seemed to be warranted by the hope that it might be found useful as a students’ handbook. Its
convenient use will be facilitated by attention to the principles that have been adopted in regard to
the following matters.

1. Classes of Articles. — The following notes will give a general idea what the reader may
expect to find and where to look for it: —

i. Proper Names.— Every proper name in the Old and the New Testament canons and the
OT Apocrypha (Authorised Version or Revised Version, text or margin) is represented by an
article-heading in Clarendon type, the substantive article being usually given under the name as
found in the AV text. The printing of Adoraimi, on the same line as ADORA (col. 71), and
Adullamite, three lines below ADULLAM (col. 73), in bold black type, are examples of a means of
saving space.

ii. 2o0ks. — Every book in the OT and the NT canons and the OT Apocrypha is discussed
in a special article —e.g., Acts, Chronicles, Deuteronomy. The ‘Song of Solomon® is dealt with
under the title CANTICLES, and the last book in the NT under ApocaLyPSsE.

ili. General Articles. — With the view, amongst other things, of securing the greatest pos-
sible brevity, many matters have been treated in general articles, the minor headings being dealt
with concisely by the help of cross-references. Such general articles are: ABI (NAMES WITH),
AGRICULTURE, APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE, APOCRYPHA, ARMY, BAKEMEATS, Birps, BREAD,
CAINITES, CANON, CATTLE, CHARIOT, CHRONOLOGY, CITY; CLEAN AND UNCLEAN, HoLy AND
ProFanE; CoLours, CONDUITS AND RESERVOIRS, COOKING AND COOKING UTENSILS, CUTTINGS
OF THE FLESH, DIsPERSION, DIVINATION, DRESS.

iv. Other Subjects. -— The following are examples of other important headings : — ADAM AND
EVE, ANGEL, ANTICHRIST, ASHERAH, AZAZEL, BABEL (TOWER OF), BEHEMOTH AND LEVIATHAN,
BLESsINGS AND CursInGs, CALF (GOLDEN), CHERUB, CHRISTIAN (NAME OF), CIRCUMCISION,
ComxuniTy or Goons, COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM, COVENANT, CREATION, DANCE, DECALOGUE,
DELUGE, DEMONS, DRAGON.

v. Things.—The Encyclopedia Biblica 15. professedly a dictionary of things, not words, and
a great effort has been made to adhere rigidly to this principle. Even where at first sight the rule
seems to have been neglected, it will generally be found that this is not really the case. The
only way to tell the English reader what has to be told about (e.£.) CHarns is to distinguish the
various things that are called, or should have been called, ‘chain’ in the English Version, and
refer him to the articles where they are dealt with.

vi. Mere Cross-references (see above, 1, i.; and below, 2).

2. Method of Cross-References. — A very great deal of care has been bestowed on the
cross-references, because only by their systematic use could the necessary matter be adequately
dealt with within the limits of one volume. ‘These references have made possible a conciseness
that is not attained at the expense of incompleteness, repetition of the same matter under different
headings being reduced to a minimum. For this reason the articles have been prepared, not in
alphabetical order, but simultaneously in all parts of the alphabet, being thereafter worked up
together constantly and kept up to date. The student may be assured, therefore, that the cross-
references have not been inserted at random; they have always been verified. If any should be
found to be unwarranted (no such îs known), it must be because it has been found necessary, after
the reference was made, to remove something from the article named to another article. The
removed matter will no doubt be represented by a cross-reference.

The method of reference employed is as follows: —

i. Identification of Article. (a) Long Names. —To save space long headings have beer
curtailed in citations — e.g:, APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE is cited as APOCALYPTIC.

xiv GENERAL EXPLANATIONS

(δ) Synonymous Articles. — Persons or places of the same name are ranged as 1, 2, 3, etc.
(Arabic numerals), under a common heading and cited accordingly. in other cases (and even in
the former case when, as in ADNAS in col. 67, one English spelling represents different Hebrew
spellings), the articles usually have separate headings, in which case they are cited as i, ii., iii., etc.
(Roman numerals), although they are not so marked. Usually geographical articles precede bio-
graphical, and persons precede books. Thus SAMUEL i., 2 is the second person called Samuel;
SAMUEL ii. is the article SAMvEL, BooKs or. If a wrong number should be found the explanation
will be not that it was not verified, but that the article referred to is one of a very small number in
which the original order of synonymous articles had to be changed: the precautions always taken in
such circumstances must have failed in this case. Thus the BERED referred to in the article ALusH
is now BERED Ì., I, not, as is stated in the earlier impressions, BERED ii., 1,

ii. /ndication of Place in Article Cited. — Articles of any length are divided into numbered
sections (3$ I, 2, etc.) indicated by insets containing a descriptive word or phrase. As con-
venience of reference is the great aim, the descriptive phrases are limited to, at most, three or
four words, and the sections are numbered consecutively. Logical subordination of sections,
therefore, cannot appear. Divisions larger than sections are sometimes indicated in the text by
1., Il., etc., and subdivisions of sections by letters and numbers (4, è, c; a, β, y; i, il, ili.)
References like (BENJAMIN, ὃ 9, ii. 8) are freely used. Most of the large articles (e.g., APOCALYPTIC
LITERATURE, CHRONOLOGY) have prefixed to them a table of contents.

ili. Manner of Citation.-- The commonest method is (see DAVID, $ 11, [0] ii.). EzRA (9.2,
ii. $ 9) means the article EzrA-NEHEMIAH, BooK OF, ὃ 9. Sometimes, however, the capitals or
the 9.7. may be dispensed with. CHAINS printed in small capitals in the middle of an article
would mean that there is an article on that term, but that it hardly merits g.v. from the present
point of view. In articles (generally on RV names) that are mere cross-references g.v. is generally
omitted; so, 6.g., in ABADIAS in col. 3.

3. Typographical Devices. i. Size 07 7yfe. — (a) Lelters.— Two sizes of type are used,
and considerable care has been devoted to the distribution of the small-type passages. Usually
the general meaning of an article can be caught by reading simply the large-type parts. The
smalltype passages generally contain such things as proofs of statements, objections, more techni-
cal details. In these passages, and in footnotes and parentheses, abbreviations (see below, p.
xvili 7.), which are avoided as much as possible elsewhere, are purposely used. (ὁ) Wwrzbers. —
Two sizes of Arabic numerals are used. (Note that the smallest 6 and 8 are a different shape from
the next larger 6 and 8.) In making references, when only the volume is given, it is usually cited
by a Roman number. Pages are cited by Arabic numbers except where (as is often the case)
pages of a preface are marked with Roman numbers. When numbers of two ranks are required,
two sizes of Arabic numbers (5 5) are used whether the reference be to book and chapter, volume
and page, or section and line. Ifthree ranks are needed, Roman numbers are prefixed (v. 5 5).

ii. Zialics. — Italic type is much used in citing foreign words. In geographical articles, as a
rule, the printing of a modern place-name in italics indicates that the writer of the article identifies
it with the place under discussion. For the significance of the different kinds of type in the map
of Assyria see the explanations at the foot of the map. On the two kinds of Greek type see
below, 4 ii. (5). On the Greek MS D as distinguished from Ὁ, see below, 4 ii. 4.

ili. Small Capitals.— Small Roman capitals are used in two ways: (1) in giving the equiva-
lent in RV for the name in AV, or vice versa, and (2) in giving a cross-reference (see above, 9 iii.).
On the use of small italic capitals see below, 4 ii. 4.

iv. Symbols.— (a) Index Figures.—In ‘almost always® clear,’ the 6 indicates footnote 6.
In *Introd.(@*the 6 means sixth edition. On the 2 in “D,' etc. see below, p. xviii. /.

(5) Asterisk. —B* means the original scribe of codex B. If the Egyptian debe were printed
*dobet the * would mark the word as hypothetical in form (e.g., uncertain vocalisation). ©. ;* means
v. 5 (partly).

(©) Dagger. A dagger { is used to indicate that all the passages where a word occurs are
cited. The context must decide whether the English word or the original is meant.

(d) Sign of Eguality.—<AALAR, τ Esd. 5 36 AV = Ezra 2 59 IMMER, i.,' means ‘that the two
serses quoted are recensions of the same original, and that what is called Aalar in the one is
called Immer in the other, as will be explained in the first of the articles entitled IMMER.

(€) Sign of Parallelism. — || is the adjective corresponding to the verb =. Thus: ‘Aalar of
1 Esd. 5 36 AV appears as Immer în || Ezra 2 ςο. || also denotes Hebrew ‘parallelism.’ See, e.g.,
CLEAN and UNCLEAN, $ I (3).

(7) Other devices. —’99 means 1899. 1 Ch. 6 8: [66] means that verse 81 in the English
version represents that numbered 66 in Hebrew texts. vis used to indicate the ‘root’ of a
word.

GENERAL EXPLANATIONS xv

v. Punctuation. — As a rule commas are not used between citations, thus: 2 Κα. 62125 Is. 217.
Commas are omitted and semicolons or colons inserted whenever ambiguity seems thus to be
avoided — c.g., the father Achbor [1] is called ‘ Father of Baal-hanan [1] king of Edom,' and the
son Baal-hanan [1] is called ‘ben Achbor [1]; one of the kings of Edom.’

4. Text-Critical Apparatus. — As all sound investigation must be based, not on the ancient
texts as they lie before the student, but on what he believes to be the nearest approach he can make
to their original reading, the soundness of every text is weighed, and if need be, discussed, before
it is used in the Eneoydopedia Biblica,

i. Zraditiona! Original Text. — In quoting the traditional Hebrew text the editions of Baer
and of Ginsburg have been relied on as a rule; similarly in the case of the New Testament, the
texts of Tischendorf and of Westcott and Hort.

ii. Evidence of Versions. — The Vulgate (ed. Heyse-Tischendorf}), the Syriac (ed. Lee, and
London Polyglott; for the Apocrypha, Lagarde and the minor Greek versions (Field, M/exa/2 ;
Hatch-Redpath, Coxcordance) have been quoted quite freely ; the testimony of the Septuagint has
been attended to on every point.

In exceptional cases ‘Holmes and Parsons? has been consulted; ordinarily Swete®s manual
edition (including the variants) and Lagarde®s Pars Prior have been considered sufficient. In
general (for the main exception see next paragraph) only variations of some positive interest or im-
portance have been referred to. Almost invariably a quotation from the LXX is followed by sym-
bols indicating the authorities cited (thus vot [BAL]). This does not necessarily imply that in
some other MS or MSS a different reading is found; it is simply a guarantee that Swete's digest of
readings and Lagarde have both been consulted. The formula [BAL], or (24% standing alone
means that the editors found no variant in Swete or Lagarde to report. In the parts, therefore,
where Swete cites X or other MSS as well as BA, BAL includes them unless the context indicates
otherwise. When BAL stands alone the meaning is everywhere the same; it is a summary report
of agreement in Swete and Lagarde.

Proper names have been felt to demand special treatment; the aim has been to give under
each name the readings of Lagarde and all the variants of BNA as cited in Swete. The com-
monest, or a common, form for each witness is given at the head of the article, and this is followed
at once or in the course of the article by such variants as there are. Where all the passages con-
taining a given name are cited in the article, the apparatus of Greek readings (as in Swete and
Lagarde) may be considered absolutely complete. In other cases, completeness, though aimed at,
has not been found possible.

The distinction between declinable and indeclinable forms has generally been observed; but
different cases of the same declinable form have not as a rule (never in the case of common nouns)
been taken note of. Where part of one name has been «joined in the LXX to the preceding or suc-
ceeding name, the intruding letters have usually been given in square brackets, though in some very
obvious cases they may have been ignored.

When MSS differ only in some giving « and others giving e. this is indicated concisely thus:
‘afea [B], αβια [AL], becomes ‘aB[e]ta [BAL]. Similarly, -r., -r7. becomes -{7]7.

Much care has been bestowed on the reatlings, and every effort has been made to secure the
highest attainable accuracy. Naturally the Hatch-Redpath Corncordance fo the Seftuagint has
been freely used. As has been already stated, however (p. xii), the Encyclopedia Biblica has also
had the benefit of Dr. Redpath's personal help. Unfortunately, misprints and other inaccuracies —
inaccuracies sometimes appearing for the first time after the last proof reading — are especially liable
to occur in a work of this kind. Corrections of errors, however minute, addressed to the publishers,
will always be gratefully received.

Some typographical details require to be explained : —

(a) In giving proper names, initial capitals, breathings, and accents are dispensed with; they
were unknown in the oldest MSS (cp Swete, vol. 1 p. xiii 2).

(5) The Greek readings at the head of an article are given in uncials, and the Vulgate read-
ings in small italic capitals; elsewhere ordinary type is used.

(c) The first Greek reading is given in full; all others are abbreviated as much as possible.
Letters suppressed at the beginning of a word are represented by a dash, letters at the end by a
period. In every case the abbreviated form is to be completed by reference to the Greek form
immediately preceding, whether that is given in full or not. Thus, eg. ‘aBeAoarrap, B. ... ττιμ,
τττεῖν, Bedoa”! means “αβελσαττειμ, βελσαττιμ, βελσαττειν, βελσα.; That is to say, the
abbreviated form repeats a letter (or if necessary more) of the form preceding. Two excèptions
are sometimes made. The dash sometimes represents the e4o/e of the preceding form—e.g., in

2‘ Berva) with a period, as it stood in early impressions of the art. ABEL-SHITTIM, would mean βελσαττειν.

xvi GENERAL EXPLANATIONS

cases like affta, -+-—and one letter has sometimes been simply substituted for another: eg., v for
pin ey, -v. These exceptions can hardly lead to ambiguity.
(4) The following are the symbols most frequently quoted from Swete's digest with their
meaning: —
* τα original scribe. D =testimony of the Grabe-Owen collation of Ὁ
1 his own corrections. before D was partly destroyed (see Swete,
ab other correctors. vol. I p. xxiv),
ab first corrector confirmed by second. Dil = readings inferred from the collation e silenzio.

a? ΒΡ =aorb. Ne = a corrector of δὲ belonging to the yth cent. (Sw.,

a? 5 =, perhaps also a, vol. 2 p. vili; cp vol. 1 p. xi).

a(vid) = prob. a. &°b = corrector of N°-& or N*; see Sw., vol, 2 Ὁ, vili.

a vià = a, if it be a dora fide correction at all. Nec ‘orrector of Nea or N#; see Sw., vol. I p. xxi,
Bedit -- B as in Vercellone and Cozza's facsimile ed.

(€) The following are the MSS most commonly cited: —

X Sinaiticus (cp Swete, vol. 1 p. xx). F Cod, Ambrosianus (Swete, vol, 1 p. xxvi).
A Alexandrinus (Swete, vol. 1 p. xxii). 87 Cod, Chisianus (Swete, vol. 3 p. xiî).
Β Vaticanus (Swete, vol. 1 p. xviî). Syr. Cod. Syro-Hexaplaris Ambrosianus (Swete, vol. 3
* © Cod. Ephraemi Syrì rescriptus Parisiensis p. xii).

(Swete, vol. 2 p. xiii). V. Cod. Venetus (= 23, Parsons; Swete, vol. 3 p. xiv).
D Cod. Cottonianus Geneseos (Swete, vol. 1 p. | Q Cod. Marchalianus (Swete, vol. 3 p. vii).

xxili). T Cod. rescriptus Cryptoferratensis (Swete, vol. 3
E Cod.Bodleianus Geneseos (Sw., vol 1 p.xxvi). p.ixf).

5. Proper Name Articles. — Proper name articles usually begin thus. The name is followed
by a parenthesis giving (1) the original; (2) when necessary, the number of the section in the
general article NAMES where the name in question is discussed or cited; (3) a note on the ety-
mology or meaning of the (personal) name with citation of similar names; (4) the readings of
the versions (see above, 4 ii.). See for an example AARON. The Hebrew ‘ben’ (‘b.’), ‘son
οἵ" ‘b’ney’ ‘sons of’ is often used, partly for brevity and to avoid certain ambiguities (see
above, 3 v.) and partly because of its indefinite meaning.

6. Geographical Articles, — The interpretation of place-names is discussed in the article
NAMES. The maps that are issued with Volume I. are the district of Damascus, the environs of
Babylon, and ‘Syria, Assyria, and Babylonia® (between cols. 352 and 353). The last-mentioned
is mainly designed to illustrate the non-Palestinian geography of the Old Testament. It is made
use of to show the position of places outside of Palestine mentioned in Volume I. which happen to
fall within its bounds.

In all maps biblical names are assigned to sites only when the article discussing the question
regards the identification as extremely probable (the degree of probability must be learned from the
article).

The following geographical terms are used in the senses indicated: —

Der, deir, ‘ monastery. Khirbet-(Kh.), ‘vuins of —/

Haj(}), ‘pilgrimage to Mecca. Nakr (N.), ‘river.

Febel (].),‘ mountain. Tell,‘ mound' (often containing ruins),

Kefr, Kafr, ‘village. Wadi (W.),' valley,’ ‘ torrent-course.”

Khan, ' caravanserai,’ Ῥεῖ, wely, ‘ Mohammedan saini,' ‘saints tomb.

7. Transliteration, ete.— Whilst the Encyclopedia Biblica is meant for the student, other
readers have constantly been kept in view. Hence the frequent translation of Hebrew and other
words, and the transliteration of words in Semitic languages. In certain cases transliteration also
saves space. No effort has been made at uniformity for its own sake. Intelligibility has been
thought sufficient. When pronunciation is indicated — e.g., Bthemoth, Leviathan — what is meant
is that the resulting form is the nearest that we can come to the original as represented by the
traditional Hebrew, so long as we adhere to the English spelling.

In the case of proper names that have become in some degree naturalised in an incorrect form,
that form has been preserved: e.g., Shalmaneser, Tiglath-pileser. Where there is an alternative,
naturally the closer to the original is selected: therefore Nebuchadrezzar (with as în Ezek., etc.),
Nazirite. Where there is no naturalised form names are given in exact transliteration —c.g.,
ASur-rèS-isi. In the case of Assyrian names, hyphens are used to separate the component parts,
which begin with a capital when they are divine names — 6.5.) Puzur-ASur; but ASur-dan.

1 the case of modern (Arabic) place-names the spelling of the author whose description has
been most used has generally been retained, except when it would have been misleading to the
student. The diacritical marks have been checked or added after verification in some Arabic
source or list.

GENERAL EXPLANATIONS xvii

On the Assyrian alphabet see BABYLONIA, $ 6, and on the Egyptian, EcvPT, $ 12. One
point remains to be explained, after which it will suffice to set forth the schemes of transliteration
in tabular form. The Hebrew h (ΠῚ represents philologically the Arabic h and ἢ, which are
absolutely distinct sounds. The Hebrew spoken language very likely marked the distinction.
As the written language, however, ignores it, m is always transliterated h. The Assyrian guttural
transliterated with an ἢ, on the other hand, oftenest represents the Arabic ἢ, and is therefore
always transliterated h (in Muss.-Arn. Dicf., 4, for x), never ἢ, There is no h in transliterated
Assyrian; for the written language did not distinguish the Arabic h from the Arabic ἢ, ‘, ἐν or‘,
representing them all indifferently by’, which accordingly does not, in transliterated Assyrian,
mean simply κα but indifferently N or M or ἢ or p or g. Hence, e.g., Nabii-nahid is simply one
interpretation of Nabi-na'id. Egyptian, lastly, requires not only h, ἢ, and ἢ, like Arabic, but also a
fourth symbol h (see EGYPT, $ 12, note).

TRANSLITERATION OF HEBREW (AND ARABIC) CONSONANTS

HEBREW. ARABIC. HEBREW. ARABIC. HEBREW. ARABIC, HEBREW. ARABIC.
x | la ’ τ ) τ 51 dili|x i cel |
no "|a ξίι] 5) κι ῥ᾽ ΠΡ KOS
(ale | e | ιν) || |>
1 |gh (8) : Dis || È .
- ἃ ola |P | bit), ει 19. 58} ᾧ |
= lan(d) * | Sy É È P N © φῳ |t
ἮΝ 213 ΠΥ θεν» ;

viwv PIA | Β ph _ f

Extra Arabic Consonants: ὦ», fh, t; ὦ, dh, ἃ τ κγό, di dz.

VOWELS
‘long ‘short’ very short almost a glide
Heb. a #10 ù aeiou aEdoraco Bortor®
Ar. aiu ἃ (68) ἰ (68) u(0)

Ar. diphthongs: αἱ, ay, ei, ey, &; aw, au, 3.

8. Signatures. — Parts of articles as well as whole articles bear the signature of the author or
authors, the exact share contributed by each writer being indicated, where possible, at the end thus:
A. B. $$ 1-5; c. ἢ. $$ 6-10. When the signature would be too complex, and in a majority of the
‘minor articles’ even otherwise, no attempt has been made to assign a definite authorship and
the articles rest on the editorial responsibility. When in such an article there occurs a suggestion
that seems to need a signature, its authors initials are appended to the whole article. A key to the
signatures will be found on p. xxvii.

H. W. H.

ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL
NOTES

The following pages explain the abbreviations that are used in the more technical parts (see
above, p. xiv 3 i. [4]) of the Exceyelopedia. The list does not claim to be exhaustive, and, for the
most part, it takes no account of well-established abbreviations, or such as have seemed to be fairly
obvious. The bibliographical notes will, it is hoped, be welcome to the student.

The Canonical and Apocryphal books of the Bible are usually referred to as Gen., Ex., Lev.,
Nu., Dt., Josh., Judg., Ruth, S(a.), K(i.), Ch[r.], Ezra, Neh., Esth., Job, Ps., Pr., Eccles.,
C(an)t., Is., Jer., Lam., Ezek., Dan., Hos., Joel, Am., Ob., Jon., Mi., Nah., Hab., Zeph., Hag.,
Zech., Mal.; 1 Esd., 4 Esd. (24., 2 Esd. of EV), Tob., Judith, Wisd., Ecclus., Baruch, Epistle of
Jeremy (4e., Bar. ch. 6), Song of the Three Children (Dan. 3.3), Susanna, Bel and the Dragon,
Prayer of Manasses, 1-4 Macc.; Mt., Mk., Lk., Jn., Acts, Rom., Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., Col., Thess.,
Tim., Tit., Philem., Heb., Ja[s.], Pet., 1-3 Ju., Jude, Rev. [or Apoc.].

An explanation of some of the symbols (A, X, B, etc.), now generally used to denote certain
Greek MSS of the Old or New Testaments, will be found above, at p. xvi. It may be added that
the bracketed index numerals denote the edition of the work to which they are attached: thus
OTJC®=The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, 2nd edition (exceptions ARPA, A0F®; see
below). The unbracketed numerals above the line refer to footnotes ; for those under the line see
below under Do, E2, Ja, Pa.

When a foreign book is cited by an English name the reference is to the English translation.

It is suggested that this work be referred to as the Ewceyelopedia Biblica, and that the
name may be abbreviated thus: ἔμεν. 2. or Δὲ, It will be observed that all the larger
articles can be referred to by the numbered sections ($$); or any passage can readily be cited
by column and paragraph or line. The columns will be numbered continuously to the end
of the work.

Abulw. . . Abulwalîd, the Jewish grammarian | 47) ATViche , Das Alte Testament, Alttestament-
(Db. circa 990), author of Book of tiche. Old Testament.
Roots, εἴο. AT Unters. . Alttestamentliche Untersuchungen,
Acad, . «+ The Academy: A Weekly Review See Winckler.
of Literature, Science, and Art, | AV . . . Authorised Version,
London, ’69 ἢ
ΑΕ. . +. See 405. δι. . + den, B'ne (son, sons, Hebrew).
ART. + Ancient Hebrew Tradition, See | Ba. . . + Baerand Delitzsch)s critical edition
Hommel. of the Massoretic Text, Leipsic,
Alt[test]. Unt. . See Winckler. ‘69, and following years,
Amer. Journ. of American Journal of Philology, | Bab. . . +» Babylonian.
Phil. 180 fr. Baed., or Baedeker, Pelestize (ed. Socin),
A[mer.]}iourn.]. American Journal of Semitic Lar» Baed, Pal (ὦ, ’94; ὅ), ο8 (Benzinger) based
STem.] L[ang.]} guages and Literatures (continu- on 4th German ed.
ing ebraica [᾽84-:95}, 95 #. Baethg., or Baethgen, Beilrdge zur semitischen
Am, Tab. . + The Tell-el-Amarna Letters(=A"85) Baethg.Beitr, Religions-geschichte, 88,
Ant, . + Josephus, Anziguilies. BAG - « C. P. Tiele, Babylonische-assyrische
40F . . Altorientalische Forschungen. See Geschichte, pt. i. '86; pt. ii, ’88.
Winckler, Ba. NZ. . + Barth, Die Nominalbildung in den
Apocr. Anecd. . Apocrypta Anecdota, ταὶ and 2nd semitischen Sprachen, i, 89; ii,
series, published under the οι; (3) ?94.

general title “Texts and Studies’ | Baraitha . - See LAw LITERATURE.
at the Cambridge University | ΒΒ Lea. .« [Brown, Driver, Briggs, Lexicon]

Press. A Hebrew and English Lezicon
Aq. . . + Aquila, Jewish proselyte (temp. of the Old Testament, based on
revolt against Hadrian), author the Lexicon of Gesenius, by F.
of a Greek translation of the Old Brown, with the co-operation of
Testament. See TEXT. S. R. Driver and C. A. Briggs,
Ar. . . «+ Arabic. Oxford, *92, and following years.
Aram. . « Aramaic. See ARAMAIC. Be. . . . E. Bertheau (1812-88). In AG4;
Arch. . + Archeology or Archdologie, See Richter u, Ruth, %45; (Ὁ ‘83;
Benzinger, Nowack. Chronik, ᾽τ4, ®, 73; Esra,
Ar. Des. . . Doughty, Aradia Deserta, '88. Nehemia u. Ester, ᾽62; (2), by
Ar. Heîd., or Reste arabischen Heidentums. See Ryssel, ’87,
Heid, Wellhausen. Beitr. . + Beitrige, especially Baethgen (as
Atm. - «+ Armenian. above).
Ass. . . + Assyrian, Beitr. 2. Assi . Beitrige zur Assyriologie wu. semi.
Ass. HWB . Assyrisches Handubrterbuch. See tischen Sprachwissenschaft ; ed.
Delitzsch. Fried. Delitzsch and Paul Haupt,
As. u. Eur. .- W. M, Miiller, Aster u. Europa 7 1,790; il, 794; iii. "98; iv. 1,°99.
nach altàgyptischen Denkmilera, | Benz. HA . I. Benzinger, //ebrdische Archi-

793. ologie, "94.
xvili

ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES xix

Kon. -
Bertholet, Ste
lung

Bi. . -

Biblioth. Sac.
5).
BL .

Boch,

Boeckh
BOR
Bottch.

Bòttg. Zea.

BR.

Bu. . .
Urgesch,
Ri.Sa.

Sam, ,

Konige in AZIC,’99.

A. Bertholet, Die Stellung der Is-
vaeliten wu. der fuden su den
Fremden, 96.

Gustav Bickell:

Grundriss der hebràischen

Grammatik,'69 Κι; ET,?77.
Carmina VT mettice ete,, "82.
Dichtungen der Hebrier,'82 f.
Kritische Bearbeitung der
Prov., ’90.

Bibliotheca Sacra, °43 ff.

De Bello fudaico, See Josephus,

Schenkel, 20e/- Lexicon ; Real
wéòrterbuch zum Handgebrauch
[τ Geistliche ἃ. Gemeinde-
glieder, 5 vols., 69-75.

S. Bochart (1599-1667):
Geographia Sacra, 1646;
Hierozoicon, sive de Animali-
bus Scripture Sacre, 1663.

Aug. Boeckh, Corpus /ascr. Grec.,
4 vols., * 28-77.

Babylonian and Oriental Record,
᾿δγ 7.

Friedrich Béòttcher, 4ws/iir/iches
Lehrbuch der hebroischen Spra-
che, ᾽66--- 68.

Bittger, Lexicon 2. d. Schriften des
EI, fosephus, 79.

Biblical K'escarches. See Robinson.

Karl Budde:

Die biblische Urgeschichte (Gen.
1-124), 83.

Die Biicher Richter und Samuel,
ihre Quellen und ihr Aufbau)90.

Samuel in SBOT' (Heb.), ’94.

Das Buch Hiob in HK, '96.
Klagelieder and Hohelied in KHC,'98.

Bubl .
Buxt. Svr. /ud,

Buxt. Zea. .

e, cir. Β A
Calwer Bib. .
Lex.

cAp.
CA.

Chald. Gen,

Che. . .
Proph. Is.

Job and Sol.
Ps.

OPs. .

Aids .
Founders .

Intr. Is.

See Pal.

Johann Buxtorf (1564-1629),
Synagoga Judaica, 1603, etc.
Johann Buxtorf, son (1599-1644),
Lexicon Chaldatcum, Talmudi-
cum et Rabbinicum, 1639, folio.
Reprint with additions by B.
Fischer, 2 vols., ‘69 and ‘74.

circa.

Calwer Kirchelexikon, Theologi-
sches Handuwòrterbuck, ed. P.
Zeller, ’89-’93-

contra Apionem. See Josephus.

Composition des Hexateuchs. See
Wellhausen,

The Chaldean Account of Cenesis,
by George Smith. A new edi-
tion, thoroughly revised and cor-
rected by A, H. Sayce, ᾽80,

T. K. Cheyne:

The Prophecies of Isaiak, 2 vols.
(80-81; revised, (9), ’89).

Job and Solomon, or The Wisdom
of the Old Testament (87).

The Book of Psalms, transl.
with comm. (88); (2), re
written (forthcoming).

The Origin and Religious Con-
tents of the Psalter (* Bampton
Lectures, '89), ‘01,

Aids to the Devout Study of
Criticism, ’92.

Founders of Old Testament
Criticism, ’94.

Introduction to the of
Isaiah (795).

Book

Is. 5807.

Isaiah in SBOT

[Eng.],
(97); [Heb.], 009).

Jeremiah, his Life and Times in ὁ Men of the

Jew. Rel, Life

CIG
CIL

CIS

Class. Rev.
Cl-Gan.
Rec, .
Co. . .
Euek.
Einl.
Zist.
(ΟΤ'

Crit. Mon.
Cr. Re.
D

Da

Dalm. Gres.

Worte Jesu
Aram. Lex.
Dav.
Sob
Ezek,
DB.
de C. Orig,

De Gent, .
Del, εν
Par. .

Heb. Lang.

Bible? (88).
Jewish Religious Life after the
Exile, "98.

Corpus Inscriptionum Gracarum
(ed. Dittenberger), ’82 f. See
also Boeckh.

Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum,
Berlin, ’63, and following years,
14 vols., with supplements.

Corpus Inscriptionum Semitica-
rum, Paris, δι ff. Pt. i, Phoeni-
cian and Punic inscriptions; pt.
ii., Aramaic inscriptions; pt. iv.,
S. Arabian inscriptions.

The Classical Review, 87 ff.

Clermont-Ganneau:

Recucil d’ Archéologie, δας ff.

Cornill:

Das Buch des
Ezechiel, *86,
Einleitung in das Alte Testa»

ment Ὅτ; Ὁ), *96.
History of the People of Israel
from the earliest times, "98.

The Cineiform Inscriptions and the
Old Testament. See Schrader.

A. H. Sayce, 7%he Higher Criticism
and the Verdict of the Monu-
ments, '94.

Critical Review of Theological and
Philosophical” Literature [ed.
Salmond], ’91 7:

Propheten

Author of Deuteronomy; also used
of Deuteronomistic passages,
Later Deuteronomistic editors. See

HISTORICAL LIrERATURE.

Dalman, Gremmatik des jidisch-

palùstinischen Aramiisch, *94.
Die Worte Jesu, i., "98,
Aramdisch - Neuhebraisches

Wiorterbuch zu Targun,
Talmud, und Midrasch,
Teil 1., ’97.

A. B. Davidson:

Book of Job in Camb. Bible, ’84.
Book of Ezekiel in Cambridge
Bible, ᾽92.

W. Smith, 4 Dictionary of the
Bible, comprising its Antiguities,
Biography, Geography, and Net-
ural History, 3 vols., ‘63; DB,
2nd ed. of vol. i., in two parts,
᾿

3,

or, Ϊ. Hastings, A Dictionary of
the Bible, dealing with its Lan-
guage, Literature, and Contents,
including the Biblical Theology,
vol. i.,’98; vol. iî., 90.

or, F. Vigouroux, Dicionnaire de
la Bible, "95 ff.

Alph. de Candolle, Origine des
Plantes Cultivées, "82; (Δ), ’96.
ET in the /asernationa! Scien-
tiffic Series.

De Gentibus, See Wellhausen.

Delitzsch, Franz (1813-90), author
of many commentaries on books
of the OT, εἰς.

or, Delitzsch, Friedrich, son of pre-
ceding, author of:

Wo lag das Paradies? ( 81).
The Hebrew Language viewed

xx ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

în the light of Assyrian Re-
search, '83.

Prol, . Prolegomena eines neuen hebr.-
aram. Worterbuchsaun AT,
786.

Ass HWB Assyrisches Handwòrterbuck,
b
96,

DHM Z7. Denk, Ὁ, H. Miiiler, Epigraphische Denk-
màler aus Arabien, "89.

Die Propheten în ihren urspritnglichen Form.
Die Grundsesetse der ursemi-
tischen Poeste, 2 Bde., ᾽ο6.

Di. . . + Dillmann, August (1823-94),
in AGH: Genesis, 3rd ed. of
Knobel, "75; (9, "82; (9, ’92 (ET
by Stevenson, 97); Exodus und
Leviticus, 2nd ed. of Knobel,
’80; 3rd ed. by Ryssel, ‘97;
Numb., Deut., Josh., 2nd ed. of
Knobel,'86; Zsaî24, (δ), '90; (eda.
1-3 by Knobel; 4th ed. by Die-
stel; 6th ed. by Kittel, ’98),

Didachè. See APOCRYPHA, $ 31,1.

Supplement aux Dictionnatres
Arabes, ᾽9 ff.

Dr. . . «Driver, S. R.:

HT. . A Treatise on the Use of the

Tenses în Hebrew, "74; (2),
δι; (3), Ὁ2.

Did, .
Dozy, Suppl.

TBS Notes on the Hebrew Text of
the Books of Samuel, *90.

Introd, . An Introduction to the Litera-
ture of the Old Testament,
gi; ©, 97.

Par. Ps, Parallel Psalter, ’98,

Deut. Deuteronomy in The Inter-

national Critical Commen-
tary, *95.
în the Cambridge Bible, ᾽ο7.
SBOT (Eng.), Leviticus, as-
sisted by H. A. White, ‘98,
< Hebrew Authority * in Auékority and Archeology,
Sacred and Profane, ed.
David G. Hogarth, London,
᾿
Is + . Isaiah, His Life and Times,in
‘ Men of the Bible,’ (2), °93.
Drusius (1550-1616) in Critici
Sacri,
Bernhard Duhm:

Die Theologie der Propheten
als Grundlage fisr die innere
Entwicklungsgeschickte der
israelitischen Religion, ’75.

. Das Buch Jesaia in HK,'92.
Ps. . . Die Psalmen erklàri,in AHC,

+. Joel and Amos
Lev. SBOT

. + Old Hebrew historical document.

E. . . + Later additions to E. See His-
TORICAL LITERATURE.

Encyclopedia Britannica, gth ed.,
75-88.

Georg Ebers (’37-'98), Aeeypren τές
die Bikcher Mose's, i, 68.

Einleitung (Introduction). See
Cornill, etc.

The English Historical Review,
86 ff.

EBO
Ebers, Aeg. BM
Einl.
Eng. Iist. Rev.

Eni[st]. Die Entstehung des Judenthums.
See Ed. Meyer.
ET . . + English translation,
Eth. Ethiopic,
Eus, Eusebius of Cesarea (2nd half of
grd to Ist half of qth cent. A.D.) :
Onom. or OS Onomasticon ; *Onthe Names

of Places in Holy Scripture,

HE . . Zistovia Ecclesiastica.
Prep. ]E{0.] Praparatio Evangelica,
Ckron. . Chronicon.
Εν. . . English version (where authorised
and revised agree).
Ew. . Heinrich Ewald (1803-75):
Lekrb, . Lehrbuch der hebràischen
Sprache, ‘44; (8), 70.
Gesch, . Geschichte des Volkes Israel;
(8) i-vii., ᾽64-68 ; ET ς
vols. (pre-Christian period),
*69-’80.
Dichter. Die Dichter des Alten Bundes
ὦν, 66 5
Proph, - Die Propheten, 40 fi; ®, 67
£; ET76£
Expos._. Exposttor, sth ser., '95 7,

Exp[05]. Times] Expository Times, "89790 ff.

"λα, . following (verse, or verses, etc.).

FEP . . Fauna and Flora of Palestine.
See Tristram.

Field, Hex. F. Field, Origenis Hexaplorum que
supersunt sive Veterum Interpre-
tum Gracorum in totum Vetus
Testamentum Frogmenta (075),

FIr]HG. Fragmenta Historicorum Greco
rum, ed. Miiller, 5 vols., ’41-’72.

FI. and Hanb. Τ᾿ A. Fltickiger and D. Hanbury,

Pharm. Pharmacographia.

Floigl, GA « Floigl, Geschichte des semitischen

Altertums in Tabellen, 82.

Founders . Founders of Old Testament Criti»
cism. See Cheyne.

Fr . . + O. F. Fritzsche (1812-96), com-
mentaries on books of the Apo-
crypha in 4/6.

Frà. . . + Sigismund Frinkel, Die eramdi.

schen Fremduirier im Arabi-
schen, ᾽86,

Frankenb, » W. Frankenberg, Die Spriiche in

KH, 98.
Frazer . « J.G. Frazer:
Totemism (87).
Golden Bougk (90); (5) in prep.
Pausaniass Description of
Greece (translation and
notes, 6 vols., ’9$8).
Fund, J. Marquart, Fundamente israeliti

scher u. jiadischer Geschichte, *96.
Greek Version, see above, p. xv. £
and TEXT AND VERSIONS.
σά. . » Geschichte d., Alterthums
Meyer, Floigl).

Geschichte Agyptens (see Meyer).

Gesch, Babyloniens u. Assyriens
‘(see Winckler, Hommel).

George Adam Smith. See Smith.

Reuss, Geschichte des Alten Testa-
ments, "81; (2), ’90.

A. Geiger, Urschrift und Ueber-
setsungen der Bibel in ihrer Ab
hùngigheit von der inneren Ent
wicklung des Judenthums,°57.

F. H. W. Gesenius (1786-1842):

Thesaurus Philologicus Criti-
eus Ling. Hebr. et Chald.
Veterîs Testamenti,’35-° 42.

Hebriische Crammatik, ’13;
(5, by E. Kautzsch, ’96;
ET ’98.

Hebraisches u. chaldàisches
Handwbrterbuck, "12; (Ὁ)
(Miuhlau u. Volck), ’90; (12
(Buhl, with Socin and Zim
mern),'95 ; (88) (Bubl),'99.

Gesenius-Buhl. See above, Ges,

(see

ci .
GBA

GASm.
GAT

(εἰ. Urschr.

Thes”
Gramm,

Lex. .

Ges.-Bu.

ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

Gesch,
GGA

GGN
α΄...
Gi[nsb]. |
GIV

Glaser
Skizze

Gr,

Geschi

HA or Hebr.
Arch.
Hal

MU. .

Hamburger
[18]

Harper, 81
HC .

Heb.
Hebraica .
Heia.

Herst.

Herzog, RE
Het Herstel
Hex,

Hexaf.
HG.

Hierob.
Hilgf.

Ilist.
Hist, Proph,
Mon.

Hi[tz].

HKE. .

Geschichte (History).

Gittingische Gelekrte Anzeigen,
*24 ff.

Gottingische Gelehrte Nachrichten,
‘45 ἢ.

Geschichte Israels. See Winckler.
Ginsburg, Massoretico-critical Edi-
tion of the Hebrew Bible, "94, In-
troduction, 97.
Geschichte des jidischen Volkes.
See Schiîrer.
Eduard Glaser:
Skizze der Gesch. wu. Geogr.
Arabiens, '90.
K, Grimm (1807-91). Maccabees
(053) and Wisdom(60) in AGA,
Heinrich Gritz:
Geschichte der fuden, ἱ.--κ., 74
FP ἘΤ εν. 91-92,

Kritischer Commentar zu den
Psalmen,’82 f.
Versio Veneta. See Text.

Gesch. des VWolkes Israet, See

Ewald, Stade, etc.

“The Law of Holiness’ (Lev. 17-
26). See LEVITICUS.

Ilebràische Archiologie.
zinger, Nowack.

Joseph Halévy. The inscriptions
in Rapport sur une Mission Ar-
chéologique dans le Vémen (*72)
are cited: Hal. 535, etc.

Mélanges d'Epigraphie et
d’Archéologie Stmitiques) 74.

Hamburger, Realencyclopèdie fitr
Bibel und Talmud, i. 70, ® *92;
ii. ’83, suppl. ’86, ‘91 Δ, 7.

R. F. Harper, Assyrian and Baby-
lonian Letters belonging to the
ATKuyunjik] collection of the
British Museum, °93 ff.

Hand-Commentar zum Neuen
Testament, bearbeitet von H, 1.
Holtzmann, R. A. Lipsius, P. W.
Schmiedel, H. v. Soden, ’89—’91.

Hebrew.

Continued as A/SZ (g.0.).

Reste arabischen Heidentums.
Wellhausen.

Kosters, Wet Merstel van Isratl în
het Perzische Tijdvak,'93; Germ.
transì, Die Wiederherstellung
Lsraels, 95»

See PRE.

See Merst.

Hexateuch (see Kuenen, Holzinger,
etc.)

See Field.

Historical Geography of the Holy
Zand. See Smith, G. A.

See Bochart.

A. Hilgenfeld, NT scholar (Zix4,
etc.), and ed. since ’58 of ZW7.

See Schiirer, Ewald, Kittel, etc.

1. F. M*Curdy, History, Prophecy,
and the Monuments: i. To the
Downfall of Samaria ('94); ii
To the Fall of Nineveh (796).

F. Hitzig (1807-75), in AGM: Pre
diger (47), Hohelied Ο 55}, Die
kleinen Propheten (38; (5), ’63),
Seremias(*41; (2 '66). Also Die
Psalmen (35-36; (8), *63-°65).

Handkommentar zum Alten Testa-
ment, ed. Nowack, ’92 ff.

See Ben-

See

Holz. £inl. .

Hommel . .
AT -
GBA

Hor. Hebr.

HP .

HPN .

HPSm.

HS .
HWB

ως.

Ἱπιτ[οα]..
Intr. Is.

It. .
It. Anton,

Bi.)
Ilourn.] Alm.

O(7.] S[0c.]
Jastrow, Dick

S{ourn.] As.
JBL

ΒΗ,
JDT

JE. .

Jensen, Aosm. .

. Jer.

Jon.
Jos.

ITourn.] Ραμ.
JPT

TOR
RAS

JSBL
KAT

Και. .
Gram.

HS

xxi

H. Holzinger, Ainleitung in den
Hexateuch (093), Genesis in the
KAHC (098).

Fritz Homme]:

Die altisraelitische Veberliefer-
ung; El, Ancient Hebrew
Tradition, 97.

Geschichte Babyloniens wu. As-
syriens, δε ff.

Lightfoot, ore Hebraice, 1684.

Holmes and Parsons, Vetus Testa-
mentum Grecum cum variis
lectionibus, 1798-1827.

G. B. Gray, Studies in Hebrew
Proper Names, 96.

Henry Preserved Smith.

Samuel in /uternational Critical Commentary.

Die Heilige Schrift. See Kautzsch.

Riehm's Handwdrierbuch des bibli-
schen Alterthunis, 2 vols., '84;
(2, ’93-94. See also Delitzsch
(Friedr.),

Israelitische u. jidische Geschichte,
See Wellhausen,

Introduction.

Introduction to Isaiah. See
Cheyne.

Itala. See TEXT AND VERSIONS.

/tinerarium Antonini, Fortia

d’Urban, ’45.

Old Hebrew historical document.

Later additions to J.

Journal of the American Oriental
Society, δι ff.

M. Jastrow, Dictionary ofthe Tar-
gumin, the Talmud Babli, ete.,
and Midrashim, ’86 ff.

Journal Asiatigue, *53 ff; pih
ser.,’73; 8thser.,’83; gth ser.,’93.

Journal of Biblical Literature and
Exegesis, 990 ff; formerly (82--
788) called Journal of the Society
of Biblical Lit, and Exeg.

Jakrbiicher der bibl, Wissenschaft
(49-'65).

+ SJakrbilcher fiir deutsche Theologia,

*56-78.

The ‘ Prophetical’ narrative of the
Hexateuch, composed of J and E.

P. Jensen, Die Rosmologie der
Babylonier, ’90.

Jerome, or Jeremiah.

Jonathan. See Targum.

Flavius Josephus (b. 37 4.D.), Anti
quitates Judaice, De Bello
Judaico, Vita, contra Apionem
(ed. Niese, 3 vols., ᾽87- 4).

Journal of Philology, i. (Nés. 1 and
2,°68), ii. (Nos. 3and 4, 69), etc.

> Jahrbiicher fir prolestantische 7 heo-

logie, *75-°92.

. Jewish Quarterly Review,*88-'89f
> Journal of Royal Asiatie Society

(vols. 1-20, ’34 75: new series,
vols. 1-24,’65—'92; current series,
1934).
See ,82.
Die Keilinschrifien u.d, Alte Testa-
mient. See Schrader.
E. Kautzsch:
Grammatik des Biblischen-
Aramdischen, "84.
Die heilige Schrift des Alten
Testaments, ᾽θ4.

xxii

Apokr. +

KB. . .

Ki...
Gesch,

Ch. SBOT
Kim.
Kin[s].

AL, Proph.
Klo[st].

GVI.

Kn[ob].

Die Apokryphen τς Pseudepi-

graphen des alten Testa-
ments, 098 f.
Keilinschrifiliche Bibliothek,

Sammilung von ass. u.bab, Texten
in Umschrift u. Uebersetzung, 5
vols. (1, 2, 3 4, ὁ, 4, 5), 289-796.

, Edited by Schrader, in collabora-
tion with L. Abel, C, Bezold,
P. Jensen, F. E. Peiser, and
H. Wincekler.

K. F. Keil (d. ’88).

B. Kennicott (1718-83), Vetus
Testamentum Hebraicum cum
variis lectionibus, 2 vols., 1776-

Kirchengeschichte.
Keilinschriften το, Geschichtsforsch-
ung. See Schrader.
Kuragefasstes exegetisches Hand
buch. See Di., Hitz., Knob,, OL
Kurzgefasster Kommentar zu der
heiligen Schriften Alten u. Neuen
Testaments sowie zu den Apo-
kryphen, ed. H. Strack and
O. Zòckler, ’87 f.
Kurzr Hand-commentar zum
Alten Testamen2, ed. Marti,’97 ff.
Rudolf Kittel :
Geschichte der Hebraer, 2 vols.,
Ἶ88, 92; Eng. transl., His
{09 of the Hebrews, 795

196,

The Book of Chronicles, Critical
Edition of the Hebrew text,
95 (translated by Bacon).

R. David Kimbi, circa 1200 A.D.,
the famous Jewish scholar and
lexicographer, by whose exegesis
the AV is mainly guided.

Kinship and Marriage în Early
Arabia. See W. R. Smith.

Kleine Propheten(Mivor Prophets).
See Wellhausen, Nowack, etc,

Aug. Klostermann, Die Bicher
Samuelisund der K'onige (87) in
KGK.

Geschichte des Volkes Israel bis
sur Restauration unter Esra
und Nehemia, 96.

Aug. Knobel (1807-63) in ATGZ/
Exodus und Leviticus, © by Dill-
mann, ‘80; Der Prophet Jesaia,
743, (9, δι. Sce Dillmann.

F. E. Kénig, Mistorisch-Kritisches
Lekrgebàude der Hebriischen
Sprache, 3 vols., "81-97.

Aug. Kébler.

Kre (lit. ‘to be read’), a marginal
reading which the Massoretes
intended to supplant that in the

(Kèthiîb); see below.

Kéthib (lit. ‘written’), a reading
in the MT; see above.

Abr. Kuenen (1828-91):

Historisch-critisch Onderzoek
naar het ontstaan en de
verzameling van de Boeken
des Ouden Verbonds, 3 vols.,
61-65; (2, ’85—°89; Germ,
transì, Z/istorisch-kritische
Linleitung in die Biicher
des Alten Testaments, ᾽Β87--
*92; vol. i., 716 Hexateuck,
translated by Philip Wick-
steed, ’86,

ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

Godsd. De Godsdienst van Israel, "69-"70;
Eng. transl., 3 vols., ‘73-’75.
De Profeten en der Profetie onder Israel, 75;
ET, 77.
Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur
dibl. Wissenschafi, German
by Budde, ’o4.
Lagarde, Librorum Veteris
Testamenti Canonicorum, Pars
Prior Crece, 83.
Paul de Lagarde (᾽27-- 91) :
Hagiographa Chaldaice, 73,

Ges. Abh,

LU... de

Lag. - -
Hag.

Spr. . . Libri Veteris Testamenti Apo-
eryphi Syriace, "61,
Ges. Abh. . Gesammelte Abhandiungen, 66,
Mit, Mitteilungen, i.-iv., *84-'89.
Sy. Symmicta, ii, '80.
Prov. Proverbien, '63.
Uters. Uebersicht iber die im Ara-
or BV miischen, Arabischen, und
Hebràischen itbliche Bildung
der Nomina, '89.
Beitr. Beitrige 5. baktrischen Lexiko-
graphie, ‘68,
Proph. Prophete Chaldaice, ᾽72.
Sem. Semitica, *78 f.
Arm. St. Armenische Studien.
Or. . . Orientalia, i. 79; ii., 80.
Lane . E. W. Lane, 4n Arabic-English
hi Lexicon, '63 ff.
1 [and} B W. M. Thomson, 7%e Land and
the Book, 59; new ed, ’94.
LBR . Later Biblical Researches. See
Robinson.
Levy, NHWB 1. Levy, Neuhebritisches u. chal-
diisches Wurterbuch, "76-89.
Chald. Lex. Chaldiisches WGrterbuch iiber
die Targumim, '67 ff.
Lekygeb. . See Kénig.
Leps. Dern4z:, . R. Lepsius, Denkmdler aus Aegyp-
den u. Acthiopien, 49-60.
Lightf, . John Lightfoot (1602-75), Hore
Hebraice (1684).
Joseph Β. Lightfoot (28-89);
commentaries on Geletians
(0, ’74); £kilippians (8,
73); Colossians and Phile-
mon (75).
Lips. 1f . . Lipsius, Die Apokryphen Afostel-
geschichten τς Apostellegenden,
ὅδ. 00.
Τὸν. . +. 1. 1ὅν, Aramdische ῥῆῇαπεεηηα-
men, δι.
Luc. . See L.
LXX or δ᾽ Septuagint. See above, p. xv £,
and Texr AND VERSIONS.
Maimonides Moses Maimonides (1131-1204).
Exegete, author of Misknek
Torah, Morè Nebokhim, ete.
Mand. . Mandeean. See ARAMAIC, $ 10.
Marq. Fund. 7. Marquart, Fuademente israeliti-
scher τε. jidischer Ceschichte, *96.
Marti K. Marti:
Gram. Kuragefasste Grammatik d.

si blisch-Aramàischen
Sprache, ’96.

Geschichte der Israelitischen Religion®, "97 (a
revision of A. Kayser, Die
Theol. des AT).

Das Buch Jesaia, in KHC,'99.

G. Maspero:

Dawn of Civilisation, Egypt
and Gata (A, 796). pp
Les premiòres Mélies des
Peuples; ET by McClure

Fes.
Masp,

ABBREVIATIONS, STYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES xxiii

MBBA
MDPV .
Merx .
Mey.. -
GA

Entsi[eh]..

Meyer
ΜΟΙ
ΜΗ. -
MI. +.
Midr. .
Mish. .
MT. .

The Struggle of the Nations
— Egypt, Syria,and Assyria,

Histoire Ancienne des Peuples
de P'Orient (099 5).

Monatsbericht der Berliner Aka-
denie,

Mittheilungen und Nachrichten des
Deutschen Palastina- Vereins,
1954 , .

A. Merx, Archiv f. wissenschaft-
liche Erforschung d. AT (69).

Ed, Meyer:

Geschichte des Alterihums;
È Gesch. d, Orients bis zur
‘andung des Perserreichs
ΚΗ 1, Gesch. des Abend-
ct: bis auf die Per-
serkriege (93).
Die £ntstehung des Juden-
dhums, ’96.

H. A. W., Meyer (1800-73),
founder of the series Aritisc4-
exegetischer Kommentar îtber das
Neue Testament,

Monatsschrift fitr Gesch. u. Wiss,
des fudenthums,*51 ff.

Mishnic Hebrew, the language of
the Mishna, Tosephta, Mid-
rashim, and considerable parts of
the Talmud.

Mesha Inscription, commonly
known as the ‘ Moabite Stone.
See MESHA.

Midrash. See CHRONICLES, ὃ 6 (2).

Mishna, the standard collection
(completed, according to tradi-
tion, by R. Judah the Holy, about
200 A.D.) οἵ sixty-three treatises
(representing the Jewish tradi
tional or unwritten law as devel-
oped by the second century
A.D.), arranged in six groups or
Séders thus:—i. Zam (11
tractates), ii. 4/02 (12), iii.
Naskim (7), iv. Nèstkin (10),v.
Kodashim(11),vi. Folbroth(12).

An, di. rr

τῷ, iti. 3
Négà'im, vi. 3
Nidda, vi.

Ohaloth, vi. a

Baba Mesa ἦν. ὦ
Bakhorath, v. 4

Berakhoth, i. 1 Ja, i. τὸ
Pe: im,
Rosh Mini dana,
Chullia, v° 3 i. 8
Tema: Sanhedrin, iv. 4
Ed 7 Shabbath, i

dii
Hotay6th, iv. 10
Kalim, vi. 1

Kerithbth, v.

Kethabsth, i ΕΝ ii 9
Kiddishin, τῇ, Tamid, v. 9
Kil'Ayim, i. Tebil Yom, vi, 10
Kinnim, v. 11

Ma456r Sheni, i. 8

Ma's8rsth, i. 7
Makhshirin, vi. 8
Makkoth, iv. 5

8
Ménachoth, v. 2
Middoch, v. 10

Zibim, vi.9

Zébachim, v. x

Massoretic text, the Hebrew text of
the OT substantially as it was in
the early part of the second
century A.D. (temp. Mishna).
It remained unvocalised until

about the end of the seventh
century a.D. See TEXT.

Murray A New English Dictionary on
Historical Principles, ed. J. A.
H. Murray, ᾽88 7; also H.
Bradley, 970

Muss-Amn, W. Muss-Arnolt, 4 Concise Diction-
ary of the Assyrian Language,
*94-99 (A-MAG).

MVG Mittheilungen der Vorderasiat-
ischen Gesellschaft, 7 ff.

mo. note,

Nab. Nabatean. See ARAMAIC, $ 4.

NB. Nominalbildung, Barth; see Ba.

Nestle, Fig. Die israelitischen —Eigennamen
nack ihrer religionsgeschicht-
lichen Bedeutung,*76.

Marg. Marginalien u, Materialien, '93.

Neub. Géogr. A. Neubauer, Geograplie du fal-
mud, 68.

NHB Natural History of the Bible. See
Tristram.

NHWB . .« New-hebr. τε. chaldiisches W Grter-
buck, See Levy.

no. . number.

Né[ld]. Th. Néldeke :

Unters. Untersuchungen «. Kritik d.

Alten Testaments, ‘69.
Alttestamentiiche Litteratur,*68.
.- W.Nowack:
ΝΣ A[sch.) δελγόμὰ d, Hebrischen
Archaologie,” 94.

AI Proph. Die Kicinen Propheten (in
ΤΑ), ᾽ο7.
NT. . New Testament, Neues Testament.
Ash. Justus Olshausen :
Die Psalmen, *53.
Li Tini. Lehrbuch der hebr. Sprache,

*61 [incomplete].
OLZ (or Or. LZ) Orientalistische ’ Litteratur-Zei-
tung, ed. Peiser, 98 f

Ond. - Historisch-critisch Onderzoek. See
Kuenen.

Onk., Onq. Onkelos, Ongelos. See Targ.

Onom, . + See OS,

OPs. . » Origin ofthe Psalter. See Cheyne,

os. . . Onomastica Sacra, containing the
‘name-lists’ of Eusebius and
Jerome (Lagarde, ‘2, ’87; the
pagination of Ὁ) printed on the
margin of (2) is followed).

OT. . Old Testament.

OT)C Old Testament în the Jewisk
Church. See W. R. Smith,

P . . Priestly Writer. See Hisr. LIT.

Pi . Secondary Priestly Writers.

Pal. . F. Buhl, Geographie des alten Pal
&stina, 96. See also Baedeker
and Reland.

Palm. . + Palmyrene. See ARgMAIC, ὃ 4

Pal Syr. . Palestinian Syriac' @fr Christian
Palestinian. See ARAMAIC, $ 4.

PAOS Proceedings of American Orienta!
Society, ᾽51 ff. (printed annually
at end of 1409).

Par. «+ Wo lag das Paradies? See
Delitzsch. ΄

Pot. Pal. . Sayce, Patriarchal Palestine, ’95.

PE . Praparatio Evangelica. See Euse-

bius.
Palestine Exploration Fund Me-
moirs, 3 vols., ‘81-83.
Palestine” Exploration Fund
[founded ’65] Quarterly State
ment, '69 ff.

PEFM[em.]
PEFQ[u, SE].

xxiv ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

Per.-Chip.

Ph., Phoen.
PRE

Preuss. Jakrbb,
Prim. Cult,

Proph. Is.

Prol. .
Prot. KZ

PSBA

PS 7hes.
Pun.

Rel. Pal. .

Rev.
Rev, Sen.
Αἱ. Sa.

Rob.
BR

LIBRor BRiv.
or BRO ili.

Perrot and Chipiez:

Histoire de DArt dans l'anti
quite. Égypte — Assyrie —
Perse — Asie Mineuere —
Gràce — Étrurie — Rome;
81/7

ET: Ancient Egypt,
Ckaldea and Assyria,
Phenicia and Cyprus,
Sardinia, Judea, etc.,
Primitive Greece, '94.

Persian.

Peshîtta, the Syriac vulgate (2nd-
3rd cent.). Vezus 7estameniuni
Syriace, ed. $. Lee, *23, OT and
NT, 724.

W. E. Barnes, 4x Apparatus Cri-
Hicus to Chronicles in the Peshitta
Version, °97.

Pheenician.

Real-Encyhlopidie fim protestan-
tische Theologie τ. Kirche, ed.
J. J. Herzog, 22 vols., ᾽54-- 68;
®, ed. J. J. Herzog, G. IL.
Plitt, Alb. Hauck, 18 vols., ’77-
88; @®, ed. Alb. Hauck, vol.
i.-vii. [A-Hau], ‘96-99.

Preussische Jahrbicher, 72 ff.

E. B. Tylor, Primitive Culture,
σι; 9, Por,

The Prophecies of Isaiah.
Cheyne.

Prolegomena. See Wellhausen

Protestantische Kirchenzeitung fr
das Evangelische Deutschland
(vols.i.-xlili.,’ 54-'96); continued
as Prot. Monaishefte (97 ff).

Proceedings of the Society of Bibli-
cal Archaeology, *78 Κ᾽.

Payne Smith, 7 heseurus Syriacus,

Punie.

183;
184;
185;
190;

See

Redactor or Editor.

Redactor(s) of JE.

Deuteronomistic Editor(s).

Priestly Redactor(s).

H. Ὁ. Rawlinson, 726 Cuneiform
Inscriptions of Western Asia,
iv. (61-84; iv. 2), ’9I).

Rabbinical.

i.e. Rabbenu Shelomoh Vishaki
(1040-1105), the celebrated
Jewish commentator.

Recueil de travaua relatifi è la
philol. et ἃ VArchéol, egypi. et
assyr. *70 ff

Revue des Études juives, i., '80; ii.
and iii., 81; andso on.

Reland, Palestina ex Monumentis
veteribus illustrata, 2 vols., 1714.

Revue,

Revue sémitique, *93 ff.

Die Biicher Richter u. Samuel,
See Budde.

Edward Robinson:

Biblical Researches in Pales-
tine, Mt. Sinai, and Arabia
Petrea, a journal of travels
în the year 1838 (i.-iii,, 4
= BRO, i-ii, 56).

Later Biblical Researches in Pales-
tine and the adjacent Regions, a
journal of travels in the year
1852 (756).

Physical Geography ef the Holy
Land, 65.

Roscher

KP.

RS or Rel, Sem.
RV_.
RWB

Rys.
Saad.

Sab.

Sab. Denkm.

Sam.
SBAW

SBE

SBOT (Eng)

SBOT (Heb.) .

Schipf.
Schr.
KGF
KAT.
cor

Schiir.
GIV

Ausfiihrliches Lexikon d. Grieckh=
ischen u. ROmischen Mythologie
(844).

Records of the Past, being English
translations ofthe Ancient Monu-
ments of Egypt and Western
Asia, ed. S. Birch, vols. i.-xii.
(73781). New series [AA ]ed.
A. H. Sayce, vols. 1.--ν],, 88-92.
See ASSYRIA, $ 35.

Religion of the Semites.
R. Smith.

Revised Version (NT, ’8o; OT,
'84; Apocrypha, ’95).

G. B. Winer(1789-1858), Bi0/isehes

Reakwbrterbuck, "20; ®, 2 vols.,
;

See W.

477.
Ryssel; cp. Dillmann, Bertheau.

R. Sa‘adya (Sè'adya; Ar. Sa'îd),
the tenth century Jewish gram-
marian and lexicographer (b.
892); Explanationsofthe 42fax-
legomena in the OT, etc.

Sabrean, less fittingly called
Himyaritic; the name given to
a class of S. Arabian inscrip-
tions.

Sablische Denkmdler, edd. Miiller
and Mordtmann.

Samaritan.

Siteungsberichte der Berlinischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften.
The Sacred Books of the East,
translated by various scholars
and edited by the Rt. Hon. F.

Max Miiller, 50 vols, 1879 7:

[Otherwise known as the” 2o/y
chrome Bible] The Sacred Books
ofthe Old Testament, a new Eng.
transl,, with Explanatory Notes
and Pictorial I{lustrations; pre-
pared by eminent biblica! scholars
of Europe and of America, and
edited, with the assistance of
Horace Howard Furness, by Paul
Haupt,°97 ff.

Haupt, Ze Sacred Books of the Old
Testament; a critical edition of
the Hebrew text, printed in
colours, with notes, prepared by
eminenti biblicalscholarsofEurope
and America, under the editorial
direction of Paul Haupt,*93 ff.

Gunkel, Sc4dpfung und Chaos in
Urzeit τ, Endseît, °95.

E. Schrader; editor of AZ

[ρ0.}: Ὁ |
Keilinschriften τὸ. Geschichis-
forschung, °78.

Die Keilinschriften u. αἰ, Alte
Testament, 72. (3), 83.
Eng. transì. of KAT ὃν

O. C. Whitehouse, Ze
Cuneiform Inscriptions and
the Old Testament, 2 vols.,
’85, ’88 (the pagination of
the German is retained in
the margin of the Eng, ed.).

E. Schiirer:

Geschichte des fitdischen Volkes
im Zeitalter Fesu Christi;
1, Einleitung u. Politische Ge-
schichte, ’90; ii. Die Inneren
Zustinde Palàstinas u. des
jidischen Volkes im Zeitalter

ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES xv

Hist, -

Selden . .

Sem. .
Sin, .
Smend, Z: isten .

Smith
GASm,
HG

WRS_.
OTJC

Proph. .

Kin. δ

Jesu Christi, ᾽δ6; new ed. vol.
li. Die Inneren Zustinde, ’98,
vol. iii, Das Judenthum in der
Zerstreuung u. die jiidische Lite-
ratur, ‘98.

ET of above (90 73). Vols. 1 f
(e, Div. i. vols. 1 £)= vol. 1
of German; vols. 3-5 (#.e., Div.
ii. vols. 1-3) = vol. 2 of German
[= vols, ii., iîi,of 8].

J. Selden, de Sure naturali et
gentium juxta disciplinam Ebre-
orumn, 7 bks., 1665.
de Dtis Syris, 1617.

Semitic.

Sinaitic; see ARAMAIC, ὃ 4.

Smend, Die Listen der Biicher
Esra τι. Nehemiah, δι.

George Adam Smith:

The Historical Geography of
the Holy Land, especially in
relation to the History of
Israel and of the Early
Church, 94 (additions to (4),

᾽οθ,

William Robertson Smith(*46-’94):

The Old Testament in the Jewisk
Ckurch,'81; (5), revised and much
enlarged, 792; (Germ. transl. by
Rothstein, ’94).

The Prophets of Israel and their
place in History, to the close 0)
the cighth century 2.0. ’82; (ὦ,
with introduction and addi.
tional notes by T. K. Cheyne,
‘95.

χύβιρ and Marriage in Early

Arabia, "85.

RIeL]S[em.] Lectures on the Religion of the

SP. .

Spencer . .

55

St., Sta. , .
GVI. .
Ad. . -

St. Kr,
Stad,m.m.

Stud, Bibl,

SWAW . δ

Semites: Ist ser, The Funda-
mental Institutions, ’89; new
and revised edition (AS), ’94;
Germ. transl. by Stube, Ὅς,

[The MS notes of the later Burnett
Lectures—on Priesthood, Divina-
tion and Prophecy, and Semitic
Polytheism and Cosmogony—
remain unpublished, but are
occasionally cited by the editors
in the Encyclopedia Biblica as
‘Burnett Lects. MS.]”

A. P. Stanley, Sinai and Palestine
în connection witk their history,
*56, last ed, ’96.

De Legibus Hebreorum Ritualibus
(2 vols. 1727).

Siegfried and Stade, /7ebraisches
Wirterbuch zum Alten Testa-
mente, 03.

B. Stade:

Gesch. d. Volkes Israel, ᾽8τ--

188.

Ausgewdhlte Akademische Re-
den u. Abhandiungen, *99.

Studien und Kritiken, *28 ff.

Stadiasmus magni maris (Mar-
cianus).

Studia Biblica, Essays in Biblical
Archaology and Criticism and
kindred subjects, 4 vols,, '85—’91.

H. B. Swete, The Old Testament
în Greek according to the Septua-
gint; 0), 8γ. 94: (2), ‘95-99.

Siteungsberichte d. Wiener Aka-
demie d. Wissenschaften.

Sym[m]..

Syr. .
Tab. Peut.

Talm. Bab. Jer.

T(ar]g.
ser.
Lon.

Onk..

psJon
TBS

temp.

T[extus] R[e- °

ceptus]
Tu[e].

Theod.

Theol. Studitn .

Thes, .

7.7.
Ti. or Tisch.
TIZ
Tosephta .
Treg. .
Tristram
FEFP,
NHB
7584

Ti. Z. ΚΑ Theol.

Untersuchk.

Urgesch.

.-...-
Var. Apoc.

Var. Bib.

Symmachus, author of a Greek
version of the Old Testament
(circa 200 A.D.). See TEXT.

Syriac. See ARAMAIC, ὃ 11 f

Tabula Peutingeriana, Desjardins,
768.

Talmud, Babylonian or Jerusalem,
consisting of the text of the
Mishna broken up into small
sections, each followed by the dis-
cursive comment called Gèmàra.
See Law LITERATURE,

Targum. See TEXr.

The (fragmentary) Targum Jeru-
shalmi.

Targum Jonathan, the name borne
by the Babylonian Targum to
the Prophets.

Targum Onkelos, the Babylonian
Targum to the Pentateuch
(towards end of second century
A.D.).

The Targ. to the Pentateuch,
known by the name of Jonathan.

Der Text der Bilcher Samuelis :
see Wellhausen; or Notes ox fe
Hebrew Text of the Books of
Samuel: see Driver,

tempore (in the time [0f]).

The ‘received text’ of the NT.
See TEXT.

Thenius, die Bilcher Samuelis in
KAGH42; ®,'64; (®, δῆτ, '98.

Theodotion (end of second cen-
tury), author of a Greek version
of the Old Testament (‘rather a
revision of the LXX than a new
translation’). See TEXT.

Studién, published in connection
with 7%. 7 (see DEUTERONOMY,

ἃ 332).

See Gesenius.

R. Payne Smith, 7hesaurus Syria-
cus, "68

Theologiso ri ijaschrift,*67 ff.

Tischendorf, Novwm Testamentum

Grece, editio octava critica
maior, ’69—'72.

Theologische Literaturzeitung,
"76

See Law LITERATURE.

S. P. Tregelles, Te Greek New
Testament, edited from ancient
authorities, "57-72.

H. B. Tristram:

The Fauna and Flora of Palestine,
È
89.

Ti te Natural History of the Bible,

), 80.
r, μον δ ήρην of Soc. Bib. Archeol.,

vols. i. IRA
Tiibingen Zeitschrift f. Theologie,
128 ἢ.

Untersuchungen. See Néldeke,
Winekler.

Die biblische Urgeschichte.
Budde.

verse.

The Apocrypha (AV) edited witk
various renderings, etc, by C. J.
Ball.

The Old and New Testaments(AV)
edited with various renderings,
etc. by T. K. Cheyne, S. R.

See

xxvi ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

Driver (OT), and R. L. Clarke,
A. Goodwin, W. Sanday (NT)
[otherwise known asthe Queer's
printers Bible].

Versio Vetus Latina; the old-Latin
version (made from the Greek);
later superseded by the Vulgate.
See TEXT AND VERSIONS.

Vulgate, Jerome's Latin Bible:
OT from Heb., NT a revision
of Vet. Lat. (end of 4th and be-
ginning of sth cent.). See TEXT.

Vet. Lat, . 5

We., Wellh.
De Gent

Julius Wellhausen.

que în 1 Chr. 2 4 nume-
rantur Dissertatio (70).

Der Text der Biicher Samuelîs
070).

Die Phariskeru.d ϑαάμοῶεν;
eine Untersuchung sur in-
neren jildischen Geschicht

᾽74).

Geschichte Israels, vol. i. (78).

2nd ed. of Gesch., entitled
Prolegomena sur Gesch, Is-
raels, ’83; ET ‘85; 418
Germ. ed. ’95.

Israelitische u. jidische Ge-
schichte, ’94; ®, '97; an
amplification of Abriss der
Gesch. Israels u. Judo's in
“Skizzen ἃ, Vorarbeiten,’
Ἶ4. The Abriss was sub-
stantially a reproduction of
‘Israel’ in 5.80) (81; re-
published in ET of Prod
[185] and separately as
Sketch of Hist. of Israel and
Sudah, d, 91).

Reste Arabischen Heidentums
(in ‘Skizzen u. Vorarbeiten’)
(87; (2), 97).

Die Kleinen Propheten iber-
setzt, mit Noten (92; (ὃ),
798).

Die Composition des Hexa-
teuchs und der historischen
Bicher des Alten Testaments
(85; Zweiter Druck, mit
Nachtragen, ’89; originally

published in 707 21 395 f.,
6) 22 497 [77], and in
Bleek, δ ρ, (9, ?78).

System der 4, lisynagagalen Palàsti-
mischen Theologie ; or Die Lehren
des Talmud,”80 (edited by Franz
Delitzsch and Georg Schneder-
mann); ‘2, /wdische Theologie
auf Grund des Talmud und
verwandier Schriften, °97 (ed.
Schnedermann).

J. J. Wetstein, Novum Testamen-
tum Grecun, εἴς.» 2 vols. folio ;
1751-1752.

Wetzstein, Ausgewdhlte griechische
und lateinische Inschrifien, ge-
sammelt auf Reisen in den
Trachonen und um das Hau-
réngebirge)63; Reisebericht ber
Haurîn und Trachonen, ’60.

Wellhausen-Furness, Ze d008 of
Psalms (*98) in SBOT (Eng).

Westcott and Hort, Z%e New Tes-
tament in the Original Greek,
81.

TBS .
Phar. τ.
Sadd,

Gesch. .
Prol. .

χε...

[Ar.}Heid,
Kt, Proph.

CH. è»

Weber. .

Wetstein . .

Weta, . .

WE. .
WH[W&H].

De Gentibus et Familtis fudeîs |

Wi.
Unters.
Alt test].
ὥς
GBA .
A0F or AF
GI δ
Sarg, .
Bs. .
Wilk. . .
Winer _. .
RWB .
Gram.
WMM . .
Wr. -
Comp.
Gram
Ar. Gram.
WRS .
WIKM . .

Vakut . .

Ζ εν
ZA εν
Ζά..
ΖΑΤ.. .
ZDMG .
ZDPV .
ΖΡ.
Ζέμ.
ΖΑ.
Ζετ'.
ZIE.
Zzw

Hugo Winekler:
Untersuchungen 2. Altoriental
ischen Geschichte, 89.
Alttestamentliche Untersuch-
ungen, "92.
Geschichte Babyloniens u. As-
syriens,?92,
Altorientalische Forschungen,
Ist ser. i.-vi., ’93-’97; 2nd
ser. (AF) i., 798 £
Geschichte Israels in einzel
darstellungen, i. 95.
Die Keilschrifttexte Sargons,
80.
Die Thontafeln von Tell-eb
Amarna (ET Metcalf).
J. ὦ. Wilkinson, Manners and
Customs of the Ancient Egyptians,

*37-41; (2) by Birch, 3 vols., ᾽78.
B. Winer:

Bibl, Realwibrierbuch; see
RWB.

Grammatik des neutestament-
lichen Sprachidioms®, neu

- bearbeitet von Paul Wilh.
Schmiedel, ‘94 f:; ET of
6th ed., W. F. Moulton, ’70.

See As. w Eur.

W. Wright:

Lectures on the Comparative
Grammar of the Semitic
Languages, ’90,

A Grammar of the Arabic
Language, translated from
the German of Caspari and
edited, witk numerous addi-
tions and corrections by W.
Wright; © 2 vols., 74-75;
(8) revised by W. Robertson
Smith and M. J. de Goeje,
vol. i. ‘96, vol. ii. 98.

William Robertson Smith.
Smith.

Wiener Zettschrift fiir d. Kunde
des Morgenlandes, 87 ff.

The well-known Arabian geo-
graphical writer (1179-1229).
Kitab Mojam el-Buldan edited
by F. Wiistenfeld ( /aculs Geo-
graphisches W irterbuch,”66-"70).

See

Zeitschrift (Journal).

Zeitschrift fier Assyriologie w, ver-
wandîe Gebiete, °86 ff.

Zeitschrift fur Agyptische Sprache
u. Alterthumskunde, *63 ff.

Zeitschrift fiv die Alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft, "81 ff.

Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgen=
landischen Gesellschaft, *46 Κ᾽
Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palîstina-

vereins, 18 ff.

Zeitschriji fr Ketilschrififor. schung
und verwandte Gebiete, 84. 7),
continued as ZA,

See WZKM.

Zeitschrift fia kirchliche Wissen-
schaft u. kirchliches Leben (ed.
Luthardt), i.ix., 80-80 Κ΄

Zeitschrift fir die gesammite luther-
fiche Theologie und Kirche, *40-
ῃ

78.

Zestschrift fitr
Kirche, *91 ff.

Zeitschrift γῶν wissenschaftliche
Theologie (ed. Hilgenfeld),'58 5

Theologie und

ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

ACL . 5 n .

APK. . . -
Crit. Bibo νος

GA
OCL

Ohnefalsch-Richter ον,
SMAW . .

Sfyr.) c(ur.) Lo.
Sfr.) sfin.) Lo.

Arranged according to the alphabetical order of the first initial.

ADDITIONAL ABBREVIATIONS

Altehristliche Litteratur ; e.g.

Adolf Harnack. Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius,
of which there appeared in 1893 Pt. 1. Die Uederlieferung und der
Bestand, and în 1897, Pt. IL Die Chronologie, vol. 1. down to
- Irenzeus (cited also as CAronoZ., 1).

Gustav Kriiger,

Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur in den

ersten drei Jahrhunderten, 1895 (in Grundriss der Theologischen

Wissenschaften).
F. Spiegel, Die al-persischen Reilinschrifien, 1862, ( 1881,
Cheyne, Critica Biblica, 1903.
Geschichte Aegyptens.
W. C. van Manen, Harndleiding voor de Oudchristelijte Letterkunde,

1900.

Siteungsberichte der Ki

M, H. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Ayfr0s, die Bibel, und Homer, 1893.
iglichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Munich,
Curetonian Syriac version of NT (see TEXT, $ 25).

Sinaitic Syriac version of NT (see TEXT, $ 25).

KEY TO SIGNATURES IN VOLUME IV

Joint authorship ἐς where

possible indicated thus: A. B. $$ 1-5; C. D. $$ 6-10,

Bevan, ANTHONY ASHLEY, Lord Al
moner's Professor of Arabic, Cam-
bridge.

MCGIFFERT, A. C., D.D., Professor of
Church History in Union Theological
Seminary, New York.

CowLky, A. E., M.A., Sub-librarian,
Bodleian Library, and Fellow of Mag-
dalen College, Oxford.

SHipLEY, A. Ἐς, M.A., F.Z.S., Fellow,
Tutor, and Lecturer, Christ's College,
Cambridge.

KENNEDY, Rev. ArcHIBALD R. S.,
M.A., D.D., Professor of Hebrew and
Semitic Languages, Edinburgh.

STADE, BernHaRD, D.D., Professor of
Old Testament Exegesis, Giessen.

Burnky, Rev. C. F., M.A., Lecturer in
Hebrew, and Fellow of St. John's
College, Oxford.

Toy, C. H., D.D., Professor of Hebrew,
Harvard University.

JoHuns, Rev. C. H. W., M.A., Assistant
Chaplain, Queens’ College, Cam-
bridge.

Titne, The late C. P., D.D., Professor of
the Science of Religion, Leyden.

HocartH, Davip GEorGE, M.A.,
Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford.

MEYER, EDUARD, Professor of Ancient
History, Berlin.

NESTLE, C. EB., D.D., Professor in the
Evangelical - Theological Seminary,
Maulbronn, Wilrtemberg,

GouLD, Rev. E. P., D.D., Philadelphia.

BURKITT, Ε΄ C., M.A., Cambridge,

F. B.

Brown, Rev. Francis, D.D., Daven-
port Professor of Hebrew and the
cognate Languages in the Union
Theological Seminary, New York:

Cookk, Rev. G. A., M , formerly
Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford.

SMmrrH, Rev. GrorcE Anam, D.D.,
LL.D., Professor of ilebrew and Old
Testament Exegesis, United Free
Church College, Glasgow. .

Gray, Rev. G. Buchanan, M.A,,
D.D., Professor of Hebrew in Mans-
field College, Oxford.

Hill, G. F., M.A., British Museum.

Moork, Rev. GEORGE τ, D.D., Pro-
fessor of Theology, Harvard University.

Box, Rev. G. H., M.A. (Oxon.), London.

WINCKLER, H., Ph.D,, Privat-docent in
Semitic Philology, Berlin.
Hocg, Hope W., M.A., Professor of

Semitic Languages, Victoria Univer-
sity, Manchester.

ARBRAHAMS, IskAEI., Reader in Rabbinic,
Cambridge.
BENZINGER, Dr.

Privat-docent in
Theology, Berlin.
PeRITZ, Rev. ISMAR JOHN, Professor of

IMMANUEL,
Old

formerly
‘Testament

Semitic Languages, Syracuse Uni.
versity, New York.
ΕΌΒΙΝΒΟΝ, The Very Rev, 1, ARMI

TAGE, D.D., Dean of Westminster,
PRINCE, 1. D., Ph.D., Professor of

Semitic' Languages and Comparative

Philology, New York University.
JEREMIAS, JOHANNES, Ph.D., Leipsic.

xxvili
J. 1. M.
J.M

J. Mo,
I.W.
K. α.
K. M.

MAC
N. M

N. 5,

0.0. W.

P. G.

P. W. 5.
8. A.C,
Β, R. Ὁ.

LIST

KEY TO SIGNATURES IN VOLUME IV

MyrEs, J. L., M.A., F.S.A., Student
and Tutor of Christ Church, Oxford.
Massie, Jonn, M.A., Yates Professor of

New Testament Exegesis in Mansfield
College, Oxford.

MoFFATT, Rev, JAMES, D. D., Dundonald,
Ayrshire,

WELLHAUSEN, JuLIUS, D.D., Professor
of Semitic Philology, Gottingen.
GELDNER, K., Ph.D., Professor

Sanscrit, Berlin.

Marti, KARL, D.D., Professor of Old
Testament Exegesis and the Hebrew
Language, Berne.

CanneY, MAURICE A., M.A. (Oxon.},
London.

M'LEAN, NorMAN, M.A., Lecturer in
Hebrew, and Fellow of Christ's College,
Cambridge,

SCHMIDT, NATHANAEL, Professor of
Semitic Languages and Literatures,
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.

WHITEHOUSE, Rev. OWEN C., M.A.,
D.D., Principal and Professor οἵ
Biblical Exegesis and Theology in
the Countess of Huntingdon's College,
Cheshunt, Herts.

GARDNER, P., Litt. D., F.S.A., Professor
of Classical Archaeology, Oxford.

SCHMIEDEL, PAUL W., D.D., Professor
of New Testament Exegesis, Zirich,

Cook, STANLEY A., M.A., Fellow of
Caius College, Cambridge.

DRIVER, Rev. SAMUEL ROLLES, D.D.,
Regius Professor of Hebrew, Canon
of Christ Church, Oxford.

of

T.G.P.

W.T. T.-D.

PincHes, THEoPHILUS G., LL.D.,
formerly of the Egyptian and As-
syrian Department” in the British
Museum.

CHevyNE, Rev. T. K., D.Litt., D.D.,
Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of
Holy Scripture at Oxford, Canon of
Rochester.

ALLEN, Rev. W, C., M.A., Chaplain,
Fellow, and Lecturer in Theology and
Hebrew, Exeter College, Oxford.

MANFN, W. C. van, D.D., Professor of
©Old-Christian Literature and New Tes-
tament Exegesis, Leyden,

Ross, W. D., M.A., Fellow of Merton
College, Oxford.

ErBT, W., Ph.D., Leipsic.

ADDIS, Rev. W. E., M.A., Lecturer în
Old Testament Criticism in Manchester
College, Oxford.

ΒΕΝΝΕΤΎ, Rev. W. H., Lit. D., D.D.,
Professor of Biblical Languages and
Literature, Hackney College, London,
and Professor of Old Testament
Exegesis, New College, London.

WoopHOUSE, W. J., M.A., Professor of
Greek, University of Sydney.

MULLER, W. Max, Professor of Old
Testament Literature, Reformed Epis-
copal Church Seminary, Philadelphia.

SmrrH, The late ἍΜ, RoBERTSON, D.D.,
Adams Professor of Arabic, Cam-
bridge. .

THiseLTON-DyER, Sir WILLIAM TUuR-
NER, K.,C.MG. LLD., F.RS.,
Director, Royal Gardens, Kew.

OF CONTRIBUTORS TO VOLUME IV

Arranged according to alphabetical order of surnames.

ABRAHAMS, IL LA. GouLp, E, P.
ADDIS, ὟΝ. E, ἢ Gray, ὦ. B.
ALLEN, W, C. HILL, G. F.
BENNETT, W. Η, HoGcarTA, Ὁ. ὦ,
BENZINGER, 1. Hocc, H. W.
BEVAN, A, A. JEREMIAS, ].

Box, ἃ. H. JoHns, C. H. W.
Brown, F. KENNEDY, A. R. 5.

BURKITT, F, C.

MCGIFFERT, A, Ὁ,

PagAaani vi pb

AVgrpanizammoprggg
APpFHiPPApmoWbe Man

Burner, €, F. M'LEAN, N.
CanneY, M. A, MANEN, W. Ὁ. v.
CheynE, T. K. MARTI, K.

Cook, 5. A,

CooKE, G. A,

CowLEvr, A. E,

DRIVER, S. R. ΜΟΟΚΕ, ἃ. F.
ERBT, W. MULLER, W. M.
GARDNER, P. Myres, 1. LL
GELDNER, K. NESTLE, E.

Ὁ

παρ ῷ

Pirgosmungzbposppoan

ARepHugonte
Sprea
Ra

BERE
Ε

ztgne
ΒΒ

-

PERITZ, I J.
PincHESs, T. G.
PRINCE, 1. D.
ROBINSON, 1. A.
Ross, W. D.
SCHMIDT, N.
SCHMIEDEL, P. W.
SHIPLEY, A. E.
SMITH, ἃ. A.
SMITA, W. R.
STADE, B.
THISELTON-DYER, W.T.
TIELE, C. P.

Toy, C. H.
WELLHAUSEN, 1.
WHITEHOUSE, O. C.
WINCKLER, H.
WoobHOUsE, W. 1.

ΡΘΩΞ
mR Syd

5

ΞΡ|Θ ΤΩ Ω 581 “ὦ Ρ' πὲ τς 5} 51 bar
ganz

τι 9 9. 9481" ΚΑΙ͂ τὴ (ἡ Ρ» ΡῈ SRO

i

MAPS IN VOLUME

ASIA, WESTERN {illustrating TRADE AND COMMERCE)
PALESTINE and PHOENICIA (Trade Routes) . .
SYRIA, MESOPOTAMIA, ete. (Assyriological)

SYRIA, PHCENICIA, PALESTINE, eto.
{x) After Egyptian Monuments - n - . .

(2) After Amarna Letters . . . . . Ν

TRACHONITIS, BASHAN, HAURAN, GOLAN, ete. - .

IV

between cols. 5160 and 5161

5164

4844

4852
4852

5142

5167

4845

4853
4853

5143

CONTRIBUTORS

TO

VOLUME IV.

BRAHAMS, I., M.A., Cambridge

pD:S, Rev. Prof. W, E., M.A.,
Manchester College, Oxford

LLEN, Rev. W. C., MA, , Exeter
College, Oxford

ENNETT, Rev. Prof, W. H.,
Litt.D., D.D., London

ENZINGER, Immanuel, Ph.D.

EvAN, Prof. A. A., Cambridge.

ox, Rev. ὦ. H., M.A. . .
ROWwN, Rev. Prof. F., D.D.,
New York

URKITT, Εἰ C., M.A., Cambridge
URNEY, Rev. C. F., M.A., St.
John's College, Oxford,

ANNEY, Maurice A., M.A.,
London
HEYNE, Rev. Prof. T. K.,

D.Litt., D.D., Oxford

00K, 5. A., M.A., Caius Col
lege, Cambridge

00KE, Rev. G. A., M.A. .

OWLEY, A. E., M.A., Magdalen
College, Oxford.

RIVER, Rev, Prof. S. R., D.D.,
Oxford

RBT, W., ΡΒ...

ARDNER, Prof, Percy, D.Litt.,
Oxford.

ELDNER, Prof. Karl, Ph.D.,
Berlin.

‘OULD, Rev. E. P., D.D., Phila-
delphia.

‘RAY, Rev. Prof. G.B., M.A,,

D.D., Mansfield College,
Oxford.

ILL, G. F., M.A., British
Museum

loGARTH, D. G., M.A., Mag-
dalen College, Oxford.

[ocG, Prof, H. W., M.A., Vic-
toria University, Manchester

EREMIAS, Johannes, Ph.D. Β

3HNS, Rev. C. H. W., M.A.,
Queens’ College, Cambridge

‘ENNEDY, Rev. Prof, A. R. S.,
D.D., Edinburgh

{‘GIFFERT, Rev. Prof, A. C.,
D.D., New York,

f‘Lran, N., M.A.,
College, Cambridge

Christ's

Tunic, εἰς,
Righteousness, etc.

Thaddzeus.

Stranger, etc,
Temple, etc.
Writing.
Temple, εἴα.
Sheba, εἴς.

Text and Versions.
Stars,

Ship, εἴς,
Saul, etc.
Tent, etc.

Tabor.
Samaritans, etc,

Trachonitis.

Tobit.
Quirinius,
Zoroastrianism.
Spirit.

Theophany, etc,

Weights and Measures, etc.
Syria.

Reuben, etc.

Ritual,
Sennacherib, εἴς,

Weaving, εἴς.

Thessalonians {Epistle to)

Serpent, etc.

Ì

Manen, Rev. Prof. W. C. van,
D.D., Leyden.
MARTI, Prof. K., D.D., Bern
Massi€, Prof, John, D.D., Mans-
field College, Oxford
Meyer, Prof, Ed., Ph.D., Berlin
MoFratT, Rev. James, DD.
MoORE, Rev. Prof. G. F., D.D.
Harvard University
MELLER, Prof. W. M., Ph.D.,
Philadelphia
Mvyres, 1. L., MA,
Church, Oxford

NEsTLi, Prof. Eb., D.D., Ph.D
Maulbronn, Wirtemberg

PerITz, Rev. Prof. I. ]., M.A.,
Ph.D. Syracuse University,
ΝΥ.

PINCHES, Τὶ G., LL. D., formerly
of British Museum

Prince, Prof. }. D.,
New York

Rogzinson, The Very Rev. J.
Armitage, D.D., Dean of
“Westminster

Christ

Ph.D.,

Ross, W. D., M.A., Mertton
Coltege, Oxford
ScaMIbr, Prof. N., PhD.

Cornell University, N.Y.

SCHMIEDEL, Prof. P. W., D.D.,
Zurich

SHIPLEY, A. Ἐπ, M.A., Christ's
College, Cambridge

SMITH, Rev. Prof. G. A., D.D.,
1.1..1}., Glasgow

SMITH, the late Prof. W. Robert-
son, D.D., LL.D.

STADE, Prof. B., D.D., Ph.D.,
Giessen

THISELTON- DYER, Sir W. T.,
K.C.M.G., LL.D., F.R.S.,
Director, Royal Gardens, Kew

TIELE, the late Prof. C. P., D.D.,
Leyden

Toy, Prof. C. H., D.D., Harvard
University

| WerLmausen, Prof. Julius, D. D.,

Ph, D., Gottingen
WuiteHouse, Rev.
O. C., DID.
WINCKLER, H., Ph.D., Berlin .
WooDHOUSE, Prof, W. J., M.A.,

Sydney

Principal

ΧΧΧῚ

Romans (Epistle to), etc.

Year, εἴα,
Satan.

Sidon.
Sermon on Mount, εἴς,
Sacrifice, etc.

Red Sea, etc.

Precious Stones.
‘Thomas,

Synagogue.

Tiglath-pileser.

Scribes and Pharisees,

Teacher, etc.

Stoics,

Son of God, εἰς.
Resurrection.

Serpent, etc.

Trade and Commerce.
Sabbath, etc,

Samuel (Books of).

Vine, etc,

Satrap.

Wisdom Literature, etc.
Zechariah.

War, etc.

Sinai, etc.
Sardis, cte.

AN ALPHABETICAL LIST OF SOME OF THE ARTICLES IN
VOL. IV., WITH THE AUTHORS’ NAMES

QUEEN OF HEAVEN .

QUIRINIUS

RAIN

RAMESES

REED . .

REPHAIM -

RESURRECTION and ἄβοεν-
Β10Χ ΝΑΒΕΑΤΙΨΕΒ

REUBEN . » n 5

RHODES . 5 -

RIGHT, RIGHTEOUSNESS .

RITUAL (BABYLONIAN) .

ROMANS (EPISTLE)

ROME (CHURCH)

RUTH, BooK ΟΕ

SABBATH

SACRIFICE . .
SADDUCFES .
SALAMIS .

SALT . .

SALUTATIONS

SAMARIA, SAMARITANS
Samos

SAMUEL .

SARDIS |. . . .
SaRGON (with Illustration)
SATAN —. Β .

SATYRS . . n .
SAUL .
ΒΟΒΊΗΞΒ AND PHARISEES .
SCYTHIANS . - .
SELEUCIDA . . .
SENNACHERIB , . .
SERMON ON THE MOUNT .
SERPENT . .

SERVANT OF THE LORD
SETH, SETHITES n
SHEBA . .
ΒΗΕΕΡ. .
SHEREL (with IÎllustrations)
SHEPHERD OF HERMAS
SHILOH .

SHIP (with Illustrations)
SHISHAK . . .
SHOES. .

SIDON . .
51ΕΔΕ (with Illustration)
SILAS, SILVANUS

SIMEON . . . .
Simon MAGUS . - -
SIMON PETER . . .
SIN. -

SINAI AND HorEB
SIRACH —, . .
SLAVERY . δ .
SMYRNA . . .

SODOM AND GOMORKRAH .
SOLOMON. . . .
Soy or 00

Son or MAN

SPIRIT. .
SPIRITUAL GIF] τ
STARS.

STATER (with Îlustration) .
STEPHEN . . . .
STOICS . . - .

Prof. G. F. Moore.
Prof. P. Gardner.

Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
Prof. W. Μ, Miller.
N. M‘Lean.

Prof. T. K. Cheyne,
Prof. P. W. Schmiedel.

Hope W. Hogg.

Prof, W. 1. Woodhouse.
Prof. W. E. Addis.
Johannes Jeremias.

Prof. W. C. van Manen,
Prof. W. C. van Manen.

Prof. T. K. Cheyne and the late ;

Prof, W, Robertson Smith.
Prof, Marti, Prof. Cheyne and
the late Prof. W. R. Smith.

Prof. G. F. Moore

A. E. Cowley.

Prof. W. 1. Woodhouse.

Prof. Kennedy and the late Prof,
W. R. Smith.

Prof. T. K. Cheyne,

A. E. Cowley.

Prof. W. 1. Woodhouse.

Prof. B. Stade.

Prof. W. 7. Woodhouse.

Rev. C. H. W. Johns.

Prof. G. B. Gray and Prof.
J. Massie.

Prof. G. Β. Gray.

Prof, T. K. Cheyne,

Prof. 7. D. Prince.

Prof. N. Schmidt.

Prof, W. 1. Woodhouse,

Rev. C. H. W. Johns.

Rev. 1. Moffatt.

Norman M'Lean, A. E. Shipley,
and Prof. T. K, Cheyne.

Prof. T. K. Cheyne,

Prof. T. K. Cheyne,

Prof, F. Brown,

A. E. Shipley and $. A. Cook.

G. F. Hill.

Prof. W. C. van Manen.

Prof, T. K. Cheyne.

M. A. Canney.

Prof. W. M. Miiller.

1. Abrahams, S. A, Cook, and
Prof. T. K, Cheyne.

Prof. Ed. Meyer.

Prof, O. C. Whitehouse.

Prof. P. W. Schmiedel,

Hope W. Hogg.

Prof. P. W. Schmiedel.

Prof, P. W. Schmiedel.

Prof, W. M. Μάϊον,

H. Winekler,

Prof, C. H. Toy.

Dr. 1, Benzinger.

Prof. W. 1. Woodhouse and
Prof. W. Μ, Miller.

Prof. T. K. Cheyne.

Prof. T. K. Cheyne.

Prof. N. Schmidt.

Prof. N. Schmidt.

Prof. Addis and Rev. E. P. Gould.

Prof. P. W. Schmiedel.

Rev. C. F. Burney.

G. F. Hill,

Rev. J. Moffatt.

W. D. Ross.

Srovs (Precious) . .
STRANGER AND SOJOURNER
SYENE . - . .
SYNAGOGUE . -
ΒΥΝεθαῦμ . .

SyRIa (with Maps)

TABERNACLE .
TABERNACLES, FEAST OF.
TABOR

’TAHPANHES .
TAXATION AND TRISUTE .
TEACHER . .

TEMPLE (with Illustrations)
TEMPTATION OF JESUS
TENT {with Illustrations)
TEXT AND VERSIONS
‘THADDAUS
THEOPHANY
‘THESSALONIANS (ErisrLE)
THESSALONICA .
THEUDAS
THOMAS {the Apostle)
TIGLATH-PILESER
TimorRY
TIMOTHY
{Epistles)
TIRHAKAH . - n
TITHES . . . .
TrTUS . n .
TOBIT . .
Tomss (with IMustrations) ;
TRACHONITIS (with Maps)

AND TiITUS

TRADE AND COMMERCE
(with Maps)
TURBAN .

UNKNOWN GOD, ALTAR τὸ
UR OF THE CHALDEES

URIM AND THUMMIN
VINE . . .

Vows, VOTIVE OFFERINGS

WANDERINGS, — WILDER-
NESS ΟΕ

War

WASHINGS, CEREMONIAL .

WeAavING (with. Illustra-
tions)

WEEK

WEIGHTS AND Mrasti RES

WIDOW . . .

WIND, WINDS.

WINE AND STRONG Drink
(with Illustrations)
WISDOM LITERATURE

Wispom (Boox)
WONDERS

Wool,

WRITING.

YEAR .
ZADOK . .
ZEBULUN. . .
ZECHARIAR (B00K) .
ZEPHANIAH

ZERUBBABEL , δ .
ZILPAH . . . 5
ZOROASTRIANISM

xxxii

J. L. Myres.

Prof. ἊΝ. H. Bennett.

Prof. W. M. Miiller.

Prof. 1. J. Peritz.

M. A. Canney and the late Pi
ἊΝ, R. Smith.

Ὁ. G. Hogarth, A. E, Shipl
and H. Winckler.

Dr. 1. Benzinger.

Dr. I. Benzinger.

Rev. G. A. Cooke,

Prof. W. M. Miiller.

Dr. I. Benzinger.

The Very Rev.
Robinson, D.D.

Dr. 1. Benzinger.

Rev. J. Moffatt and Prof, Chey

S. A, Cook.

F. C. Burkitt,

Rev. W. C. Allen,

Prof. G. B. Gray.

Prof, A. C. M‘Giffert.

Prof. ἍΜ. 1. Woodhouse,

Prof. P. ἊΨ, Schmiedel.

Prof, Eb, Nestle.

T. G. Pinches.

Rev. J. Moffatt.

Rev, J. Moffatt.

7. Armit:

Prof. W. M. Miiller.
Prof, G. F. Moore.
Rev. 1. Moffatt,

Dr. W. Erbt.

Dr. I. Benzinger.
Prof, 5. R. Driver,
Prof. G. A. Smith.

I. Abrahams and S. A. Cook.

Prof, W. 1. Woodhouse.

Prof. F. Brown and Prof. T.
Cheyne.

Prof. G. F. Moore.

Norman M'Lean and Sir W.
Thistleton-Dyer.

Prof. G. F. Moore.

Prof. G. B. Gray.

Prof. O. C. Whitehouse.
M. A. Canney.
Prof. A. R. S. Kennedy.

Prof. K. Marti.

G, F. Hill.

The Very Rev. 7. A. Robins
D.D.

Prof. T. K. Cheyne,

Prof. A. R. S. Kennedy.

Prof. C. H. Toy.

Prof. €, H. Toy.

M, A. Canney.

A. E. Shipley.

Prof. A. A. Bevan.

Prof. K. Marti.

Prof. W. E. Addis,

Hope W. Hogg.

Prof. 1. Wellhausen.

Prof. Driver and the late Pr
W. R. Smith.

Prof, T. K, Cheyne.

Hope W. Hogg.

Prof. Geldner and Prof. T.
Cheyne.

ENCYCLOPADIA BIBLICA

Q

Quart nb, sazzu, Kr. Nb, sazzi; opTYrO-
MHTpa;} corurniz). Mentioned in EV in Ex. 1613
Nu. 11317. Ps. 10540 Wisd. 162 1912t; cp ma my, Ps.
7827. That the quail, not the sand-grouse (?) or
the locust (Hasselquist's alternatives, 7rave/s, 443) or
the crane (Dean Stanley and H. S. Palmer, see
$ 2, noie 2) 15 meant, is generally recognised.

The Ar. word for ‘quail,’ seZiwa, which is a loan-word, was
found by C. Niebuhr (1774) to be still in use in Egypt. Another

word for it is suna, given to it because
1. Identification, of its ‘fatness,’ and Lagarde (Veders. 81)

has proposed to connect the name with
Eshmun-Iolaos, the god who restored Heracles to life by giving
him a quail to smell at. The quail was annually sacrificed
among the Phoenicians in the month Feb,-Mar. to commemorate
the reviving of Heracles (Athen. 947, referred to by WRS,
Rel. Sem.) 469). There îs no trace, however, of the sacred
character of this bird among the Arabians or the Hebrews,

The Colurnix communis or C. dactylisonans of orni-
thologists is well-known in the Sinaitic peninsula, where
it passes, migrating northward in spring, in immense
flights. Tristram found them în the Jordan valley
(Land of Israel, 460). They arrive in Palestine in
March and April—though a few remain there during
the winter—on the way to their breeding-places in the
plains and cornfields of the upper country. Even these
flocks are said to be surpassed in numbers by the
autumn flight when they return S. to their winter-
quarters. The quail fties very low, which Dillmann
supposed to explain the important clause at the end
of Nu. 113: (but see $ 2). It is soon fatigued, and
hence falls an easy prey to mam. 160,000 have been
captured in a season at Capri, where their plump flesh
is esteemed a delicacy, as indeed it is all along the
shores of the Mediterranean. They were salted and
stored as food by the ancient Egyptians (Herod. 277).

ALE. S.—-S A.C.

There are two references to a supply of quails for the

food of the Israelites—viz., in Ex. 16127 (scene, the
sig Wilderness of Sin, on the way to Sinai),

2. The quails , nd in Nu. 11:8-2331-34 (scene, Gc
of the hnattaavab, after the departure from Sinai),
wandering8. ΤῊ 6 former belongs to P. He has just
made Moses and Aaron tell the Israelites that in the
evening they shall know that Vahwè has brought them
out of Egypt, and that in the morning they shall see
Yahwè's glory (vv. 6). The evening event is the
arrival of the quails; the morning event is the lighting
down of the manna. ‘The redactor has omitted P's
account of the fall of the manna, the passage from ‘the
dew lay round' to ‘has given you to eat’ being J's (see

1 ὀρτυγομήτρα means properly (see L. and S.) ‘a bird which
migrateo siti the qualleo perhaps κρόξ, the landerail, αὶ αὐως
erex; but Photius and Hesychius explain as="a large ὄρτυξ᾽
(Di. The right Gk. word for quail, ὄρτυξ, is given by Jos.
and Gr. Ven. On Rabbinical notices see σε, 754. ΟΡ also
Fowt, $ 1, col. 1159, and n. 1.

128 3989

Baentsch). The narrative in Nu, 11 {J] is much more
detailed. ‘The announcement of the quails specifies a
month as the period during which quails should be eaten;
after this the flesh was to become loathsome to the eaters.
The coming of the quails is thus described {vv 31-34),
‘And a wind from Yahwè [a SE. wind, Ps. 7826] took
up quails from the sea [read nube ri) © xp ey)! and
made them to fall by the camp, about a day's journey
on this side, and a day's journey on the other side,
round about the camp, like heaps of wheat? (09)
on the face of the ground.’ The appropriateness of
the figure is clear from what follows. ‘And the people
rose up all that day, and all the night, and all the
next day, and gathered the quails; he that gathered
least gathered ten homers, and they spread them all
about for themselves [to dry them] round about the
camp.' But the result was a fatal malady, ‘While
the flesh was yet between their teeth, ere it was chewed,
the anger of Yahwè was kindled against the people,' ete.
The story (with which cp Ps. 7826-31) is told to account
for the name ‘ Kibroth-hattaavah' (graves of lust); it
belongs to the large class of eetiological legends. The
more correct name, however, is probably ‘’‘Taberah.’
See KIBROTH-HATTAAVAH. T.K.C.
The peculiarity of the incident needs some better
explanation than reference to the statement of Aristotle
d. Plant.15; cp Bochart, ἢ. 115) that
8. The malady. Gi eat poisonous things—c.g., helle-
bore—which are harmful to men. It may be more
instructive, therefore, to give a parallel case from
the Elizabethan voyages. ‘The ship Desire’ be-
longing to Cavendish's last and ill-fated expedition
to the east by way of the Pacific, put back for home
from the Straits of Magellan in 1592. They came to
anchor at a harbour in Patagonia, named after the
vessel Port Desire, and found on an island near it such
numbers of penguins that the men could hardly go
without treading on them. A party of twenty-two
men was landed on the island to kill the birds and dry
them on the rocks. From goth Oct. to 2end Dec.

1 [The traditional text contains two improbabilities—y93,
applied to a wind (Pasek should put us on our guard), and
mM E, ἐξεπέρασεν), from NI, which occurs again only in Ps.
S6 το, where (see Che. Pr.l8)) ît is corrupt. Both words spring
out of the reading ΝΕ, which alone suits the sense. The

corruption, however, must be very old because of Ps.7826.—
τ΄ κι]

2 [The text has ‘about two cubits' (D*nBit2), which the com-
mentators suppose to refer t0 the very low flight of the quails.
Dean Stanley, however, (SZ, 82) thought that large cranes
{storks?) Aree feet high might be meant. Only our sub.
servience to MT has prevented us from seeing that the true text

must be DM , a figure which occurs again in Ex.168
Gogna). —t. κι]

3990

QUARRIES

they killed and dried 20,000 ; the captain (John Davis),
the master, and John Lane, the narrator, were able to
make a small quantity of salt by evaporating sea-water
in holes of the rocks, wherewith they salted a certain
number of birds. ‘’‘’hus God did feed us even as it
were with manna from heaven' Only 14,000 dried
penguins could be got on board, The crew were put
on rations of which the principal part was five penguins
every day among four men. It was not until some
time after that disease broke out, the dried birds
having begun to breed a large worm în appalling
numbers in the warmer latitudes,

Various symptoms of the malady here described are
sufficiently characteristic of the acute dropsical form of
the disease called beri-beri (some derive the name from
the Arabic); there are, however, dropsical conditions
caused by parasitic worms apart from the special dietetic
errors to which beri-beri is commonly ascribed. But,

however this may be, the parallelism between the two”

narratives is obvious. ‘There is the same generic cause,
and the quail is a fat bird” like the penguin, which would
corrupt the more easily if it were dried with its fat. In
St. Kilda, where the diet used to he of air-dried gannets
and fulmars, it was customary to remove the fat before
curing. (CA
ALE. SS. AC, $i T.E. Οὐ, $2; CC, 8 3.

QUARRIES (RVme ‘graven images; DDR;
τῶν γλύπτων ; idole, Judg. 31926t). Tho pésilize
near Gilgal are a well.known landmark. Heb. usage of
pésel favours the sense ‘sculptured sacred stones’ (80
Moore, Budde). Many scholars find an allusion to the
stones mentioned in Josh. 4820. If so, gésiliza is used
in its original sense of ‘ hewa stones’ Cp Ass, fatali,
a pillar; Tg. Pesh. give ‘quarries,' a guess.

The view of the Ehud-story advocated elsewhere (see JERICHO,
$ 2), which detects an undertying form in which the place.
names, now cormupted, were of the Negeb, throws doubt on
both the above theories. Among the possible corruptiona of
Saune» (Ishmael) is bap or beni cp SueLEra. In order to
escape to Seirah (for the reading adopted by the present writer
see SEkraH), Ehud had to pass an outpost of Ishmaelites
{=Jerahmeelites); for Eglon, the Migrito king, was a Jerah-

meelite (see 7 13, wher& ‘Ammon’ and ‘Amalek’ both=
‘Jerahmeel'). For pag, read therefore probably pongo»
% Josh. 75 RVing., see SHEBARIM. T. κις.

QUARTERMASTER (Πρ). Jer. 5159 ΕΥ πὰ.
See SERAIAH, 4.

QUARTUS fxoyaptoc [Ti. WH]) adds his saluta-
tion to that of Tertius, addressed te the Christians in
Rome, at the close of Rom. 16(22 £). It has been con
jectured that he may have been one of those fews who
were expelled from Rome by Claudius. See, further,
Srmon (the Cyrenian).

In the lists of the seventy disciples by the Pseudo-Dorotheus
and Pseudo -Hippolytus he appears as bishop of Berytus.
In the apociyphal Acts ef Peirand Paul he is a member of

the pretorian guard, one gf the soldiers who have charge of
Paul in Rome.

QUATERNION (rerpadion: Acts 124), a guard

of four soldiers.

QUEEN OF HEAVEN (Ὁ ὌΨΙ nb; ® H Bac
Aicca ΤΟΥ OYPaNOY, except Jer.718 H cTPATIA TOY
1. Cult, OYPanoy® [Ag. Sym. Theod. BaciAiccH]i
Vg. regina caeli; Pesh. pulban Semayya,
except Jer. d4 το maltaf Semayya ;* Tg. NO? NIDI),
an object of worship to which offerings were made by
inhabitants of Jerusalem and other cities of Judah in
the seventh century and by Jewish refugees in Egypt
after the fall of the kingdom ; see Jer. 7 16-20 4425-30.
The peculiarity of this worship appears, from
Jeremiah's description, to have been the offering of a
Special kind of cakes which were made by the Jewish
women with the assistance of their families (‘the boys

1 Probably reading was, as in 82/1913. "

3 Contamination ffora @, which is otherwise demonstrable în
this verse,

389:

QUEEN OF HEAVEN

gather firewood and the fathers kindle the fire and the
women knead dough to make cakes,' eto., Jer.718; cp
4419) The cakes were offered to the deity by fire
(4415177 2125; 4ifter. “op, erroneously translated in
EV, ‘bum incense ), and the burning was accompanied
by libations (44177). ‘These rites were performed ‘in
the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem '
(71) 4417); the worship seems to have been domestic.
and perhaps specifically a woman's cult (see 4415 1925); *
that the men assist in the preparations (7 18) and assume
their share of the responsibility (44157) is not in-
consistent with the latter view, nor are the expressions
in which the prevalence of the worship is affirmed
(4417).

The cakes (Zawwdnim, nua, 76. 718 dirgt;? ὦ
χανῶνες, and in the latter passage yxavares [Ὁ].
χαυβωνες [n*]: Vg. S/acenta; Pesh. sauthare, a species
οἵ sacrificial cakes ;* Tg. puro or purma, perhaps
χονδρῖται,5 Gen. 40:16) were rightly compared by
Chrysostom and other early commentators to the πόπανα
or πέμματα of the Greeks, of which there were many
varieties.S Some of these were made in the likenoss of
a victim; others imaged or symbolised the deity to
whom they were offered.?

It has been thought by many that the 4awwdwim of the
queen of heaven represented the moon,8 or —upon a different
view of her nature>-the planet Venus (see below, $ 3). Jer.
4470 has been understood ta testify τὸ the iconic character of
these cakes, the verb maupab being connected with masp (IDOL,

8 16),9 and translated “to image her'; but both the text and
the interpretation are extremely doubtful.

‘The translation ' Queen of Heaven' (EV) represents
malkat haffamdyîm ; and this interpretation—the only
one which would naturally suggest itself to

3. Title. ne who read the words omga n555 în an un
pointed text-is supported by the oldest exegetical
tradition (48). The vowelled text, however, gives n3%»

(méléhet), treating nia as a defective spelling of noxSn
from naxbo.!° ‘ work,” and this view of the derivation of
the word is represented by Pesh. pw/kde Semayya
(religious work, cultus). ‘The Jewish scholars with
whom this interpretation originated doubtless thought
that the worship of the pres nobo in Jer. 7 44 was the
same as the worship of the ‘host of heaven' (nine: #35).
Jer. 821923 Zeph. 1.5 Dt 419 173, εἴς, .

This identification, suggested perhaps by a general comparison
of the references to these cults, would seem to be confirmed by
the passages in which the worship of the ohm nb appears
τὸ ha equivalent τὸ burning offerings or making fibations “το,
other gods’ (see 718 4435; cp 17-19), as though the cult were
addressed to a collective object such as the beavenly bodies. A
warrant for taking the word maxbi în this sense was found in
Gen. 2 where. σὴ (God's ‘work which he wrought')in τ. z4
is obviously parallel to gay în τι 1.1 This opinion was known
to Jerome, who wxites (Carzse. on Jer.7 18): re, cli. «.
‘quam lunam debemus accipere, vel certe militie celì, ut
omnes stellas intelligamus, and is given a place in the margin
of AV, ‘frame, or workmanship of heaven.'

Modern scholars, however, almost without exception,
have adopted the older and more natural interpretation,
‘queen of heaven' This prevailing opinion was
vigorously assailed by Stade in 1886; he maintained

1 Perite, /B2 17 121 (1898), without apparent reason, connects
2 K. 2376 with this cult.

2 See, for the opposite opinion, Stade, ZATW δ τον δὲ

3 Sco BAKEMEATS, $ 2,

4 [See Lagarde, Ges. “δ. 42, 108.1

3 Jastrow, Dictinary, sw. (otherwiso Levy, Targ. HWB,

8.5}.

#5 Lobec, Aglaophomus, 1060 ff. .

7 See Stengel, Griecd, Awltusaltertimer0ì, 901 for similar
customs among other peoples see Liebrecht, Zur Vo/kskxnde,

625
18-E-mparing the ἀμφιφῶντες of Artemis at the Munychia,
Athen. 14645 A: Preller-Robert, Grisc4. MyMologie, 1312.

9 So Sym., Τῷ.» Rashi, and others.

10 Omission of silent g. Examples of this spelling occur in
Pheenician inscriptionst—e g., CZS 1 no. 86 AZ 69. On the
other hand, many Hebrew MSS în our passage have intro
duced κα into the text.

11 Abarbanel on Jcr. 44 15,25 che opinion gf older interpreters.
Similarly Stade, ZATW' 9339. See also Didarim σοδά, $ 10
end.

3

399%

QUEEN OF HEAVEN

that ΟἹ
that is, the ruling powers, of heaven,' a more compre-
hensive term than ‘host of heaven"; at a later stage of
the controversy he was inclined to conjecture that np
(nube, ‘work*; cp Gen. 21) had been substituted for
μὰν by a scribe or editor to whom the word μπὰς was
offensive. Stade did not, however, establish his main
contention that the rendering ‘queen of heaven' must
be rejected ; the result of the discussion upon this point
was rather to confirm the conviction that that is the
only satisfactory interpretation of the words,!
It is not prcbable that a deity invoked as queen of
heaven, to whose displeasure at the neglect of her
‘fucsia Worship the contemporaries of Jere-
8. Identification. miah could attribute the calamities
that had befallen them and their country, was a minor
figure in the Semitic pantheon ; the presumption is that
the rites described by the prophet belonged to a specific
cult of the great goddess Astarte. The title seems
also to indicate that the worship was addressed to one
of the heavenly bodies, and was one of the particular
cults embraced în the general prophetic condemnation
of the worship of the ‘sun and moon and the whole
host of heaven." From an early time it has been
disputed whether the queen of heaven in the sky was
the moon? or the planet Venus.® The former opinion
was probably in its origin only an application of the
general theory which in the last centuries of the ancient
world identified all manner of goddesses with the moon;
in modern times it has appeared to follow from the
current though ill-founded belief that the Astarte of the
western Semites was a moon goddess. (See ASHTORETH,
$ 4.) In the Babylonian system, which was at the
height of its influence in the W. in the seventh century,
the star of IStar was the planet Venus, whilst the moon
was a great god, Sin. The traces în Syria and Arabia
of cults similar to that described by Jeremiah connect
themselves with the worship of Venus. ὙΠῈ5 the name
Collyridians was given to a heretical Arab sect because
their women offered cakes to the Virgin Mary, to whom
they paid divine honours.£ See also Isaac of Antioch,
ed. Bickell, 12447
More than one of the questions discussed above
would be put beyond controversy if it were established
that »παίξαξμ, or malkatu fa Same, the litera! equivalent
of the Heb. malkaf haimdyim, oceurs in cuneiform
texts as a title of EStar;5 but that the ideogram A4
should be read #2/#2#x is at best'a plausible conjecture,
on which no eonclusions can properly be based. Iitar
is called, however, sel? Same and Sarrat Sam, the
latter exactly corresponding in meaning to the Hebrew
matkat hakiamayim, ‘queen of heaven." In a catalogue
of the names of Venus in various regions and languages
preserved by Syrian lexicographers we are told that
Venus was called ma/42t Xemayyà by the Arzanians,”
that is the inhabitants of Arzon, a diocese in the
province of Nisîbis {Ζ2 ΜῸ 43 394n.). The list shows in
other particulars accurate information, and may be taken
as evidence that a cult of Venus with the epiklesis ‘queen
of heaven' survived in that locality into Christian times.
Herodotus (1105) sets it down that the temple of
Aphrodite Urania in Askalon was the oldest seat of her
worship; thence it passed to Cyprus and Cythera.8

1 See especially Kuenen, Gesammelte Abhandiungen, 185
211. [Cp, however, Crif. Zib.—r.k.c.]

.3 Jerome, Olympiodorus, and very many down to cur own
time.

3 Tg., Isaac of Antioch, and others.

4 Epiph. Her. 78 c. 23 79. 118. Epiphanius recognises the
identity with the worship of the queen of heaven în Jer.7 44.
It is in fact one of those direct transfers of a Venus cult to Mary
of which there are many examples. See Résch, ‘Astarte-
Maria, Sf. Ar. 1888, pp. 265/77

5 Schrader ; for titles see below, $ 4.

8 Eerdmans, MeleAdienst, 86.

7 Bar Bahlùl, col. 244: some codd, have ᾿θατπᾶγξ, See
Lagarde, Gesammelte Abhandlungen, 16.

8 See also Herodot. 1 rar.

3993

QUIRINIUS

va nb (Ὁ νιαϊξη was a collective, ‘the rule, | According to Pausanias (i. 367) the religion was of

‘ Assyrian' (Syrian) origin,! taken up by the people of
Paphos in Cyprus and of Ascalon in Pheenicia; the
Cytherans learned it from the Phcenicians (cp iii. 23 1);
it was introduced into Athens by Aigeus. ‘We may
take these passages as evidence of the belief of the
Greeks that the worship of the ‘heavenly’ goddess
(Αφροδίτη Οὐρανία, more often simply ἡ Οὐρανία) 3 was
of oriental origin. It is highly probable that in this
they were right,3 and that the epiklesis is in some way
connected with the title Queen of Heaven in the
Semitic religions.4
The goddess of Carthage, in the inscriptions 7-x-f
(pronunciation unknown), must have had a similar
title, since by Latin writers and in Latin inscriptions
she is called Coelestis,5
Ailkat în Phoenician and Punic proper names, on
the other hand, is more probably the divine sovercign
of the city or community (cp 4/#/£) than of the heavens,
G. F. Meinhard, ‘Dissertatio de selenolatria,' in Ugolini
Thesaurus, 23811 7. (in Thesaurus fheologico -philologicus,
. 1808 2. this dissertation appears under the
4. Literature, name of Calovius; the older literature very
fuliy given and discussed); Frischmuth,
‘Dissertatio de Melechet caeli,’ in 7Xesaurus #eologico-
philologicus, 1866 f.; 1. H. Ursinus, Questiones biblica,
221-235; J. Ὁ. Carpzov, Afparatus antiquitatum, sro f.; B.
Stade, ‘Die vermeintliche Kanigin des Himmelsy" ZA7W,
6123-132 (1886); ‘Das vermeintliche aramdisch -assyrisches
Aequivalent der ΠΟΤῚ παρα, Jer.7 di’ ΖΑ ΤῊ 6289-3390
(1888); E. Schrader, ‘Die pine n35p und ihr Arambisch-
assyrisches Aequivalent, SBZA, 1886, 1477-491; ‘Die Gettin
IStar als madkatu, ZA 8353-364; A. Kuenen, ‘De Melechet
des Hemels' Verslagen en mededeelingen der Koninklijke
Akademie van Wetenschapen, Afd. Letterkunde, 1888, pp.
157-189 (Germ. trans. {1894], Kuenen, Gesamimelte Abhand-
lungen, 186-211; Eerdmans, Melekdienst, 53/7; Scholz, Gétsen-
dienst und Zauberwesen, 300/, cp 2727). ; Grinbaum, ‘Der
Stern Venus,’ ZD/G, 1888, pp. 45-51. GF. M

QUICKSANDS (cypTic: Acts27 17), RV Byrtis, σιν,

QUILT (033), τ 8. 1913 16, RV®me See BED,
88 3. 4 (δ).

QUINCE. See APPLE, $ 2 (4), col. 269.

QUINTUS MEMMIUS (2 Macc. 1134). See ΜῈΜμ- "

MIUS.

QUIRINIUS (kypHunioc [Ti. ΜΗ], Lk.22). The
name of this official is given in an inscription as P.
Life. Stlpicius Quirinius. The main facts of his
1. Life. \;fe are given by Tacitus, Arr. 348. A native
of Lanuvium, of an undistinguished family, he was
elected consul in 12 B.C. ; some years later he was sent
on an expedition against the Homonadenses in Cilicia,
who had vanquished Amyntas, king of Galatia. For his
successes against these mountaineers he received the
honour of a triumph, When Gaius Caesar was sent
out to the Fast in 2 A.D., Quirinius accompanied him as
his tutor. In 6 A.D, Quirinius was appointed as legatus
of the Emperor Governor of Syria, and in that capacity
took over Judaza on the deposition of Archelaus, and
made a census of the newly annexed district (Jos. Arf
1713 181). Atthis post he remained four or five years.
At a later time (Tac. 4rx. 322) he caused some scandal
in Rome by accusing his divorced wife, Lepida, of having
long before tried to poison him. Unpopular at Rome,
he retained the favour of Tiberius, who in 21 A.D.
procured him a public funeral.

To these facts one of importance is added by the celebrated
Lapis Tihurtinus (C/£ 14 3613), which inscription, though much
mutilated, appears to prove that Quirinius' proconsulate of
Syria in 6 A.D. had been preceded by an earlier tenure of the

1 Cp C/A, 2168627 1588.

2 Cp also Herod. 38 (Arabs). ‘Heavenly’ was originally
meant în a physical sense; the ethica! significance Plato gives
it (Symzos. 180 Ὁ) is arbitrary, and in conflict with what we
know of the attributes and cult of Urania.

3 Farnell, Culfs of #he Greek States, 2620/. 629/. 746f%

4 See Theodoret on Jer. 44 17,

5 Οὐρανία Herodian, 48 exe. div. Marc. 56; cp Philastrius,
Haer, 13. See Réscher, 261477. ; Cumont, in Pauly-Wissowa,
3 1247 //; cp PHENICIA, $ στ (col. 3745/51)

3994

QUIRINIUS

same office, The view of Mommsen is that this previous tenure
was În 3-1 R.C, and that the crushing of the Momonadenses.
who dwelt in Cilicia, at that time attached to the province of
Syria, was an event of this first proconsulate. It cannot well
he dated earlier, because Sentius Saturninus governed Syria
9:7 8.6.) and Quinctilius Varus from 7 Βις. to after the death of
Herod (Tac. Mist 39), since he put down a sedition which
arose when Herad died.

Amid these facts, the statements of Lk. as to the
date and circumstances of the birth of Jesus (21-5) raise
intricate questions. The miraculous
2. The CENSUS. cyents preceding the birth cannot be
discussed from the historical point of view; but the
asserted census in Judeea and the journey of Joseph and
Mary to Bethlehem come within the field of historical
investigation.

Lk.'s statements are as follows :—

(1) Ceesar Augustus decreed a general census of the
Roman world. ΟΥ̓ such a general census nothing is
known from other sources, though Augustus made a
census of Roman citizens only. However, we need
not delay over this statement, which is unimportant
for our purpose, and may be merely an exaggeration.

(2) This census was first carried out in Palestine in
the days of Herod, when Quirinius was governor of
Syria. Here several difficulties arise. From the above-
cited testimony of Tacitus, it appears that Quirinius
was not proconsul of Syria until after the death of
Herod. Palestine being not strictly a part of the
Roman Empire, but a dependent or protected kingdom
under Herod, a Roman census would not be carried
out in that district. On the other hand, we know that
when in 6 A.D. Archelaus the son of Herod was deposed
from his tetrarchy of Judza, and the district was
annexed to the province of Syria, Quirinius, who was
then for the second time proconsul of Syria, carried out
a census in Judzea, which caused, as we learn from
Josephus {472 xvili. 11), much disaffection în that
country. It is not unnataral to suspect that Lk. may
have misdated his census.

(3) For the purposes of the census every man went to
the abode of his family or clan; thus Joseph went to
Bethlehem the town of David, and with him his
affianced wife, Mary. It is, however, pointed out that
in a Roman census every man reported at his place of
residence. No instance is known to us in antiquity in
which the citizens of a country migrated to the ancestral
home of their family, in order to be enrolled. In any
case, no ancient census would require the presence of
any but the head of a household. Women would
certainly not have to appear in person.

These considerations have led many historians, such
as Mommsen, Gardthausen, Keim, Weizscker, and

»g Schirer, to the view that Lk.'s statements
8. open * about the census of Quiriniusare altogether

°° mistaken. On the other hand, some
writers, such as Huschke and Wieseler and many
English theologians, have adopted an apologetic atti-
tude in regard to 1.1.5 statements.® The most recent
apologetic work on the subject is that of Prof. W. M.
Ramsay, Was Christ born at Bethlehem? în which
work it is pointed cut în regard to Quiripius that Lk.
does not say that it was he who conducted the census,
but only that it was made when he was in some position
of authority in Syria (ἡγεμών, not ἀνθύπατος, pro-
consul). He may have been in command of troops of
the Syrian province against the Homonadenses at the |
time. It is further maintained that a census conducted
by Herod in his own dominions might decidedly differ

1 [On the birthplace of David, see Davip, $ 1; Dear};
Jupan, $ 4.]

2 A summary, and refutation of their views will be found în |
Schirer's GY) 510-543 (ET i. 2 105-143). !

3995

QUIVER

from a Roman census, especially in the point that the
people might be numbered not by domicile, but by clan
or family.

A new element has been introduced into the discus-
sion by the discovery from papyri published by Messrs.
Grenfell, Kenyon, and others, that an enrolment
occurred in Egypt at intervals of fourteen years from the
year 20 A.D, onwards, and probably from the time of
the regulation of Egypt by Augustus, that is, also în the
years 6 a.D. and 8 B.C., and further that this enrol-
ment was a census by families, not a mere valuation
of property. One or two definite, though not conclusive,
pieces of evidence, seem to indicate that this periodical
census was not confined to Egypt, but was, in some
cases at all events, extended to Syria,

Arguing on the basis of this new discovery, Prof.
Ramsay maintains that a census may probably have
been held in Syria in 9-8 B.C., and gives certain reasons
why, if Herod at the same time proposed a census in
Judea, he should have postponed it to the year 6 B.C.,
and then carried it out on a different plan from that
usual in a Roman census. The date 6 B.C. Ramsay
accepts as probably that of the birth of Jesus

To set forth Prof. Ramsay's arguments at length is impossible,
and they are so minute as not to bear compression. But if we
frane their validity they leave unexplained several difficulties,

Ἣν should a census în Judxa be dated by Lk. by the
irrelevant fact of a campaign being at the time fought by
Quirinius in Cilicia? Even if an enrolment by tribes was
carried out by Herod, would this be likely to involve a journey
of all Jews to the native town of their family? How could
the presence of Mary be required at Bethlehem, when it was a
seteled principle in all ancient law to treat the male head of a
family as responsible for all itsmembers? In Palestine especially
it is difficult to imagine such a proceeding as the summoning of
women to appear before an officer for enrolment. On all these
questions the new discoveries shed no light.

The last dificulty is further increased by the use by Lk. af
the word ἐμνηστευμένῃ (unless, indeed, ît be an early emenda-
tion of the text by some scribe). For this word implies that
Maryat the time was not the wife of Joseph, but only betrothed to
him, In such circumstances her travelling with him to
Bethlehem is even more inexplicable. She would not go as an
heiress, or in her own right, as we have no reason to suppose
that she was descended from David, and indeed from the
context it is clear that she was not.

Josephus telis us that the census of Quirinius was a
great innovation, causing alarm and revolt ; it is therefore
not easy to think that a similar census can have been
held twelve or fourteen years earlier, and passed off
with so little friction that Josephus does not mention it,
It is true that Prof. Ramsay discriminates in character
the earlier census which he supposes from the Roman
census of Quirinius of 6 A.D.; but ît is doubtful how far
this view is maintainable, especially as Lk. uses the
same word (ἀπογραφή) to designate the known census
of Quirinius and the supposed earlier census (Acts
537). Thus there can be no doubt that the supposition
of errors of fact in Lk. would, from the purely historical
point of view, remove very great difficulties. The
question which remains is whether our opinion of Lk.
as a historian is so high that we prefer to retain these
difficulties rather than to suppose serious errors in his
narrative of the birth of Jesus. See, further, CHRONO-
LOGY, 88 577; GospeLSs, $ 22 (col, 1780, n. 2), and
cp NATIVITY, NAZARETH. P. G.

QUIVER. 1. NDPN, ᾿αἴραλ, cp Ass. ifpatu;
φαρέτρα; praretra; literally in Job 2923 (& om.) 15.396;
figuratively in Is, 492 Ps. 1275 (& ἐπιθυμέαν) Lam. 313 Jer.
516 (ὦ om.)t. in Lam.813 arrows are called ‘sons of the
quiver.”

2. ‘DN, ἐεῖ!, φαρέτρα, praretra; Gen. 27 3.} The sense, how-
ever, is uncertain. (δ, Vg., Tg. Ps.-Jon., Ibn Ezra, render
‘quiver' but Onk., Pesh., Rashi, ‘sword. x5n means ‘to
hang, suspend.' Possibly ΤΠ is a corrupt repetition (ditto-
gram) of the preceding «ba, which word (EV ‘thy weapons')
would quite well referto the quiver and arrrows. ΟΡ WEAPONS.

3996

RAAMAH

RABBAH

R

RAAMAH (MPI: perma [BADSEL] peryma
[A]), one of the sons of CusH [g.v.] Gen. 107 (but
NOP; 1 Ch. 19 ΕΝ Raama). Raamah is also grouped
with Sheba in Ezekiel's list of trade centres (2722
nom; pane [B], ραγμα [AQ}). A Sabeean inscription
(Glaser, 1155) refers to ‘the hosts of Saba and Havilàn'
as attacking certain people ‘on the caravan -route
between Malin (= Main, ὃ Bab. Magan) and Ragmat'
(Hommel, 4477 240; cp ZDAG80 122), Here we have
at any rate one Raamah. Glaser, however, places
Raamah near Ras el-Khaima, on the Persian Gulf
(Skiaze, 2252). Against identification with Regma, on
the Arabian side of the same gulf, see Dillmann. Cp
GEOGRAPHY, $ 23, and Crif. Bib. on Gen. 107 Ezek.
272 where ‘ Raamah' is brought nearer to Palestine.
See CUSH, 2; SABTA.

RAAMIAH (MY), | Yahwè thunders?' cp 3 R. 67,
46 € d, where Rimman, the storm-god, is called the
god sa rimi, i.e., ‘of thunder' [Del. Ass. HW, 605];
the Pheen. proper name NIIMOPY is no support, the
true reading being NIMDYT), one of the twelve leaders
of the Jews, Neh. 77t (Saeua [N], ρεελμα [A], δαιμίας
[L], νααμια [B], ναεμια [Bd]; the last two readings are
due to the proximity of NAHAMANI [g.2.].. Cp
GOVERNMENT, $ 26.

In Ezra 22 the name is miswritten as REELAIAH, and in Zech.
72 (probably) as REGEMMELECH (g.2.). All these forms seem
to come from ‘ Jerahmeel”, The race-element counts for much
in the later history of Israel [Che.].

RAAMSES (Ὁ), Ex. lun
cp PITHOM.

RAB. The use of 21, re, ‘chief, head, leader* in
compound titles descriptive of rank or office {corre-
sponding to the Gr. apyi-) is sufficiently well exemplified
in Assyrian, Phcenician, and Aramaic.

Typical examples are:—raò dwg-Sar-ri ‘head scribe” (see
Scrise), and 725 nfkasi “treasurer’ (cp Heb. D'D9)), see Del.

See RAMESES and

Ass. HWB609b, Pheen. nn 3°, ‘head workman' (CZS164),
DIEb 3°; ‘head of the scribes' (6. 88 14), nyn3 27, ‘head of the
priests' (8. 119), Palm. pbn 53, ‘general anvw 55, ‘leader

of che caravan’ (în ΟΚ, bilinguals στρατηλάτης, συναδιάρχης 1),
pw 37: ‘chief of the market' È (cp pmi 37, ‘head of the ἀγορά");
find Nab. gnuwp 37, ‘chief of the camp(s)”

This usage of 31 seems to be wanting in the S.
Semitic stock, and in Hebrew is not frequent. Here
the more common term employed is sar (*p, peculiar
to Heb.) which is frequently found în pre-exilic writings
(cp PRINCE), and its occurrence in the later literature
should be looked upon in some cases, perhaps, as a
survival of a once popular idiom, and in others as an
intentional archaism.

In the sense of ‘great’ the Heb. γαό is not common*
in the early writings; the best instances being the
poetical fragment Gen. 2523 (‘elder’ opposed to Ὑψ 5),
Nu. 1133 (] or E}, 1 K.197, Am. 62. In agreement
with this is the usage of the Heb. compounds of 3)
which express a rank or office. Of foreign origin, on
the other hand, are the compounds Rab-saris, Rab-
shakeh, and Rab-mag, which appear to be titles borrowed
from the Assyrian. The rest occur in later literature
only, and are mere descriptions of office.

It îs very probabie that they have been formed simply upon
Assyrian or Babylonian analogy ; (a) b'Nz6 29, e K. 258 (in an
exilic or post-exilic narrative, see Kincs, $2 n. 2); cp N38 3,

1 Συνοδεώρχης, apparently, only in inscriptions. | Liddell and

Scpit cite B6Cki, 4489
Ὁ De Vogié, La Syrie centrale, nos. 6, 7, 15, 28, etc.

5 The exact opposite is the case, however, with 29, ‘much,
many’ (as opposed to BID).

3997

{ Dan.214t;1 EV ‘ca

tain of the guard,' AVmg. ‘chief marshal'
(ἀρχιμάγειρος 187 BAQL]),2 see EXECUTIONER, 1. Contrast with
this O*M297 Ni, Gen. 8736 391 4112; (ὁ) n'3 09, Esth.18t,
officer of the household (οἰκονόμος [BRALA]); and (0) YBND 29,
Dan. 134 (sce Rap-sarts), but D'bpI ὝΡ, Dan. 1 γιατ 8} (ἀρ-
χιευνοῦχος [87 BAQT]). “ must probably be looked upon here
asanintentionalarchaism. The writer has modelled the narrative
of Daniel to some extent upon that of Joseph (Bevan, Dar. 31),

and remembers the Ὁ ΕἾΝ Π “È, D'PRBNI SÈ, and ὈΤΙΣΘΩ Sb,
which recur in Gen. 89-41, 5. A.C

RABBAH, RABBATH of the Ammonites (225, N3I
ΕΘΝ ‘32, ραββα, Josh. 18 25 (A], Am. 114 62 1 Ch, 20x [B dis,

once pafBavasaccusative]; ραββαθ, 25. 111122729

1. Name. Jer. 492 [A], 1 Ch.201 [δὲς AI; ραββαθ νἱῶν
ἄμμων, 2 8. 12 26 {B], 17217 (Al, Ezek, 21 το;

peBBa@ Jer. 493 [x]; paBfw@ Jer. 493 [Q*vid.]; ραβαθ Jer. 492
[8]; ραβαθ υἱῶν Αμμων, 2 5.15 6 TA], 11 27 (Β]. In Dt. Bir
® translates ἐν τῇ ἄκρᾳ τῶν υἱῶν Αμμὼν and ἴῃ Ezek. 96 5, τὴν
πόλιν τοῦ Αμμων. In Josh. 1325, B τεδβ᾿Αράδ. The Vulgate
Has Rabba or R6650% according to ine Hebrew construction,
except in Jer. 493 Ezek. 255 where we have Δ αόδαλά for

NOI. In Polyb. Ask v. 74, it appears as ραββαταμανα).

Rabbah is mentioned in Dt. 311 as the location of
Og's ‘bed’ or sarcophagus (see BED, $ 3); also în
τ Josh. 1825, in connection with the borders

2. History. cf Gad. In 25.11 τ Ch.20 we have
an account of the siege and capture of Rabbah by Joab
and David. In the oracles against Ammon by Amos,
Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, Rabbah represents Ammon, as
being its one important city. 761, 494 refers to the
treasures and the well-watered valleys of Rabbah, and
Ἐπεὶ. 255 Amos 114 to its palaces. These oracles
announce the ruin of Rabbah as part of the punishment
of Ammon. In Ezek. 2120 Nebuchadrezzar hesitates
whether to march against Jerusalem or Rabbah, but
decides for Jerusalem by casting lots. Thus Rabbah
was the capital of Ammon during the whole period of
the history of the Ammonites, and shared their fortunes
throughout (see AMMON), It has been suggested that
Rabbah may be ihe Ham (see HAN, 2) of Gen. 1ά ς.

Rabbah continued an important city in post-exilic
times. It is not mentioned in OT in connection
with the Jewish history of the period ; but the Ammon-
ites are referred to in Nehemiah, 1 Maccabees, and
Judith, and doubtless Rabbath remained their capital.
Ptolemy Philadelphus, 285-247 B.C., gave it the name
of Philadelphia, and probably by erecting buildings and
introducing settlers gave it the character of a Greek
city; it became one of the most important cities of
the Decapolis, Eus. Orom. ‘Pauad and ᾽Αμμαν.

In 218 5.c. it was taken from Ptolemy Philopator by Antiochus
Epipbanes, Polyb, 517. In the time of Hyrcanus (135-107 B.C.)
wereadofa Zeno Cotyles, tyrant of Philadelphia, Jos. 474. xiii.81
153. According to a conjecture of Clermont-Ganneau, Rabbath
should be read for Nadabath in 1 Macc. 9.37} see NADABATH.
In 63 8.c. ît was held by che ‘Arabs dos. 571. 63), who were
defesttedi there by Herod, 30 B.c. (1, 195 and 6). The extensive
Roman remains show that ît ated in the prosperity of
Eastern Palestine in the second and third centuries a, n. Later,
it_was the seat of a Christian bishopric. The city is said by
Abulfeda (Ritter, Sy». 1158) to have heen in ruins when the
Moslems conquered Syria.

Rabbah (the mod. Amman} was situated on one of
the head-waters of the Jabbok, about 22 m. E. of
3. Site, the Jordan. 2 S.1226-28 apparently distin-

+ Site. crished between ‘the royal city' or “the city
of waters,’ and ‘the city.' The ‘waters’ referred to in
the second of these names may be the Nahr ‘Amman, a
stream rich in fish, which takes its rise at the site of
Rabbah (so Buhl, Pal. 260 [8 132]. In that case

1 In Dan. also }'330 29, 24 (see Derurv), and RED DI
46511 (see Macic, $ 2a).
2 Compounds of 37 and “jy are alike rendered in @ by ἀρχι-.

3998

RABBAH

the first two names belonged to a lower quarter of the town
in the valley (cp ὃ 4). The ‘ city” may be a designation
of the citadel, which was situated on a hill N. of the
valley. One would naturally like to find some Ammon-
itish ruins. There are old rock-hewn tombs, and the
remains of the outer walls of the citadel seem very ancient,
being formed of great blocks of stone without any cement.
What is left of the city walls may belong to the time of
the Ptolemies. Conder even thinks that the remains of
a reservoir and aqueduct may belong to the subterranean
passage which enabled Antiochus to capture the citadel.
If so, they may carry us back to Ammonite times, and
show how the ancient citadel was supplied with water.
The great bulk of the ruins—baths, colonnades, temples,
theatres, and tombs—are Roman. ‘There is a small
building, which Conder regards as Sasanian or early
Arab; and ruins of a Christian cathedral (sth or 6th
cent. ?) and two chapels. Rude stone monuments
{(dolmens, etc.) have also been found,
Conder, Hetk and Moab, 157-167, Palestine, 175-17, and în
PEF Survey of Eastern Palestine, 11964 (a very full and
exact account of a thorough survey of
4. Literature. ‘Amman, with many fine illustrations);
PERO, 1882, DA 9116; Ὁ. A. Smith, #G;
595-608; L. Gautier, 4% delà du Jourdain(d), 93 f (1896).
[Cheyne (Exd.T, Nov. 1897; Feb. 1899) discusses the titles of
Rabbah in 2 5. 1226, and emends both προσ ὙΨ and obr
into D5)b vY; Wellhausen, however, emends 7501 into
mos. See TAHTIM-HODSHI, $ 2, and cp Cri. 254.]
W.H.B
RABBAH (ΠΞ 7. as if ‘ie Rabbah'; cw@HBa
[B]. apeBBa [AL], Arese), mentioned with Kirjath-
jearim in Josh. 1560. Read most probably ‘ Kirjath-
Jerahmeel the great’ {Che.). See SoLomon, $ 3.

RABBI (pa8Bei [Ti ΝΗ], many MSS paBBi;
Heb. *97), a title of honour and respect given by the
Jews to their learned doctors, more especially to their
ordained teachers and spiritual heads{cp HANDS {LAYING
ON ΟΕ]. 55} (lit. ‘my great one,' with the suff. as in

Heb. ya, Syr. ses; cp Fr. monsieur, etc.) is
from 50 (see Ras) which at a later period among the

Jews was frequently used in the narrower sense not only
of a master as opposed to a servant, but of a teacher
as opposed to a pupil (cp 44044, 16 and 286». 635
where an and vpbn are used of Yahwè and Moses
respectively); see DISCIPLE, ὃ 1. Rab (an older
pronunciation is Rib) was especially used as the title
of the Babylonian teachers, and designates fax excellence
Abba Arskà, a noted exegete of the beginning of the
third century A4,D. Rabbi, on the other hand, was the
title given to Palestinian teachers,! and, used alone,
applies to Jehudah Hannésî, the chief editor of the
Mishna.

In the NT, Rabbi occurs only in Mt., Mk., and Jn.
It is once applied by his followers to John the Baptist
{Jn.326), but everywhere else is used in addressing
Jesus (Μὲ 26254 Mk.95 1121 1445 Jn.138 32 431
625 92 118).? Lk. and Mk. both favour the use of
διδάσκαλε {see DiscirLE, TEACHER}, which in Jn. 138
is the Gr. translation of ραββει, but ἐπιστάτα occurs
only in Lk. (eg. 55845, etc.). Almost synonymous
with paffe are the cerms πατήρ and καθηγητής {Mt
23910) which are probably equivalent to the Aramaic
sas and (so Wiunsche) προ. ὃ

From its use in the NT it is evident that Rabbi had
not yet come to be employed as a title, but was merely

1 The Targ. on 2 K.212 makes Elisha call Elijah Rabbi; cp
Targ. on Ps, 55 14.
2 Fhe AV frequently has Master; cp Mt, 262549 Mk. 4c.,

Jn. 43192 118. The Pesh. renders by gam$ and in Jn.

138826431 62592118 by «Θ΄,

3 Against this see Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, 276, 278 ΚΕΝ
25 a term of address seems to be unknown to the Targumists.
It is rather a title of respect. καθηγητής, according to this
scholar is a Gr. variant to διδάσκαλος.- τι, 10 being another
recension of 7. 8.

3999

RAB-SARIS

a form of address (cp Dalman, Der Gottesname Adonaj,
21), whence Mt. 287 appears to be an anachronism
{cp Griitz, Gesch. 4500). Ewald's argument (GescA. 75.
525 n. 2), from the words of Abtalion in the Pirkè
Aboth, 116 (mugrne au), that 51 and 15} must have
been in use for a long time, rests on an erroneous inter-
pretation of myxn (lit. ‘lordship'; cp Strack ‘herrschaft').

A fuller form is Rabbonî {Mk.105: Jn. 20:6, ῥαβ-
βουνει [B], ραββονί [minusc.], ραββωνεὶ [Δ in Mk. and D
in Jn.]), cp the Aram. 758502 (}i30) another form of
rabban (135), but with the retention of the ἃ sound in
the first syllable,! pov in Aram. is used by a slave of
his master, or a worshipper of his God, and is, like
Rabbi, explained as meaning διδάσκαλε (In. Ze.)
According to ‘Arîich (5, »3&), a jan was more honourable
than a «55, and a +0 than a 2°, but greatest of all was
one whose name alone was mentioned (‘nz 150 dm).
The title 1531 was first held by Gamaliel 1. (see

GAMALIEL).
For the Jewish use of these various titles, see 5.86), sin.
‘Rab, Rabbi,'and for NT usage, Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, ἀγα δὲ
SAC.

RABBITH (N°230; AaBeipon [B]. paBBw@ [AL]),
a city in Issachar, properly h-Rabbith, Josh. 19z0.t
Identified with RAbA, N. of Ibzik {Buhl) 204). Ὁ.
Niebuhr (Gesc&. 1367; cp €?) reads n733, DABERATH
{g.v.]: cp Josh. 2128. But perhaps the true reading is
niafm and P's original authority related to the Negeb

(cp SHUNEM). T.K.c.
RABBONI. See RABRI, end,

RAB-MAG (39729); ra8-mag), a title applied τὸ
NERGAL-SHAREZER [g.v.] (Jer. 393; pabama@ [8],
τὰκ [A]; τὰγ [0]. pa'mat [δ], Bamar
1 Name. [ca]; », ἘΣ PoRomor {Theod. in Ωρ}
om. 65); see Rap. Older critics explain 'chief Magian';
but the Magians (ma01) are a Median tribe according
to Herodotus (1101), and have no place in Babylonia.
Rab-mugi is said to be the title of a physician referred
to în an Assyrian letter (tablet K 519) respecting a sick
man (Pinches in RP) 2:82; cp Wi OLZ, Feb. 1898,
col. 40) Schrader (4471 417 f) and Hommel
(Hastings, D2 12292), however, derive zag from ema,
emgu, ‘wise and Frd. Delitzsch (/7e5. Lang. 13 δ)
from malhu ‘prophet, soothsayer® (=eSfetz, ngn).
From a text-critical point of view these suggestions
have no probability. "There is strong reason to believe
that 35-20 is corrupt. See NERGAL-SHAREZER.
τ. κι €.
The Assyrian term referred to is generally γα mugi,
also raò mugu, There is nothing in K. 519 to connect
è this officer even remotely with a physician :
3. Asegrian see Harper's Ass.-Baò. Letters, 97, for
squivalent: text, and Chr. Johnston's Epis/o/ary
Literature of the Assyrians and Babylonians, 163, for
transliteration and translation. ‘The writer, Ardi-Nanà,
is the Court Physician (as Johnston shows}. The 748
mugi only reports, or brings the report of, the sick man's
condition. He is likely to have been an express mes-
senger. There was a γηὸ wzgi of the difhalli and
another ra8 magi of the zarzabéti (on Rm. 619, no.
1036, see Johns" Assyrian Deeds and Documents, 2, no.
1036). Hence the ‘Ra5-mag may have had to do
primarily with chariots and horses, and been the master
of the horse in the Assyrian Court,
TR. C., 81; CH W.L, ga.
RABSACES (Ecclus. 4818), RV RABSHAKEH.
RAB-SARIS (DMD"DN), the title (so RVME:, and see
RAB) of (4) an officer sent by the king of Assyria to
1 Presselin PRE sv. ‘Rabbinismus,' explains the a to be a
Galilean provincialism; cp Kautzsch, Gram. Βέδί, Aram. το.

The change of è and è is similar to that in Syr. Zesf@ and
πασχα.

4000

RAB-SHAKEH

Hezekiah (2 Καὶ 18:7; padeic [Β], pafcapeic [A],
ράψεις [1]; radsaris), and (δ) ah officer present at the
capture of Jerusalem (Jer. 393, NaBoycapeic [B]
-capie [δὲ Ὁ], -ceerc {N*] and pafcapio [ONE #à
and Theod, in v. 13 where BNA om.} radiares), Τὴ both
passages, however, we should possibly read either δὴν
“via, ‘Arabia of Asshur' (cp TARSHISH) or ΠΝ} sp,
‘the prince of the Arabians’ (see NERGAL-SHAREZER);
indeed in the case of Jer. (Z.c.) the probability îs very
strong. As to 2 K. (Zc.) a doubt is permissible (cp
SENNACHERIB, $ 5), and we therefore offer the views
of Rab-saris which are possible on the assumption that
an Assyrian invasion was really referred to in the
original narrative. The title has often been ìnterpreted
‘chief eunuch,’ and Schrader (4°47°% 319) thinks that
it may be the translation of a torfespohding Assyrian
phrase (so Dillm.-Kittel, /esaîa, 312). ‘This, at any
rate, is not very probable,

Winckler conjectured {Ux#27s, 138) that ἐξ was a reproduction
of an artificial pes phrase rab-fa-235-a learned scribe’s inter.
pretation of rad.sag (RAB.sHArREH), which fs half Sumerfani
while, according to Pinchés (letter in Acad., June 25, 1892),
rab-Sa-reti, ‘chief of the heads’ was the title of the special
officer who had charge of the royal princes (cb Dan. 13).
Finally, Del. (Ass. Ἡ ΠΡΒ 6942) registers Fayz$ as the title of ἃ
court-official of uncertain meaning. We may plausibly hold that
the second element in rab-sarìs ὃς both Hebrew and Assyrian,
but primarily Assyrian (see EUnucH), and that rabssaris (= Heb.
tab-Salit) means chief captain. If so, it hardiy difers from RaB:
SHAKEM (g.0.). .

How ramo an in Dan, 13 (ep v. 7) is to be untlerstooti,
is not quite clear. The context suggests that the writet
misunderstood the phrase which he found already cor-
rupted in 2 K. 1817; fot eunuchs, having the charge of
royal harems, were frequently employed in superintend-
ing the education of princes. See ÈunucH. ven if
the stoty of Daniel has been recast, this explanation may,
at any rate, serve provisionally, TR. e.

ΒΑΒ- ΒΕΛΚΈΜ ΠΡ 51; paya«ic[BNAOPOCL]:
madsaces), the title (so πᾷ. sce RAB) of the officer
sent by the Assyrian king te Herekiah {9 K. 1817-18;
Is. 86 /, and in the Heb. original af Ecclus, 4818, AV
RABSACES:; paBcaxno, 15. 362[B] 4002 87 4[BQM8]
3613[098]378[B! Q!%£]) In its Heb. form it has been
taken to mean 'chiefcup-bearet’; but a cap-bearer would
not have been intrusted with important political business,
‘The word is the exact reproduction of the Assyr. ras
Fate ‘chief of the high vhes' (i.e., bfficers)for so the
Rab Sag or Rab Sac?4 of the inseriptions should be
read (Del. 4ss. 71728, 6854). This was the title of a
military officer, inferior to the Tartan, but of very high
rank. A rub-Szke was despatched to Tyre by Tiglath-
pileser TIT. to arrange about tribute (A°2223, cp Del.
Ze.) Just so the Rab-shakeh goes (with the Tartan,
according to 2 K.) to Jerusalem, “ He is acquainted both
with Hebrew (‘the Jews' language, 2 K. 1826) and with
Aramaie ; such a leading diplomatist needed no drago-
man. Since the time of ‘Tiglath-pileser IIL there was
a large Aramazan population in Assyria. Cp Schr.
AAT 320; ARAMAIC, $ 2. If, however, the original
narrative referred to a N. Arabian rather than an
Assyrian incursion, the name underlying Rab-shakeh
may very possibly be 'Ar&b-kb$, ‘Arabia of Cush.' Cp
RAB-SARIS, T.K.C,

RAGA (paga [TI], paga [Treg. WH]: probably
an abbreviated form of the Rabb. gpm; cp δα, Gatm.
ἰδὲ, Aram. τὸς Dalm. Aram. Gram, 138, fi 2; for
interchange of K and y cp Dalm. ἐδ. 304, n. 2, and see
ACELDAMA, $ t),a term of abuse in the time of Christ,
Mt b22t. Whether it conveysa more or a less offensive
meaning than μωρέ {EV, ‘Thou fool') is disputed ;
indeed, the whole passage, as it stands, is obscure.
According to Holtzmann, there is a double climax in
the clauses introduced by ' But I say to you’; (1) from
*wrath in the heart to its expression in a word, and (2)
from the denial of the intellectual capacity of a brother
to that of his moral and religious character, while the

4901

; (also the Benjamite Axran, nine, © ταφβηλλ

RACHEL

punishments referred to range from that awatided by a
mere local court {' Beth-din ‘) to that by the Sanhedrin,
and finally to that of the fiery Gehenna, Holtamann,
however, understates the offensiveness of Raca and
exaggerates that of μωρέ, Raca (cp 7}. 94) involves
morai more than intellectual depreciation, and μωρός
mowhers in the NT bears the sense of ‘impious’ (the
OT δῶ): see FooL). | Nor is it at all probable that
Jesus would have recognised the provisional institution
of the Sanhedrin side by side with the Messianic punish-
ment of Gehenna, and assigned the punishment of one
abusive expression to the former, and of another to the
latter. The text must have suffered a slight disarrange-
ment ; the clause about Raca should be parallel to the
clause about murder. Read probably thus, ‘ Ye have
heard that it was said to the ancients, Thou shait not
murter, and whosoever murders is liable to the judg-
ment, and whosoever says ‘Raca’ to his brother, is
liable to the Sanhedrin. But I say unto you, Every one
who is angry with his brother is liabte τὸ the (divine)
Judgment, and whoever says, Thou fool, is liable to the
fiery Gehenna.' ΤῊΝ Law as expounded by the Rabbis
treated libellous expressions? as next door to murder.
But such gross offences as murder and calling another
* Raca' could never occur if on the one hand anger were
nipped in the bud, and on the other even such seemingly
harmless expressions as ‘thou simpleton' {uwpé) were
scrupulously avoided. So first 1. P. Peters 181
1013: αὶ [1891]; 15103 [1896]), except that he prefers
to repeat ‘It was said," etc., and ‘But I say,’ avoiding
reatrangement. See FOOL. τι Κις,

RACAL, AV RacHaL,

RACE, RACE-COURSE. See generally HELLEN-
18M, $ 5 {with references), WRESTLING.

‘Race’ is an apt rendering of στάδιον in 1 Cor. 924 (RVmg.
*race.course') and of ἀγών (lit. contest) iù Heb.12r. ‘In Ps,
195 RV prefetably renders ira ima) by ‘comse.’ In Éccles.
9 τὰ, 778505 (fava is properly an abstract ‘rafning’ (EV's rene
dering of Hi, 281809).

RACHAB (Mt15), ἘΝ Raman,

RACHAL, ἘΝ, RacaL. For ‘in Rachal' (225) ἴπ
1S.3029 we ought, probably, following 455. (en
καρμηλω, but en ράχηλ [A]), to read “in Carmel’

Soa): so all crities='A necessary emetidation' (Bu,,
SBOT). See CARMEL, 2, τοὶ. 206.

RACHEL sm ‘ewe,’ see WRS £°in. 219.2 payHA
[BRADEQL]), the ‘mother’ of the tribes of Israel
settled in the highlands of West Palestine,

1a. Mo mere between the Canaahite strips of territory
" at Esdraelon and Aijalon Rachel died
when Benjamin er Benoni was born (Gen. 35167).
Was there, we may ask, at some remote period, a distinct
clan with the ewe ‘RAbel'as its totem, and the ‘mas
sébah of Rachel's grave' (see RACHEL'8 SEPULCHRE)
as its chief sacred spot? The members of such a clan
would be Β΄ πῷ Rahel. They all lived in Lphraim ; but
in time some came to be banded together, as Jeminites
(Benjamin, $ 1), Then, perhaps, the others began
to drop the name b'né Rabel in favour of something
else {cp JosEPR i., g e; EPHRAIM, $ g ii; MANASSEH,
$ a). Rachel, certainly, as far as We can see, was
no mere name, as in historical times was Leah. In
Jer. 3115 (cp Mt. 2:8) we hear of Rachel weeping for

1 On the importance attached to words like Raca, cp A'orax,
17 24, ‘And say not to them, Fie,' and Ghazdli's description of
the weighing οἵ ἃ man's actions ; * But the angel bringeth yet a
leaf vhich he casteth into the scale of the evil actions. On this
leaf is written the word “ Fie!" Then the evil actions outweigh
the good. . + . Theorder is given to cast this man into hell.
(La perle precieuse de Chastli [Gautier], 1878, p. 80.)

2 Grineisen (A4nencu/tus, 257) proposes to read Aharhel for
the /udahite name AHARMEL, comparing GAL ἀδελφοῦ Ρηχαβ

[According to

Cheyne Rachel may be a fragment of baprty, Jerahmeel; see

Jacon 3, ΒΒΑΡΗΆΝ, and for a similiariy doubiful name, see
EAH.Ì

4002

RACHEL

her children (although there is. no explicit indication
who these are understood to be); and at a later
date, in the story of Ruth, Rachel and Leah are
the builders of the “house of Israel' (Ruth 41). Ac-
cording to the legend as we know it (both J and E)
Rachel was the beloved wife, a feature that it is natural
to connect with the acknowledged superior splendour
and power of northern Israel. ‘There is a remarkable
passage in J, however, where Jacob seems to speak as if
he had had only two sons (Gen. 4238). The question
therefore arises whether there may not have been an
older form of the story where Rachel was the only wife,
just as Rachel's ' double,' Rebecca, was the only wife of
Isaac. This question Steuernagel answers in the affirma-
tive (Zinwanderung, 39). He also makes the interesting
suggestion that there may be a monument of the
importance of Rachel in the name Israel. As the men
of the Gad tribe were called Ish Gad (see Gab, 8 1),
so, Steurnagel suggests, the men of the Rachel {or
Jacob, or Joseph) tribe were perhaps called I5-Ra'-el
(on $ see SHIBBOLETH, and on the change of ἢ to’ in
words containing a liquid, see REUBEN, col. 4092,
n. 9.
We must now consider Rachel's relation to Bilbah.
Rebecca has no such attendant (DEBORAH [g.%., 2]
: is not represented as a concubine of
10. Relation to Isaac). Sarah, however, has Hagar;
"and in Sarah's as in Rachel's case, the
son of the wife is not born till after the son of the con-
cubine, This is obscure {cp MANASSEH, $ 3), In
Rachel's case the most natural conjecture would be that
*Joseph' was not born till after the sons of Bilhah were
settled in Canaan, So Guthe (GY 41). Steuernagel
thinks that Rachel {or rather Jacob-Rahel) entered
Palestine from the E. just in the rear of Bilhah {δ μ-
wanderung, 98; cp Guthe, GVZ 42), and that it was
because the Bilhah tribes (Dan and Naphtali) came to
be treated as ‘brothers’ of Joseph that their ‘ mother
Bilhah came to be called a concubine of Jacob. Why
only Rachel was a full wife is often explained by the
importance of the Rachel tribes in historical times.
There may, however, have been religious grounds (50,
for example, Stevernagel, Zinwanderung, 45). Of
what race her maid came we are not told {on the state-
ments in later writings, see ZILPAH, $ 1); but Rachel
herself was a daughter of Laban, which appears to point
t a belief in the presence of Aramaean elements in N.
Israel (differently, LABAN, REBEKAH). If Rachel was
the chosen wife of Jacob, she was not the only one. The
surreptitious introduction of Leah seems an important
feature of the story. Quite as difficult of clan-historical
interpretation is the representation of Rachel as Leah's
sister.1 Are we to infer that there were once actually
two tribes, a Ewe tribe and a Wild-cow tribe, living in
association? If so, where and when? Or is it that
when the northern Ephraim tribes came to be associated
with the southern tribes they came all to be regarded as
brothers, and therefore as having a common father
though different mothers? ‘The theory is attractive.
It explains, however, why Rachel and Leah are fellow-
wives, hardly why they are sisters.?
The points that remain are the stealing of the teraphim,
the initial barrenness, and the story of the dùda’im,
‘The stealing of the teraphim by a woman
Le. other as a feature ἴῃ this quaint story tells us
PoinÈS. something of the light in which the teraphim
came to be viewed (Gunkel compares the case of Michal,
cp HPSm. Sam. p. xxxiv.). [τ is through the initial
barrenness that Dan and Naphtali come to be older than
Joseph {see NAPHTALI, $ 2). The real origin of the

1 In Test αἰΐ, Patr., Naph. 1, eto., Bilhah and Zilpah also
are sisters, See ZiLpaH, $ 1, >

3. Perhaps they were sisters simply because of {he frequency
of such a marriage of sisters in the society in which the story
was told (see MARRIAGE, $ 5, (1)). [For a different view, see
REBEKAH.]

4003

RACHEL'S SEPULCHRE

story of the dida'im is not clear (see ISSACHAR, $ 2,
REUBEN, $ 3, NAPHTALI, $ 2). E does not mention
them ; but in the original 1 they no doubt cured Rachel’s
barrenness. This is now obscured, as the birth of
Zebulun precedes that of Joseph. According to the
dates assigned to the births in the present text of
Jubilees, 2823 f., however, Joseph comes immediately
after Issachar, before Zebulun, although it is Joseph
and Zebulun, not (as it ought to be) Joseph and Issachar
that are born in the same year. On the general
question of the order in which the tribes are enumerated,
see TRIBES. Η. W. H.

The death of Rachel is related in Gen. 8616-20 (JE);

the narrative throws much light on the earlier phase of

Rachel’ the tribal traditions, but needs perhaps to

2 Rachel be studied in connection with a compre-
*.hensive textual criticism.

As pointed out in Jacos, $ 3, the phraseology of Gen. 291
suggests that, according to a very early form of the tradition, the
home of Laban was among the Jerahmeelites of the S. Evidence
which was not in the writer's hands when that article was
written, or at least was not fully appreciated by him, is now
before him in abundance, showing that this was indeed the case
—i.e., that Laban was indeed originally regarded asan Aramzan
or Jerabmeelite (p3»=5xpny) of the 8. Laban's Haran was,
however, not Hebron but a district of the Negeb which also
supplied to Sanballat (?) the designation in (MT Hordai),
*Haranite' (sce SANBALLAT). It was there that Rachel and
Leah—a distinction without a difference, if ὉΠῚ and nb are both
corrupt fragments of Jerahmeel—dwelt, according to the carly
tradition and the ‘Bethel,’ where the divinity appeared to Jacob
was,.if not, strictly speaking, in ‘the land of the b'ne Jerahme'el”
(291), at any rate, at no very great distance from it, for, like
Haran, it was in the Negeb. In the Negeb, too, was the Gilead
of the famous story of the compact between Jacob and Laban,
and of not a few other much misunderstood OT passages, and in
the Negeb was ‘ Shechem'—i.e., Cusham (see Shecnem, 2). It
therefore became superfluous to emend the ‘Ephrath' of
Gen. 851619 into ‘Beeroth,’ a change which on a more con
servative view of the tribal traditions (see EPHRATH, 1}
Joserti i, $ 3) was helpfal, and indeed necessary. The
*Ephrath" of the story of Rachel's death is the Ephrath of the
Negeb (în Cen. 214 Jer. 184 δ᾽ ît appears to be called Pèrath;
cp ParabiISE, $ 5; ΘΗΙΗΟΚ),; its other name, according to thé
gloss in 2. 19, was nnb-n*2, a popular distortion of Synny* n'a,
‘Beth-jerahmeel.” See RacHeL's SeruLcHRE, "Thus * Rachel'
(the vocalisation îs of course relatively late, and not authoritative
for the early tradition)—z.e., Jerahmeel—was fitiy enough buried
at one of the leading centres of the Jerahmeelite race in the
Negeb. Before her death she gave Dirth to a son variousiy
called Ben-oni and Ben-jamin. ‘On’ is one of the place-names
of the Negeb (see On i.), and ‘Jamin' is, in its origin, a popular
corruption of an abbreviated form of ‘Jerahmeel. (There is,
in fact, enough to warrant the surmise that Benjamin's original
home was in the Negeb) The early tradition also made a
statement respecting the distance between the place where
Rachel died and Ephrath or Beth-jerahmeel.

There was but 4ibrafk Ad-dres (yum ne22) to come to
Ephrath when Rachel travailed. None of the ex-
planations of Zi5raf£ in Ges. Thes., or elsewhere is
satisfactory,! and in the Psalter pu and ΠῚ have a
tendency to get confounded. Probably we should read
Rimbat ha-drah, min vyp9, ‘a trifle (left) of the way."
See RACHEL'S SEPULCHKE.

H.w. H., $14-; T.K.C., 8 2.

RACHEL'S SEPULCHRE. The biblical references
are (a) Gen. 35198 (JE), (6) 4875 (R), (c} 15.102 Κὶ
(4) Jer. 3115, (e) Mt. 2:6-18. It is generally supposed
(see Buhl, Pal 159, and Dillm. on Gen. 8519) that
either (i.) there was a double tradition with reference
to the site of Rachel's grave, one (4, è, e) placing it
near Bethlehem in Judah, another (c, 4) ‘in the border
of Benjamin’ towards Ramah (so Néld., Del. δ), Dillm.);
or (ii. ) the gloss ‘ that is Bethlehem ' in (2) and (6), which
(e) appears to follow, is based upon a geographical con-
fusion and is to be disregarded (so Holzinger, Gunkel,
and Oxf Hex.). The weak point în i. is thought to be

1 imppis conventionally regarded as a measure (@ ἱππόδρομος;
Pesh. ἃ Parasang) Of course, the Ass. Zibx4/, ‘a quarter of
the world,’ can hardly, by any ingenvity, be made illustrative.
It is clear that the text iscorrupt. So alsoinaK.519 7 ΠῚ22
(noarticle before γὴν) is shown by the context to be corrupt (see

NAAMan)
4004

RADDAI

that Rachel has nothing to do with the S. kingdom, and
the weak point in ii. certainly is that a N. Ephrath is
undiscoverable. Before procceding further we must
criticise the text (see Cris. 8:0.).

(4) and (δ) Ὡπῦτπα is a popular corruption of benny n'a.
*Ephrath* and ‘Beth-jerahmeel' are both place-nmes of the
Negeb. Webhave no reason to doubt that the gloss in Gen. 35 τοῦ
and 4878 is correct, and that Beth-jerahmeel either had Ephrath
85 [15 second name, or was in the district called Ephrath. We
must remember that Ephrath was traditionaliy the wife of Caleb
ἃ Ch. 219). A A :

(©) The geographical description has suffered serious corrup-
tion. The text should run, ‘When thou departest from me
to-day, thou shalt find two men by Beth-jerahmeel in Shalishah."
See SHALISHA, ZELZAH,

(©) Jer.81 being most probably oflate origin, we could not be
surprised if it contained a statement based on a misunderstanding
of the Rachel tradition. It 15 quite possible, however, that the
Ramah spoken of is the same that is meant in the underlying
original of Jer. 401 £ which probably referred to a Ramah
{=Jerahmee}) in the Negeb, which was the starting-point of the
captives who went to a N. Arabian exile. If so, the writer may
also conceivably have known of Rachel as having died and been
buried in the Negeh. Taking, as was supposed, a profound
interest in the fortunes of her descendants, Rachel had never
ceased to grieve over the tribe of tese, which had gone into
exile with other N. Israelites in N. Arabia (see Crif. 275. on
2 K.1761), When, however, the Jerahmeelite setting of che
early Israelite legends, and the N. Arabian exile of the two
sections of the Israelite race, had passed into oblivion (partly
through corruption of the texts), it was natural that the sepulchre
of Rachel should be transferred to the N., in spite of the fact
that no Ephrath was in existence to impart to this transference
a superficial plausibility.

According to JE, the site of Rachel's tomb was marked
by a sacred pillar (see MASSEBAH), which existed in the
writer's time {Gen. 3520). The tomb known în our own
day as Rachel's has plainly been restored, though the
tradition has attached to the same spot throughout the
Christian period. It is a short distance from Bethlehem,
on the road to Jerusalem, According to Clermont
Ganneau,?it may perhaps be the tomb (cenotaph) of the
Jewish king Archelaus (cp HEROD, $ 8) referred to by
Jerome (05 101 12). T.K.C

RADDAI (" 1), son of Jesse, and brother of DAvID
[ro 8 ra, n.] (1 Ch. 2z4t; zadda: [B], zaBA. [Bb],
Pardal [A], pedai [L]). Ewald identifies with him the
corrupt ‘y2 (Rei) of 1 Κα. 18, see SHIMEI 2. ‘The name
is more probably a corruption of mar {see Marg. Fund.
25 cp @ B?>}; see ZABDI.

RAFTS (ΠἸἼ31), τ K. 423[59]. See Suip, $ 1.

RAGAU, 1. See RAGES.
εἴ (ραγαν {Ti.WH]), Lk.8 35, RV Rev. See ΘΕνεαιοσιεβ,
Î 83

RAGES (parac, -γων, «roi [TH -ΓῊ BA 610 is
uncertain ; in Tob. 420 δὲ appoicì rages [Vg.]. réga
[Syr.}), an important city in NE. Media, situated in the
province of Rhagiana, near the celebrated Caspian Gates,
and hence a place of great strategical importance. It is
frequently mentioned in the above form in the Book of
Tobit (1144120 5561392). In Judith (1515) the name
appears as Ragau (payav, ragaz [Vg. 1, ‘plain of Dura,"
and χάρι [Syr.]), which is apparently identical with
REU [g.

This city, which is frequently mentioned by classical
writers, occurs as Rhaga in the Avesta (Verd. ch, 1),
and also in the Behistun Inscription of Darius Hystaspis
2 13). After suffering various changes, it fell into decay;
but the name may perhaps survive in the huge ruins
of Rkey, situated some 5 m, SF. of Teheran, See
Rawlinson, Monarckies, 2 272 fi; Curzon, Persia,
1345:352 Smith's Dick gf Gr. and Rom. Geog., 5.0.

RAGUEL (a). (1) RV REUEL. See JETHRO,

REUEL. (2) a man of the tribe of Naphtali (Tob. 612;
cp 11 74), related to Tobias; husband of Edna, whose

1 It îs there shown that there has been a confusion between
two captivities of N. Israel, an Assyrian and a N. Arabian.
2 Recueil d'archéol. orientale, 2134 fi

8 Cp xs Nyp3 Dan. 81, and see Dura, Duru was not an
ancommon Babylonian name,

4005

RAHAB

only daughter Sara became the wife of Tobias

paroyHà, 3717; *HAOC}

In Enoch 204 Raguel is the name of one of the archangels.
Perhaps this was suggested by Tob.317, where the name
Raguel occurs in connection with Raphael (both names may
have a similar origin; see ReveL, RAPHAEL). ‘hat the
name has any reference to this angel's réle as ἃ ‘chastiser’
(Charles on Enoch 20 4) is hardly probabile. τ᾿ Κι

RAHAB (217), a synonymous term for the DRAGON
(g.v.) in post-exilic writings, sometimes also applied to
Egypt (or, as may plausibly be held, to Misrim, the N.
Arabian foe of Israel; see MIZRAIM, $ 28), Job 913
{κήτη τὰ ὑπ᾽ οὐρανόν), 2612 (τὸ kiros), Ps. 8910 [1r]
(ὑπερήφανον), Is. 519 (LXX om.), 307 (ὅτι ματαία ἡ
παράκλησις ὑμῶν αὕτη), Ps. 87 4t (paaf8).?

From Job 913 2612 we perhaps learn that Rahab was
another name for Tiamat, the dragon of darkness and

chaos. ‘God,' says Job in his de-
1. References. ,rondency, ‘will seitan ΠΝ
[even] the helpers of Rahab bowed beneath him." On
the ‘helpers of Tiamat,' see DRAGON, $ 5. Later, Job
again refers to the fate of Rahab {or is it Bildad,
following cut Job's suggestions in his unoriginal way?).

By his power he threatened {μὴ the sea,
And by his skill he shattered Rahab.

Here 'sea' and 'Rahab' are coupled, as ‘sea’ and
‘ Leviathan,’ probably, in Job 88 (see LeviATHAN}), and
in 2. 13 the ‘dragon’ is referred to. In Ps.899/ [τὸ 5]
the same parallelism is observable, and since 2, 11 proves
that the psalmist has the creation in his mind, the view
that Rahab is a synonym for Leviathan or the dragon
again becomes plausible. The passage runs, —

Thou (alone) didst crush Rahab as a dishonoured corpse ;

With thy strong arm thou didst break down thine enemies.
The invocation to the arm of Yahwè in Is. 519 also
refers to Rahab. Here, however, though the allusion
to the Dragon-myth is obvious, there is also a special
reference to pmw (see DRAGON), or perhaps to the
people called Misrim in N. Arabia. How this was
possible we seem to learn from Is. 307 {on the text see
SBOT, ad loc.). It has been held (cp Duhm, αὐ /oc.)
that the latter half of the verse is a later addition.
Living in an age when the mythological interest bad
revived, a reader was struck by the resemblance between
the characteristics of the dragon of chaos and those of
ams. Both were pre-eminent in strength; both in
the olden time had rebelled against Yahwè; for paso,
therefore, as well as for the dragon, the fate of abject
humiliation (cp Is. 19) was reserved. In Ps. 874 Rahab,
according to the exegetical tradition, is simply a synonym
for Egypt (as the Targum already explains it), though
even here this is not beyond critical questioning.

Rahab in Hebrew would mean ‘raging,’ ‘insolence.’
This would be not unsuitable as a title of the chaos-
‘o, dragon, a reference to which is plainl
2. Menniug: intended in ali the above passages except
the last. It would not be strange, however, if Rahab
were a Hebraised form of some Dabylonian mythic
name. In the third of the creation-stories mentioned
elsewhere (see CREATION)—that which begins ‘cities
sighed, men [groaned]'-—the dragon is repeatedly called
by a name which Zimmern and Gunkel would like to
read rebbu (for *vukbu), and to consider the Ass. equiva-
lent of Rahab. The name, if it means 'violence,'
would be specially appropriate in the story of the
tyranny exercised by Tiamat. Unfortunately the read-
ing is uncertain "The polyphonous character of the
Assyrian script allows us equally to read #a/8z, ‘dog,’
and /a88%, ‘ lion' (Gunkel, Sc448f 29418). For another
theory of the origin and precise significance of the title
Rahab we may be allowed to refer to Crit. 2i6.

T.K.C

1 In Job 913 2612 Is.519, Symm. has ἀλαζονείᾳ, ἀλαζονείαν,
in Is 519307 Aq. ὅρμημα, Theod, πλάτος, in ls. 80, Symm. hag
ταραχαΐ or 204, in PS, 87 4 Aq, has ὁρμήματος, Sym, ὑπερηφανίαν.

4006

RAHAB

RAHAB (27; paab), Josh. 213 6172325 The
story of Rahab must not be taken literally. She is
clearly the eponym of a tribe, and the circumstances of
the tribe are reflected in her fortunes, ‘The statements
in Josh. 623 25 apply to no tribe known to us so well as
to the Kenites, who were admitted among the Israelites
on relatively unfavourable terms—as sojourners ; hence
the term sorndf. ‘The name am is best accounted for as
the equivalent of 34m, ‘ Heber,' the second name of the
tribe of the Kenites.1 See JERICHO, $ 4; RECHABITES.

In Heb. 113: Rahab is praised as an exnmple of faith.
‘This is suggested by the edifying speech of Rahab in
Josh. 29-τι, of which, however, only v. pa is recognised
by critical analysis as belonging to the earlier narrative
{see Oxf. Hex. 2321}. It #5 no doubt startling that
Rahab should be a worshipper of Yahwè--1/ Rahab is
to be viewed as a Canaanite, If, however, Rahab is a
symbolic term for the Kenites, all becomes plain, for the
Kenites were worshippera of Vahwé (cp KENITES).
The attempis of (later) Jewish and Christian interpreters
to explain away the term sd’d4, ‘harlot,' as ' hostess,
innkeeper,' also now prove to be doubly unnecessary
{see above). On Rahab's good works (James 225), cp
the Jewish view in Weber, γώ, Theo, 332.
mention of her in the genealogy of Jesus (Mt. 15) rests
on the assumption that she became the wife of SALMON
[g.v.]. No less a man than Jeremiah is stated in
Afegillah 145 to have been a descendant of Rahab on
his mother's side. ‘This passed for an edifying belief.

TKk.c

BAHAM (DIM), son of SHEMA Ὁ, HeBRON, Ὁ.
MaresHaK, and father of JorKrAM {gg.0.}: 1 Ch.
244 (pamee [8], paem' [A], -am [L]). See REKEM.

RABEL (Jet. 8115), RV RACHEL

RAIN. That at the present day rain is considered
in Palestine as one of God's best gifts, is undeniable.
Moslems, Christians, and Jews can
1. Comoepiton unite in imploring heaven for the
* — *showers that water the earth' (Ps.
724), Butitis a question whether the fertilising opera-
tion of the Baalim was associated in early times with
the rain of heaven, or only with springs, streams, and
underground flow [cp BAAL, 8 1). Robertson Smith,
who discusses the subject fully in ReZ Sem. lect. 3,
comes to the conclusion that originally the Baalim were
gods of the streams and fountains, but that, as
husbandry spread, the ‘gods of the springs’ extended
their domain over the lands watered by the sky, and
gradualiy added to their old attributes the new character
of ‘lords of rain’ {p. 106). Vahwé in the OT is
certainly the rain-giver ; Jer. 1422, ‘Can any of the
vanities of the heathen cause rain?” In Ps.659[10],
according to the traditional text, the early rain is
called ‘the river of God.' The word used (1bp) is re-
markable. Generally it occurs in the plural for the
artificial streams used in irrigation (15, 3025 324 Ps.la
119136 Prov. 516 211 Lam. 848). Here, if MT is right,
there is a similar conception. ‘The rain is imagined
as water which has been drawn from the great beavenly
reservoirs (Gen. 732) and sent down on earth through
the solid domé of the sky. ‘This is illustrated by
Job 3823, ‘ Who has cdeff a channel for the waterflood"
(so RV} J4%e54, np, ‘torrential 1ain'), With this cp
v. 28, where the ‘rain’ (24/4, “δῷ and the ‘ parted
streams of dew' (read by v15p, for Sh ban; see DEW)
are parallel expressions.

Naturally, rain and rain-mist (#27, Su) are prominent
in poetic benedietions. In Dt, 8813 the ' precious things
of heaven above’ (reading 5yb for Sum)? are the rain,
the rain-mist, and the dew. In Gen. 2728 the fine rain,
or rain-mist, of heaven stands first among the blessings

1 For a less probable view see C. Niebuhr, GescA, 1353.

2 Tg., Onk and Pesh. combine the readings by and bum.
The ficmer therefore is no modern conjestura, e. ‘9°

4007

"The ‘

RAIN

called down upon Jacob's land by Isaac, In Dt. 2812
Moses promises to obedient Israel that Yahwè ‘will
open his good treasury, the heaven, to give the rain in
its season’; to this treasury the Book of Enoch refers
{8020f. 8923); cp Diw. Τῆς 'sel@-springing plants of
Vahwée' in Is. 44 (5807) are those which depend on
the moisture which God sends from this heavenly store»
chamber. Notice, too, that in Ps. 10413 God is said to
*water the mountains frotà his upper chambers.' It is
a slightly different mythic symbol which a poet in Job
uses=-' Who (but Yahwè) can tilt the bottles of heaven?*
(Job 8837). To be able to bring rain through prayer
was one of the greatest proofs of eminent piety, Elijah
‘prayed ferventiy that it might not rain, and it rained
not,’ etc. (Jas. δ 17}; and Josephus (Ant xiv. 2x)
relates that, in the time of King Aristobulus, there was
ἃ man named Onias, ‘righteous and beloved of Gad,
who by his prayers could bring rain to the parched
earth. Cp PRAYER.

Palestine is well described in Deut.11xt (in contra.
distinetion to Egypt} as ‘a land of hills and valleys,

which drinks water, when rain falls
2. Former and from heaven’ Shortly afterwards
ἦς (v. 24) a fuller description is given
See also Hos. 63 Joel 223 Zech. 101 (se@ Nowack),
Job 2923, and Ja.57 (πρόϊμον καὶ ὄψιμον ; BN insert
ὑετόν, giving the sense rightly). ‘The distribution of
rain is very unequal. On one occasion Thomson found
the ground in the Jordan valley like a desert, while at
Tiberias the whole country was ‘a paradise of herbs
and flowers.’ Just so it was in ancient times. ‘I
caused it to rain upon one city, and caused it not to
rain upon another city : one piece was raîned upon, and
the piece whereupon it rained not withered' (Am. 47).
‘The prophet continues, ' So two or three cities wandered
unto one city to drink water, but they were not satis-
filed," on which Thomson remarks that this is ‘a fact
often repeated' in Palestine.! The variableness of the
climate helps to account for the frequent failure of the
crops, both in ancient and in modern times, and gives
point to the promises of regularity in the seasons on
condition of obedience to the diviné commands.? The
former or autumnal rains (av mu) usually begin about
the end of October. In Lebanon they may begin a
month earlier; but no dependence can be placed upon
this, and according to Thomson (£2 90) the winter
rains are sometimes delayed till January. They are
usually accompanied by thunder and lightning (Jer.
10:3). The next four months may be called the rainy
season. In April rain (the latter rain, 2ip%p a/Wp9, "το
be late') falls at intervals; in May the showers nre
less frequent and lighter, and at the close of that month
they cense altogether,

It appenrs from Glnishera observations (PEZO, 1890, P. 72)
that dii hoaviose monthly rainfall in 1897 was 11.31 in, in
enna ; the next, 6.74 in: in December, and that the total fall
for the year was 27.72 if. Thisrefersto T'iberias. At Jerusalem
the total fali was 41.62 in. At Tiberias no rain fell from May
25 τὸ Oct. 29, making a period of 156 consecutive dayt without

rain. At Jerusalem, none fell from May 26th to Oct. 20, making
a period of 146 consecutive days without rain,

1. BW, φόδενκ, a violent downpour, 1 K.1841 Ezek. 1811;
continuous, Ezra 10913} such as the early or latter rain, Lev.
264 sa 524 Joel 223; accompanied with wind,
8, Hebrew “Κι 817 Prov. 2514

terme. 2. 350, mAf4r, a more gieneràl term, ιν
‘the rain (Ὁ) of heaven, Dt. li:r. A τους
rential rain is ‘a aweeping rain' (Prov. 28 3); or the two words

8} and “pp may be combined, Zech. 101 Job 876.
3. DI, τέρεν, a rainestorm, Is. 254 252 822 Hab.310 Job
248; sometimes accompanied by hail, Is.282 3030. The sup

posed occurrences of a verb denom. (Ps. 7718 905, MT) are
probably due to corruption.

4, and 5. NI, γόγελ, and MID, 210964, the former rain, and
ΦΈΡ, sralktof, the latter rain, see $ 2.

6. ΝΠ Ἵ, γέδιδῆρε, EV ‘showers,' Jer. 83 1402 Mi. ὁ 67]
Di 322 δ τα [10] Τῷ δῇ.

1 The Land and the Book, 305.
4008

1 Ibid. go,

RAINBOW

7 D'D'DI, résisim (from y/DDI, “sparsit, stillavit’), sprinkled
anoisture, In Cant. 5 α΄ (EV ‘drops ofthe night*) of the night
mist (see Dew), but probably applicable to rain in general {see
55. In Dt. 322 Lagarde and Gràtz correct p‘pyy into
D'DDI In Ps. 10413 also ἢ 9 should perhaps be read for
yo ‘IS, T.K.C.
RAINBOW. τ. ngp #efek (τόξον), Gen. 913 7
Ezek. 128 Ecclus. 4311. On Gen. 913/77 see DELUGE, $ 11.

2. ἴρις, Rev. 43101.

RAISINS. τ΄ tpios, simmiize, see FRUIT, $ 4.

2 perwa, dii4, Hos.31, ΕΥ̓͂. See FRUIT, $ 5.

RAKEM (Ὁ), 1 Ch. 7 τό EV, pausal form for
REKEM, 4.

RAKKATE (NPI, ‘bank,’ an Aramaic word?
Aake@ [B], pexka8 [A], pa. [L]), a ‘fenced city”
of Naphtali, mentioned between Hammath (S. of
Tiberias} and Chinnereth {on the upper part of
the F. side of the Sea of Galilee), Josh. 1935. Two
identifications of Rakkath are offered in the Babylonian
Talmud in the same context (ΤῸ. 55, 6a). According
to R. Johanan, Rakkath was the important city of
Sepphoris. But the etymological midrash attached to
this identification is such as entirely to discredit it.
Raba, on the other hand, refers to a generaliy received
opinion that Rakkath is Tiberias, and according to
Neubauer (δον. du Taim. 209) the use of the name
Rakkath for Tiberias lasted into the fourih century Δ. Ὁ.

Certainly the position of Rakkath in the list of cities .

at least permits this view. Only, (1) we must not
suppose that Tiberias stood exactly on the site of
the ancient Rakkath. For, as Josephus informs us
(Ant, xviii. 23), the land upon which it was built had
been occupied by tombs, which implies that the ancient
town (however it was named) had lain at a short distance
from the site of the new city. And (2) it is possible
enough that np1 is a fragment of np (city of), and
should be prefixed to nn13 (Chinnereth). T.K.C.

RAKEON (}ìPI, not in &4; 6% μρεκκων),
Josh. 1946 (probably a ver ai4i/7). Sce ME-JARKON.

RAM (5): pam [BAL]. τ. The name of a
Judahite family, whose eponym is variously described
as the second son of Hezron the grandson of Judah
{x Ch. 29: pax and apag [BA], ἀραμ [L]; 7. 10, appar
{B, cp pig τ. 55], apag [AL]), and as the firstbom son
of Jerahmeel the firstborn son of Hezron (w. 25, par
[B]: ©. 27, ἀραμ [B]). ‘The same supposed person is
also named in the (late) genealogy of David, as the son
of Hezron, Ruth419 (appar [BA], apog: [L}), and con.
sequently in Mt.134 {ARAM [AV]; Ram [ΕΝ]; Apag
IBN etc.]: see also ARNI, Τῆς, 333). Doubtless Ram is
ἃ shortened form of some well-known name, hardly
Jehoram (Nùld.) or Abiram {Klost. Gesc&. 1x2), but
rather the name from which both these names probably
sprang—Jerahmeel (Che.).

2. Name of the supposed family of the Elihu of Job (822;

βαμ {BN}; ραμα [A]; ἀραμ [C]), certainîy not a shortened form
Of the ethnic name Aram, unless there was a southern Aram.

RAM bra), Gen. 157, etc. See SHEEP.

RAM, BATTERING (9), Ezek. 422127[22]). See
Stece, $2/

RAMA (pamo [Ti.WH]), Mt. 2:8, RV RAMAH.

RAMAH (199 Jer. 31:5 Neh. 1133, elsewhere
ΤΟΎΣ, ‘the height"; usually pama [BAL]; gentilic,
ΠῚ, Ramathite ; see ΒΗΙΜΕῚ, 9). 1. A city of the
tribe of Benjamin, Josh. 1825 Neh. 1133 (BN*A om.),
incidentally referred to in Judg. 1913 (om. 684) Is.1029
Hos.58 (ἐπὶ τῶν ὑψηλῶν [BAQ]}, Ezra 226 (αραμ [B],
τῆς pasa [AL]), and stated in 1 K. 1517 (ρααμα [B],
ραμμαν [A], paua [L.]) to have been fortified by Baasha
king of Israel in order to isolate Jerusalem {cp Asa).

Near it lay the grave of Rachel, according to Jer. 3115 |

{τῇ ὑψηλῇ [N*A]), where the tribal ancestor is poetically
4009

| with ancient remains, 2600 ft.

RAMATH-MIZPEH

represented as appearing on her grave, and uttering a
lamentation for the exile of her children.! Near it was
also, a later writer believed, the palm tree of the
prophetess Deborah (Judg. 45, τῆς βαμα [Β], cana [A]).
This Ramah is no doubt the mod. e-+-/dx, a village
above the sea-level,
5 m. N. from Jerusalem. {115 rediscovery is due to
Robinson (24 1576).

2. The home of Samuel and his father Elkanah (1 S.
1 19 211717 84 1524 1613 1918 7 251 283), also called,
or rather miscalled, in EV of 1S.1:, RAMATHAIM-
ZOPHIM [g.®.]. It was in the hili-country of Ephraim
and more particularly in the land of ΖΌΡΗ [g..]
According to Eus. and Jer. who call it apua@en veda
Armathem Sophim (OS 22512; 9817) it was near
Diospolis, and Jer. adds that it was ‘in regione
Thamnitica.' ‘This addition agrees with what is said
in 1 Mace. 11 34 of RAMATHEM [φ.Ὁ.} as having
originally been reckoned to Samaria, and suggests
identifying Ramah with Beif-rima, a place mentioned
în the Talmud (Neub. Geo». 82), situated a little
to the N. of Tira4 (Thamna) This is the view
of Buhl, δαὶ. 170; Kittel, Hisf. 2:07. It accords
with the route of Saul described in 1 5.91 ; cp

Wellb: 785 70. See also PEFMem. 8121497: (On
(δ΄ 5 readings, see RAMATHAIM-ZOPHIM.}

3. 3 K.829: ρεμμωϑ [B], ραμωθ fA], ραμαθ γαλαα [1. See
RAMOTH-GILEAD.

4. Raman TAV RAMATH] or THE SOUTH; Josh. 198 e

κατὰ λίβα [Β], ραμμωθ {A?), sape? κατὰ λίβα [A?L]. See
RAMATH OF THE SOUTH,

$ A ‘fenced city* of Naphtali (Josh. 1935; ἀραηλ [B], papa
[AL)), the modern £dme4, 1295 ft, above sca-tevel, W. of S42/64,
on the southern slope of the ridge (here rising to a height of
3480 ft.) which forms the boundary between Upper and Lower
Galileo. Cp Guerin, Gal. 1453£

6. Α place mentioned in the delimitation of the
territory of Asher, Josh, 1929. According to Robinson
beyond all doubt to be identified with the village of
Rdmeh (PEF Survey -—Rémia), in the latitude of Ras
en-Ndkiîra, situated ‘ upon an isolated hill, in the midst
of a basin with green fields, surrounded by higher hills*
{BR 463). Buhl {PaZ 231) accepts this identifica.
tion, whilst admitting that the frequent occurrence of
the name prevents a final decision Apart from the
name, indeed, one might prefer to locate Ramah a
little way to the W., at or near the ruins of βία, on a
hill which commands a grand prospect. The language
of Josh. 1928f, however, does ποῖ seem to favour
either view. ‘The border of Asher is traced in 2, 28
from Hammon (4742227) to Kanah (fard) and thence
to Sidon; then in z. 29 we are told to turn back south-
ward to Ramah, and draw a line thence to Tyre
and to Hosah (near Ads e/-A4in); somewhere on the
coast to the 5, of Hosah (at the mouth of the river
SHIHOR-LIBNATH)} the border ends. Can the meaning
be that the territory within the first of these lines belongs
to Tyre and Sidon together, and that within both lines
taken together (the second modifying the first) to Tyre,
both territories being theoretically possessed by Asher ?
Τ so, Ramah would seem to be not very far from Tyre;
indeed, this is the natural inference from the Hebrew of
v. 294. [18 true site may perhaps be lost.

(Since this was written, an abundance of similarly perplexing
pbenomena have been noticed by the present writer, which can
only be explained on the hypothesis that the original document

referred to districts in the Negeb. Cp SMIROR-LIBNATH;
TyRE; ΖΕΜΆΠΑΙΜ, last par.) T.K,C.

RAMATRITE (ΠΟ), 1 Ch.272;. See Simmel, 9.
RAMATH-LEBI (‘Mò Nt), Judg. 1514. See LenI.

RAMATR-MIZPEN (NBYNI NI): apaBw6 Kata

ΤῊΝ maccHbalB]. pamow k.T. Mmac@a (AT. pame@
k.t.M. [L]), a place on the northern border of the

! Gadites, Josh. 1326. Probably the same as ΜΙΖΡΕΗ

(4), MIZPAH (2).

1 On the discrepant traditions respecting the site of Rachel's
grave, and on Mt, 2 18, see EPHRATH, RACHEL.

4oro

RAMATH Of THE SOUTH

RAMATH OF THE SOUTH (23) NONI; for (6
see RAMAH, 4), and (in 1 S.) RAMOTH OF THE SOUTH
(233) NIDI: pama [BL]}-@ [A] NoTOY. pama προς
MECHMBpIAN [Sym.]}), apparently the most remote of
the Simeonite towns (Josh. 198) ; mentioned also among
the towns in the Negeb to which David sent presents
from ZigLaG {Halusah), 1 5. 8027. The full name was
Baalath-beer-rama(0)th-negeb, #.6., ' Baalah of the well
of Ramath {Ramoth}) of the Negeb,' or ‘ Baalah of the
well, Ramath of the Negeb' (see BAALATH-BEER}, The
name, however, needs correction by the help of Ὁ, 6f
and Josh. 1532. The lists of the Simeonite and Judahite
towns are disfigured by errata, nor do they agree as
they should, The opinion of the present writer is that
the most remote of these towns was most probably
called Baalath-beer-ramah (also Baalath-en-rimmon),—
.e., Baalah of the well (also, fountain} of Ramah or
Rimmon,—and that both Ramah and Rimmon (g.v.) are
popular corruptions of ‘Jerahmeel.’ Consequently in
1 $.3027 the second of the names in the list should be
not Ramoth-negeb, but Jerahmeel-negeb. See EN-
RIMMON, TAMaAR, NEGEB.

In Josh.1532 Lebaoth (ma23) and in 196 Beth-lebaoth

(b-n03) are miswritten for nbya, In 1Ch.433 ‘Baalatb-beer®
becomes shortened into ‘ Baal.” T.K. Ὁ,

BAMATHAIM-ZOPHIM (D'PÎS DINOIT: apma
Garm clelia [BL]; ap. cwim [41}, the name of
the city of Elkanah in the hill-country of Ephbraim, 1 S.
lr. The text, however, has Ha-ramathaim-sophim, the
article being prefixed to ramathaim, ‘The difficulties of
this supposed compound form, and indeed of MT's
reading, however viewed, are well set forth by Driver
(7°B.S ad /oc.), who, with Wellhausen and W. R. Smith,
following (δ᾽ 5 e(eliga, reads vas ‘a Zuphite," which is
explained by a reference to 1 Ch. 620f35], Kr. as='a
member of the clan called ΖΟΡΗ '[φ.ν.1. _Haramathaim
is also plausibly explained by Wellhausen (785 34/)
asthe later form of the name Ha-ramah {see RAMATHEM),
which was introduced into 1 S. 11 from a tendency to
modernisation, and stands (αρμαθαιμ), in &, not only
here, but also wherever mpun has the n of motion
attached to it. With the form appa#a we may rightly
compare the ἀραμαθα or apuada or ράμαθα of Josephus
and the ἀριμαϑαια of the NT.

The name Ha-ramah in the Hebrew text almost always
occurs în the augmented form nnog3. The exceptions are 1 S.
1916-201 251 283, Here we constantly find NONI except in
191820, where 0077 occurs. GA accordingly represents the
former word by ἐν papa, the latter by εἰς ἀρμαθαιμ- -ἃ new
distincrion suggested perhaps by the occurrence of n in. ΠΡΟΜ,
The same correction has penetrated once into EL, for in 19 22,
where mann and anna occur at different points, GEL gives first
εἰς αρμαθαιμ and then ἐν paia (cp ©. 18 în 3).

The objections to the above plausible explanation of
Ramathaim-zophim are—{r) that Ha-ramathaim occurs nowhere
else in the MT, (2) that the Chronicler is an insufficient authority

for the existence of a clan called Zuph, (3) that ‘land of Zuph”
occurs in a passage (1 5.9 5) which has all the appearance of

corruptness (see ΖΌΡΗ), and (4)that 1 S.11 itself is obviously no

longer in its original form.1 The probability is that ing ek
(EV, ‘a certain man ') should be bbanlm» e°N, a Jerahmeelite,”
and that n°158 IND DIS Ὁ’ ΠΟΤ Π should be sbxnrvlal vonn o
ἘΝ ind moyno so that the whole sentence becomes (omitting
the superfluous variani sbppmny at the beginning and certain
variants at the end), ‘And there was a Jerahmeelite of the
family of the Matrites, whose name was Elkanah." "pp (Matri),
however, like ‘Tamar* and ‘Ramath,' is only a corruption of
ἘΜΟῚ", ‘Jerahmeelite,' and ‘mount Ephraim* is în southern
not in central Palestine (so Judg. 171191, etc.). See Crit. 88.
The ARIMATHZEA of the NT is identified by Eus.
(OS 225, 12} with the city of Elkanah, and said to be
situated near Diospolis (Lydda) This situation is
beyond question suitable for the Ramathaim of 1 Mace.
11 34, and perhaps too for the Arimathaea of the NT.
See JosEPH, col. 2595 7; RAMATHAIM (on meaning
of form); NICODEMUS, $ 3. T.K.C.

1 See Marg. Fund. ταῦ; and cp other corsupt passages în
1 8. having proper names (Cri. BÎb.).

4011

!

RAMESES

RAMATHEM, RVRAMATHAIM (paga mern [ANV]),
the seat of one of the governments formerly belonging
to Samaria which were transferred to Judzea under
Jonathan by king Demetrius, 1 Macc. 134. On the
name, see NAMES, $ 107, and RAMATHAIM-ZOPHIM.

RAMESES (DDDPI:; pameccH [BAFL], pamecH
IL), Gen, 4711; or Raamses, DO Ex. τσ, papeon [FL],
1237 Nu. 833, ραμεσσων [ΒΔΑ], 3ι,βάμεσσης [Bab]; also Judith
19 [Ramesse, AVI; see also Redpath; RAMESSES) For
kings Rameses I. and II. see also EcvPT, $ 57

In Ex. 11: Raamses is one of the cities built by the
Israelites as Egyptian serfs; in 1237 they march from
Raamses (castwards) to Succoth {cp also Nu. 333 5).
In Gen. 4711 the family of Jacob receive from Joseph
*a possession in the land of Egypt, in the best of the
land, in the land of Rameses, as Pharaoh had com-
manded.' The land of Rameses is, according to vv. 46
ete., a part of Goshen, or, more probably, is synony-
mous with Goshen,

In 4628 δ has indeed for the Goshen of Heb. ‘to Heroopolis
Ge., adding Pirzom, or ETHAM [g.2.]), into the land of
Ramesse’ (καθ᾽ ᾿Ηρώων πόλιν εἰς γῆν 'Ραμεσση). [For various
views of this passage, with discussion, see ΤΟΒΕΡῊ (in OT), col.
2587, n. 4]

It is usually assumed that the land has its name from
the town, the administrative centre of that province,
The present writer would, however,
prefer to understand Rameses here as
having preserved the original sense,
namely, that of a royal name. Goshen,
or at least its eastern part, still recalled by its name
that the great Pharaoh Rameses II, had been its opener
and coloniser (see GosHEN) In the name of the
town, on the other hand, the original sense, which
must once have been ‘house, place, city (or similarly)
of Rameses,' seems to have been forgotten, owing to
the popular abbreviation which omitted the first part.
It is not necessary to derive the combination ‘land of
Rameses,' which looks very archaic, from that secondary
use

The royal name which the Hebrew has preserved here was
Ra'n(eÈ)s-su,ì or, following more the later pronunciation, Ra'
(his can, of course, be written in many ways)-me(?)s-xe),2 “the
sun-god Re' has borne him." The classic trausliterations are
Ῥαάμψης, Ῥαμεσσης (in varying the Manethonian fragments,
etc.), Aazises. From these Greek forms the Massoretic scholars
seem to have taken their vocalisation; whether the Hebrew
consonants are intended to render the name as Ra'urzes(é)s, or
in a seemingly more archaic form, Ra'-ytesò-s (the verbal root
was originally masy, ferzize Jodh), can, therefore, not be decided
from the biblical punctuation. In the rendering of the con-
sonants, the preservation of the "Ain deserves mention as a sign
of antiquity.

‘The Pharaoh meant is the famous Rameses II,
called also Osymandyas (this is the official name;

User-ma'(#)-78) or Sesostris® by the

3; Pheraok Greeks, also Ram(p)ses (etc. ), Meiamiin

6508. (‘loving Amon’); see EGYPT, $ 58.

His reign of nearly sixty-seven years is less remarkable
for his military achievements in Asia (which were very
modest) than for his paramount activity as a builder.
For his great work of irrigating and colonising the
Wady Tumilat, see GOSHEN, 8 4. This enterprise seems
to have been completed before the twenty-first year of
his reign Gen. 47 might anticipate a later name
for the region E. of Goshen proper. ‘The building of
the city of Rameses (as well as of Pithom), however
points unmistakably to that earlier part of the reign
of Rameses II.—z.e., to the end of the fourteenth

(GM GM

8 On the reason of the confusion of this name with a king of
dyn. 12 in Manetho, different opinions prevail. A popular (but
already contemporaneous) abbreviation of the name Rameses
seems to be at the root of the Greek form.

4012

RAMESES

It must be accidental that the expression ‘land of
Rameses' has not yet been read on the Egyptian monu-
ments, although we find allusions to fhe

ἢ The city merits of Rameses II. as a coloniser
AAMSES. (which characteristically are wanting with
other kings). A city, or rather cities, bearing the name

of this king are, however, mentioned repeatedly.

In the twenty-first year (see above) of his reign,
Rameses received ambassadors of the Hittite king
bringing the treaty ot peace and alliance ‘in the city:
house of Ra'mes-su, Mey (or old Mer)-amzrz, doing
the commands of his father Amon, of Harmachis and
Atum, the lord of Heliopolis, the Amon of Ra'-mes-se
Mey-amùn, the Ptah of Ra'-mes-su Mey-amin, and
Set." This list gives to us the names of the official
gods of the new city, confirming its position in eastern
Goshen, where Atum of Heliopolis was the chief god.
LD 3194 says: 'thou hast made for thyself a splendid
residence to fortify the frontier of the country, The
House of Ra'messu Meyamùn; . . . a royal palace is in
it’ Pap. Anastasi 21 46 gives a poetical description of
a residence,l ‘the castle: ‘Great of Victory (or
Strength) '’ is its name, between Phoenicia {1) and Egypt.”
The local gods are Amon, associated with Set, then
Astarte and Buto. ‘These gods and the name do not
agree with our house of Rameses mentioned above;
indeed, the city ‘great of vietori(es)' (mentioned also in
the great text of Abydus, in Pap. Leyden, 1348, and in
the expedition of Sety I. against the Bedouins (?) does not
seem to be identical (as is usually supposed), but must be
later foundation of Rameses, N. of Goshen. Anast.
ili, 112 f. ‘the house of Ra'messu Meyamtn' appears as
identical with the place ‘Great of victori(es}' (32 etc.
Its description seems to point to the country W. of Tanis,
not very far from the sea. Thus a monument which
has led Brugsch considerably astray becomes intelligible.
In Tanis was found a statue of a priest who had among
other titles that of a ‘ prophet of Amon of Rameses of
(the city ?) House of Rameses (and Ὁ) Amon (of the one)
great of strength.'* Brugsch (Dicf. Geogr. 418, etc.)
concluded from it that Rameses and Tanis-Zoan were one
and the same city, sought consequently for Goshen far
in the N, and came thus to his strange Exodus-theory,
considering the Sirbonian bog as the ‘sea’ through which
the Israelites passed. The statue furnishes rather the
confirmation that we have two different Rameses-cities.
Consequently, we have to be very careful in distinguish-
ing them; LD 3 r94 refers possibly to the later founda-
tion,3 as it dates from the year 34 of Rameses.

The biblical Rameses can, of course, be only a city
in or near Goshen. That mentioned ἴῃ the treaty with

τ ; the Hittites seems to be identical, if we

4. Bituation. 2y judge by the local gods alluded
to. Compare the granite group found at Tel(1) el.
Maskhiuta which represented Rameses II. between Atum
and Harmachis, the principal gods of that district.
From this group Lepsius concluded that Tel(l) el-
Maskhîita was the biblical Rameses (see PirHom}, but
on insufficient grounds. The excavations of Naville
have shown that the names Pithom and Succoth are to
be associated with that locality, but not Rameses. The
Jatter city remains to be determined, In accordance
with Ex. 1237 Nu. 3335 it should be sought for in the
western part of Goshen, E. of Pithom-Etham. There
are not many points bearing traces of ancient cities in
that region; Lepsius described the piace (Tell) Abu-
Soleimàn (or Islmàn), as showing extensive ruins, and
thought of Pithom. ‘ Naville (ZiZkom, 9 36) disputes
the existence of town-ruins at that spot. He marks

1 Sce Erman, Egz44, chap. 9, for a translation.

2 This (‘a-27) seems to be synonymous with ‘great of strength
(or victory) or victories,' ‘a-n&t or ‘a-n&tto. Îf nor, it might
point to a temple (not a city) of Rameses Il. Has a ‘(loving)
Amon’ been mutilated?

3 There may be more Rameses-cities. | It seems that a Nubian
colony near Abusimbel wasone, Cp(with considerable caution)

the essay of Lepsius, 42, 1883, p. 4 (on Pitbom and Rameses),
4013

RAMOTH-GILEAD

Shugafieh (in which he believes he finds the Roman
garrison piace Thohu or Thou) and Tell Rotab as the
only ruins, ΝΥ. of Pithom-Tel(1} el-Maskhùta. Both
localities exhibit extensive ruins of the Roman age, and
seem 10 have been Roman military stations ; it is not
improbable that they were settled ‘before that period.
If so, we may expect the settlements to go back to the
time of Rameses' colonisation ; but nothing certain can
be said until a thorough exploration of those ruins has
been made.

For the various attempted identifications of Rameses, see
Ebers, art. ‘ Ramses, 777/802), 12542, and cp Durck Gosen zum
Sinai, 512 δε; Naville, Land of Goshen (1887), 18, 20;
Brugsch, Stesschri/? und Bibelwort, 1891, p. 154. [The ques:
tion identification assumes a fresh aspect if we hold that
primitive tradition represented the early home of the Israelites
as, not in Mizraim, but in Mizrim. In this case we must sup-
pose that here as elsewhere the geographica] setting of the story
has been transformed on the basis, probably, of corrupr texts,
Possible corrections or restorations are indicated in col. 3211,
W. M. M.

RAMIAH (MI, ‘Yahwè is high"? or rather a
transformed ethnic, Ràmi= Jerahme'eli? [Che.}). a lay-
man who joined in the league against foreign marriages ;
Ezra102st (pamia [BNA], <eiac [L])=1 Esd.926
Hiermas (iepma [B], tepmac FA], pamiac [1.]}.

RAMOTEH (ΠῚ). τ. 1 K.413. See RAMOTH-

GILEAD.
2. Ezra1029, Καὶ. See JeRIMOTA, 12.

RAMOTEHE (NÎDNI; AaBuwp [Β], ammwe PA]
pamw@ [L]; 1 Ch.673 [58]), or REMETR (MPI;
pemmac [B]. pama@ [AL]; Josh. 1927), also calle
JARMUTH (MNS99) in Josh. 2129 (!ερλλὼθ [AL]. where
however 458 has pemmad@), a Levitical city within the
territory of Issachar.

RAMOTH-GILEAD obi Nb), se, (heightis of
Gilead'}, otherwise RAMOTH ΙΝ GILEAD obra DINI,

H pamw9 εν (TH or pH) rad,
1. OT References. Dt. 443 [pammw@ AJ Josh. 208
[δρηλλῶτθ B] 2138 1 Ch. 665 [80] [pammon B,
pama@ 1.1), RAMOTH (τ K. 413 [epema@ B, -epma@
1.7}, but more correctly RAMAH (2 K. 829 [pemmw@
B. pama@ L]} or Ramath-Gilead (cp AHAB), a fortress
on the E. of Jordan, the administrative centre of one
of Solomon's prefectures (1 K. 4 13), hotly disputed by
the Israelites and the Aramasans in the reigns of Ahab,
Ahaziah, and Joram (τ K. 2237 [pemma@ BA, pama@
11, 2 K. 828 914 [pemmw8 Β, pama@ 17, 2 Ch.
1837 [pammw0 A. pama@ L], 225 [pama B
pemmw@ A, pama@ L]); also one of the so-called
' cities of refuge’ (Dt. 443 Josh. 208 2138, where it is
assigned to Gad), Largely on account of the striking
narrative in 1 K. 22, the name of Ramoth-Gilead is
extremely familiar to readers of OT, and yet, after ali the
researches of scholars, no one is able to tell exactly where
the place was. It is the object of this article {1) to
record the chief opinions which have been held as to
the site of Ramoth-Gilead, and (2) to offer what, in the
opinion of the present writer, looks like the true solution
of the problem.
Let us begin with the Talmud, according to which
Ramoth-Gilead lay over against Shechem {Neub. G/og.
i , 251), while, as Eusebius and Jerome
2. Bites (a)-(d). 55; ὡς ὡς 29791 14531), it Soon
to them as a village, 15 R.m. W. of Philadelphia
(Rabbath-Ammon). These views are irreconcilable.
Most scholars till lately preferred the authority of
Eusebius, and identified Ramoth-Gilead with the modern
es-Salt,! τὸ m. S. of the Jabbok, and 11 E. of the
Jordan. Cp GiLeAD, 8 7.

The town acquired some importance during the Crusades,

n. 2.]

1 The name isa corruption of Salton Hieraticon, which occurs

in the Nofitt. Vet. Eccles. as the name of a trans-Jordanic

episcopal city (Reland, δα), 315); the epithet dierazicon may

be explalned by the πόλις φυλῆς γαῦ ἱερατική of Eus. in the
rione,

4014

RAMOTH-GILEAD

when Saladin fortified ìt with other towns on the E. of the
Jardan; it is now the capital of the Ze/Za, but cannot claim ta
represent Ramoth-Gilead. The piace could not be approached
by chariots (see 1 K.2234/). It ‘ bangs on the steep sides of a
narrow gorge, entirely shut in on the N., and opening out on a
narrow flat of garden-iand at the other end; and even this open
extremity of the ravine is blocked by a high ridge at right angles
to the town, closing up the only outlet.'1 It is also far too
southerly ; a place easily accessible from Jezreel and not far from
the Aramzan border is imperatively required.

Ewald ({Gesch. 3 soo note) and Conder (Με and
Moab, 175; Smith's DB 11191) do more justice to
the biblical narratives by fixing the site οἵ Ramoth-
Gilead at Reimin, a lofty and ancient site a few miles
W. of Jerash (Gerasa), in the Jebel ‘Ajlîùn. The place
was quite open to Arameean ineursions, and could be
reached by chariots up the valley of the Jabbok. Sir
G. Grove (Smith's 2A! 21003) and Merrill (Zast of
the Jordan, 284 21) urge the claims of Jerash itself;
Oliphant too {Zend 07 Gilead, 213) thinks Ramoth-
Gilead must have been either at or near Jerash.? This
view is supported by the Arabic Joshua (208 2138
Ramat al-Jarai). G. A. Smith, however (27 588) is
not satisfied with any of these identifications, and thinks
Ramoth-Gilead, being so hotly disputed by Aram and
Israel, must have been farther N., near the N. limit of
Gilead—the Yarmiik (so G. A. Cooke, /c.). Irbid and
Ramtheh [er-Remthè], he remarks, are both of them
fairly strong sites. Er-Remthè has been very recently
favoured by Smend (ZA7W, 1902, p. 153), who finds
in the name er-Remthè an echo of an Aramaic form
ἈΠΟῚΝ. Buhl combines Ramoth-Gilead with the mod,
Jal'od, N. of es-Salt {see GILEAD, 2), and whilst Smend
identifies Ramoth-Gilead with Mizpeh-Gilead, Bubl
inclines to distinguish between them.

To get beyond Prof. G. A. Smith's acute but vague
conjecture, we must look at the Hebrew of 1 K. 413.
8. Site (6). Removiog the accretions on the original

ui * text we find it stated that one of Solomon's
prefeets called Ben-geber (nothing depends on the
correctness of this reading) was over the region of
Argob, and resided in Ramoth-Gilead. Is the latter
circumstance probable? Surely his residence must have
been in Bashan, unless indeed we prefer to omit the
statement about Argob and Bashan, and make Ben-
geber the prefect of the so-called Havvoth-Jair, which
Nu. 32394: places in Gilead. Possibiy for ayba nn.
‘Ramath-Gilead,' we ought to read ππὸς no), ‘the
Ramah of Salhad' Salbad is probably the true name
of the fortified city on the extreme SE. of Bashan, which
protected that fertile land from the invasions of the
nomads ; it is called in MT SALECAK [{...} The
objections raised to the other sites certainly do not apply
to Salhad. For other supposed traces of the name see
GiLEAD, $ 8, SUCCOTH, ZELOPHEHAD.

Salhad is situated on an eminence forming one of the southern»
most heights of the Jebel Haursn (see Driver, Di 53) That
the district to the N. of Edrei (Der'ar) and Salhad fell into the
region of Argob, wili hardly be doubted (cp Driver, in Hastings”
DE1147). It was also probably Sathad (Ramatb-Salhad) that
Benhadad kept back, contrary to the agreement in 1K. 20 34,
and the Israelitish kings therefore sought to recover (x K. 223,
εἴς, Holding it, the Aramzean kings had the fertile district of
Argob at their mercy. ‘The harmonising process of an editor
corrected “nix non, ‘Ramath -Salhad,' wherever it occurred,
into πρὸ ni, ‘ Ramoth-Gilead.'

It is probable that no better explanation can be found

τ on the assumption that the current view
4 Site (f). fespecting the Arameans with whom the
kings of Israel were so often at war, and respecting the
region of the legendary Og, king of Bashan, is correct.

The assumption în question ἧς at first sight a reasonably safe
one, and it receives support from the legend of the meeting of
Jacob and Laban, in the earlier form disclosed to us by textual
triticism of Gen. 3117-54. We may even go farther, and

pronounce it not improbable that Salad really was the piace
which the editor of the Book of Kings ia its present form thought

RAPHAH

to be referred to în the account of the Aramacan wars. But it
was not the place which was meant in the original narratives
(see Proruet, $ 7) It was ar Cusham, not at Damascus (as
the traditional text represents) that Ben'hadad, or Bir-dadda,
dwelt (a K.13:8; see Tas-Rimmon), and it was the great
achievement of Jeroboam 11. that he recovered Cusham and
Maachath-jerahmeel for Israel It must have been a fortress on
the border of the Negeb, towards Arabia, that the Arama:ans
(= Jerahmeelîtes) and the Israelites so hotiy contested. Ahab
fell'when endeavouring to regain it. Joram won it back fora
time from the N. Arabian king Hazd'ilu (Hazael), and Jehu
(himself of Jerahmeelite extraction 1) was serving în the garrison
when Elisha (a prophet of the Negeb; see ProPHET, $ 7) sent
to anoint him king. Both ‘ Ramah' and ‘Gilead’ are, when 5.
Palestine and the Negeb are concerned, corruptions of ‘ Jerah-
meel,' but while ‘“Ramah’ or ‘Ramath'is a mere popular dis-
tortion, ‘Gilead’ seems to be a transcriptional corraption of that
ethnic name. The place intended is probably che ‘Tamar’
(oen=nbv) fortified by Solomon, according to τ K. 9 18, cp 2 Ch.
84. Cp Tamar, Tapmor. T.K.C.

RAMOTH OF THE SOUTH. See RamatH ΟΕ
THE SOUTH.

RAMPART, in AV sometimes, and în RV generally
the rendering of bia, See FORTRESS, $ 5, col. 1557.

RANPS HORN (53)? 3}. Josh. 65), TRUMPETS OF
Rans' Horns (ΡΠ Nat, Josh. 646213) See
Muse, $ 5.

RAMS' SEINS (bw ΤΡ), Ex 255, ete. See
TABERNACLE, $ 4.

RANGE (Lev. 1135), RV®é& ‘Stewpan,' see CooK-
ING UTENSILS, 8 4,

RANSOM (from Lat. redemptionem).

Peerei oe. Ex. 21 30 RV, AV of

3 » Η 2130 RY, “s
mado? LEE δῇ 25 AV ὑτοάσεμαν NV iron! Νὰ, ἐδ δι Κα
AV ‘satisfaction’; 15.193, AV and RVime. ‘bribe'; RV and
AViog. ‘ransom';’ Ps. 69185 Job 8618)

3. mb, A8444, Ἐκ, 8420, etc.

RAPHA (ΝΕ). τ. See RAPHAH, 2,

2, In jam CA ii. αἱ 8
CRAL TL te ὧν παῖς Gy de Cortina se πσσ
Gera (see /04 1 τοῦ, 88) Or (if correct) cp REPHAIAH [4]
and the clan-name BETH-RAPRA.

3. Sce REPHALAK, 4

RAPHAEL (2859, ‘God heals'; the name, how-
ever, has possibly grown out of something very differ-
ent; see REPHAEL [Che.]; paganA). one of the most
sympathetic figures in Jewish narrative literature, is
introduced to us în the Book of Tobit, where under the
name of AZARIAS (‘Yahwè is a help') he accompanies
Tobias in his adventurous journey and conquers the
demon AsMoDauS [g..] (Τοῦ. 317 82 91 1127), He
is, however, a disguised visitor from heaven, being
really ‘one of the seven? angels [archangels] who
present the prayers of the saints and enter into the
presence of the glory of the Holy One’ (1215). In the
Book of Enoch (10020) Rufael {= Rafael) is called ‘ the
angel of the spirits of men’; it is his function to ‘heal
the earth which the angels have defiled,' as a preliminary
to which he has to place AZAZEL (g.7.) in confinement.
This view of the essential connection between a name
and the person bearing it is thoroughly antique ; it has
strongly coloured the story of ΤΌΒΙΤ {g.v.), and is
endorsed in the Midrash (Bemidbar rabb., par. 2),
according to which Raphael is to heal the iniquity of
Ephraim {i.e., the ten tribes). The later Midrash also
represents him as the angel commissioned to put down
the evil spirits that vexed the sons of Noah with plagues
and sicknesses after the fiood, and as the instructor of
men in the use of simples; he it was who was the
promoter of the ‘ Book of Noah,’ the earliest treatise
on materia medica {Rònsch, Buch der Jubilden, 385
“Φ.). See ANGELS, $ 4, note.

RAPHAE (715). 1. AV RAPRA (τ Ch. 857).

See

| RePHAIAR (4).

1 G. A. Cooke, in Driver, D£(2), p. ax.; cp L Gautier, A
delà du fourdaini2) (1896), 30.

2 Schumacher (27424, DPF, 1897, 66) places Ramoth-Gilead
at el-Manira, W. of Jerash.

4015

| (Zephathite) and ‘ Nimshi' of

a modification of Sephathi
itrne""eli (Ishmaclite).

2 But Syr, and Heb. 2 omit ‘seven The number of the chief
angels varied. See ANGEL, $ 4, n. 1; GabrIEL; MICHAEL, τ:

4016

1 «Jehosbaphar* ἰς probably

RAPHAIM

3. Four giants are described in 2 S. 2116 18 20 23 (cp τ Ch.
204 68) as descendants of ‘the Raphah' (EV ‘the giant*; RVmg.
Rapuan; AVing. Rarna; 2035, in Ch, NOW) Sce Iser
seno4, ΒΆΡΗ. (δ᾽ readings In 5. Paga [BA], L in wr. τό τ

> γιγάντων, Ὁ. πὸ. . . Τιτᾶνος, Ὁ. 22 adds the words
τις τῷ οἴκῳ Paga, in Ch. γίγαντες [BAL ; but in 7.8 also pada
BA, ραφαιν LI). [53 nav correct? The sing. form occurs only
here. See RebHAIM.

RAPHAIM (paain [A], BNom.), one of the ances-
tors of Judith; Judith 81.

RAPHON (papwn [AN]. padeA {Vf}: 1 Mace,
537 Jos. Ant xii. 84), an unknown city mentioned in
I Mace, 527 as ‘beyond the brook'; it was besieged
by Timotheus and relieved by Judas the Maccabee.
From the context it obviously lay not very far from
Carnaim (Ashteroth- Karnaim). It is no doubt the
Raphana mentioned by Pliny (7A v. 1874) as one of
the cities of the Decapolis, and may possibly be identical
with the Capitolias of Ptol, (v.15z2), 16 m. from Edrei
{Der'at). See Schiirer, G/Y 293.

RAPHU (NIDI, as if ‘healed’; pagoy [BAF]:
paay [L]). father ef PALTI (2) (Nu. 189}. On
origin of name see PALTI, 2; REPHAEL,

RASSES, CHILDREN OF (paccelc [BA], paac-
σεις [N]; #hazsis [Vg.]; Aires et rasîs [Vet. Lat.,

cod. Sangerm.]; vonnensa tà. il [5γτ.]),
a people mentioned along with Put, Lud, and the children
of Ishmael {Judith 2a3). That ῥῷ(σ)σος, a mountain
range and town S. from Amanus on the gulf of Issus,
is intended is improbable ; others prefer TARSUS [g.0.].
The mention of a town ill accords with the enumera-
tion of such peaples as PUT and LuD, and the name is
possibly a corruption of Tiras. See RosH.

RATHUMUS (paoymoc [BL], pa@yac? [45}}.
τ Esd,2:6 7 = Ezra 48 Δ, REHUM, 5.

RAVEN (230, from 200, ‘to sink" [of the sun], ‘be
black'; Kopaz: carvgs), It is noteworthy that the
lilies and the ravens possess the

1. OT Roferances. same representative character in a
famous saying of Jesus. at least according to the
version in Lk. 124 (but in Mt. 626 τὰ werevd); in the
OT too they are referred to in evidence of Gad's provi.
dential care (Job 384x Ps, 1479). In Cant ὅτι their
glossy black plumage {cp deriv. above) is referred to.
ἴῃ Prov. 30x7 Is. ϑῴτε Zeph, 2141 (crit. emend, with

(ΛΚ ΛΔ), other habits of the raven are mentioned,
and in Gen. 87 the raven is stated to have been the
first bird let out of Noah's ark,?

[The feeding of Elijah by the ravens (x K. 174 6) has been
regarded as a supernatural feature appropriate to the circum-
stances of the prophet, but if, as Cheyne suggests, Elijah's
hiding-place was at Kehoboth in the extreme S. of Palestine, a
reference to ‘Arabians’ would gain considerably în plausibility,
nor can it be a loss to edification that human instruments should
take the place of ‘unclean’ birds like the ravens (see ΜΊΖΚΑΙΜ,
ξ 216}. An analogy for the emendation referred to îs offered by
Jer.32 in @ Pesh., which give ‘like a crow’ (NÈ, κορώνη,
πα δα) for "like an Arabian* (€3NY) This is an error, but in
Bar. 654 the crow ἴα no doubt mentioned. The gods of the
Babylonians are thero likened to the crows ἐκαρῶναι) that fly
between heaven and earth.]

It is probabile that the Heb, ‘77444 included all the
members of the family Coruida—i. e. the crows, choughs,

4 rooks, jays, and jackdaws, as well as the

2 Species. τὰς raven Tristram énumerates eight
species of Corvide at present found in Palestine;
among which the C. xmdrinzs or brown-necked raven
may be specially mentioned, as it is almost ubiquitons.
They feed to some extent on carrion, but will also
attack animals of some size, though usually only when
these are weakly or injured.

1 A comparison of Zeph. Ze. with Is. 84. τὰ shows that 3901 in
the famous passage should be ΖΝ.

2 In the cuneiform account the raven i, the last ; are DELUGR,
$$ 2, 17, and cp Jastrow, Lek Zab. and Ast 503.

4017

REBEKAH or REBECCA

The raven has always been regarded as a bird of
omen, and excited superstitious awe which is not even
yet entirely extinct. To the ancients

3. Charaeter. ji was one of that class af living
creatures which were at once venerated and shunned.!
It is not surprising, therefore, to find the raven in the

| list of (so-called) ‘unclean’ birds (Dt. 1414; cp CLEAN,

$ 9). Resides the Midianite chieftain’s name OREB,
the Ar. clan-name Gord8 indicates that the bird did not
always possess an ill'omened character; and it is a
significant fact that Gordò was one of the names of
heathenism which Mohammad made its bearer change.?
ACE. S.S. A.C.

RAZIS (pazielic [AV*%ì%] razias [Vg.]), ‘an elder
of Jerusalem,’ ‘called Father of the Jews for his good-
will taward them.' His story is told in 2 Macc. 1437 #
The name is possibly from an ariginal 7-- ΠΤ, ‘to
be lean.” The Syr., however, gives his name as r-g-sh.

RAZOR ("YN, etc.), Nu. 6 5, εἴς, See BeaRD.

REAIAN (NI, | Yahwè has seen'; but ch JORAH).

1, A Calebite, son af Snosar; 1Ch.42 (pade [B], pesa [A],
peaa [1Χ _Reaiahought also, perhaps, to be read for HAROEH
(g.2.) in 1 Ch, 2 52, but both forms may be corruptions.

Ca Reubenito; 1 Ch. 55 (AV Rzaia; ρῆχα [BA], para
! 3. The family name of a company of (post-exilic) Nethinim :
Eza 247 {perà [B], prua TAI, ap. [1.}}} Neh.7 so (paca [BR],

τὰ [ALDnta Ἐπ 531 (,αειρος [Β), ἑαιρος [A], pasa [1.}} ΑἸπῦϑ
fAVI Jarnus IRVI.

REBA (3. probably by transpasition from 24),
‘Arabia,’ cp REKEM [Che.]; poBax, -Be [B]. ροβοκ,
peBex [A]. poBek, -e [L.]}, one of the five chiefs of
Midian, slain after the ‘ matter of Peor'; Nu. 318 Josh.
132x

REBBKAH or [NT] REBECCA (1122): peBekka
[NADEL]; Wedecca; on the name, see below, $ a), sister
si of Laban, and therefore daughter of
1. Traditiona. Ἀν πον, according ta J {see Di. on
Gen. 2415), but daughter of Bethuel, according to P
{see Gen. 2520). Far the idyllic story of her betrothal
and marriage, which is not only beautiful in itself, but
a valuable record of Israelitish sentiment in the time of
tire writer or wrîters, it is enough to send the reader to
the origina narrative. Gunkel, it may be observed,
thinks he can trace a double thread (Je and 16) în this
narrative. It 15 certainly possible that more than one
hand has been concerned in the story; at tbe same
time the narrative would hardly gain by being reduced
to the limits of the assumed Ja. Another critic (Stener-
nagel, Zinwarderung, 39) draws a weighty critical
inference from the parallelism between Gen. 24 and 29,
Independenily, a larger inference of the same kind is
drawn in $ 2 of the present article.

It has been thought that there is a discrepancy
between 1 and P as regards the original home of
Rebekah. 1 brings her from Aram-naharaim, from
the city of Nahor (2410); P from Paddan-aram (2520 ΚΕ;
cp 282/). The discrepancy, however, did not always
exist. 1. It is possible to hold that both in 1 and in P
Rebekah had a traditional connection with the northern
Jerahmeelites of Hauran (for pm most probably has been
worn*down from beer, and mm may have come from

1 Having been originally worshipped, they were honoured,
and their presence was considered lucky; but their specific
“holy* character made them ‘taboo,’ and as such they were to
be avoided. For this paradoxical conception, see CLEAN, $ 7.

2 See WRS, Ain. 200, 301, We. Heid.(2) 203. The raven
was intimately associated with Apollo and Z°sculapius; see
Frazer, Pars. 8.72.4 Coronis is said to have been transformed
into a raven. In Rome, a flight of ravens on the left hand was
considered lucky, on the right hand unlucky. In northern
Europe one is reminded of the ravens of Odin, and those of
Flokki, by whose aid he discovered Iceland. Similarly the
Vilcings are said to have carried ravens in their ships to be able
to find tbe bearing of the nearest land (cp CASTOR, and for the
painting or carving of a totem on a hoat, Frazer, Tofrmism.
3A

4018

RECAH

“nn, while ps may be miswritten for pine, pun). See
LaABAN, NAHOR, PADDAN-ARAM. 2. It is also plau-
sible to hold the view set forth in JACOB, $ 3, where it
is shown that there was possibly a still earlier tradition
which put Laban's home at Hebron, At any rate, both
narrators have distinguished themselves in the delinea
tion of Rebekah's character, which has some strong
points of affinity to that of her son Jacob. She was
accompanied, according to MT, to Isaac's home at
Beer-lahai-roi (i.e., Beer-jerahmeel) by her nurse (24 59),
who, from the corrupt text of 858, is supposed to have
been named Deborah (see DINAH, col. 1102, n. I)
Probably, however, the ‘nurse’ is not referred to, but
the ‘ precious possessions* (nin, cp v. 53) of the newly
won bride. In thc view of the present writer Laban
was originally a southern Jerabmeelite, originally, it
may be, placed in the Negeb, so that he may also
have been called TUBAL (g.v. i
underlie bwin (Bethuel!). See, further, RACHEL, $ 2.
Possibly, Rebekah is a personification alternately of
the southern and of the northern Jerahmeelites. She
has been, one may almost say, created as a true woman,
with beating heart and planning brain, by 7 and E.
The explanation n237, ‘cord’ (8 71) is linguisticaliy attractive ;
cp PIT9, and the ποιμένιος θυγάτηρ of one of the Onomastica
, (OS 20429). But we cannot get to the bottom of
2, Origin such names without considering the tribal relations
of name, of the patriarchs; wives and husbands alike are
tribalpersonifications. Itisprobable that Abraham,
Rebekah, and Leah-Rachel represent a tribal name, Abraham
(from Ab-raham) means probably ‘fatherof Jerahmeel'; Leah and

Rachel (doubles), come from worn-down forms of Jerahmeel.
Rebekah, or rather Ribkah, probably also comes from the latter
name; ὈΠῚ Ξ ἸρΊ ΞΡ. cp, perhaps, the clan-names or tribe-
names Becher, Heber, and the local name Hebron. Observe
that Rebekah's father Bethuel (perhaps= TUBAL [7.0.]) is the
son of Nahor—e., the southern Haran, by Milcab {Jerahmeel],
The same ethnographic traditions are repeated over and over
again genealogicalty. τι Κι C.

RECAH (19%), 1 Ch, 412 RV, AV RECHAH.

RECEIVER (ΡΨ), 153318, ΕΥ̓͂ ‘he that weighed
[the tribute]... Cp SCRIBE and TAXATION.

RECHAB (237, ' charioteer," perhaps short for Ben-
rechab[-e!]_-i.e., son of Rekab['el] ; 5 but more probably
an ethnic of the Negeb [Che.], Ρηχὰβ; butin τ Ch. 255,
pHya [B], and în Jer. 3514 ρηχοβ {N*] On ρηχαβ in
Judg. 119, see Moore's note),

1. One of the murderers of Ishbosheth (2 5. 42,77 : peexa [B,
in ze. 5/ 9. His father was RimMon (g.v.).

2. The eponym of the RecwaBiTes (2 K. 1015
A ‘son of Rechab” is a ‘Rechabite'; so even in
MALCHIJAH, 7)

RECHABITES [HOUSE OF TBE] (22977 Ma;
viKoc apyaBern [BN], aAyaBein or yapaBetn [A]:
paxaBlelin [0], puyaBirai {Sym.j). ‘The Rechabites
have usually been considered to be a sort of religious
order, analogous to the NAZIRISES {[g.v.], tracing its
origin to the Jehonadab or JonADAB, son of Rechab,
who lent his countenance to Jehu in the violent abolition
of Baal-worship. In Jer. 35 we meet with the Rechabites
as continuing to observe the rule of life ordained by
Jonadab their ‘father,' abstaining from wine and
dwelling in tents in the land of Judah till the Babylonian
invasion forced them to take refuge in Jerusalem
(erEMIAR il., 8 17). According to Ewald (CV73 543),
Schtader (22546), and Smend {Xel-gesck. 93 Δ)
they were an Israelitish sect which represented the
reaction against Canaanitish civilisation, and took the
Kenites—the old allies of Israel as a model. In

er. 3567).
ch. 8 14 (sce

1 A connection between the names Hebron and Ribkah has
been already suspected by Ὁ. H. Bateson Wright (Was /srael
Ever in Egypt, 180).

3 So, in the main, Hommel, Das gragrische n, p. 23.
Bar:rekabl'el] was a royal name at Samal in N. Syria:
Rekab'el (or Rèkib'el) was. probably a chariotecr-god, the
πάρεδρος of the sun (cp ‘chariots of the sun,' 2 K. 2811). Sce
G. Hoffinann (who reads Rakkab-'el), Z4, 1896, p. 252; Sachan,
‘Aram. Inschriften,' in SB4W7, 1896, 41.

4019

RECHABITES [HOUSE OF THE]

1 Ch. 2554, however, the ‘house of Rechab' is represented
as belonging to the Kenites, and în 1 Ch. 412 (€82!) the
ἄνδρες ρηχαβ (MT nonoziri 64 di. paga, ἘΝ ‘the men
of Recah') including TERINNAH (perhaps Kinah=
Kenite) appear among the descendants of Chelub®
{=Caleb). We have no right to set this statement
aside on the ground of the late date of the Chronicler.
It is perfectly credible that the Kenites who dwelt in
tents among the Israelites long continued to feel them-
selves the Special guardians οἵ the pure religion of
Yahwé, and were honoured as such by Jeremiah. Budde
assumes that in the time of Jehu a Rechabite named
Jonadab formally reimposed the old obligations on his
fellow-clansmen, at the same time perhaps offering the
privileges of fellowship to those from outside who
accepted the Rechabite rule of life, and thus converting
it to some extent into a religious order.? This is a
plausible hypothesis, and rests upon the assumption
that the Jonadab spoken of in Jer.356-1014 16 18 is the
Jonadab who had a connection with Jehu, Itis possible,
however, that the true name of the reputed father of the
Kenites was not Hobab but Jonadab {see HOBAB).
This hypothesis is, at any rate, simpler than the other
for the Rechabite laws are those characteristic of nomad
raceste.g., the Nabatazans (Diod, Sic. 1994) ἀπά we
cannot help expecting the legislator of the Kenites to
stand, like Moses, at the head of the history of his
people.

The notice in 1 Ch. 2554 is therefore most probably
to be accepted, except in so far as the corrupt name
‘Hammath'* there given to the ‘father’ of the
Rechabites is concerned. Rechabites and Kenites are
synonymous terms. No doubt this second name
‘Rechabites’ is puzzling; nor is it easy to believe
that Yahwè, the God of the Kenites, had Recab-el
{charioteer-god) as a title. It is a question, therefore,
whether the readings p‘3n0 ‘Rechabites,’ and 27 ΠΞ
‘house of Rechab,' ought not to be emended in
accordance with many analogies elsewhere, unless
indeed we assume that the popular speech, which
uses transposition freely, fluctuated. © In Judg.
4: we meet with ‘Heber the Kenite,' and in %. 17
with ‘the house of Heber the Kenite.' It is highly
probabile that 55 Ὠ 231 should be either san, or am
ban. In the former case, Jonadab comes before us
anew as “a son of Heber,' and the Rechabites become
‘Heberites," In the latter ‘Rechab' gives place to
‘Rehob’ {= REHOBOTH) and ‘Rechabites' to ‘ Reho-
bites' {=Rehobothites). Perhaps the former view is
preferable. We can now see the full force of Judg.
4, ‘Now Heber the Kenite (the eponym of the
‘‘ Heberites,” miscalled ‘* Rechabites "᾽} had severed him-
self from Kain, even from the b'ne Hobab (Jonadab?).
The Heberites (Rechabites) of Israel are a branch of
the Heberites (Rechabites) of N. Arabia, equally with
whom they honoured Jonadab as their ancestor and
legislator.

Possibly 33m +5 în Judg. 411 (cp Να»10 29) should rather be
n NI—ie., the Heberites. Whether ‘Heber® (cp puma nam
Hos, 69) had originally a religious sense, and marked out the
Kenites as a priestly tribe (cp Jer. 8919, and sce Moses, κἢ pro
pr whether it is connected with the mysterious Habiri of the
Amarna Tablets (ee HEBREW LANGUAGE, and cp HEBER) is of
course uncertain. Another form which the second name of the
Kenites has assumed by corruption is almost certainly the
Raxas [g.0.] of legend. Very possibly, too, the Danite place-
name BENE-BEKAK should be Bene-rechab—i.e,, Bene-htber;
indeed the famous Barak (Judg.45) was perhaps really a
Heberite (= Heber the Kenité), See KENITES,

Later Jewish tradition said that the Rechabites intermarried
wirh the Levites and so entered the temple service. Hege-

sippus, in his account of the death of James the Just, even
speaks of Rechabite priests, and makes one of them protest

1 See Meyer, Entst. 147.

2 See Budde, ‘The Nomadic Ideal în the ΝΎ, Nec W707/4,
Dec. 1895. Ὁ. 729, not avertooking the interesting note on the
possible Kenite origin of Yalwism ; also Religion o/ Zsrae? ἐσ
the Exile, 20, 44, 120 (1899).

3 Read perhaps ΠΌΠ (=southerm Maacath), Cp HEMATE.

4020

RECHAH

against the crime (Eus. /7.Z 223). Recent writers have tried to
find the descendants of the Rechabites in this or that modern
tribe. Such attempts could not but be illusory. Cp L. Gautier,
‘A propos des Récabites,' La liberté chiétienne, June 15, 1901.
T.K.C

RECHAH, RV Recah (Π2 Ἢ, 1 Ch. diz (pupa [A],
Ρηχὰβ [BL]). See CALEB, $ 4; RECHARITES,

RECONCILE, RECONCILIATION. The words are:

1° Ripper, “59, ἐξιλάσκομαι, Lev. 630 815 1620 Ezek.
45151720—where RV always has ‘atone’ ‘make atonement*
(cp ATonE): ἐξίλασις Nu, 2911t, ἐξίλασμα, τ. 1235 Ps.
497 (89)t, ἐξιλασμός Wisd, 1821 Ecclus.55 1611 1729 181220
(BxC; Heb, πῦρ twice).

2. hithrassah, 49M0, διαλλάσσομαι τ 5.294. In 2 $.2423
‘accept,’ in Gen. 8311 (εὐλογεῖν) Mal. 18 (προσδέχεσθαι) ‘be
pleased with®; διαλλαγή (Ecclus, 2222 2721).

3. bitt®, ΚΒΠ, ἐξιλάσκομαι, 2 Ch. 2924, AV ‘make reconcilia-
tion," RV ‘make a sin offering. See SACRIFICE, 88 28.2, 44 2:

The NT words are :

4. διαλλάσσεσθαι Mt.524 (cp 2, and 2 Macc. 829 [V]).

5. καταλλάσσειν Rom. 510 (cp 2 Macc. 15733 829(A]), καταλ-
λαγή Rom. 511 11 r5 2 Cor. 57819 (cp 2 Macc. 520).

6. ἀποκαταλλάσσειν Eph.216 Col lzoft

7. ἱλάσκεσθαι Lk.1813 Heb. 217, RV ‘propitiation' (Ps.653
[4], etc.), cp ἱλασμός 1 Jn.22 410 EV ‘ propitiation'; cp Ecclus.

1820 [A] 353 [n*; ἐξιλ, BiteaA]2 Macc.333; see also Mercy |

Seat. Deissmann (Wewe Zibelstad, 52) brings forward a parallel
to the construction ἱλάσκεσθαι ἁμαρτίας (Heb.217) in an in-
scription relative to a sanctuary in Asia Minor, ἣν (ἁμαρτίαν)
οὗ “μὴ δύνηται ἐξειλάσασθαι (sic). It is noteworthy, as regards
the use of the idiom, that ἱλάσκεσθαι is employed alternately
with καθαρισμὸν ποιεῖσθαι in © to represent the conception
of atonement. The later phrase regards the act with reference
to its effect upon men, the former with reference to its signifi-
cance in relation to God.

RECORD (©N}), RV ‘he that voucheth for me,'
Job 1619t. See WITNESS.

RECORDS (Esth. 6x1 Ex. 1714}; see HISTORICAL
LITERATURE, $ 5.

RECORDER (Ὑ3})}---ἶ δον ‘one who brings to mind,”
“remembrancer'; aNaMIMNHCeKwn [four times and
Ts. 863 ONE], Ὑττολλνηλλάτογράφος [four times],?
ETTI ΤΩΝ YITOMNHMattwN [2 5.816], YIToMIMNHE-
κων [2 5. 2024 [L] x K. 43 (BL)]; ἃ commentariis),?
the title of a high officer (Jehoshaphat, Joah are named)
in the court of the kings of Judah (2 S.8 16 2024 τ K. 43
2 K.181837 1 Ch. 1815 2 Ch, 848 Is. 863221). RVme
always has ‘chronicler’; AV®8., often, ‘remembrancer*
or ‘writer of chronicles.* The sense in which the word
was taken by (δ and Vg. is obvious. ‘The Hebrew title
might suggest that of the ‘magister memorie’ at the
Roman Imperial court (Smith, Dic Gr. and Rom. Ant.,
s& ‘ Magister’), or that of the king's remembrancer,
whose duty formerly was to remind the judges of the
Exchequer Court ‘of such things as are to be called
and attended to for the benefit of the crown' {Bouvier,
Law Dict., s.v.). But the office of the mazzir was
almost certainly much more responsible than either of
these. It might perhaps more aptly be compared to
that of one of the chief advisers of the crown or of the
‘keeper of the king's conscience.’” See GOVERNMENT,
$ 21; cp HisroRICAL LITERATURE, $ 5.

On the ‘story-writer' RVme. ‘recorder’ (oyb dp9, è τὰ
προσπίπτοντα, cp 7. z1 (5) γράφων τὰ mp.), of 1 Esd. 217, see
REBUM, 5, where ‘governor’ (lit. ‘man of command’) is
suggested as a more likely equivalent.

RED (*?'99M); see COLOURS, 8 (DIN, “IMITR,
Fon, ION), and for Reddish (DIN), see #5., $ το.

RED CORAL (8225), Job 28:8. RVM; see
CORAL,

1 Accordìng to Strabo (797) the ὑπομνηματογράφος was one
of the four native officers recognised in "he Roman province
of Egypt—the others being the ἐξηγητής, the ἀρχιδικαστής, and
the γυκτερενὸς στρατηγός.

2 The senator whose duty ît was to compile the acta diurna ἢ

of the Roman Senate received the title αὐ aczis [or a cons
mentariis] senatus. Under the empire the office was usually
held as an annual one, after the quesstorship, but before the
praetorship or sedileship (Smith, Dick. Gr. ad Rom. Anti, sw.
Acta")

129 σαι

RED SEA

REDEEM, REDEEMER, REDEMPTION.
ει.

RED HEIFER (ΠΡῚΝ ΠῚΒ), Νὰ 19. 7 [Py]
See CLEAN AND UNCLEAN, $ 17; and SACRIFICE, 8 38.
©n the symbolism of the red hue see CLEAN AND
UNCLEAN, $ 16, end.

RED SEA. At Ras Mohammad the Red Sea, “one
of the most remarkable oceanic gulfs on the globe,' is
divided by the peninsula of Sinai into two gulfs, the
western or Gulf of Suez, now about 130 geographical
m. in length, with an average width of about 18, and
the eastem or Gulf of ‘Akabah, about go m, long, and
οὗ proportionate narrowness, On the question as to
the extent of the Red Sea in early historic times, see
ExoDUS Î., $ 15.

Whether by the statement in Ex. 1019 that the W. wind
“took up the locusts and drove them into the ‘Red Sea"
(ona, εἰς τὴν ἐρυθρὰν θάλασσαν), the whole of what is known
to geography as the Red Sea is meant, or only the Heroopolitan

lf (Gulf of Suez), cannot be decided from this passage alone,
Fili cvident that the western gulf is meant in 181 (he way of
the wilderness of the Red Sca—which the Israelites followed
leaving Egypt). In 154, Pharaoh's captains are drowned in
the Red Sea (parallel: ‘sea,’ the expression generally used in
the chapters on the passage through ‘the sea”), in v. 22 the
Israelites leave the Red Sea. Similarly Nu. 1425 8810/ Dt,
11 (after (5, correctly EV) 40 11 4 Josh. 2 10 423 246 Judg. 1116,
etc., mean the Arabian gulf of the ancients, the modern Gulf of
Suez, The eastern gulf, the sinzs A/ariticus or Gulf of
‘Akabah, seems to be meant in Ex. 23 31 (Ὁ (frontier of Israel)
Nu. 214 (8. of the territory of Edom) Dt.21 (to the S. of Mt,
Seir) 1K.926 (ships built at Ezion-geber, on the Red Sea)
Jer. 49 21 (adjoining the Edomites). Consequently, the name
seems to apply to the Red Sea in general.

The rendering of the English version goes back
through the Vulgate to the ᾿Ερυϑρὰ θάλασσα of Gra
Ὁ (where only Judg. 1116 has θάλασσα Zig).
1. ἐρυθρὰ cr), ΟΝ Jassical

ϑάλασσα. The expression ἴδ common to classical

{4Eschylus, Pindar, Herodotus} and biblical
Greek (1 Macc. 49 Wisd. 10 18 197 Acts7 36 Heb. 1129).
The original meaning of the name was a subject of
discussion with the Greeks. They thought of a source
with reddish water, or of the alleged reddish colour of
the sea itself, or of that of the mountains surrounding
it; or they invented a king Erythras.! Egyptologists
have compared the name deire/, ‘red land,’ given by
the ancient Egyptians to the desert in contrast to the
kémet, ‘black land'—z.e., cultivable ground or Egypt
proper (see EcyPT, $ 1); also the Edomites as alleged
' red men,’ or the ‘22277 around Goshen ($ 61).2 Un-
fortunately, none of these names is ever found connected
with the Red Sea; on the Egyptian name ‘water* (or
sea) ‘of the circle’ (or circuit?) and the hypothetical
explanation of this expression, cp WMM ds. w. ἔων.
254. Thus the origin of the Greek name is certainly to
be sought for not in Egypt, but among the Semites.
Some misunderstanding of a Palestinian or Syriac ex-
pression by the Greeks is quite likely. It must be
recalled, in passing, that the Greeks used the name in
a much wider sense than we do, extending it over the
whole sea between Africa and India (cp Herod. Zi,
ete.).3

The Hebrew name yarz siz04, pio-n—i.e., sea of the
water-plant sz4%—is also mysterious. The s20% {see

2. Yam FLAG, 1) belongs specially to Egypt {cp

ΜῊ ha Ex. 235 Is.196) and the Nile; only in

PI Jon. 26 is it used of seaweeds, probably by
poetic license.

See

The word seems to be identical with
the Coptic Xooyd. 6457745, which is not found in
the earlier language but appears as £z-/î in texts of the

1 See Wiedemann's Commentary on Herod. 2 11 (who quotes
Strabo, 16779, Mela, 38, Nearchus, 30, Eust. Dion. Perieg.36)
The statement that the expression is found in an Egyptian
inscription is incorrect.

2 Wiedemann, Ze.

3 The Persian gulf also thus belonged to it. The tradition
that the Pheenicians came originally from the Red Sea—z.e,
Lower Babylonia—has been strangely misunderstood by scholars

4022

RED SEA

nineteenth dynasty.! Whether it be a foreign or a
vernacular word cannot be determined; consequently
it must remain an open question whether it was borrowed
from Egyptian by the Palestinians or vice versé, It is
remarkable that the Coptic version, which otherwise
strictly follows (δ, in Exodus renders ‘Sea of Sari’ which
seems to be seri, cap. according to Theophrastus,
Pliny, and Hesychius, the name of an Egyptian water-
plant (see Peyron, Lex. Cost. 304, who, however,
prefers an impossible etymology).? It would therefore
seem that the Coptic translator here consulted the
Hebrew, rendering ‘sea of papyrus-plants' (Luther
renders Sc4i/fmeer). These aquatic plants, of course,
never grew in the salt water of the Red Sea; modern
travellers have found, not without difficulty, some
clumps of reeds on spots not far from Suez where fresh
water mixes with the Red Sea {see Knobel-Dillmann,
on Ex. 13:18); but the derivation of the name from
these would be more than improbable. Others have
thought (after Jon. 216} of seaweeds which are said to
be plentiful in some parts of the Red Sea; but the
common, early use of the word οὐρά is against this.
We can understand how Brugsch (/Zrede, 11, eto.)
was led by these freshwater plants to assume the
swamps of NE, Egypt as the locality of the Exodus;
he quite forgot, however, that the name γαηε sup?
applies also to the AElanitic gulf5 The freshwater
Timsah-lake with its large marshes full of reeds, ex-
actly at the entrance of Goshen, would fulfil all con-
ditions for the Exodus and for the Hebrew name (see
ExoDus i., $ 16). The word ‘sea’ is used of lakes in
most oriental languages, especially in Hebrew (cp Nu.
841, ‘Sea of Chinnereth,' εἴς. Still, it would be
very strange if the Crocodile Lake, or other swamps on
the frontier of NE. Egypt, should have furnished ‘a:
name to the whole Red Sea, including the lanitic
gulf which was nearer to most Palestinians than the
Egyptian lakes. On the connection between the present
bitter lakes and the Gulf of Suez, which most scholars
assume for biblical times, see ExoDUs i., $ 1g. In the
opinion of the present writer this theory must be re-
jected, and thus the Hebrew name remains obscure.
W. M. M.

With wonted precision and discriminating use of authorities
BDB's Lesicon (60. 18) gives the following, on which it is not
superfluous to comment, because ît is one of the

8. Is the objects of the present work to intermix the old and

solution the new, and by a junction of the forces of all
hopelegg Ὁ Sitical students, to make definite advances where-

ever this is possible, ‘#3D°0! probably = sea e/
rushes or reeds (less probably sea e/Tcity] St4h), which Greek
includes in wider name θαλ, ἐρνθρά, Red Sea (cp Di. Ex, 1318
and especially WMM «ἄς, x Fr: da who explains 25 name
originally given to upper end of Gulf of Suez, extending into
Bitter Lakes, shallow and marshy, whence reeds [probably
also reddish colour]); name applied only to arms of Red Sea,”
most often to Gulf of Suez, sometimes to Gulf of ‘Akaba. It is

noted also that io"D"o should possibly be read for 8 Dib in
Dt. 11. BDR also points out (sv. Ὁ) that în Ex. 142 (δ)
Is. 51 το (bis) 63 11, etc. ὉΠ, and in Is.1115 probably D°Y
=the ‘Red Sea.’ In the latter statement, however, ‘ probably *
seems to be an exaggeration. ‘The tongue (bay?) of the sea of
Egypt’ is a strange circumilocution for io"? ; indeed, to render
omo, ‘Egypt in 20. στ 15 is only plausible if ΡΝ may be
rendered ‘Syria’ (cp Stade, ΖΑ͂ 7} 2 291). That there are errors
in the text of 11 11-16, is certain; that ped is sometimes a cor-
ruption of bayne (cp Ps.) on Ps. 1203), may also be assumed ;
that ἬΝ sometimes stands for ἬΠΖΝ (Ashhur), a synonym of
Syomy (erabmeel), is also difficult to gainsay. Methodical
criticism, therefore justifies us in reading, μον» 5. penm
[0139], ‘And Yahwè shall place a ban upon the Ishmaelites *
(ep ©: 14); DMN Îs an archaising gloss. Even alone, this

1 See WMM As. τι, Zur. του. Sàbelt), ‘reed which was
formerly compared with mo, is different.
2 Ebers, Durv4 Gosen, 519, makes it probable that this word

is s'7in hieroglyphics. This, however, could not well be
identical with the above Coptic word.

, 8. The Sirbonian bog would, however, justify the name as
little as the Gulf of Suez.

4023

is with

REED

would suggest the view that ID"D? may be an early textual
corruption, nor could it be said that ‘Sea of Siiph” was improb-
able, except on the ground that the correctness of the supposed
place-name ‘Stph' in Dt. 11 was open to question. But when
we have recognised that πῆρ, Neh.757, is a corruption of
nis—ic., Zarephath in the Negeb (sce SoPHERETH)—it at
once becomes a plausible view that “5p or spin the MT are
sometimes corrupt abbreviations of the same place-name Zare-
phath (Sarephath). Just as the ‘ Dead Sea’ was called nban o»
a popular corruption (as many text-critical considerations suggest)
of ban n‘ 50 ΠΟ Ὧ", asa name for the Gulf of ‘Akabah, may be
a corrupt abbreviation of ΠΕΣ", where Y isto be taken asa
race-name=the Zarephathites (see ZAREPHATH), A similar
explanation may be given of SurH and SurWak. Prof. Sayce
(Crit. Mon. 255.) 5 of opinion that Yam Siph, wherever the
phrase occurs, means the Gulf of ‘Akabah. This, however,
involves the further statement that the identification of the sea
crossed by the Israelites with the Yam Suph (Ex.15422)is in-
correct. This is surely too bold. In Fx.15 422, as elsewhere,
the best course is to read mmyo* (cp Moses, $ 12), unless,
indeed, we prefer to read ngn 2, All difficultissare obviated,
if we adopt the view of the primitive tradition respecting Israel
advocated în col, 3208 Μ΄, and suppose that the place of sojourn
of the primitive Israelites was in the land of Mizrim, adjoining
the land of Jerahmeel, on the border of the Negeb (see NEGEB).
Ir is possible that the legend spoke of a great deliverance of the
Israelites in nent]p> where [05 (sometimes corrupted into
133, ‘Javan ’) represents ὉΝΌΠΎ" (Jerabmee!). Quite early, the
mark of abbreviation in» may have been lost, and ‘y have
become corrupted into amp and n}; Then, floating mythic
stories may have led to an alteration of the old legend, One
such possible story is referred to elsewhere (Moss, $ 10).
Another uay now be added, We know chat nmyn (Mizrim? or
Mizraim?) was regarded as the antitype of the primitive jB
or ‘dragon’ (see DRAGON, $ 4). There was also, în the Creation-
story, a statement of the production of the dry land by the with-
drawal of the water from a part of the ocean’s bed (Gen. 19).
This may very well have been regarded as a type of the deliver-
ance of the Israelites, the story of which (so soon as textual
corruption made this ible) was adjusted so as to fit this in-
tuition. On Jon.26 (‘s73%, was bound about my head'), see
[εἶ Βιδ. On the whole, the closing sentence of $ 2 seems to
the present writer to be perfectly correct ; but a special biblical
scholar ought hardly ta rest without trying some fresh avenue
to the truth, W.M. M., $If; T.K.C., 83.

REED. τ. ΠῚ), Adnek, στ K.Idxs kaAamoc {2 K.
1821 Is. 886, ete., Mt, 117 1220, etc.), is a word which
is common to Heb., Syr., Arab., and Ass., and
has passed into Gr. and Lat. as KANNA—cazza,
and into Eng. as ‘cane.’ ‘The name is probably of
Semitic origin (Lag. Ueders. so; Barth, Nominalb. $9 0);
but the nature of its connection with the root mp is
obscure, Besides the general meaning ‘stalk’ (Gen.
41522) or ‘shaft' (Ex. 3717, etc.),° mp is used more
specifically of (2) reedgrass, (δ) sweet or aromatic cane(?).

(4) Reedgrass is frequently mentioned, though there
is little to help in determining the particular species
intended. It was distinct from s%% (see FLAG) and
gime' (see RusH), but like these grew by the banks
of rivers (eg, the Nile, Is. 196} and pools (Is. 357).
It appears to have been somewhat tall (Job 40 21) and
thick (to justify the metaphor in Job 3122; EV
‘bone,’ AVm£. ‘chanel-bone'); and the jointed nature
of the stalk appears to be indicated in the repeated
references to the broken or bruised reed (2 K.1821,
etc.) —Perhaps the most probable identification
the tall Arzado Donax, L., which grows
abundantly in S. Europe: though other species may
have been included under the name.# In Ps. 68(30]11
mp mm certainly cannot be rendered ‘the company of
spearmen' (as AV); such a phrase can only be rendered
*the wild beast of the reeds’ (cp AVME:, ‘the beasts of
the reeds '). ‘The animal intended may be the crocodile

1 The mp (lance) of 2 5. 21 τό, may be a kindred word, though
the correctness of the text is very questionable,
2 So of the beam of a balance (15. 466), and of a measuring

reed or rod (Ezek. 40 3, etc.), on which last see WEIGHTS AND
MEASURES, $ 1.

3 With these references cp the Talmudic phrase ‘push with a
reed'_of a feeble arguer (L8w, 344).

4 The evidence of the Syriac lexicographers îs somewhat in
favour of Arundo Phragmites, L. (L8w, 343).

4024

REEDS, WILD BEAST OF THE

(cp Ps. 7414, ete.), or the hippopotamus (cp Job4021).
A symbol of Egyptian power seems to be required, and
this the hippopotamus nowhere is. See CROCODILE.
{It is not surprising, considering the obscurity of the context,
that opinion should not be quite unanimous. Duhm thinks
that the swine is meant (cp 80 13 [14]), as the symbol of a Syrian

population Cheyne (25.9) reads ]w7 ‘np MN, ‘the wild
beasts of pointed horns.

(ὁ) By the Zaze4 of Cant. 414 Is. 4324 Ezek. 27 το, the
25 mp of Jer. 620, and the ng3 mp of Ex. 8023 is
meant some aromatic product. It formed an ingredient
in the holy anointing oil, the others being myrrh,
cinnamon, cassia, and alive oi. It came to the Jews
‘from a far country! (Jer. 620, cp Ezek. 2719), and was
costly (Is. 4324). ‘The more general use of &ireZ in
other passages suggests that this ‘ fragrant cane' wasan
aromatic reed or flag. such as Axorus Calamus, Li:
others, however, prefer to identify the substance as
cassia bark, which is yielded by ‘various species of cin-
namomum occurring in the warm countries of Asia from
India eastward' (Flick. and Hanb.!2) 527).

5. niny, 'Groth (Gi; Is.197t), which is in AV
rendered ‘paper reeds,’ means properly ‘bare places,
and (if not corrupt, see Che. S807, and Marti, ad /oc.)
refers to the uncultivated and treeless meadows along
the banks of the Nile.

3. pin, ‘Agammim, which generally means pools or
marshes, is in Jer.5132 (but @ has συστέματα [BNA]
or συστήματα [B2?>Q] though Aq., Sym. translate ὅλη)
applied to the clumps or beds of reeds (such as grow
on marshy spots), which are said to be ‘burned with
fire' (Griitz, however, would read δ σης, ‘castles’).
Cp Pool, 1. ᾿

4. inv, ἄξει, is twice in RV text {Gen. 41218) and
once in RVMS (Job81:) rendered ‘reed-grass': on
this see FLAG.

5. san, ek, in Job 926f (ἴχνος ὁδοῦ} is rightly
rendered ‘reed'in RV®8. Cp Ass. 25% or ape, ‘The
allusion is to the light canoes or skiffs of reed anciently,
and still, in use on the Nile; cp Is. 182 (‘vessels of
papyrus') and SBOT ad loc.

[lt is not strange that this rendering should be a distincel
modern one. The explanation of 762% as ‘reed ' only goes hac!
to Hiller (/ierofAyticon, 1725) and Schultens (1737) Vg.
(following Tg.) gives fora sortantes (cp DN); Symm. σπεύ-
Sovra: (AVmg. ‘ships of desire '); Pesh. and over 40 MSS read
πα, “Ghips of) hostility'; and lastly Olshausen reads ΠῚΣΝ,
‘Ghips of) wings.' See OserEY, σα γέρε, for a new emendation.]

NM

REEDS, WILD BEAST OF THE. See above 1 (a).

REELAIAH or rather, Reeliah (MON; pecAera
[BI, peeAiac [AL]), Ezra22=Neh. 77, RaAmIan=
1Esd. 58 where it is corruptly REESAIAS {AV], RESAIAS
[ΕΝ], (ρησαιου [BA], deguov [L= mey =mow]); the
form REELIAS [g.v.]. however, appears elsewhere in
the same verse. Like ‘Raamiah' it may represent
“Jerahmeel’; the existence of N. Arabian elements
within the Jewish community can hardly be denied
(Che.), Cp REGEM-MELECH.

REELIUS, RV Reelias {BopoAeroy [B]. peeAroy
[A]), a duplicate of the name of the fourth in the post-
exilic list of leaders in 1 Esd. 58, which has by a scribe's
error been substituted for Baroi (see #14 {A]) or
Barovai [L], i.e. Bigvai (see Ezra 22 Neh. 77).

REESAIAS (pucaioy [BA]), 1 Esd. 58=Ezra22,
REELAIAH.

REFINER (1.5), Mal 32 ΔῈ See FURNACE,
METALS.

REFUGE, CITIES OF (09pMN "M), Josh. 202.
See AsvyLum, $ 5, and cp $ 6, 8; LEVITES.

REGEM (02): parem [B], pe. [A], perma [L]),
a Calebite name, one of the sons of Jahdai; 1 Ch. 247.

4025

REHOB

REGEM-MELECH ΟΡ; apBeceep [BNT],
-cep [N°*], -cecep [A], -cee [0], 0 BaciAeye: see
below). A citizen of Jerusalem concerned in a deputa-
tion sent to the prophet Zechariah, Zech. 72 (see
SHAREZER, 2). Most probably (as Marquart suggests)
he is to be identified with RAAMIAH, one of the twelve (?)
leaders of the Jews (Ezra 22 and parallel passages).!
‘The present writer suspects, however, that both
‘Raamiah ’ and ‘ Regem-melech ' are simply corruptions
of ‘Jerahmeel.' ‘The Jew spoken of would be (like so
many others) partly of Jerahmeelite extraction. It
would thus become unnecessary to explain Regem in
Regem-melech by the Aram. pi, jecw/ari.

Marti now (1897) reads, for ‘Regem-melech and his men,”
Ὁ fourteen men,’ ΟἿΌΝ ἼΦὉ ΠΡΊΝ, a trace of which he finds in
©'s ἀρβεσεερ è βασιλεύς. * This accounts rather ingeniously for
ἀρβεσεερ. But we have no right to eliminate bo DIS. ἀρβέσεερ
may represent I5N31 (cp TMME}—Le., wa DIE (= Asshurite
Arabia). Cp SHAREZER, 2; RAB-SHAKEH. T.K.C,

REBABIAH (MMM), ‘Yah is a wide place, cp
the use of 21M) in Ps, 42 1837 [36] or quite as possibly
an ethnic=*3M, ‘Rehobite’ (Che.); paaBia) b.
Eliezer b. Moses (1 Ch. 2317 2421: aBia [L]: 2625:

paBiac [B]. paa- [Δ], βιὰ [L]). Cp Moses, REcHA-
BITES, REHOBOAM.

REHOB (23M), ‘broad place'; pow8 [BAL]}.

1. The northern limit of the ‘spies,' apparentIy
Aramazan, and in the direction of Hamath {Nu.13zr
paaf [B], powé [ΕἸ 2 5.108 pon8 [A], βαιθρααβ [L]};
see BeTH-REROB. In the context of both passages,
however (see NEGEB, MAMRE, ZOBAH), there are
phenomena which suggest that both ‘ Rehob' and the
‘ Beth-rehob' of 2 5, 106 are incorrectly or imperfectly
written for ‘ Rehoboth,' and that this ‘ Rehoboth' is
the place of that name in the Negeb (see REHOBOTH),
* Hamath' may be miswritten for Maacath or MAACAH
(g.2.), not improbably the southern Maacah. It may
be added that, from this point of view, ‘Aram’ in the
original narrative which underlies 2 9. 10 meant ‘Jer-
ahmeel,' a still shorter form of which is RAM (g.v.} ; also
that ‘ben Rehob,' the designation of Hadad-ezer in
2 8. 8312, probably means ‘native of Rehoboth' (see
ΖΟΒΑΗ). τι κι ς.

2. and 3. The name of two unidentified Asherite
cities, the one mentioned between Ebron and Hammon
{Josh. 1928, ρααβ {B]), the other with Accho and Aphek
(73. 30, paav ΓΒ, see UMmAN], ραωβ [A] -οβ [Compl.],
ἀρωβ [1.}. There may well have been several Rehobs;
but the mention of two in the Asherite list seems
due to an error. It is only the second one which
we know to have existed. It is enumerated {with
Aphek and Accho) in Judg.13: (epew [B]) among the
cities of Asher in which the Canaanites remained ; and
again în Josh. 213: (P, paa8 [B]), x Ch. 675 [60] (om.
L) in a post-exilic list of Tevitical cities assigned to
the b’ne Gershon.® A possible connection with ra%z[5?]
in an Eg. list, may be mentioned (cp WMM 4s. w. Ezr.
394). Of more importance, however, is the occurrence
of the name ra4zby (pap. Anast.) between Kiyng (see
HERER, 1), and 2ay4-Sa"-4-rw {perhaps Beth-shean ?),?
which is doubtless the same as the 008, pow8 of the
Onom., situated near Beth-shean (050 14521 28682 /).
Now this Rehob in OT times must have been included
within the borders of Issachar. It seems not improbable
that the name în Josh. 1928 (see above) has been
accidentally transplanted from the list of cities of
Issachar once given by E in v2. 17-23 See BETH-
REHOB. SAC.

1 Cp Abijah (1 S.143)= Ahimelech (1 S.229-12).
2 The criticism of Josh. 19 is difficult. See Josnua,
Ur 5 Addis, Doc. Μέσ 130. 2467 f, and cp 0x£ Hex.
oc.
3 WMM As, τ. Eur. 153; cp rufada (Sofenk list) together
with Hapurame (sce Harnanam), ἢ
4 Of the older document only v. 174 has survived. The rest

4025

REHOB

REHOB (30M). τ. 2 S.83:2;
BerHW-REHOBj HADADEZER.

2. A Levite signatory to the covenant (see Ezra ἵν, $ 7};
Neh. 1011 [12] (B om., powf [AL], poof [itc.a mg:]).

REHOBOAM (DY2M1, as if ‘the clan is enlarged.'1
But mam, REHABIAK, favours the view that either py is the
divine name ‘Amm tp Ammi, Names in), or [Che.] the name
îs, or represents, one οἱ ificati
Possibly the true form was Rehab'el, ἢ
JeROBOAM [9.2.] may have been Jerubba'al; the origin of both
names, however, may be suspected to have been ‘ Jerahmeel,'
Cp, however, Gray 7P.N, 59; poBcay BALI),

Son of Solomon, and first King of Judah (about 930
B.C. ἢ). According to 2 Ch. 1213 the queen-mother was
“Naamah, an Ammonitess' This supposed half-
Ammonitish origin of Rehoboam would be important,
were ἴξ probable (cp the -2m in the name). But we
have no reason to think that Solomon's chief wife was
an Ammonitess, Much more probably he married the
‘companion’ of David's old age, by an error (it seems)
of & and MT called Abishag. If so, n°nny may bea
corruption of meng, Sunammith, and Rehoboam's

mother was probably Naamah the Shunamite (cp Cant.
612 [13}). The queen-mother, however, need not have
been an Issacharite; the Shunem from which she came
was most probably in the Negeb (see SHUNAMMITE).
Had it been otherwise, Rehoboam might have counted
on the support of the tribesmen of Issachar. But
Issacharites were certainly not among ‘the young men
that had grown up with him and stood before him,’ of
whom we are told in 1 Κα. 128.

The traditional story of the events which led to the disruption
is considered elsewhere (see JEROBOAM, 1). It îs necessa:
however, to refer to it again in connection with the arti
SoLomoN. It would seem that in spite of the compulsory (?
cession of twenty cities to the king of Missur, Solomon succeeded
in retaining a large part of the Negeb, It also appears that as
late as the time of Amos (see PROPHET, $ 35) Istaelites from the
N, frequented the venerable sanctuaries of the Negeb—a region
which the second Jeroboam had recovered for ἔδταει, t is
further probable that the place-name which appears in Genesis
(MT) as ‘Shechem' should rather be Cusham, and that a place
in the Negeb, on the border of the N. Arabian Cush is intended.
See SuecHem. Very possibly it was there that the great
assembly was held, ich issued in the rejection of Rehoboam
by the larger part of Israel. That the story given in 1 K.12 is
correct, is intrinsically improbable. We do not know what it
was that actually kindled the spark of disaffection, nor îs it
necessary that we should. The differences of N. and 5. were
reasons enough for a separation; in race and perhaps even in
matters of cultus there was by πὸ means complete unity among
the federated clans of Israel. Was Rehoboam really forty-
one years old at his accession? We may doubt it, even without
laying stress on 1 K.128; cp 2 Ch. 137. 80 far as we can see,
he displayed no vigour, even in the feud between himself and
Jeroboam ; the historians ascribe this partly to the intervention
οἵ a prophet named SHEMAIAH. And in spite of the cities in
the S. which Solomon (and, as the Chronicler states, Rehoboam
himself) had fortified, he could not hinder the successful in-
cursion of ‘Shishak, King of Egypt, or rather ‘Cushi, king of
Misrim' (see ΒΗΙΒΗΑΚ) which resulted in the loss of the
treasures which Solomon had collected for the temple. This is
the one great event recorded of his reign. See IsraEL, $ 28,
‘and on Rehoboam's wives(2 Ch. 11 1820), MAacaH, MAHALATH.

τ΄ K. C.

REHOBOTE (MM: eypyywpia [ADL]), the
name of one of the wells dug by Isaac (Gen. 2622).
si See GeRrAR, Rèhòboth was really,

1 Identifica, however, an important place, to which
great kings and diviners appear to have

traced their origin, and where great prophets took
refuge, and received messages from their God (see
below). It may perhaps be the city of Rubuta men-
tioned in the Am, Tab. (18213 18810), and once
called apparentiy Hubuti (23947), In 1838-10 we read
that the warriors of Gazri, Gimti, and Kilti have taken
the region of Rubuti. Gimti is Gimti-Kirmil, f.e.,
Gath of JERAHMEEL (g.v., $ 4 {{:}}, Kilti is Keilah.
The localities, except Gezer, lie pretty near together.
Presumably the site is that of the mod. Rz4azdek, 8

see REHOBI. 1;

REHOBOTH

hours SW. of Beersheba, at the point ‘from which the
roads across the desert, after having been all united,
again diverge towards Gaza and Hebron. Robinson,
who visited the place, hesitated to make this identifica-
tion, because ‘this appears to have been nothing but a
well' (BR 1201), Rowlands! and Palmer saw more
clearly. In the Wady itself there is only one well; but
on the sloping sides of the side-valley, în which the
ruins are situated, are many wells, reservoirs, and
cisterns. ‘A little beyond this the WaAdy opens out,
and receives the name of Ba4r dela mi (‘the waterless
sea [lake]'), and on the left comes in a small valley
called ὄρσεο er-Rukaibeh, in which names are preserved
both the Sitnah and Rehoboth of the Bible’ (Palmer,
Desert of the Exodus, 385). Probably Ruhaibeh also
represents the ‘Rehoboth by the River’ of Gen. 3637
(“man nizimi ροωβωθ τῆς παρὰ ποταμόν, or τοῦ ποταμοῦ
[AL], om. B; de fiuvio Rohobotk, or de R. que juxta
amnem sita est [Vg.]). See SAUL (2), PeTHOR. The
appended description distinguished this Rehoboth from
other places of the same name. ‘The ‘River’ is the
River of Misrim {see MIZRAIM, $ 24; EGYPT, RIVER
ΟΕ). For passages in the accounts of Bela, Balaam,
and Elijah, in which Rehoboth appears under disguises
due to corruption in the text, see BELA, CHERITH,
PETHOR ; also MARCABOTH, NEGEB, $ 2.6.

This, however, does not exhaust the list of probable
references to Rehoboth, It may have been displaced

by ‘Hebron’ in Gen, 232 3527 Judg.

2. Further OT 110? (see KIRJATH-ARBA); in this

references. case, it was at Rehoboth, not at Hebron,
that the famous cave of ‘the MACHPELAH' (? Ferahmeel,
Gen. 23 17-20) was situated. The error may have been
a very early one (perhaps în the original P). No doubt,
too, ‘B'ne Heth'.in Gen. 233 7. is miswritten for ‘ B'ne
Rehoboth' (nn for n[5]n[3]) ; so also ‘ Hittite' (nn) in
Gen. 26 34 and 362 should be ‘ Rehobothite' (*‘n3m), and
‘daughters of Heth‘ (nn m32) in Gen. 2746 should be
" daughters of Rehoboth' (nam mia); see JACOB, $ 2.

The Book of Ezekiel, too, yields one remarkable
reference to Rehoboth, if in Ezek. 16345, ‘thy mother
was a Hittite,we should read ‘ Rehobothite' (| ' Amorite,'
or rather ‘Arammite’=' Jerahmeelite*). On the prob-
ability that the early population of Jerusalem consisted
of Jerahmeelites or Rehobothites, see Zion, and cp
Crit. Bib.

Most probably, too, ‘ URIAH the Hittite' should be
‘ Uriah the Rehobothite,” and ‘ Haggith' (the name of
Adonijah’s mother) in 25.34 should be Rehobith
{mum). ‘Cherethite’ {115}, too, can at last be rightly
it should be ‘Rehobothite' (‘niim). This, in
fact, is a necessary inference from the corruption of
mam into ne) in 1K.1735 (see CHERITA, and cp
PELETHITES, ZAREPHATH), Thus David's faithful
guards were not Philistines, but men of S. Palestine,
‘Fhat the Rehobothites and Sarephathites, however,
were always friendly to David is more than can be
safely stated. Both tribes or peoples are apparently
referred to as hostile to David in 2 S.21rs-22. ‘ Philis-
tines’ should be ‘Sarephathites,” and ‘Gath” (ni) and
‘Gob' (33) are probably corrupt fragments of ‘Reho-
both' (mam). It will be remembered that the Misrites
were famous for their tall stature (1Ch.1123; cp Is.
45:4?), and that the Anakîim are connected with
Kirjath-arba. Now Kirjath-arba (ya ΠΡ}, or per-
haps -'aràb (πῃ ‘p) is at any rate not Hebron, but may
be Rehoboth (cp ScDoMm). These conjectures favour the
view that Goliath, David's antagonist in the legend,
was of Reboboth, not of Gath.

In short, it would appear that older and very different stories
underlie the narratives in MT and @ of 1 5. 17 and (especially)
2 8.21 15-22 2858-23; either there has been a confusion between

has been rejected in favour of P's account of the tribal limits:
see Addis (ἦσο, ci4.).
1 Cp the play on the name in Ecclus. 47 23 (Heb, text).

4027

1 In Williams, 4/0/y City, 1465. ᾿
2 *Canaanites' here should be ‘ Κεπίσσίξεβ᾽ (as în some other
parts of Judg. 1 and elsewhere).

4028

REHOBOTH-IR

two wars of David—one with the ‘ Philistines” and one with the
Sarephathites and Rehobothites, or there has throughout the
life of David been a great error of the scribes—png/55 written
for ponamy and p'nio for miami If so, it becomes at once
probable that Sarephath and Rehoboth are also referred to in
25 517.25 and 62-11 (see ZAREPHATH, ZikLacì ‘OneD-
Don [g.v.} the Gittite’ should be ‘Arab-edom the Rchobo-
thite.' Only on this critical conjecture can we explain the
action ascribed to David in 2 5, 6 τὸ (cp ARK, 8 5). Tris may
be taken together with a less certain but not unimportant con-
jecture relative τὸ Baal-perasim and Peres-uzza (see PERAZIM,
ZarerHatH) The royal city of Achish (15.27 5) was not
‘Gath’ but ‘Reboboth.' This would throw a light on the
story of Shimei"s journey in 1 K.239.7 (sce Suime), Else.
where (SiseRA) it is suggested that both ‘Achish” and ‘ Nahash®
probably come from ‘Ashhur' (=* Asshur, also=‘Geshur') so
that ‘Sisera’ (=Asshur) may represent the Nahash, king of
Ammon (rather Jerahmeel), of 1 S. 111 2 5.102.

Other disguised references to Rehoboth may perhaps
be found in 15. 1447 {where (51: presupposes mr
probably a corruption of nino) and in 2 5. 83 12 106 8.
In r S.14 the conquest of Rehoboth is ascribed to
Saul; in 2S., more correctly to David. In 2 5.
111: 1226-30 this important event is described; the
phrases ‘the royal city’ and the ‘city of waters' are
both the result of textual corruption {read ‘the city of
Jerahmeel,' or ‘of the Jerahmeelites '). See further Cit.
Bib., and cp SAUL, $ 3; URIAH. See also MIZRAIM,
where it is argued that Gen. 1014 probably refers to
Rehoboth {not Caphtorim) as the starting-point of the
Pelistim (cp 25.2118 7). τ. K.C.

REHOBOTH-IR (©) N3M; powBwc πολιν
[AD]: powBo@ π΄ [25]; powBw@ 17. [EL]) or ‘the

iologi city Rehoboth,' one of the four cities
1. Assyriologi- nentioned in Gon. 10rr}. The name
cal inquiry. cannot be identified with any of the
cities in the neighbourhood of Nineveh and Calah, with
which it is associated. In the inscriptions of Sargon
and Esarhaddon mention is made of the ré5if Niné, as
a place in which was situated the old city Maganuba,
on the site of which Sargon founded his city of Dfr-
Sargon, the modern Khorsabad. Rehoboth-Ir might
represent Rébit-Ali, and this might be equivalent to
Rébit-NinA, and be a popular name for Dfr-Sargon
(cp Del. Per. 160f Calwer Bib.-Lex. 7238). The
word rébitu (from ra’batu?) denotes primarily the out-
skirts of a city, in some cases the fields and plantations
which were part of the city but lay outside its walls,
though possibly within the exterior circumvallation,
Thus it was in the réif of Dùr-ili that Sargon fought
with Humba-niga$ king of Elam, at the commencement
of his reign: and it was in the γόδὲξ of Nineveh that
Esarhaddon made his triumphal entry after his capture
of Sidon, ΑΒ 2:26. There is evidence that #45: is the
name of the farm or estate in the open country and was
usually followed by the name of its owner; thus Rébit
Rimàni-ilu denotes the estate of RimAni-ilu (see Assyriar
Doomsday Book, 62), This would suggest that, if a
town-name, Rehoboth “Ir implics a founder ‘Ir. No
such town name, however, has come down to us.!

The failure of attempts to explain Rehoboth-Ir and

Resen (not to add Accad and Calneh) from Assyriology
ΜΗ compels biblical critics to look at the
2. Text-oritical problem from a fresh point of view,
solution. suggested by experience of the con-
fusions and misunderstandings of biblical names which
abound in the traditional text. ‘The problem thus viewed
is part of a much larger one which affects the whole of
the Nimrod passage, and indeed the context in which
that passage occurs. It is far from unlikely that
Nimrod was really a N. Arabian not a Babylonian hero,
and ‘Rehoboth-Ir and Calah' should most probably
give place to ‘ Rehoboth and Jerahmeel.” See Nimron,
REHOBOTH. c.H.Ww.1,$1;T.K.C,$2

REHUM (DIM) as if ‘beloved,’ an Aramaic word

1 There was a district known as Rabîte, near Nineveh (see
Assyrian Deeds and Documents, Nos. 278, 416); but this was
probably the radi? of the ‘magnates,' 7a4#/e, of Nineveh.

4029

REINS

[$ 56], but very possibly one of the popular transforma-
tions of ‘ Jerahmeel'; cp Harim, Rekem, Raamiah,
and see SHIMSHAI [Che.]).

1. A leader (see EzRA ii., $ 8 ε) in the great post-exilic
list (Ezra ii., 8 9) Ezra 22 (ipeoym [A], peroym [1],
B om.) ; probably the same as (4) below. ‘That the
form NEHUM (Dim; γαοὺμ [BNAL]) in Neh. 77 is in-
correct is shown by τ Esd. 58 (ροειμου [D], ρομελιου
[A#], vaova [L], EV Roimus).

2. b. Bani, a Levite, in list of wall-builders {see
NEHEMIAH, $ 1f, EzrRAii., 88 16 [1] 154) Neh. 817
(βασουθ [B]. ραοὺμ [NA], ρεουμ [L]).

3. Signatory to the covenant {EZRA i., $ 7); Neh.
1025 [26] (ραοὺμ [BNA], pe. [L]).

4. A priest in Zerubbabel's band (EZRA ii., $ 65),
Neh. 123, miswritten for HARIM of v, 15 (so Guthe in
SBOT; BRA om. ; ρεουμ [δὲς 3 me. soP.L}),

5. The name of a high official (oyw 5p3) who joined
with Shimshai the scribe and others in making repre-
sentations against the Jews to Artaxerxes (Ezra 48 9 17 23).
EV, following the early Hebrew commentators, who
explain ‘recorder,’ calls him ‘the chancellor'; “the
governor' would perhaps more cxactly convey the force
of nyv Spa (‘man of commands’), which is either the
translation of an old Persian title (Pahlavi framdfar—so
Andreas in Marti, Aram. Gram.) or may even represent
a Greek title (e.g., ἔπαρχος). The latter alternative
assumes that the writer transported the political relations
of the Greek period into the Persian period to which
documents used by him belonged (so Marquart,
Fund, 60). It is desirable, however, that Ezra and
Nehemiah should be re-examined in the light of the
theory that the underlying original narrative related to
the N. Arabian, not to the Persian, rule. This may
affect our conclusions in many minor points.

T.K.C.

The versions of Ezra leave the title untranslated (paovà
βαδαταμεν, ραουμ βααλ, paova βαλγαμ, paovu [B], ρεουμ BaaAtay
peova [A], ρεουμ βελτεεμ [L], deelteene (Vg.]). In 1Esd.
RATHUMUS (pa8vpos) called the ‘news-writer’ (. 17, è [
προσπίπτοντα, EV ‘the story.writer*), cp Jos. (4)
fr è πάντα τὰ πραττόμενα γράφων. In other cascs his titlc has

een treated as a proper name BEELTCTHMUS, 5 scribe's cor.
ruption of βεελτεεμος, Ὁ. 16 p. καὶ βεελτεῦμος [LD], palvos καὶ
βαελτεθμος [Aal, ραθυμος καὶ βεελτεμος [L], Ὁ. 25121]. . . ραθύμῳ
τῷ γράφοντι τὰ προσπίπτοντα καὶ βεελτεθμῳ.. εελ-
τεμωθ᾽ (A), p. yp. 7. mp. x. BecAregg [L, Ὁ. 18), a doublet).

REI (ἼΣ ; pHcei [BA], also a Palm. name [Vogîié,
Syr. Centr. nos. 16, 22], but @ [kai] Οἱ eraipor
ΔΎΤΟΥ, with reference to Shimei ; cp Jos. “πὲ vii. 144:
* Shimei David's friexd' and see Th.}, coupled with
SHIMEI (g.v. n), among those who did not favour
Adonijah {1K18). Winckler{Gesck. 2241) identifies him
with Ira, the Jairite, who was a ‘priest to David” (2S.
20:6); he argues ingeniously to show that this Ira (or Jair}
was a priest of Bethlehem. But for jn5 we should
possibly read jab ‘a high officer' (cp SHEBNA). Ewald

reads "ΤΊ for Ὑὴ and identifies (not plausibly) with
David's brother RADDAI [g.v.].

REINS. τ. (ΠΥ ΟΣ, 40/4424; Νεφροι [6 and Rev.
2234]; renes), properly the £i4xeys (of animals offered
in sacrifice, except in Job 1613 Ps. 13913 Lam. 313,
where the human kidneys are referred to). ‘A not
less important seat of life [than the blood], according to
Semitic ideas, lay in the viscera, especially in the
kidneys and liver, which in the Semitic dialects are
continually named as the seats of emotion; or more
broadiy in the fat of the omentum and the organs that
lie in and near it (Rel Sem. 379), Consequently P
represents these parts as Yahwéè's appointed share of the
sacrifices (cp LIveER). We even find a peculiar sym-
bolism connected with kidney-fat (see FooD, $ τα, but
note that the text of the passages is doubted ; see MILK,
$ 1). It is much more natural to find the ‘reins’ (as
EV calls the “kidneys, when used metaphorically)
employed as a term for the organ, not only of the

4030

168.
sl rà
21

RERKEM

emotions (see Ps. 7321 Job 16 13 1927 [not & but Theod.])
but of the moral sentiments (sce Jer. 1]zo 17io 2012
Ps. 710167 (?) 262). ‘Trier of the reins and the heart”
is the characteristic and title of Yahwè, not only in
the OT, but also in the Hebraistic Book of Revelation
(Rev. 223). In Ps. 167, however, ‘ yea, my reins instruct
me in the night seasons’ can hardly be right. It is
Yahwè, not the ‘heart’ or the ‘ reins,' who trains and
disciplines men {see Che. Ps.) 24 /oc.).

2. D:sbn, AdZasdim, is în 15. 11 5. rendered ‘reins' by EV
simply for want of a synonym for ‘loi

3. The AVmie. of Lev. 13.2 224 for 331, 204, is not literal, and
is based on a long-exploded pathology (cp MEDICINE, ὃ 5).

REKEM (D})) τ. Apparentiy a Benjamite piace-
name, Josh. 1827 (nakan [B?]}, pekem [A]. pexen
[L]}). but most probably a corruption of bxsm, Jerah-
meel, and equivalent to omna, BAHURIM {another of the

developments of JTERAHMEEL).!

2. A king of Midian, Nu. 318 (ροκομ [BAFL]).
(3).

3. One of the ‘sons’ of Hebron mentioned with
TAPPUAH and SHEMA [gg.v.] in τ Ch. 243; in 244
[MT] he is father of Shammai father of Afaez, but in
6 (ρεκομ [B], ροκομ [A], ρωκημ [L]) it is Shema who is
ancestor of Shammai, the intermediate links being
RAHAM and JORKEAM [gg.v.]; Rekem, Raham, Jor-
kceam, and Carmel are all probably corruptions of
JERAHMEEL. Cp JOKDEAM.

4. In pause RAKEM (so EV), a Manassite ; 1 Ch. 716
(BA om., ρακαμ [L]. Seemingly there was a strong
Jerabmeelite element in the population of the Manassite
territory.

These explanations suggest the true explanation of the phrase
tip 12; see East, CHILDREN OF, where the reader is referred
to the present article for textual criticism of the phrase. One
plausible view of the original form of the story of Gipron
(9.2., $ 1) requires us, in Judg.63 33 71210 read pp ya (see
Pesh.), ἦδι, Samy 112; note the gloss ‘Amalekites.’ This
should be taken in connection with the Targumic use of pp" for
Kadesh ; here too ΠΡῚ must come from danno ; the full name of
Kadesh was Kadesh-jerahmeel, barnea' and ‘rekem’ having
the same origin. See Sera, ἴπ fact, wherever we meet with
phrases like "the sons’ or ‘the land” or ‘the mountains of
Kedem' we may safely regard Aedem as a corruption of Regene,
i.c., Jerahmeel, with the doubtful exception of Gen. 10 30 (£..;
if πρὸ [EV ‘toward Sephar'] does not come from navy, cp
SepHARAD) Cp OrHIR. See Gen, 256 291 Nu. 237 τ K.59
[4 30] Is. 1114 Jer. 49 28 Ezek. 254 10 Job13. Similariy in Gen.
1519 KaoMoNITES must be a corruption of ‘Jerahmeelites.”

T.K.C.

See JUBILEE, also Law

cp

RELEASE, YEAR OF.
AND JUSTICE, $ 15.

REMALIAH (31509, $ 39: pomeria[c]), father
of PEKAH (g.v.), 2K. 1525 etc., Is 74f 86. Prob.
ably a corruption of Sxomy, Jerahmeel. Pekah's Gilead-
ites may really have come from the Negeb (on the
southern 3451, see Cri. 255. on Jer. 822 226 Am. 13).
Similarly, Jehuw as not improbably an Ishmaelite (see
NimsH1), and Joab a Misrite (see ZERUVIAH). It is easy
to understand that the boldest adventurers might be of
N. Arabian extraction. τι κι C.

REMEMBRANCE (quan, Is. 578. See MEMORIAL.

REMEMBRANCER (2 5. 2024 ete., AVE), EV
‘recorder,’ ἔν ΘΕ. ‘ chronicler.* See RECORDER.

REMETH (N97), Josh. 1921. See RAMOTH, x.

REMMON (ΠΡ), Josh. 197 AV; RV Rimmon (îî.,1).

REMMON-METHOAR (INNI i), Josh. 1913.
See RIMMON ii., 3.

REMPHAN (pempan, Stephens with 1, 31 ete.;
cp pempam [D, Vg. Iren.]j pompan [K*]; pompa

[Β], pem@a [61, Arm.]), or (m being iutrusive, as in
NOMBAa beside noBa, 15.211), as ΕΝ, REPHAN (pepan

1 gdr ἃ out, and n di (for the re
Δ dropped out, and nn became \VErSe process see
HF. Smith οὐ 185,816) pe P

4031

REPHAIAH

[CE, Syrr., Memph. Theb. Zth.]; cp ρδιφὰν, [AN];
Pagan, Just. Dial 22, ex Amos), occurs, with the prefix
‘the star of the god' (so ΕΝ with BD, Pesh., etc. and
@40*), or ‘the star of your god' (so AV, with ANCE,
Vg., Harcl., etc. ), in Acts 7 43, in a quotation from Amos
526, & (where BA pardan, Ὁ pedan, Complut. pem-
a). The same Jablonski who ventured on a Coptic
explanation of BEREMOTH (9.v.) explained Rempha or
Rompha from the Coptic, as ‘king of heaven,’ nz/o
plane apice immutato (' Remphah, Aîgyptiorum Deus,”
in Opuscula, ed. Te Water, 2 [1806], pp. 1-72). But
‘king of heaven' in Egyptian would be suzex em get!
Gloag (Comm. on Acts1 249), Lumby {.4c#5, in Cambridge
Bible, ad Zoc.), and Merx (Schenkel's Z8i5.-Zex. 1517)
suppose Rephan to be the Egyptian name for Saturn,
So (besides Spencer and Kircher) Lepsius the Egypto-
logist, who says that Seb or Saturn is called repa-n-
neteru, ‘the youngest of the gods,’ and suggests a
possible connection with Rephan (Die Ckrow. der Eg.
93). On phonetic and other grounds this view is. not
more acceptable than Jablonski's, and the simple ex-
planation is that ρεῴαν should rather be pacpar—i.e.,
i, where = is perhaps a corruption of 5, and » (soft)a
phonetic substitute for 1. See CHIUN, T.K.C.

REPHAEL (SNbA, as if ‘God heals'; cp Aram.

ὈΝΒῚ, Sano, NAMES, $ 30; ρλφδηλ [BAL]), a
Korahite, Ὁ. Shemaiah ; 1 Ch. 267.

Probably ‘God heals' is a late popular etymology, devised
after the original name had become corrupted ; that it took hold
of the imagination we see from the RAPHAEL of Tobit and
Enoch. The present writer suspects that Rephael, Irpeel, Raphu
{Beth-Jrapha, and perhaps even REPHAIAK dg.z.), all come
ultimately from an ethnic. See PEDAH-ZUR; REPHAIM. Hommel
(Exp.T 8(1897]p. 563) compares the name of an Arab, temp.
Sargon, in a text transcribed by Winckler, Ya-ra-pa, also the ὃ,
Arabian name Hi-rapa'a. T.K.C

REPHAH (ND); papH [BA], pada [L]), mentioned
in the list of the B'ne Ephraim τ Ch. 725. Both Rephah
and RESHEPH {g.v.) occur nowhere else and are probably
corrupt. Cp EPHRAIM, $ 12.

REPHAIAE (M°DI, 88 30, 62, as if ‘Yahwè heals';
pagata [BAL]).. On the ultimate origin of the name
see REPHAEL, and note in confirmation that in Neh. 39
Rephaiah (5) is a ‘son of Hur'—ze., most probably,
of Jerahmeel. In 1Ch.2:9 Hur is the son of Caleb
and Ephrath. Who the Calibbites are, we know [see

.CaLes]; Ephrath is probably a distorted fragment of

Zarephath. Cp PARADISE, col. 3573, n. 5. See below,
no. 5. τ. K, C.

1. Ὁ. Hananiah, mentioned in the genealogy in 1 Ch.
321 (ραφαλ [B]), where, for Ἴ3 ‘sons of,’ & and Pesh.
four times read inn ‘his son.' So Kittel; Bertheau
follows MT.

2. A Simeonite chieftain who attacked the Amalekites
of Mt. Seir (apparently in Hezekiah's time), 1 Ch. 442.
{paparas [L]). See Isni, SiMEON.

3. b. TOLA (g.0.): x Ch. 72 (pagapa [B]}}; cp
ISSACHAR, $ 7.

4. Ὁ, BINEA, 1 Ch. 943 (ραφαιαν [N], apaya [L])=
1 Ch. 837 (nor. RAPHAH; ραῴαι [B], apaxa [L]. Cp
BENJAMIN, $ g ii. fi

5. b. HUR (4), the ruler of half ‘the district of Jeru-
salem,' and one of the repairers of the wall (Neh. 89;
ραφαιας [L]).

{He was of Jerahmeelite origin (see above). According to
Meyer (Extst. 119) the Calibbites and Jerahmeelites did not
become universally recognised as real Jews before the time of P.
The study of proper names pursued in'a series of articles in the
present work confirms this, but with limitations. In Neh.8
Hur, Malchijah, Paseah, Rephaiah, Urijah; in Ezra8 Elam,
Michael, Jeliel, Ariel; in Neh, 11 Mahalaleel, Jeroham, Mal-
chiah, Micha are transparent ‘Jerahmeelite” names. The Jer-
ahmeelites became so prominent that the genealogists had to do
them fuller justice. But the same study of names suggests that
Jerahmeelite clans were recognised both in Judah and elsewhere

efore the exile.—T. k. C.]

1 From a private letter of Dr. Budge.
4032

REPHAIM

REPHAIM (D'RDI: papalelin for -m], and [Gen,
14 Josh. 12 18, and 1 Ch.], pirantec [BAEL]; Josh.
OT 17, ΦΡΑ om.), a race of reputed giants,
È found by the Israelites in occupation of
references. .erritory on both sides of the Jordan.
Before attempting any linguistic or historical explana-
tion, we must look into the several passages where the
traditional text recognises the name, viz,, Gen. 145 1520
Dt. 21120 (pagapaew [F once]) 31113 Josh. 12413121735,
to which we may add 2 S. 21 16 18 20 22, cp 1 Ch.
20 468 (children of Har&phi). ‘The geographical
phrase ‘valley of Rephaim' will be treated only
incidentally here (see next article).
x. Gen, 145, Chedorlaomer and his allies ‘smote
the Rephaim in Ashteroth-karnaim.'

No stress can be laid on this passage. In its present form
Gen. 14 is probably later even than the archarological notices in
Dt, 2.105, and the names at present found in Gen. 14 5 probably
come from a very late editor who arbitrarily ‘corrected’ a very
corrupt text (see Sopom).

2. Gen. 1520. The list of Canaanite peoples in
Gen. 1519-21 comes apparently fron a late redactor, but
has merely suffered from ordinary transcriptional cor-
ruption ; the redactor had no historical theory te serve,
and reproduced, though inaccurately, names derived
from earlier sources.

The order of the names is, Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites
(from ‘ Jerahmeclites '?), Hittites (from * Rehobothites' ?), Periz-
zites (Zarephathites?), Rephaim, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgash-
ites (from ‘Girshites' or ‘Geshurites'?), Jebusites (Ishmaelites?).'
We may infer that, according to tradition, a people called
“ Rephaim' was to be found in the far S. of Palestine.

3. Dt. 2x1 20 $11 13. A 'remnant of the Rephaim,*
under their king Og, survived in Bashan, which was
therefore called ‘the land of the Rephaim.' But we are
also told that the Emim of Moab and the Anakim (of
Hebron? or of Rehoboth?} were reckoned among the
Rephaim. The passage comes from a late editor (Dy),
and ‘ Bashan' should certainly be ‘ Cushan' (see Οὐ).

1f ns (Gatb) in 2 5. 21 20 is miswritten for nino (ReHOsOTA),
this statement is confirmed, for the warriors spoken of in that
passage were Rephaites. It is true, in Nu. 18 33 the b'né ‘Andk
are said to belong to the Nephilim ; but we shall see presently
that the ‘ Rephaim” and the Nephilim” must have been closely
connected—ie., ‘Rephaim’ and ‘Nephilim' may have been
interchanged.

4. Josh. 124 1312 depend on Dt. 211, ete.; but 1714f
has its own peculiarities. ‘When purified from corrupt
repetitions 17 14/. states that the tribe of Joseph (δ᾽ πᾶ
Joseph} complained to Joshua that it was too large to
have but one lot and portion, Joshua's reply was, ‘If
thou art a great people, go up to the forest-land, and
clear away (space) for thyself in the land of the Perizzites
and the Rephaim.' The Josephites objected that access
to this region would be impeded by the Canaanites with
their chariots of iron, and Joshua rejoined that the forest-
land is not unattainable, and that their strength is equal to
the task of driving out the Canaanites.? Here it would
appear that the forest-land spoken of means the hill-
country N. of Shechem ; the view that trans-Jordanic
territory is intended is not plausible.® But room must
be left for the possibility that ‘Shechem' should be
* Cusham,' and ‘ Canaanites' ‘ Kenizzites.' ‘There were
probably b'ne Ephraim in the Negeb (see Crit. 210.).

5. In 28. 2125 (cp 20) four champions of the
Philistines are said to have been ‘born (xh) to the

Rapha (5955) in Gath' (0.22; cp 7. 20), while of two'of
them ît is said that they were ‘of the descendants of
the Rapha' (HPSm., τ δ Ὁ ; cp 1 Ch. 204), or perhaps
rather (cp & in 2. 22) ‘of the Rephaim,'4

1 There is no occasion to reject the second p;piyo 88 an
erroneous repetition from the preceding ciause.

2 In 0.16 read “P19 HS0YN9, and in 0,18 NFmm paco

3 See Stevernagel, ad ἐσ, i

4 It iz usual to take mmm as an eponym; but the art. ἧς
unfavourable to this view. 03 surely comes from #9, which
originally bad after it the stroke of abbreviation (pny1= ΒΡ ἈΘΎΤΝ.
In 2.8.3] σα read D'kpam mad vile, “were bom to the (or, a)

4033

REPHAIM

There is, however, great difficulty in the text as it now stands,
Surely the Philistines were quite formidable enough without
having to accept the assistance of the remnant of the Rephaim.
Are we to suppose that the references to the Rephaites in 2 5.
21 1622 are a later appendage to the tradition, suggested by a
reminiscence of the tradition respecting Og? Or is there not
some explanation arising out of a somewhat more definite view
of the older populations of Canaan made possible by textual
criticism?

It would be tedious to sum up here all the evidence
directly or indirectly affecting the subject in hand

σις, Provided by our textual criticism. Two
3 frigo bassages, however, are specially important.
oi mame. in Josh. 1715 it is evident that yen and
ὈΚΞῚΣ are two competing readings, and that the former
is more probably correct. And in 2 5, 5:8-20 it is plain
that the spot called p'sas-by9 is in the valley of Rephaim.
It ismaintainedelsewhere(see PELETHITES, ZAREPHATH)
that the tribe whose centre on the S. Palestinian border
was at Zarephath (=ZEPHATH} was prominent in early
Israelitish legend, and that its name underwent strange
mutilations and corruptions. Among these transforma-
tions may probably be included Zelophehad, Salhad,
names connected with the N.; and Pelittim! and
Letufim, names connected with the S. That ‘ Perizzi'
and ‘ Pelisti” are connected is not a violent supposition.
Both are most probably corruptions of SArephathi (Zare-
phathite), and it is hardiy less plausible to conjecture
that Reph&'im is a corruption of Perasim, though an
alternative derivation from Jerahme'elim is equally
possible. ‘Thust—-to return to the story in 2 S.518-20
— instead of ‘ Baal-perazim* in the * valley of Rephaim,'
the original tradition probably spoke ‘of ‘ Baal-sàr&
phathim in the valley of Jerahme'elim (or Sar&phathim).'
That such long names were early corrupted, and
that the corruption took different forms in different
parts of Palestine, can easily be understood.

The result to which we are tending, and which it
would lead us into t00 many digressions to justify fully,
is that the Sar&phathim or Jerahme'elim migrated into
many parts both of eastern and of western Palestine.
‘They started from the S. ; it is not a random statement
of Gen. 106 that PUT (mb from nous) was the brother
of (the N. Arabian) Cush and Mizraim and the son of
Ham (Jerahmeel?), and of Gen. 253 that LETUSHIM
was the brother of Leummim (Jerahmeelim ?) and the
son of Dedan (f.e., 5. Edom). ‘The SAr&phathim were
in fact probably a branch of the Jerahmeelites, who, as
our textual criticism tends to show, spread over many
parts both of Western, and even of Eastern, Palestine
(note the Phcenician Zarephath, and cp JERAHMEEL;
EaAsT, CHILDREN ΟΕ). The Jerahmeelites or Sare-
phathites, according to the genéalogies, became largely
fused with the Israelites, and how much truth there
may be in the statement that OG the Rephaite (Sare-
phathite? or Jerahmeelite ?) and his people were smitten,
till there were no survivors (Nu. 2135), it is impossible
to say. .

lt is hardly worth while to discuss the question
whether the representation of the Rephaim—.e.,
possibly the Jerahmeelites of Sar&phath—as giants (cp
Am. 29, where ‘ the Amorite’ is thus described) is purely
mythical. Whether the Edomitish race (to which the
Jerahmeelites belonged) was taller than the later
Israelitish race or not, it is certain that the instinctive
tendency of legend (both in Europe and in Asia) to
picture aboriginal races as of gigantic stature would
have led to such a representation According to
Robertson Smith,® ‘the giant-legends arose in part

house of the Rephaim' (cp 1,5 τῷ οἴκῳ), [In 28.21, ©va has
poga and also γίγαντες with pada in δι 22! BL γίγαντες in τ.
16, 18, Τιτᾶνος v, 20, γίγαντες and ραφα v. 22, whilst in τ Ch. 20
has γίγαντες in 17. 4, 6, GBA paga, GL ραφαιν and also ®
γίγαντος.) 66

The ‘Philistines’ of 2211522 were really the Zare.
phatbites; ‘Gath' should be ‘Reboboth'. See PeLETEITES,

EHOBOTH.

2 Note comtunicated to Prof. Driver, Dew?. 40.
4934

REPHAIM, VALLEY OF

from the comtemplation of ancient ruins of great works
and supposed gigantic tombs.' This may very well
have been the case, in view of the legends attaching
to huge sarcophagi, like that assigned to Og in Dt., at
the present day. See Oc.

A brief reference to other theories of the origin of the name
Rephaim must suffice. The view that ii is connected with Ar.
rafa'a ‘to lift up," and means ‘giants,’ is not at all plausible;
πὸ cognate of ra/4'2 can be pointed to in Hebrew, Aramaic, or
Assyrian. Stade (GV/1116 120) was the first to connect the
name with the Rephaim or ‘shades' (see Drap and DEATH).
This has been taken up by Schwally (Dar Zeden nach des
Tode, 64, τι. 1 [1892]; ZA TW 18 132[1898]). From the sense of
‘spirits of the dead” arose, it is supposed, that of ‘primeval
population’ Schwally confirms this by a legend of the Hovas
in Madagascar (7471, lc.) This is surely most improbable.
‘The transition is difficult, even if we do not hold, with Stade,
that ΠΝ ΘῚ, the word for ‘the shades,' means ‘the weak.' It is.
most reasonable, therefore, to hold that, like a large proportion
of ethnic names, Rephaim has been worn down from 8 longer
form, and this form we may venture to trace either in Jerah-
me'elim or in Sarephathim.

See also REPHAIM, VALLEY ΟΕ, and on Job.26 3 see DEAD.

T.K.C

REPHAIM, VALLEY OF, also VALLEY OF THE
Giants (O*RBY:PDY ; Josh. 158/1816 α 5. 51822 2313 1 Ch. 111
149 Is 175: Is. ἐν φάραγγι στερεᾷὶ {BRAOM]; Josh. 15, γῆς
Ραφαειμ [AL], -» [B], Josh: 18 Tperpagacw | ΤΊ, a IA) 2805,
τὴν κοιλάδα τῶν τίε]ιτάνων [BAL], 2 5, 38 τῇ κοιλ, ραφαειμ [Β],

«+ [A], τιτάνων [L]; 1 Ch. τῇ κοιλάδι τῶν γιγάντων [BRAL];
vallis Raphaim and gigantum).

According to the prevalent theory, which supposes
the same locality to be referred to in all the passages,
the ‘ Valley of Rephaim' was an upland
plain near Jerusalem and Bethlehem {cp
2 $.2313/) where not only corn and
olive trees fiourished (Is. 175), but the
so-called Baca trees (see MULBERRY) grew. At its N.
end was a hill over which ran the boundary of Judah
and Benjamin (Josh. 158 1816). The plain was famous
as the scene of fights between David and the Philistines,
(2 5. 51822 2313; cp 1 Ch 149 1115). Elsewhere,
however, has been offered the theory that the enemies
referred to in 2 S.5 1822 and the related passages were
not the Philistines but the Zarephathites (see ZARE-
PHATH), and that the place referred to in 2 5. 28 τὰ
was not Bethlehem but Beth-jerahmeel (thus the whole
scene becomes historically and geographically more
plausible), Elsewhere, too (see REPHAIM) we have
urged that Rephaim, the name of an early population
of Canaan, is probably a much worn-down form either
of Sar&phathim (Zarephathites), or perhaps more prob-
ably of Jerahme'elim.

it would seem, then, that in 2 8. ὅ 1:8 25, etc., the
‘valley (upland plain) of Rephaim (Jerahme'àlim)'
cannot be a plain near Jerusalem, and

criticised.

jd’
2. Davide that, like the '4mef 44-2/48 of 1 5. 17. (see
Repheim ELAH, VALLEY OF), it was one of the

* <valleys or spaces between the low sloping
hills’ (Palmer) in the neighbourhood of Ruheibeh
(Rehoboth), possibly indeed the Wady Ruheibeh itself,
though the broad Wady el-Milh may also come into
consideration (see NEGEB).

In the case of Is, 17 5, when we consider the manifest
play on the name Ephraim in the next verse, it is possible
to suppose (4) that p*xs) (Rephaim})
should rather be omaxy (Ephraim), and

to identify this '#ze£ with a part of the
Great Plain of Esdraelon, (ὁ) There
are, however, also good critical arguments for identifying
this 'δητεξ with that in the story of David. The ques-
tion îs subordinate to the large inquiry, Does 15. 171-11
predict the ruin of Syria and Ephraim, or of the kingdom
of Jerahmeel? Sce Crif. Bi5. But there is no objec-
tion to the view (c) that the ‘Ame? r294d'z7 of Josh.158
1816 really did derive its name from the Jerahme'elim ;
in fact, the early population of Jerusalem was probably
a combination of Amorites and Jerahmeelites (see

3. Two other
valleys of
Rephaim?

1 Cp 6, 1 8. 68 τῶν θεῶν τῶν στερεῶν τούτων (GL sing.).

4035

REPHIDIM

REHOBOTH). ‘The upland plain referred to seems to
be the Beka‘a, which stretches from the SW. side of
Jerusalem southwards as far as Mar ΕἸγᾶβ (3 hr. from
Jerusalem), which may indeed be the ‘mountain’ re-
ferred to in Joshua.

Eus. and Jer. (OS 288 22 147 6) place the ‘Valley of Rephaim *
on the N. of Jerusalem, and Kittel (Gesch. der Hebr. 2132)
follows them on grounds derived from the (surely corrupt) text
of 2 5227. Tobler's main objection! to the ordinary view is
that ‘éne£ means a ‘valley, ' not a ‘plain.’ But ‘fé is con-
stantly used of plains shut in by hills, and this îs just what the
Beka‘a is, ‘shut in on all sides by rocky hill-tops and ridges”
(Porter). T.K.C.

REPHAN (pepan), Acts743 RV, AV REMPHAN.

REPHIDIM (ὉΠ, plain-country, ‘strata’??;
ράφιλειν [BAFL], Ex.17x8 192 Νὰ, 381. 1 }), a
place where the Amalekites attacked the Israelites and
were defeated by Joshua with the aid of the wonder-
working staff of Moses. As we see from his arrange-
ment of the passages of diverse origin which he has
brought together, R considers this event to have oc-
curred when, according to P, the Israelites encamped
at R&phidim immediately before entering the wilderness
of Sinai. He also thinks that the spot (spots?) called
Massah and Meribah was (were?) in the district of
Rephidim, which, in this case, must have extended to,
or perhaps even have been equivalent to, Horeb (see
Ex.176, ‘the rock in Horeb'). On the analysis of
sources, see ExoDus {Boox), ὃ 3.

The existence of a popular tradition of a war waged
with varying fortunes by the early Israelites against the
Amalckites may be assumed without

1 Form and discussion (see AMALEK, ὃ 2; MOSES,
hi legend. $ 12). But we have still to ask, Did

tradition connect this war, or an
episode of this war, with Rephidim? Some scholars
(ΟΣ Hex. 107) have doubted this; according to
them, the connection of the battle described in Ex.
178-16 with Rephidim is purely editorial. ’Textual
criticism may contribute something to the decision of
this point. Among the names of the stations of the
israelites there are only two which end in-im, viz.,
Elim and Rephidim, Ît is difficult not to conjecture
that both these names are corruptions of ethnics, That
Elim probably comes from Jerahmeel or Jerahmeelim has
been suggested already (MosESs, 8 12). ‘We have also
conjectured that Marah (the reported name of the pre-
ceding station) has arisen out of another fragment of
Jerahmeel, viz.,, Marah (from Rehem; cp REKEM,
SLA). It may now be added that Rephidim is prob-
ably a corrupt fragment of Jerahmeclim.

‘Réphidim’ (pipe), we may suppose, comes from ‘ Réphilim*
Gai which, through the intermediate stage of ‘ Réphaelim*

(Sb), comes from ‘ Remaelim' (brbyp), £e., ‘Jerahmglim
(avSxpnv); the corruption is easier and not less certain than that
which we meet with sometimes, of Jerahmeel into Ephraim.

Bacon (£x. 88, note *) has acutely conjectured that
Ex. 1526 fa passage usually assigned to R,) may be
based on an earlier document which derived the name
Rephidim from γαῤᾷα (με), ‘to heal' The name pre-
supposed in the early tradition may have been not
Rephidim but Rephaclim ; bgen naturally suggests the
explanation, ‘for I am Yahwè that heals thee.'® In
short, the closing words of v. 26 may originally have
stood in a context relative to the name Rephaelim.

From this point of view we cannot question the fact
that early tradition connected the battle in Ex. 178-16
with Réphidim, the name of which place (like Meribah)
appears to be a distortion of the ethnic Jérahmèètim.
The truth is that there were traditional stories în circu-
lation respecting two fertile spots in the Jerahmeelite
country occupied by the migrating Israelites. One
appears in a double form in Ex. 1523-250, and in %. 27;
another has also a double representation in Ex.

1 Dvitte Wanderung, 202. .
2 See RarWazt, and cp £/%. Exock, 107, where Raphael is
commanded to proclaim that God will ἀγα the earth.

4036

REPHIDIM

1715 2 47 (part) and, in a very fragmentary form, in
vv. 37 (part), ‘The second certainly refers to the oasis
of ‘Ain Gadis {the fountain of the Jerahmeelite Kadesh).
And it is not unreasonable to hold that the Amalekite
attack spoken of in Ex. 178 was connected in the
original tradition with this fountain, the possession of
which was naturally grudged by the Jerahmeelites
(now become unfriendly ?—see Moses) to the intrud-
ing Israelites. {In this case, the ‘hill’ spoken of in
vv. g f. may be one of the earth-covered limestone hills
at the north-eastern sweep of the oasis; cp Trum-
bull, Aadesk-barnea, 273.) This, at any rate, is the
view suggested by the text of Ex.17 în its present
form; but even if we reject it, there is strong prob-
ability in the opinion that the Amalekites attacked Israel
in Réphidim—i.e., Jerahm&elim—-because we have ex-
press evidence (Nu. 13 29, cp Gen. 147) that the Negeb,
including Radesh, was the region specially occupied by
the Jerahmeelite clans.

That the story of the Amalekite attack, not less than
that of the smitten rock {v. 6, ‘the rock ἐπ MWored'), is
placed too early by R, seems beyond doubt. The
Moses who stood apart from the fight, holding the ‘rod
of Elohim,' but who after a time was in danger of
letting his hand sink, and who committed the military
leadership to Joshua, is clearly an old man; we are
placed by this story at the beginning of the various
wars which tradition referred to the close of the life of
Moses, See Moses; and cp JEHOVAH-NISSI, MASSAH
AND MERIBAH, WANDERINGS.

In the above statement we have been compelled to
assume that Horeb or Sinai was not in the so-called
Sinaitic Peninsula, but in close prox-

2 Farlier 1 ÎMity to Kadesh, ze, în the Jebel
τ εν Magrah, on the SW. frontier of the

Negeb (see Moses, 88 5,14). If, how-
ever, we suppose that Sinai is either Jebel Serbal or
Jebel Mùsa (see SINAI, $ 18), we may, with several
modern geographers (Lepsius, Ebers, Ritter, A. P.
Stanley, C. W. Wilson, E. H. Palmer), be tempted to
attach ourselves to the tradition, recorded especially by
Kosmas Indicopleustes (535 A.D.) and Antoninus
Martyr (circa ὅσο A.D.), which identifies Réphidim
with Feiràn, the ancient Pharan, the ruins of which
stand at the junction of the Wady ‘Aleyat with the
Wady Feiran, about 4 m. N. of Serbal. Antoninus
Martyr speaks of an 'oratorium,' whose altar is set on
the stones which were put under Moses while he was
praying. Evidently he refers to the Jebel et-Tahuneh,
on the right bank of the Wady Feiràn, which is about
720 ft. high, and is covered with remains of Christian
tombs, cells, and chapels. This view was adopted as a
whole by the members of the Sinai Expedition, except-
ing F. W. Holland (see Ordrance Survey of Penins. of
Sinai, 153 f), More plausible, if the connection of
the story of the rock and that of the battle be main-
tained, is the view of Ebers {Durck Gosen sum Sinai,
212; cp Lepsius, Brief, 3497) that the biblical
Rèphidim is to be placed in the dry, north-western
part of the Wady Feiràn, where the Amalekites might
be supposed to have gathered to prevent the Israelites
from entering the casis. Robinson’s theory (2 1 179),
adopted by F. W. Holland {Recovery ef Jerusalem,
5347), that Réphidim is în the narrow gorge of el-
Watiyeh in the great Wady es-Sheikh—the Wady by
which, according to this traveller, the Israelites ap-
proached Horeb-is less defensible, for reasons well
summed up by E. H. Palmer (.Sîrzi, 202); cp also
Ritter (Palestine and the Sinaitic Peninsula, 1323).
All these theories depend, as we have seen, on the
eorrectness of the traditional theory as to the general

4037

RESURRECTION

position of Horeb or Sinai, which is open to much
question, and indeed appears to some scholars hardly
defensible, T.K.C.

RESAIAS (pucaloy [BA]), 1 Esd. 58 RV= Ezra 22,
REELAIAH,

RESEN (}D): Aacem [ADL]; -εν [E]; Reser) is
named in Gen. 1012, as a city lying between Nineveh
and Kalah. Menant therefore considered
logica] it to be represented by the ruin-heaps of

(081083 Selamiye. Bochart and recently Nòldeke

INQUIFY: have connected it with the Larissa of
Xenophon (478. iii, 4 7), the site of which, however, is
uncertain, though Frd. Del. {Calwer Bib.-Lex. 731)
suggests identifying it with Nimràd (cp CALAB). In
the inscriptions, so far published, no city of any im-
portance bears a name like Resen, A city of the name
Ré-g5-é-ni {Ré5-éni) appears as not far from Nineveh,
in the Bavian description of Sennacherib (X°82x16 /.,
cp Del. Par. 188261); but there is nothing to show that
it was an ancient foundation. ‘There is little hope of
its identification till the distriet has been properly
explored, C.W.H.J.

From an exegetical point of view the matter is further
complicated by the words which follow Resen—' the
same is the great city.’ Does this refer to

1. Assyrio-

2 Test. Resen? No one would have doubted this,
solution, P1! for the silence of antiquity as to any

important city near Nineveh with a name
resembling Resen. Ré5-éni—z.e., ‘fountain-head, place
of fountains,' îs not a probable name at 8. To suppose
a‘ tetrapolis' with two such doubtful names as Rehoboth-
Ir and Resen is a desperate expedient. If, however,
Nimrod was a N. Arabian, not a Babylonian, hero, a
probable identification of Resen may be made. nbi
(misread Calah) is in the view of the present writer one
of the many corruptions of Sxomv (Jerahmeel}; my
{which was read Nineveh} not improbably comes from
juan (Hebron); and που vyn n is certainly a
corruption of Sagan an (that is, Jerahmeel), a gloss
on n53. ‘Between Hebron and Jerahmeel' appears
to be a suitable description of Beersheba, the name of
which is sometimes corrupted into }uy “ja and Jey.
See NimRoD. $I,C.W.H.J.;$2,T.KC

RESERVOIR (i1)p?9, Is. 2211, ΕΝ), See ConpuITS,
8τ[5} .

RESHEPEH (ΠΗ; capa@[B]. pace® [A]. pacn@
[L]), a ‘son’ of Ephraim, x Ch.725 {see EPHRA:M,
8 12). The other names include SHEEFRAH (ze.
Ashbur?), Ammihud (i.e. Jerahmeel?) Elishama (i.e.,
Ishmael ?). ‘Resheph' therefore should perhaps be my
(cp (58), and mean ‘Zarephathite'; cp ‘my ja, Neh.
8. 31:- 7.6... a Zarephathite. Clermont-Ganneau, how-
ever, suggests that 47547 (=the Apollonia of Jos.),
about 7 m. N. of Jaffa, may correspond to an ancient
town Resheph. Resheph (identified with Apollo) was
the Phoenician and N. Syrian fire-god and war-god (cp
€151 n. το, and Hadad-inscr. from Zenjînli, /4 3, 11),
whose cultus was introduced into Egypt during the
eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties (see list of gods
on altar in Turin Museum, T.SBA 3429, 1. 67, and
plate; and cp E. Meyer, ZDA/G 81719 228 £.).1 * Close
to Arsif is an extraordinary holy place—a MWrdm,
which, under Moslem forms, possibly continues a primi-
tive cultus (Cl.-Ganneau, Zorus ef saint Georges, 17;
cp Baed.(? 239). See, further, PHGENICIA, $ 12, end.
τι Κις,

RESURRECTION. See EscHATOLOGY (index).

1 For further references see Maspero, Struggle gf Nations,
156, n. 1.

4038

RESURRECTION- AND ASCENSION-NARRATIVES

RESURRECTION- AND ASCENSION-NARRATIVES
CONTENTS
GENERAL, $ τ.

I. Narratives examined ($$ 2-16).

Canonical Gospels (8 2,7).
Gospel of the Hebrews ($ 4).
Gospel of Peter ($ 5).

Coptic account (8 6).
Extra-canonical details ($ 7).
Conclusion of Mk. 887).

1 Cor. 151-11 (88 10-15).
Accounts of ascension (8 16).

The resurrection of Jesus is held to be the centra!
fact upon which the Christian church rests, Evenata
date so early as that of τ Cor. Paul
1. General. 1-0ats it.as such in an elaborate discussion
(1 Cor. 151-26). In particular he rests upon it three
fundamental thoughts of the Christian faith : (1) the belief
that the death of Jesus was not—what in accordance
with Dt. 2123 (Gal. 313) it must have seemed to be—
the death of a malefactor, but a divine appointment for
the forgiveness of sins and for the salvation of men
(τ Cor. 1517 Rom. 425 64-7,etc.); (2) a vindication of the
supremacy of the exalted Christ over the Church (x Cor,
15257 Rom.14 2 Cor. 134, etc.); and (3) a pledge of
the certainty of an ultimate resurrection of all believers
to a life of everlasting blessedness (1 Cor. 1518-20 614
Rom. 68 811, etc.).

‘Whilst the second and the third of these poluts were so held
at all times, that was not quite the case with the first. At a
date as early as that of the speeches of Peter in Acts (see AcTS,
$ τῷ the resurrection of Jesus was not the divine confirmation
of the truth that the death of Jesus laid the foundations of the
salvation of mankind; the death is there represented rather as a
calamity (3 13-15 5 30) even if it was (according to 223 4 28) fore»
ordained of God. But the significance of the resurrection of Jesus
does not become on that account the less; on the contrary it
figures as being itself the act with which the forgiveness of sins
is connected (531, cp 3 25). Most modern schools of theology în
like manner refrain from regarding the resurrection as an event
without which the theologian would not be able to regard Jesus'
death as a divine arrangement for the salvation of men. n

Such theologians also, however, do not on that
account attach to it any the less importance ; rather do
they see in it the divine guarantee for the truth that the
person of Jesus and the cause which he represented
could not remain under the power of death, but must of
necessity at last gain the victory over all enemies in
spite of every apparent momentary triumph,

It seems accordingly în logic inevitable that if at any
time it should come to be recognised that the resurrection
of Jesus never happened, the Christian faith with respect
to all the points just mentioned would necessarily come
to an end.

The shock to which the Christian religion and the Christian
church would be exposed by any such discovery would appear
to be all the heavier when it is reflected that only two other
propositions can be named which would place it in equal or
greater danger; the one, that the death of Jesus did not procure
the salvation of mankind, the other that Jesus never existed at
all. The first of these two theses would leave many schools of
thought within the limits of Christianity comparatively un-
affected, for they find the redeeming work of Jesus in his life,
not, as Paul and orthodox theologians generally, in his death;
on the other hand their faith would be most seriously affected
if they found themselves constrained to recognise that Jesus
reinained under the power of death.

The reason for dreadiag all these dangers .is that
upon the assumption of the resurrection of Jesus (as
also upon that of his atoning death and upon that of
his existence at all) are based propositions which are
fundamental to the Christian faith, —propositions con-
cerning God and his relation to men, upon the truth
of which no less an issue depends than the salvation of
mankind. The question concerns things of priceless
value, and the judgments upon which all interest con-
centrates are (to use the language of modern German

4939

II Determination of cutward facts
($$ 17-29).
Nature of the appearances (ἢ 17),
No words of the risen
Galilee the piace (8 το). Jesus ( 31).
The sepulchre ($ 20, ὦ
The third day ($ 22:
Number of appearances (Ὁ 23).
Unbistorical elements due to ten-
dency (88 24-29).

11. Explanation of facts (88 30-38).

Nature of resurrection body of

Jesus (8 30).

sus (8 18). Resurrection only of the Spirit of

Obijective visions (8 32).
Apparent death, and false rumours

of the resurrection of Jesus ($ 33).
Subjective visions (88 34-38).
Literature ($ 39).

theologians) Werthurtheile — i,6., judgments which
declare that to be able to believe such and such is for
the religious man a thing of absolute value ; unless such
thiags can be accepted he can only despair. Thus the
believing man cap cherish no more urgent desire than
that the basis upon which these beliefs, which are for
him so priceless, rest should be raised securely above the
reach of doubt.

Yet what is this basis? It consists in an affirmation
regarding a fact in history which is known to us only
through tradition and accordingly is open to historical
criticism just as any other fact is. Indeed, whilst the
very existence of Jesus and the fact of his death on the
cross have been questioned by only a very few,! and on
the other hand the meaning of his death, as soon as the
fact has been admitted, is left an open question to every
one, we find that the resurrection of Jesus—as is not
surprising in view of its supernatural character—is in
very many quarters and with growing distinctness
characterised as unhistorical, and that not merely when
it is conceived of as having been a revivification of the
dead body of Jesus, but also when it is defended in
some spiritualistic form.

The present examination of the subject will not start
from the proposition that ‘ miracles are impossible."

Such a proposition rests upon a theory of the universe (Welt.
anschauung), not upon exbaustive examination of all the events
which may be spoken of as miracies. Even should we by any
chance find ourselves in a position to say that every alleged
miraculous occurrence from the beginning of time down to the
present hour had been duly examined and found non-miraculous,
we should not thereby be secured against the possibility of
something occurring to-morrow which we should be compelled
to recognise as a miracle. Empirically, only so much as this
stands fast--and no more—that as regards present - day occur-
tences the persons who reckon with the possibility of a miracle
(by miracle we here throughout understand an occurrence that
unquestionably îs against natural law) are very few, and that
present-day occurrences which are represented as miraculous
are on closer examination invariably found to possess no such
character.

The normal procedure of the historian accordingly
in dealing with the events of the past will be in the first
instance to try whether a non-miraculous explanation
will serve, and to come to the other conclusion only on
the strength of quite unexceptionable testimony.
Neediess to say, in doing so, he must be free from all
prepossession. He must accordingly, where biblical
authors are concerved, in the first instance, look at
their statements in the light of their own presuppositions,
even though in the end he may find himself shut up to
the conclusion that not only the statements but also the
presuppositions are erroneous,

I. NARRATIVES EXAMINED
For our most authentic information on the subject of

1 Loman, who in 1881 altogether denied the existence of
Jesus, affirmed ir in 1884 and still more distinctly in 1887.
Amongst those who have most recently maintained the negative
may be named Edwin Johnson, the author of Aafigua Mater
(anonymous ; 1887) and T%e Rise of Christendom {eo and
John M. Robertson, Christianity and Mythology (1900) and
‘A Shovt History ef Christianity (1902).

4940

RESURRECTION- AND ASCENSION-NARRATIVES

the resurrection of Jesus we naturally look to the
Gospels ; these, however, exhibit con-;
2. Gospel rradictions of the most glaring kind.
narratives of peimarus, whose work was published\
by Lessing as Wolfen&wtteler Frag- |
mente, enumerated ten contradictions ; |
but in reality their number is much greater. (Mk.
169-20 is not taken account of in this place ; see below, /
88.)

(a) Of the watch and seal set upon the sepulchre, and
of the bribing of the soldiers of the watch, we read only
in Mt. (2762-66 284 1r-15). In Mk. and Lk. these
features are not only not mentioned ; they are excluded
by the representation of the women as intending to
anoint the body and (in Mk. at least) as foresecing
difficulty only in the weight of the stone, not in the
presence of a military guard. In Mt, the women's
object is simply to sec the sepulchre (28 1}; they have
therefore heard of its being guarded, as in fact they
very easily could.

{6} According to Lk. {2354 56) the women got ready
the spices before sunset on Friday ; according to Mk.
(16 1) they did not buy them till after sunset on Satur-
day. In ]n. the incident does not occur at all, for
according to 19 38-40 Joseph of Arimathea and
Nicodemus have already embalmed the body before
laying it in the grave, whilst according to Mk,1546=
Mt. 2759 f =Lk.23 53. Joseph alone (without Nico-
demus) simply wrapped it in a fine linen cloth.

{c) The persons who come to the sepulchre on the
morning of the resurreciion are: according to Mk.
(161), Mary Magdalene, Mary of James (cp MARY,
88 26 23), and Salome; according to Mt. {28:) only
the two Marys (the designation ‘the other Mary®
is explained by 2756); according to Lk. (2410),
addition to the two Marys, Joanna (cp 83) 'and the
other women with them * ; according to Jn. (20 1) only
Mary Magdalene,! to whom, however, ar£ added Peter
and the beloved disciple, In agreement with this last
we have only the notice in ΕΚ, (2424) that after the
women “some of those with us’ {τινὲς τῶν σὺν ἡμῖν} had
gone to the sepulchre and had found the report of the
women to be true; also the notice in 2412 {a verse not
found in the ‘western’ MSS) according to which Peter
ran, after the visit of the women, to the sepulchre, and
stooping down beheld the linen clothes alone, and
wondering departed. ’This verse, though we can hardly
suppose it to have come from Jn. 203-8, 15. still open
to the suspicion of being a later interpolation,—all
the more because the mention of Peter alone does
not harmonise with the ‘some’ {τινές) of v. 24, and
‘them’ (αὐτῶν) of v. 13 connects with Ὁ, 11, not with
ὦ, 12.

(d) The time of the visit of the women to the
sepulchre is : in Mk, (182) *when the sun was risen,' in
Lk. (241, ‘at eariy dawn ') and Jn. (207, ‘early, when
it was yet dark’) before sunrise, but in Mt. (28 1) about
half a day earlier.

‘Late on the Sabbath” (ὀψὲ σαββάτων» means unquestionably,
according to the Jewish division of the day, the time about sunset,
and the words immediately following— τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ «is μίαν
σαββάτων, ‘as the light shone forth towards the first day of the
week’ (see W£EK, $7)—are elucidated by Lk. 23 54, where the
transition from the Jewish Friday to Saturday (Sabbath)-in
other words the time of sunset—is indicated by the expression
σάββατον ἐπέφωσκεν, ‘the Sabbath shone forth." This expression
is usually explained by reference to the custom of kindling the
lights somewhat before the beginning of the Sabbath because on
te Sabbath it was unlawful to do so, Keim, however (Gescf.
Jesu von Nazara, 3 552 ΛΚ; ET 8 303), produces evidence of the
Same σέβεις loguendi for the other days of the week; and this will

1 It must not be inferred from the plural, ‘we do not know'
(οὐκ οἴδαμεν : 20 2), that Jn. thought of other women δ also
present. The inference is excluded by the sing. ‘comes’
Gpyerai)ofv. 1. The pi. ‘we know ᾿(οἴδαμεν) therefore can onìy
be intended to express Mary Magdalene's thought that other
Christians in whom perhaps some knowledge of the facts might
ὃς presumed did not actually possess it any more than herself
if it is not an unconscious reminiscence of the ‘women ' of the
Synoptics. In 2023 we find correctly the singular : ‘I know not."

4041

]

cover the case of its employment in Mt. The word ‘by night,"
νυκτός, in 28 13 also goes to show that Mt. pictured to ΠΑ δα
journey of the women to the sepulchre and the opening of the
sepulchre of the earthquake (or the angel) as having happened by
night. Furthermore it .s conceivabie that Mt. should have been
brought to this divergence to the extent of half a day from the
account by the other evangelists precisely if he had followed
Mk. with strict precision. Yor în point of fact Mk. indicates,
first (161), sunset by the phrase ‘when the Sabbath was past’
(διαγενομένον τοῦ σαββάτου) and, next (16 2) mentions sunrise ;
his reference to sunset is în connection with the purchase of
the spices, a circumstance which Mt. had no occasion to notice.
Thus Mr. might come to look upon the second time-determination
as synonymous with the first, inasmuch as the actual words

‘very early on the first day of the week” (Afav πρωὶ τῇ μιᾷ τῶν
σαββάτων), if the Jewish divi of the day is assumed, does
not absolutely exclude such a view. Cp, further, $ 26 4.

(e) According to MK. (164), Lk. (24 2), and Jn. (201)
those who came to the sepulchre found that the stone
at the door had already been ralled away ; according to
Mt. (282) it was rolled back in the presence of the
women by an angel who ìn a gréat earthquake came
down from heaven.

(7) In Mk. (165-7), as în Mt. (282-7), there is only
one angel; in ΓΚ. (244-7) and Jn. (2012 /) there are
two (in Lk. called ‘men,’ ἄνδρες, but ‘in dazzling
apparel,’ ἐν ἐσθῆτι ἀστραπτούσῃ, somewhat as in
Mt. 283 Mk. 165).

(£) According to Mk. this one angel, according to
Jn. the two, sat in the sepulchre; according to Mt.
the one angel sits without the sepulchre upon the stone ;
according to Lk. the two come up to the women, to alî
appearance not until these have already left the
sepulchre.

{A} As for what was seen in the sepulchre, according
to Mk. (165) it was only the angel, and according to
Lk. (243), at least when the women entered, there was
nothing. According to Mt. (282-5) the women do not
inform themselves as to the condition of the grave.
Similarly Mary Magdalene, according to Jn. 201, at her
first visit. ’Thereafter the beloved disciple is the first to
look in, when he sees the linen clothes (205); next
Peter enters and sees besides the linen clothes the
napkin wrapped up în a place by itself (206f.). Finally,
Mary looks in and sees the two angels.

(i) The explanations given by the angels to the
women contain the one point in the whole narrative in
which there is, at least in the synoptics, complete
agreement (v. 6) : ‘he rose, he is not μεθ᾽ (ἠγέρθη, οὐκ
ἔστιν ὧδε). To this in Mk. and Mt. there is the pre.
face : ‘fear ye not'; the same two also have the words
‘ ye seek the crucified one’ {similarly in Lk.). In Jn.
the angels say merely (2013): ‘ Woman, why weepest
thou δ᾽

(£) The discrepancies in the instructions given to the
women are among the most violent în the whole account :
in Mk. and Mt. there is the injunetion to say to his
disciples {Mk. adds: ‘and to Peter '} that Jesus goes
before them to Galilee and that there they will see him
as he had said to them (in Mt. 287 also perhaps we
ought to read, ‘ behold, he said to you,' ἐδοὺ εἶπεν ὑμῖν):
in Lk. on the other hand what we read is ‘remember
how he spake before of his death and resurrection while
he was yet in Galilee.' Here, that is to say, still the
word Galilee, but the sense quite opposite. In Lk.
strictly there is no injunction at all (cp under 7) and in
Jan. we find no words which could even seem to answer
to the command în Mk. and Mt.

(ἢ No less marked are the differences as to the
announcements made by the women to the disciples.
Acco@ding to Lk. (249) they report their discovery :
according to Mt. (288) they intend to do so, and τ, 16
leaves it to be inferred that they carried out their
intention ; according to Jn. {202 18} Mary Magdalene
reports, in the first instance to the two disciples, and in
the second to the disciples at large, what she has seen.
On the other hand, according to Mk. 168 the women
out of fear say nothing to any one.

() As regards results of the message, in the last
case of course, that in Mk., where the women say

4042

RESURRECTION- AND ASCENSION-NARRATIVES

nothing, there can be no immediate consequence.
According to Mt. (28:16) the message issues in
immediate compliance with the command to go to
Galitee ; according to Jn, (203-10) Mary's first com-
munication leads to the running of the two disciples to
the sepulchre, whilst her second (2018) is not said to
have produced any effect. In Lk. (2411) the women's
statement produces merely the unbelief of the disciples,
‘unless we are to regard as genuine v. 12, according
to which Peter alone of the whole number hastens to
the grave (see above, c).

(x) An appearance of the risen Jesus at the sepulchre
itself is reported only in Jn. (2014-17), where it is made
to Mary Magdalene; an appearance on the way back
from the sepulchre to the city only in Mt. (289 Δ),
where it is made to the two Marys. Whilst in this
last case, however, the women embrace Jesus' feet, in
Jn. he does not permit Mary Magdalene to touch him,

(o) The injunction received from Jesus himself is
according to Mt. the same as that given by the angels.
The women are to direct the disciples, here called
‘brethren' (ἀδελφοί) by Jesus, to go to Galilee;
according to Jn. Mary Magdalene is simply bidden tell
his ‘ brethren' (ἀδελφοί) that he is ascending to heaven
(cp above, £).

(2) An appearance of Jesus on the day of the resur-
rection on the road to Emmaus is known only to Lk.
(2413-35).

(g) An appearance to Simon Peter before the evening
of the same day is known only to Lk. (2434).

The view of Origen (for the passages see in Resch, ZU v. 4
423 and x. 3770-722), that the third evangelist says, and rightly,
that Simon was the companion of Cleopas on the walk to
Emmaus, is quite inadmissible. As in Origen the name is con-
stantly used without any addition, it is evident that only Peter
can be intended, It has to be observed on the other hand,
however, that the announcement of an appearance of the risen
Jesus to Simon is inade, and made by the eleven (and their
companions), to the two disciples on their return from Emmaus.
For this reason, therefore, Resch prefers to read ‘saying’ in the
nominative (λέγοντες for λέγοντας) with cod. D, according to
which it is the Emmaus disciples who make the announcement.
To this it has to be remarked that neither Lk. nor Origen, in
view of 2431 33, can have intended to say that Jesus had
appeared in Emmaus to Peter only and not to Cleopas also.
If, again, by the Simon in Origen's MSS of Lk. we ought to
understand some disciple other than Peter, such a conjecture
would be quite as bacelese as that other guess of Church fathers
and Schohasts (see Tisch. on 2418) that the companion of
Cleopas was Nathanael, or the evangelist Luke, or a certain
Amfm)aon, whose name perhaps comes from the place-name
Emmaus.

(+) An appearance on the same evening to the eleven
and their companions (τοὺς ἔνδεκα καὶ τοὺς σὺν αὐτοῖς),
at which Jesus asks the disciples to touch his hands and
feet, and eats a piece of a broiled fish, is recorded by
Lk. (2433 36-st) The disciples are at this interview
enjoined by Jesus to remain in Jerusalem till Pentecost
{cp above, #). {π. also (2019-24) assigns an appearance
before the ‘disciples' to the same evening, and we
must presume, therefore, that here the same interview
is intended as that related by Lk. The circumstances,
however, are very different. In Jn. Thomas is ex-
pressly stated not to have been with the eleven; and
that the number of the ‘disciples’ included others than
the ten apostles as we read in Lk. (ol σὺν αὐτοῖς) is not
to be supposed, since Jesus solemnly sends them forth
(πέμπω ὑμᾶε) and imparts to them not only the gift of
the Holy Spirit (which in Lk.v. 49 he holds forth as a
promise for Pentecost) but also the authority to bestow
or withhold forgiveness of sins (cp MINISTRY, 88 4, 34 0).
Lk. makes no reference to the circumstance that the
doors were shut when Jesus entered, any more than he
does to the conferring of the authority just mentioned ;
Jn. on the other hand knows nothing of fesus having

1 The Itala codd. Ὁ, e, ff2, Ambrosiaster, Ambrosius (on both
see Souter, £z8.7, 1901-1902, p. 429.4) în ©. 13 looking forward
to 2, 18, add Cleopas to Ammaus Emmaus] presumably
because, reading ὀνόματι (so D, it., vg.) for ἢ ὄνομα, they saw
in ‘Emmaus’ the name not of the village but of one of the two
disciples (so Nestle, Zinywkrung in das griech. NIC) 96, ET

1255

4043

eaten, Besides his hands, Jesus shows not his feet but
his side—the piercing of which, indeed, is mentioned
only in Jn.1934; but he does not suffer himself to be
touched, yet without expressly forbidding this as he had
done in the case of Mary Magdalene.

(5) Jesus first suffers his hands and his side to be
touched eight days afterwards, by Thomas in presence
of ‘his disciples'; but this is mentioned only in Jn. (20
26-29) and after he has again entered the same house
{πάλιν ἧσαν ἔσω) through closed doors.

(ἢ ‘After these things” {μετὰ ταῦτα), but only
according to ]n. 21, Jesus appears once more by the
lake of Galilee to Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, the sons
of Zebedee, and two other disciples who are not named.

{#) Galilee also, but certainly at an earlier date, was
the scene of the appearance, recorded only in Mt.
(2816-20), to the eleven on the mountain to which
Jesus had directed them t0 go (when and where he
made the appointment is nowhere stated, but seems to
have been recorded in a source that was used at this
point). Jesus here enjoins upon them the mission to
the Gentiles and baptism in the name of the Trinity.
The missionary precept is in substantial agreement with
Lk. 2449 and also with Jn. 2021 (see above, r).!

That one and the same event should be to some
extent differently described even by eye-witnesses is

intelligible enough, as also that some

ali πίοι of particular incident connected with it

La " should in later reminiscence be errone-

ously dissociated from it and attached to some other
similar event.

(α) Thus no serious importance ought, for example,
to be given to the circumstance that the words in which
the disciples are bidden by the angel to betake them-
selves to Galilee, do not exactly agree in the different
accounts, and that one narrator assigns the missionary
precept to one appearance, another to another. To
this, however, there are limits.

Whether the sepulchre was guarded or not guarded, how
many women went to che sepulchre, whether or not the disciples
were bidden go to Galilee, whether or not when Jesus appeared
Mary Magdalene was alone, whether or not Thomas was
present, whether or not Jesus asked for food and then actually
partook of it, whether or not he allowed himself to be touched ;
above all, whether the appearances occurred în Jerusalem or in
Galilee, and whether the women reported what they had seen
at the sepulchre or were silent about it—-these and many other
points are matters with regard to which the eye-witnesses or
those who had their information directly from eye-witnesses,
could not possibly have been in the least uncertainty. Yet,
what differences ! Differences, t00, of which it is impossible to
say that they are partly explicable by the fact that one narrator
gives one occurrence and another another without wishing
thereby to exclude all the rest. Lk. enumerates a consecutive
series of appearances and brings itto a close (24 51) with the

e attempt to dispose of this appearance în
Galilee by maintaining that Galilee here means one οἱ the summits
of the Mount of Olives near ferusalem—whether the summit on
the N. or that called in 2 R.28 13 the ‘mount of corruption’
(see Destruction, Mount or; OLives, MOUNT OF, 8 5),
by which supposition Mt. 28 16 is brought into agreement with
Lk. 24 so Acts 1 τῷ, has its basis only on assertions of medieval
piigrims. The matter is not improved by the purely conjectural
assumption of Resch (TU x.2 381-389 χ. 8765. Δ) that in Mt.
2816 and already in 2632 28710= Mk. 1428 167, ‘Galilee’
(Φλιλαία) is a wrong rendering of the gelida (Π058) in the
origina! Hebrew gospel postulated by him, the neighbourhood
of Jerusalem (περίχωρος Mt.35 Mk.128, etc.) being what was
really intended. ἴῃ Tertullian's (4204 21) ‘cum discipulis
quibusdam apud Galilazam Jude regionem ad quadraginta dies
egit* Resch even finds (ΔΙ σα used as the 272 0f this district
(Gee, against this, Schirer, LZ, 1897, p. 187 £). That, further,
the Mount of Olives belonged to this disirict Resch accepts
from the medizval pilgrims ; and that it constituted the central
point of the district, so that the disciples could at once under-
stand by the ‘district’ to which (according to Mk.167=Mt.
287 10) they were directed the Mount of Olives, as being the
* mountain where Jesus had appointed them’ (τὸ ὅρος οὗ ἐτάξατο
αὐτοῖς è Ἰησοῦς : 28 τό), he derives from hisown authority. "The
Acta Pilati and the Gesta Pilati, finally, which place the
ascension of Jesus at once in Galilee and on the Mount of Olives,
embody no true geographical recollection but only a quite crude
harmonistic attempt (cp the passages in Zahn, δρᾶ, d. A'anons,
2937; also Thilo, Cod. Afecr. NY 1617-22). See also
MATTHIAS.

4044

RESURRECTION- AND ASCENSION-NARRATIVES

express statement that Jesus parted from them ; and all these
occurrences are represented as having happened on one and the
same day. In Jn., on the other hand, the events of the twentieth
chapter alone require eight days. Mt. and Mk. know of
appearances to disciples only in Galilee, Lk. and Jn. 20 only of
appearances in Jerusalem and its neighbourhosd (Emmaus),
neither of the last-named evangelists taking any account what-
ever of any appearances in Galilee—not till Jn.21 do we come
upon one cf this description ; but this chapter is by another hand
(sce Joun, Sox OF ZEBEDEE, $ 40).

(3) Refuge is often sought in the reflection that some-
times an event may, after all, have actually happened,
even if the accounts of it are quite discrepant. A
famous illustration often quoted in this connection is
the case of Hannibal, who quite certainly did cross the
Alps, although Livy's account of the route taken by him
is entirely different from that of Polybius. Most as-
suredly. The fact, however, that, whatever be the
contradictions of chroniclers, he actually did cross the
Alps is a certainty for us, only because we know for
certain that at one date he was to be found on the
Gallic side, and at a subsequent date on the Italian.
If it were just as clearly made out that Jesus, after his
death, came back again to this life, we could, indeed,
in that case, with an easy mind, leave the differences
between the narratives to settle themselves. Here,
however, the position of matters is that the actuality of
the resurrection of Jesus depends for its establishment
upon these very narratives ; and in such a case unim-
peachable witnesses are naturally demanded.

Livy and Polybius lived centuries after the occurrence which
they relate, and they were dependent for their facts upon
written sources which perhaps were wanting in accuracy, and,
morecver, were themselves în turn derived from inadequate
sources. If any deficiency, even of only an approximately
similar character, has to be admitted in the acquaintance of the
writers of the gospels with the circumstances of the resurrection
of Jesus, there is little prospect of anyone being induced to
accept it as a fact, on the strength of such testimony, unless he
has from the beginning been predisposed to da so without any
testimony. Andas a matter of fact we cannot avoid the cone
clusion from the contradictions between the gospels that the
writers of them were far removed from the event they describe.
If we possessed only one gospel, we might perhaps he inclined
to accept it; but how far astray should we be according to the
view of Lk. if we relied, let us say, on Mt. alone, or, according
to the view of Jn., if we pinned our faith to Lk. In point of fact,
not only do the evangelists each follow different narratives ; they
also each have distinct theories of their own as to Galilee or

‘erusalem being the scene of the appearances, as to whether
esus ate and was touched, and so forth (cp $ 19, 27 0, d).

Shall we then betake ourselves to extra-canonical
sources? Of these, several are often regarded as
superior to the canonical in antiquity ; so,
4 GoEPEI for example, the Gospel of the Hebrews.
σίρε, This view, however, so far as the extant
* fragments at least are concerned, is dis-

tinctly not warranted (see GOSPELS, $ 155},
(4) For our present discussion the following citation
by Jerome (Vir. #7 2) from this gospel comes into

consideration :—

“The Lord after he had given the cloth to the slave of the
priest, went to James and appeared to him ; for James had sworn
that he would" not eat bread from that hour in which he had
drunì the cup of the Lord until he should see him rising again
from them that sleep'; and again after a little : ‘Bring, says
the Lord, food and bread,’ and immediately there isadded: ‘he
brought bread and blessed and break and gave to James the
Just and said to him: My brother, eat thy bread, because the
son of man has risen again from them that sleep. {‘ Dominus
autem cum dedisset sindonem servo sacerdotis, ivit ad Jacobum
et apparuit ei ; juraverat enim Jacobus se non comesurum panem
ab illa hora qua biberat calicem domini donec videret eum
resurgentema dormientibus'; rursusque post paululum : ‘afferte,
ait dominus, mensam et panem,’ statimque additur: ‘tuli
panem et benedixit ac fregit et dedit Jacobo Justo et dixit e:
frater mi, comede panem tuum, quia resurrexit filius hominis ἃ
dormientibus.’

This story is, to begin with, untrustworthy, because,
according to the canonical gospels, James was not
present aî all at the last supper of Jesus.!

Lightfoor's conjecture (σα (8) 266= Dissert. on Afost. Age,

p. 26) that ‘dominus’ ought to he read for ‘domini seems, indeed,
to be supported by some ecclesiastical writers (see in Handmann,

1 On the simple statement, ‘he appeared to James, 1 Cor.
157, see $ uo.

4045

TU v. 8 79-22) who reproduce the passage in this sense ; but it îs
by no méans certain. The Lord had drunk the cup” (biberat
calicem dominus) would then have reference to the death of
Jesus; such a figurative expression, however, is little in keeping
with the simple narrative style of the fragment. Moreover, the
bread which Jesus ‘blesses and breaks’ clearly answers to the
bread of the ‘eucharist, and this is to the point if James had
caten nothing since being present at the last super. Earlier
students may have perceived the contradiction between the read-
ing ‘of the Lord" (domini) and the canonical narratives just as
easily as Lightfoot, and on this account have substituted ‘the
Lord* (dominus τ în the nom.).

(5) Nor is the Gospel of the Hebrews wanting at other
points in equally bold contradictions to the canonical
gospels. Jesus is represented as having given his linen
garment to the servant of the high priest. This (apart
from what we read in the Gospel of Peter; see below,
$ 56) is the only appearance, anywhere recorded, of
Jesus to a non-believer. What enormous importance
would it not possess, were it only historical! How
could the evangelists, and Paul, possibiy have suffered
it to escape them? It is, however, only too easily con-
ceivable that they knew nothing at all about it.

In order to reach James it was first necessary for Jesus, ac-
cording to our fragment, to wa/£; but ît was not so in the case
of the servant of the high priest, who must, accordinglo, be
thought of as having been in the immediate neighbourhood of
the sepulchre. What was he doing there? The most likely
conjecture will be that he was taking part in the watching of
the sepulchre. This, however, means yet another step beyond
the already unhistorical canonical account (below, $ 20), in so far
as according to Mt. 27 62 66 the chief priests and Pharisees took
part only în the sealing of the stone at the door of the sepulchre,
and has its parallel in the part taken by the presbyters in the
watching of the sepulchre according to the Gospel of Peter (38),
which, as regards this part of the narrative, goes still another
step farther than the canonical account (see below, $ 5a). It has
further to be remarked that the linen cloth was the only clothing
the body had when it was laid in the tomb (824); Jn.19 40 30 5.7,
which speaks of several cloths, is plainly not taken into account
in the gospel of che Hebrews. "This being so ît would have been
too great an offence against decorum that Jesus should have given
this garment to the servant of the high priest. It will therefore
be necessary to suppose that he had already assumed another
form. In that case also, however, the handing over of the
garment to the servant makes an advance upon the canonical
account. The synoptists, in reporting the resurrection, make no
mention of the cloth at all, and in Jn. the clothes are all found
lying in the sepulchre, which at all events better accords with
the reserve with which the mystery of the resurrection is treated
than would be the case if we were asked to believe that Jesus
had brought the cloth with him from the sepulchre as a trophy
and deposited it as an ultimate proof of his resurrection. Lastly,
it has to be remembered how violent!y the gospel of the Hebrews,
although in agreement with Paul (x Cor, 157) as regards an
appearance to James, also confiiets with that apostle in so far
as ἷξ makes out this appearance to have been the first; also
how natural it was that precisely in a gospel for Hebrews James,
the head of the church at Jerusalem, should be glorified by means
of some such narrative as this.

(2) In Ignatius (σα Smy72.32) we meet with the
following passage ‘and when he came to those about
Peter he said to them, Take, handle me and see that I
am not a demon without a body. And straightway
they touched him and believed' (καὶ ὅτε πρὸς τοὺς περὶ
Πέτρον ἦλθεν, ἔφη abroîs: λάβετε ψηλαφήσατέ με καὶ
ἴδετε ὅτι οὐκ εἰμὶ δαιμόνιον ἀσώματον. καὶ εὐθὺς αὐτοῦ
ἥψαντο καὶ ἐπίστευσαν. —Eusebius (57 ili. 86 ττ)
confesses that he does not know where Ignatius can
have taken this from. Jerome (Vir. #74 16), on the
other hand, informs us that it comes from the Gospel
of the Hebrews {only he wrongiy names the Epistle of
Ignatius to Polycarp, not that to the Smyrnzeans).

Brandt (390-395; see below, $ 39) plausibly conjectures that the
quotation belongs to the passage, quoted above under a, marked
by Jerome by the words ‘again after a little’ (‘rursus post paul.
uluin'): Jesus appeared to James, then went with him to Peter
and his companions, permitied himself to be touched there, and
ordered food to he brought, and so forth. We hear of the invita»
tion to touch him in Lk. 24 39, and that passage, not Jn. 20 27,
must be the one in view since nothing is said'aboui Thomas, and on
theotherhand ‘bodiless daemon’ (δαιμόνιον ἀσώματον) αρστεος with
the ‘spirit’ (πνεῦμα) of Lk. or with the ‘appearance ‘ (φάντασμα,
7. 37) which is the reading of D and οἱ Marcion, οἵ Marcion
because in point of fact he really regarded the risen Jesus as a
spirit (πνεῦμα), This second fragment, accordingly, conveys
nothing new. Lk. may unhesitatingly be regarded as its source.
See, further, below, $ 94.

In the fragment of the Gospel of Peter discovered in
4046

RESURRECTION- AND ASCENSION-NARRATIVES

1892 various scholars, and particulariy Harnack, have

discerned a maximum of really ancient

0, Gospel matter (‘a first-class source').!" It is to

"be observed, however, that, (} as regards

the watch set on the sepulchre, the Peter fragment

goes still further beyond the canonical account than the
Gospel to the Hebrews does (see $ 4 δ).

Not only do the elders of the Jews keep watch along with the
Roman soldiers; the writer alsò is able to give the name of the
officer in command of the guard (Petronius) and to inform his
readers that the stone at the door of the sepulchre was sealed
with seven seals, and that a booth was erected for the use of the
guard. What is still more surprising, the soldiers report the
occurrence of the resurrection not to the chief priests but to
Pilate,—precisely the person from whom, according to Mt. 28 14,
all knowledge of the fact cught if possible to have been with!
held,—and ic is Pilate who, at the request of the Jews, enjoins
silence on the soldiers (28-49).

(5) The actual resurrection of Jesus, which in the
canonical accounts is, with noticeable reserve, always only
indicated as having occurred already, never described,
is here represented as having occurred before the very
eyes of the Roman and fewish watchers, and, indeed,
in a way which can only be described as grotesque
(35-44). .

During the night the heavens open, two men (youths) come
down in dazzling splendout, the stone rolls away of its own ac-
cord, the two youths enter the sepulchre, three men re-emerge,
two of them supporting the third, the heads of the two reach to
the sky, that of the third goes beyond it (cp Wisd. 1816); a
cross follows them, and to the question heard from heaven
“Hast thou preached to the dead?’ it answers ‘Yea'; the
heavens open once more, a man comes down and enters the
sepulchre {this is the angel whom the women see there next
momning) This, however, is not all; în 2, 19 after the cry of
Jesus ‘My Strength, my Strength, thou hast abandoned me'
ζῇ δύναμίς μου, ἡ δύναμίς μου, κατέλειψάς pe—thus, in all prob
ability, by way of toning dowh the expression of God-forsaken-
ness) we find the words “and when he had spoken he was taken
up’ (καὶ εἰπὼν ἀνελήφθη), which can hardly be understood other
wise than as meaning a taking up into heaven.? This last,
therefore, is twice related in our fragment; for that Jesus goes
into heaven along with the two angels is made clear by the word
of the angel to the women (Ὁ. 56): ‘he is risen and has gone
thither whence he was sent’ (ἀνέστη καὶ ἀπῆλθεν ἐκεῖ ὅθεν
ἀπεστάλη).

(ε) The account of what Mary Magdalene and ‘her
friends’ found at the sepulchre (50-57) is essentially in
agreement with what we read in Mk. So, also, the
statement that they flee filled with fear, without our
being told that they related to any one what had oc-
curred. On the closing day of the paschal festival
‘the twelve disciples’ are still weeping and mourning
in Jerusalem (58 ΚΑ).

(4) On this closing day the disciples betake themselves
each to his home, that is to say, to Galilee. For inv, 60
the narrative proceeds : ‘but I, Simon Peter, and
Andrew . . . went {to fish} to the sea, and with us
were Levi the son of Alphzeus whom the Lord . . .'
(here the fragment breaks off). Plainly the continua-
tion related an appearance of Jesus by the sea of Galilee,
such as we meet with in [π| 21. Yet în Jn. it is precisely
Andrew and Levi who are not mentioned.

1 Brucksticke des Evang. u. der Apokalypse des Petrus?),
1893; ACL ii. (=C4ronoZ.)] 624.

Cp Actslr: Mk.16r9. Ss also, which in Mk. 1537 Li.
23 46 rightly says *(Tesus) expired (or, ended),' has in Mt. 27 5o
‘his spirit went up"; and Origen (Comm. in Δ7έ, series [Lat.],
ed. de la Rue, 39284, 5 140) ‘statim ut clamavit ad patrem
receptus est.”

è As regards Levi, Resch (TU/x.8829-832 x. 4196) tries to
controvert this, maintaining Levi's identity with Matthew (Mk.
2 14 ll Mt.99), whom în turn, on account of the like meaning of
the two names, he identifies with Nathanael who appears ir Jn.
212. Of these two identifications, however, even that of Levi
with Matthew is questioned, and complete identity in the mean-
ings of two names can never be held to prove the identity of the
bearers. Cp_PhÙiLIP, col, 3701, n t; NarHanaeL. The
attempt may be made, without such identifications of different
names, to maintain the identity of the fact recorded in the
Gospel of Peter with that recorded in Jn.; this may be done by
pointing to the possibility that Andrew and Levi may be in-
tended by the two unnamed disciples in Jn.212. It isan
attempt which would to a certain extent be plausible but only if
a fact might really be assumed which both writers wish to
describe. - But Jm. 21 1-14 is open to the suspicion of being, not
a description of a fact, but rather the clothing of an idea: and
we may suspect, în particular, that the two unnamed disciples

4947

{e) The element here that admits of being regarded
as especially old is that the first appearance of Jesus
occurs in Galilee and to Peter. Hardly, however, to
Peter alone as is stated by Paul {x Cor. 155) and ΓΚ,
(2434). Furthermore, it might seem to be original here
that the first appearance does not occur until more than
eight days after the death of Jesus. Such, however,
cannot be regarded with certainty as the meaning of the
fragment.

Unquestionably the writer îs in error if he thinks that on the
last day of the paschal festival many pilgrims, and also the
apostles, set out for their homes ; for this day fell in that year
on a Sabbath, and even if, that had not been so, ît had the
validity of a Sabbath and thus precluded the possibility of
travelling. Another evidence of ignorance or carelessness in
matters of chronology is seen în v. 27, where, after describ-
ing the burial of Jesus, Peter goes on to say : ‘we fasted and sat
mourning and weeping day and night (νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας) until
the Sabbath, although the writer, according to Ὁ. 30, rightly
dates the death of Jesus on the evening of Friday. If this be
so, it is not impossible that he may have regarded the paschal
festival as one not of eight days’ duration, but of only two.
The Sabbath is rightly regarded by him as the first day of the
feast; inz. so he mentions the Sunday (κυριακή) as the day on
which the women visited the sepulchre ; and immediately after
the words ‘the women fled full of fear," he proceeds in 2. 58 to
add: ‘and it was the last of the days of unleavened bread (ἦν
δὲ τελευταία ἡμέρα τῶν ἀῤύμων). Although the possibility is not
excluded that these words transplant us to a later date, it still
remains the most natural interpretation of the form of expression
to suppose the meaning to be: ‘but at that time (when the
vomen fled) it was the last of the days, etc. Thus it is impos
sible at least ta be quite certain that an interval of more than
eight days between the resurrection and the first appearance of
pesos is intended. Besides, as we shall afterwards discover (see

elow, $ 22 d), it has not the smaliest inherent probability.

(7) On the whole, then, what we have to say with
regard to the gospel of Peter must be that, inasmuch as
the greater part of its contents is of a legendary char-
acter, we cannot rely upon anything we find in it merely
because it is found in the gospel of Peter. 16 the reader
by any chance finds any statements contained in it to
be credible, he does so on grounds of inherent prob-
ability alone, and must ask, almost in astonishment,
how by any possibility a statement of such a kind could
have found its way hither. Moreover, the data which
come most nearly under this category are already known
to us from canonical sources :-—such as that the resurrec-
tion and the ascension were but one and the same act
(8 τό 6), that the disciples received from the women no
word as to the state of the sepulchre, and that the first
appearance of the risen Jesus was in Galilee (Mk. 167£
Mt. 28716). The sole statement worthy of credence
met with in the gospel of Peter and nowhere else is that
found in τ. 27—that the disciples fasted (cp 8 360).
In Peter, however, we can have no certainty that the
author is drawing upon authentic tradition; he may
very easily have drawn upon his own imagination for
this realistic touch,

There remains yet one other extant account of the
resurrection by a writer who in like manner did not feel
himself bound to follow the canonical

τ Soptie accounts; ît occurs in a Coptic beok of
n anti-Gnostic tendency, found at Akthmim
narrative.

in Egypt, and described by Carl Schmidt
(SBAW, 1895. pp. 705-711}; the conversation of the
risen Jesus with his disciples contained in it has been
reproduced and discussed by Harnack (T4eo/. Studien
γὴν B. Weiss, 1897, pp. 1-8), who dates ît somewhere
between 150 and 180 A.D.

The contents are as follows Mary, Martha, and Mary Mag-
dalene wish to anoint the body of Jesus, δας find the sepulchre
empty. Jesus appears to them arid says: ‘I am he whom ye
seek,' and bids that one of them go to their brethren and say
*Come, the Master 15 risen’ Martha does so, but meets with
no credence, and Mary, whom Jesus sends after Martha has
reported her failure, has no better success. Finally Jesus him-
self goes along with the women, calls the disciples out, and, as

were added only in order to gaîn the complete number “seven *
(below, $ 296; Simon PETek, ὃ 226). ‘Therefore, to identity
with the account in the Gospel of Peter {to which Gospel the
idea intended in Jn. was presumably quite foreign), the identi-
fication being based on so slender a foundation, would be very
imprudent.

4048

RESURRECTION- AND ASCENSION-NARRATIVES

they still continue to be in doubt, bids Peter, Thomas, and
Andrew touch his hands, his side, and his feet respectively,
citing also Wisd. 1817. Then they confess their sins, especially
their unbelief.

‘This narrative contains much that is new, but nothing
that could claim greater credibility than the canonica!
gospels. Anappearance of Jesus occurs at the sepulchre,
not, however, to one woman or iwo, as in Jn. and Mt.
respectively, but to three ; so also the unbelief of the
disciples dwelt on in Lk. 241137(41} reappears în intensi
fied form, and in addition to Thomas two other disciples
are bidden touch the wounds of Jesus.

Other isolated details also, differing from those com-
monly current, have come down to us from a time, pre-
sumably, in which older traditions still

7. Isolated ἢ
è continued to produce after-effects.
extra-camonieal (4) Cod. Bobbiensis () has this inter-

polation before Mk, 164 (see Οὐ Latin
Biblical Texts, 222): ‘Suddenly, however, at the third
hour, darkness came on by day throughout the whole
world and angels came down from heaven and will rise
(read : and rising) in the brightness of the living God
went up with him, and forthwith it was light' (‘subito
autem ad horam tertiam tenebra dieifactae sunt per totum
orbem terre et descenderunt de ccelis angeli et surgent
(read: surgentes) in claritate vivi dei simul ascenderunt
cum eo et continuo lux facta est). This about the angels
agrees with the Gospel of Peter (sce above, $ 54), except
that there the event occurs during the night, whilst in
cod. k we are bidden think of it as preceded by an eclipse
and therefore as happening by day—at the third hour, in
other words at 9 A.M.

It is, however, hard to believe that the interpolator actually
supposed that the women took some three hours (from sunrise)

to consider who should roll away the stone (162). Perhaps the
time datum is the result of a confusion. This would be all the

easier hecanse a darkness is elsewhere reported as having oc- ‘
gurred at the crucifixion- although to be sure, in the afternoon |

from twelve till three (so also in Gospel of Peter, 15, 22).

If we leave the darkness out of account and understand the
third hour according to Roman and modern reckoning as
three o'clock in the morning, then the final clause ‘continuo lux
facta est” Agrees with both texts of the Anaflora Pilati (A, 9
=B, 8, in Tischendorfs Avangi Agocr.0) 440, 447), according
to which at this hour the sun rose, manifestly to mark the time
οὗ the resurrection.1 So also agrees Lagarde’s reconstruction
of the Didaskalia, 5.14, which Resch (7 δ᾽ x.3 756) quotes from
Bunsen's Analecta Antenicena, 2313: that Jesus slept through-
out the Sabbath and for three hours over and above. One has
only to reckon the day in Roman fashion from midnight to
midnight.

(4) In the DidaskeZia (extant in Syriac), which came
into existence in the third century, based upon older
sources, we read (ed. Lagarde, 88 f., according to
Resch, 7Ux. 3761) that ‘during the night before the
dawn of the first day of the week Jesus appeared to
Mary Magdalene and Mary the daughter of James, and
in the morning of the first day of the week he entered the
house of Levi, and then he appeared also to us; more-
over he said to us while he was instructing us: Where-
fore do ye fast on my account in these days?" and so
on. Mention is made of Levi in the Gospel of Peter
also (above, $ 5 4), but in a wholly different connection.
The fasting îs also mentioned there ($ 5 [/]. The
second Mary is called the daughter (not the mother} of
James in Ss also.

{e) According to K, Syr.e& Syr.hieros, Vg. ete., in
Lk. 2443 Jesus gives what is left from what he ate (..e.,
according to TR and AV, fish and an honeycomb) to
the disciples. .

(d) In Tatian's Dialessaron Capernaum is named in
Mt. 2816 instead of the mountain in Galilee. In the
scene by the open sepulchre which Tatian gives after
Jn. Marty is named without any addition, and Ephrem
in his commentary understands this of Mary the mother
of Jesus. This is indicated also by the fact that previ-
ously she has been entrusted by the crucified Jesus în
the words of Jn. 1926 f. to the beloved disciple. Never-
theless there may be a confusion here, as the Diatessaron

Ὁ Apart from this reference we leave the Auas4. Pil. out of
consideration as being a late and highly legendary work,

4049

elsewhere undoubtedly makes use of the canonical
gospels.

(e) A Christian section of the Ascensio Jesaie (313-
4:8; see SIMON PETER, $ 27) presents a variation on
the Gospel of Peter. Upon [the watch of] those who
watched the sepulchre follows ‘the descent of the angel
of the church which is in heaven’ (315: ἡ κατάβασις
τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῆς ἐκκλησίας τῆς ἐν οὐρανῷ), and ‘the
angel of the Holy Spirit [Gabriel ?], and Michael the
chief of the holy angels on the third day will open the
sepulchre and the Beloved sitting on their shoulders will
come forth' (316 £: ὁ ἄγγελος τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίον
καὶ Μιχαὴλ ἄρχων τῶν ἀγγέλων τῶν ἁγίων τῇ τρίτῃ
ἡμέρᾳ αὐτοῦ ἀνοίξουσιν τὸ μνημονεῖον καὶ ὁ ἀγαπητὸς
καθίσας ἐπὶ τοὺς ὥμους αὐτῶν ἐξελεύσεται).

(7) From a still later date we have a recent notice of
an apocryphal work, in a Georgian translation, belonging
according to Harnack to the fifth or the sixth century;
it relates to Joseph of Arimathzea, and we are told that
its hero is expressly spoken of as the first to whom Jesus
appeared. He had been thrown into prison by the
Jews for having begged the body of Jesus (S84 W,1901,
Pp. 920-931, and, more fully, von Dobschùtz in Z. f
Xirchengesch. 23 1-27 [1902].

In any event all these notices serve to show how
busily and in how reckless a manner the accounts of the
resurrection of Jesus continued to be handed on.

The shorter conclusion of Mk. {that headed ἔλλλως
by WH) contents itself with simply saying the opposite

8. Mi169-20 of the statement (that the women said

ti ᾿ " nothing to anyone of what they had
seen and heard at the grave) in 168; but the longer
conclusion gives a variety of details,

(4) A brief summary of its most important points has
been given already (see GospELS, $ 138 g}; but it will
be necessary to examine more closely some of the current
views respecting it.

Rohrbach (see below, $ 39), in his hypothesis based upon
certain indications of Harnack, gives his adhesion to the opinion
of Conybeare (βοός. 1893d, pp. 241-254), that Mk, 16 9-20 is the
work of the presbyter Aristion. We shall discuss chis thesis in
the form in which it has been adopted by Harnack (AC£Z
[=C4ron.]1 695-700). In order to displace the genuine cor
clusion of Mk. (see below, $ 9) în favour of another which should
be more in agreement with the other three gospels, and at the
same time be the work of an authoritative person, the presbyters
of the Johannine circle in Asia Minor who brought together the
four gospels into a unity took a memorandum by the presbyter
Aristion who, according to Papias, had been a personal disciple
of Jesus (JoHx, Son OF ZEREDEE, $ 4).

(5) Harnack and Rohrbach, in order to maintain the
literary independence of Aristion, find it necessary to
deny that Mk, 169-20 is a mere excerpt from the canonical
gospels and other writings. In this, however, they
cannot but fail The borrowing, indeed, is not made
word for word; în point of fact, however, even the
smallest departure from the sources admits of explana-
tion on grounds that are obvious. Verse ἡ is compounded
from Jn. 2011-17 and Lk, 82; vv. τὸ / from Jn. 20:8
and ΓΚ. 2410 £.; v. 12 reproduces Lk. 2413-32 and ν, 134
Lk. 24 3335. ‘That the eleven did not believe the disciples
from Emmaus (7. 134) directly contradicts Lk. 2434 it is
true; but this is easily explicable from the view of the
author that unbelief was the invariable effect of the
accounts as to appearances of the risen Jesus—a view
which (7. 14) he expressly puts into the mouth of Jesus
himself. ‘Thus it is by no means necessary to postulate
an independent source; all that is needed is unity in
the fundamental conception of the matter.

{c) Zahn (ZinZ $ 52=2207-240) derives vv. 14-18 from
Aristion, but declines to do so alike in the case of vr.
9-13 and in that of 19 f In 14-18 he finds not mere
compilation but actual narrative, and that without
dependence on the canonical gospels. In reality, how-
ever, 7. 14 simply carries further what is found in Lk.
242538 Ju. 2027; «. 15 is an adaptation of Mt, 2819 to
Pauline and Catholic phraseology {‘world' [x69wos],
‘preach the gospel’ [κηρύσσειν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, ‘creature’
[kriois]), and if baptism in the name of the Trinity is

4050

RESURRECTION- AND ASCENSION-NARRATIVES
TABULAR VIEW OF LEADING PARTICULARS

Mx.

Gosr. Hep. |Gosr. Per.|

Pau Mx. Mr. Le Ju milo Corr. | Dive
Watch Di soldiers . - soldiers |soldiersand - .
(andservant| presbyters
of priest ?)
Jesus comes . ων . in the 5
forth night; with
2 angels;
stone re-
moves itself
Time when aftersun- |evening be. | before sun- | before sun. | (în the. in the night
‘women come rise fore rise rise morning) moming fore
Stone when already τος |is removed | already re- | already re- “ already re. | (already re. |.
women come moved by angel: | moved moved moved moved)
carthquake
Angels when . ᾿ 1 2 2 . “ 1
women come
Women : Mary |2: Mary |M. Magd.; | M. Mogd.; - “ M. Magd. | Mary, Ν᾿
È) Magd. M. | “Maga. M. | Joanna: Mi. and her Martha,
Ei (m.)offames| mother of| of James; companions| M. Magd.
È (the Jess James and | and others
3 and Joses); | Joses
è Salome she tells
© | Men the watchers | (Peter?) |Peterand - " the watchers n Ν
PI the beloved
disciple
In sepulchre the angel nothing |a thecloths . » the angel | nothing
è the angels
See Jesus at è thez women; .. M. Magd.; n the watches] thez womeni ᾿"
sepulchre touch Jesus! does not
feet touch ἢ.
See Jesus (at - . Ma n M. Magd, |theservant; n - M. Mi
sepulchre?) receives Mary
Jesus' gar. daug
ment of Ja
Angel's charge . to send dis- [to send dis- è .
ciples to | ciples to
Galilee | Galilee
Jesus' charge i ditto ον to announce
| ascension
i ‘ :
Women's REPORT: not made | (not made) È ὁ 6ὃΘ6Ὁὃ
to whom Ν᾿ (the dis: |the rr and |a sce above | the disciples "i the disciples
ciples) others. |3the (1) twice
disciples ᾿
result joumey to | unbeliet ἢ 6... unbelief DI unbelîef
Ì Galilee
Peter Peter? | Peter Ν James; Lei
bread for
him
Î (catEmmausj 2 (atEm- . ”
OTHER ; supper maus)
the twelve] the (rr) dis- [the 11 dis. {the 11, with|the (xo)dis- {the τας Peter with | Peter, An-_ | the (11) dis | the(r
cipies? ciples; others; ᾿ ciples; others; | drew, Levi| ciples; disci
(& others?)
closed
doors;
APPEARANCES some doubt; | they doubt ;
Jesus J. shows hisl Jesus Jesus
δι touched; wounds; touched touched
eats (var.:
or with discc.];|
missionary | missionary | (missionary | missionary
command i] command;; command); command
1 am with | Holy Spirit. Holy Spirit
Jesus you alway'| promised | given
over 500 n Lo. i .
James “ . (James, see “ -
| above)
το all the -- the 11 dis e » .
apostles | ciples;
closed
| ‘doors;
| J. touched
| 7 disciples; ” po»
| bread and | |
Ì j fish forthem i
! " L
PLACE or (Galilee) | Galilee | Jerusalem |eJerusalem;|(Jerusalem?) (Jerusalem?)] Sea of Gal. |erusalem?)! ..
APPEARANCES lastly 4
᾿ 5 Sea of Gal. i
Ì Ù !
n - ῃ
ASGENSION Gt the first evening | first mom- 'at a meal a at death di
resur- Acrs: | IRE | fn the ast ὁ at the re.
rection) atrio days | | evening?) surrection

RESURRECTION- AND ASCENSION-NARRATIVES

not mentioned that becomes very intelligible after Cony-
beare's demonstration (ΖΛ Τ᾽ 7, 1901, pp. 275-288; cp
Hibb, Journ. 1, p. 9627) that even Eusebius down to 325
A.D. read nothing as to this in Mt. (cp MinISTRY, $ 5).
Verse 16 is the most elaborated dogmatic of the apostolic
and post-apostolic time (Acts 1631; MINISTRY, $ 26).
The casting-out of devils in 7, 17 rests on Mk. 6713 Mt.
10: Lk.91 1017, the speaking with new tongues (i.e,
languagesof foreign peoples)on Acts 2 1-13(cp SPIRITUAL
Girrs, $ 10); ‘they shall take up serpents’ (τ. 18) is
borrowed partly from Acts 28 3-6 and partly from the
express promise of Jesus in Lk. 1019 ; the gift of healing
of diseases by laying-on of hands from Acts 288. With-
out limitation to the method by imposition of hands such
a gift is already bestowed upon the apostles in Mt. 101
Lk. 91, and is exercised by them in Mk. 613 Lk. 96.

The drinking of deadly poison with impunity is the only thing
for which we have to look outside of the NT canon; but here
it is not Aristion that we encounter but the daughters of Philip,
from whom Papias claims to have heard of such a thing in the
case of Justus Barsabas (cp Purtir, $ 44). To say the least,
then, τς 17,7 are quite as much a mere cataloguing abstract as
vw, 9-13 ἅτε. Nor js the situation changed by the addition after
7, 14 which Jerome quotes in one place from Creek MSS: ‘And
they apologised saying: this age of iniquity and unbelief is
under Satan, who by [his] impure spirits does not suffer the
true virtue of God to be apprehended; wherefore now reveal
thy justice’ (et illi satisfaciebant [made amends, here meaning :
apologised] dicentes : saeculum istud iniquitatis et incredulitatis
sub Satana est, qui non sinit per immundos spiritus veram dei
apprehendi virtutem : idcirco jam nunc revela justitiam tuam).1
It Îs very easily explained as being a gloss.?

(4) The conclusion of Mk. betrays no acquaintance
with Jn.21 or the Gospel of Peter; on the other hand
we cannot say with confidence that the author had
‘occasion to use them even had he known them. In the
Gospel of Peter (27} the disciples are spoken of as in
Mk, 1610 as ‘mourning and weeping” (πενθοῦντες καὶ
κλαίοντες). But this collocation of words is quite
current (Lk. 625 Jas.49 Rev. 18111519), and the idea
conveyed was an obvious one both from the situation
itself and also as fulfilment of the prophecy in Jn. 1620,
and thus is no proof of literary dependence,

(e) There is thus no particular reason why we
should assign to a personal disciple of Jesus such as
Aristion the authorship of so meagre an excerpt as
Mk. 169-20 from which absolutely nothing new is to be
learned.

A marginal gioss—comparatively late it may be—in an Oxford
MS. of Rufinus speaks of the story about Justus Barsabas în
Eus. HE ili, 399 (see above, c) as a communication frora Aristion
(Ezpos. 1893, 4; p. 246), Should this happen to rest upon older
tradition, it conceivably may have been what furnished the
occasion for attributing to Aristion first the allusion to the same
thing in Mk. 16 18 and afterwards erroneously the whole passage
DI. 9-20.

(7) Neither is there much greater probability în the conjecture
of Resch (7 x. 2 450-456) that in Conybeare's Armenian Manu-
script by the presbyter Ariston is meant the Jewish Christian
Ariston of Pella in Perza, to whom the Dialogue between Jason
and Papiscus is attributed. There is absolutely nothing specific»
ally Jewish-Christian in the conclusion of Mk. (see above, 5, ὃ),
The other part of Resch's hypothesist—that it was this Ariston
who at the same time gathered together the four gospels into
one whole—is quite inadmissible. Resch is able to make out a

b-Christian character for this grouping only insomuch as
. is assigned the first place.
Even apart, however, from the question about Ariston and
Aristion the attempt to bring into close connection the composi-
tion of Mk.169-20 and the grouping of the four gospels as sole
canonical sources for the life of Jesus must be given up.

If, however, there be even merely an element of truth

1 Jer, contr. Pelag. 2 13; ed. Vallarsi, 27587 Zaha (Gesch.
&. NTlichen Kanons, 2935-9381 Ein. $ 52, τι. 7) defends the
reading ‘sub Satana . . . qui’ given above; the usual reading
is ‘substantia . . . qua.

3 Van Kasteren (Rev. 3554, internat., 1902, pp. 240-255) seeks
to defend the authenticity of this appendix. He maintains, be-
sides, that the whole passage (16 9-20) has been used in Hermas,
Sim ix. 252, and even in Heb, 11.4 23-5. These arguments
are missing in Burgon, Last Twelve Verses φ ME. (1871), and
rightly. They rest only on vague resemblances which would be
quite as capable of supporting the posteriority as the priority of
Mk. 169-20, if they necessarily implied literary acquaintance.

180 4053

in the theory that the genvine conclusion of Mk. was
removed on account of its inconsistency

ΣῊΝ with the other gospels, we are led to the
DE ME conjecture that What it stated must have

been all the more original in proportion
as the others are recent.

(2) Harnack and Rohrbach suppose that the lost
conclusion was what lay at the foundation of the Gospel
of Peter and Jn.21.

What is said, they think, was to the effect that as the women
said nothing about what had occurred at the sepulchre (168) the
disciples went to Galilee—-not st the command of Jesus but (as
in the Gospel of Peter) of their own motion and in'deep depres-
βίου, Here Jesus appeared to a group of them by the lake as
they were fishing (so far the Gospel of Peter) and rehabilitated
Peter who had Teen overwhelmed with a sense of his guilt in
denying Jesus (cp Jn. 2115-17). The saying of Jesus, on the
other hand, about the beloved disciple (20-24) is an addition of
the author of Jn, 2L Apart from that saying ]n.21 describes
the first appearance of the risen Jesus, ‘Sick is given as the
third appearance (21 14) only în order to bring Lk. and Jn. into
agreement, Rohrbach seeks to discover în the genuine con-
clusion of Mk. also an appearance of Jesus to the eleven, and
brings into connection with this the fragment în Ignatius spoken
of above (δ 4) which Rohrbach would fain detach from the
Gospel of the Hebrews and claim for the genuine conclusion of
Mk.

(5) Of such hypotheses we may admit everything that
can be based upon Mk,167. Even if the women, as
we read in v. 8, kept silence as to the injunction of the
angel, it still remains the fact that, according to the view
of the author, it was the divine will that ‘the disciples
and Peter’ should go to Galilee and there see the risen
Jesus. That the disciples should have fulfilled this in-
junetion without being acquainted with it is explained
in the Gospel of Peter by the fact that the festival
had come to an end; according to GOSPELS, $ 138 2,
there is a quite different explanation. In any case it
is clear that it cannot have been Mk.'s intention to
close his gospel at 168; he must have treated also the
Galileean events for which he had prepared his readers.
From the remarkable order ‘his disciples and Ῥείεσ
we must not conclude that an appearance to the disciples
was first related and then one to Peter; for it is not
said that his disciples and Peter will see him, but ‘ Ze//
his disciples and Peter.’ AIl we can conjecture with
any confidence is that Peter in some way or other played
a special part in the lost narrative,

(e) What we find in Harnack and Rohrbach going
beyond this is quite untenable. That the Gospel of
Peter and Jn. 21 have no common source, results at the
outset from the fact that the names of the apostles on
the shore of the lake are not the same (cp $ 54, 2.)
That Jn. 21 originally was a description of the first
appearance of the risen Jesus, is in itself not impossible ;
but there is nothing that directly indicates it,

The reserve of the disciples, in particular (21 12), in virtue of
which none of them durst ask the Lord who he was, would be
appropriate, not only at the first, but at any appearance. In
the consummately delicate manner in which it îs referred to in
τῶ. 15-17, Peter's denial could have been alluded to at any other
appearance besides the first, if the situation presented occasion
for it; and a rehabilitation of Peter which one cannot help
expecting at the first appearance, need not have carried with it,
în the first instance, more than his restoration to grace, not his
investiture with the office of leader of the church {cp $ 370),
‘This installation of Peter, however, is explained much more
readily by reference to a later ecclesiastical situation. The
Fourth Gospel at its first publication had met with opposition,
and în the circles în which it had arisen it was perceived that ît
would fail to meet with ecclesiastica) recognition if the great
prominence given to the beloved disciple and the comparative
depreciation of Peter, which run through the entire book (see
Stmon PETER, $ 22), were to be continued. It was determined,
therefore, to recognise in an appendix the authority of- Peter to
some extent (Ministry, $ 364). If this be so, however, the
words about the abiding importance of the beloved disciple
(2120-24), as also about the death of Peter (21 18,/), which would
certainly be inappropriate at a first appearance, will be integral
parts, not merely inorganically attached additions. Yet once
more, the thought that Jesus instituted a substitute for the
Last Supper (in 21 13 the reminiscence of this is quite manifest)
is not appropriate to a first appearance of Jesus, but must be
regarded as the result of after reflection (see $ 20c).

(4) Harnack and Rohrbach become very specially
involved in obscurities when they maintain that the

4054

RESURRECTION- AND ASCENSION-NARRATIVES

genuine conclusion of Mk, with its first appearance of
Jesus was at the same time in agreement with the
account in τ Cor. 155, and with that in Lk. 2434,
according to which Jesus appeared to Peter. The
expression of Paul, and in like manner that of Lk.,
unquestionably mean : to Peter alone. That, however,
is exactly what Jn. 21 does not say, nor yet in all
probability did the Gospel of Peter.

In Jn.£17 not only is Peter not the only one to recognise
{πὴ he is not even the first ; the first is che beloved disciple.

ohrbach has recourse to the conjecture that, in the genuine
conclusion of Mk., at the decisive scene, the recognition of Je
and the word of restitution, the ocher disciples apart from Peter
were either, like the disciples at Emmaus whose ‘eyes were
holden'(Lk. 2416), prevented by divine arrangement from recog+
nising Jesus, ot were not present at all, and that this scene was
followed by another separate appearance to the eleven (above,
a). Harnack, to judge by his silence, does not accept this, but
in doing so leaves it all the more unclear how far the appear»
ance to severa! disciples is to be held the same as an appearance
to Peter (alone),

(e) If such an appearance cannot be assumed to have
been contained in the lost conclusion of Mk. with cer-
tainty, the attempt must also be abandoned to invest
the passage with the nimbus which would attach to it if
it had really contained the full narrative of what Paul
and Lk. (2434) dismiss with a single word as the earliest
of the occurrences after the resurrection of Jesus. The
lost conclusion in question may have been relatively
more original than the canonical and extra-canonical
accounts which have come down to us; but we cannot
safely venture to regard it as having been absolutely the
first.

If now it has been made out that the extra-canonical
accounts contain nothing of any consequence which

canoni xcept
10. 1Cor.151-11 goes beyond, the ‘ani mical i copi
în itself {ultimately) the existence of an interva!
considered, of more than eight days between the
" resurrection of Jesus and his first
appearance ($ 5e)—and that the canonical gospels
are at irreconcilable variance with each other, we have
finally to turn to the narrative of Paul. It has fared
badly. Reimarus and Lessing completely ignored it.
The entire body of conservative theology denies it any
decisive importance, and the most advanced critical
theology in rejecting 411 the Pauline epistles of course
rejects this also. It is very striking to observe, how-
ever, how slight are the objections that can be brought
against it. Let us take, in the first place, those which
are urged against the account in itself considered.

(a) Steck (Ga/later-br., 1888, pp. 180-191) finds at the very
outset that the word ‘make known' (yrupifo: 1 Cor. 151)
shows the writer to have been aware that he was making a
statement which, at the time of his making it (according to
Steck, in the and cent.), was new. The answer is simple; a
writer can surely quite easily say of a thing already known
*I make known unto you,’ if he wishes to call attention to it as
something very weighty, or desires gently to reproach or rebuke
his readers for not having kept it in mind. The remark holds
gòod here as well as in 123 Gal. lar. .

(5) According to 1511 what precedes is given out alike by
Paul and by the original apostles. Steck holds it to be
artificially composed to suit sich a purpose ; the twelve would
represent the narrower circle of disciples destined for the
mission to the Jews; the soo that wider circle, hinted at in
Lk. 10, for the mission to the Gentiles. In this case, however,
we are constrained to ask why the author, who according to
Steck had full scope for his fancy, should have chosen the
mumber 500, not zo? And why does he cite James (surely a
Jewish Christian !) after, not before, the alleged representatives
of the Gentile mission, and afterwards, over and above, ‘all the
apostles,’ whom no one can assert to have belonged distinctly
to the Jewish-Christian or to the Gentile-Christian circle?

(Ὁ Whether the original apostles included in their preaching
also this, that Jesus had appeared to Paul, may be regarded as
questionable in view of their strained relations with Paul. At
an carlier date, however, when the churches of Judxa glorified
God în Paul (Gal. 123) they certainly proclaimed it, since the
conversion of this most zealous opponent of Christianity cannot
But have seemed to them to be the greatest triumph of the new
religion. Accordingiy, Paul might very well assume that they
were still doing so. Yet it must not by any means be positively
affirmed that he says so; for from 1Cor.156 onwards the
verbs no longer depend, as in ew, 3-5, on ‘how that’ (ὅτ; the
sentences are all independent propositions. Otherwise we
should be compelled to go so far as to say that Paul describes
the contents of 2,8 also—that is, the appearance of Jesus to

4955

himself—as something which according to v, 3 he has received
(παρέλαβον). Steck does not shrink from drawing this infer-
ence. In doing so, however, he does the writer an injustice.
For when the writer wrote ©, 3, his intention was to set forth
what he had received ; but he was surely not thereby precluded
from adding something of the same kind with regard to himself,
of which the readers would he able to see for themselves that he
had not ‘received’ it. In like manner also he must not be
debarred from saying în v. 11, by way of 7%sw7:6, that he and
the original apostles preach in the manner stated in the pre-
ceding context, although certainly 7.9, perhaps also ©. 8,
do not form part of the preaching of the criginal apostles.

(δ Van Manen (Pas/us, 8, 1896, pp. 67-71) finds 15 1-11 out
of agreement with vo, 12-58; forin dhe folmer passage the hope
of a future resurrection of the body is made to depend upon the
fact of the resurrection of Jesus, whilst in the latter it is held
upon quite different ground$ into which this fact does not enter.
It must be noted, however, that if a thing rests upon more

rounds than one) it is quite fitting that these should he set
forth separately. ‘Besides, in point of fact, the resurrection of
Jesus is returned to in Ὁ. τὸ as having a bearing upon the
argument.

(e) Another point made by Van Manen ἴς that ‘was seen*
(6487) is repeated inv. 6, but not in Ὁ. 54. That, however, really
proves nothing against either the genuineness or the unity of
the section. ‘The addition in v. 6 ‘of whom the greater part
remain until now, but some are fallen asleep’ is found by Van
Manen too copious in style after the curt expressions in v2. 3-5;
and, moreover, he considers it to be brought in too late, since, if
such an observation were to be made with reference to the 500,
it ought also to have been mentioned with regard to the 12,
whether they were still alive or not, But here again it may be
replied that the Corinthians either knew or could have informed
themselves as to the twelve, whilst the case was different with
the sco. As for ‘all the apostles' (τοῖς ἀποστόλοις πᾶσιν) in
2.7, to which Van Manen takes particular exception on the
ground that they are identical with the ‘Peter and the twelve”
in ©. 5, our reply must simply be that this îs not the case; see
Μινίβτην, $ 17,

Ὁ Paul's designation of himself (159) as the least of the
apostles, is regarded by Van Manen as not in agreement with
his claim to apostolic rank and authority (1141691/ 1116), Yet
a solution of the apparent contradiction can be found in 1510:
“not I, but the grace of God.’ Besides, the slight against Paul
would be unintelligible on the part of an admirer of his in the
second century; it is intelligible only in the mouth of Paul
himself, who elsewhere also shows himself as ready to humble
himself in the sight of God as he is disinclined to do so before

men,

(£) A further argument of Van Manen (p. 126) is that în
15810 the life of the apostle is looked back upon as already
completed. Yet Paul might also look back upon his life so far
as completed and say quite fairly, as he does say: ‘1 laboured
more abundantly than they ail.‘

(4) In particular, no difficulty ought to be caused by
the words; ‘last of all he appeared to me also.’ Paul
could quite well have been aware that since the appear-
ance of Jesus made to himself, no other had been
reported. But of those which he himself, according
to 2 Cor. 12 1-4 46, afterwards lived to experience, none
approached to that of Damascus in fandamental import-
ance ; thus he had all the more occasion to close his
series with it, because his first vision of the risen Jesus
may itself have occurred a considerable time after the
other appearances (8. 36 [/]}, and importance attached
to the number of distinet persons who had seen visions,
rather than to the number of visions such persons
had had.

For the rest, Brandt (414 ) gives up as un-Pauline only one
expression : ‘as unto the one born out of due season’ (darepeì
τῷ ἐκτρώματω), which he considers to have been borrowed by a
glossator from che Valentinian gnosis (cp Straatman, Arit. Stud.
quer Cor. vol, 2, Groningen, 1865, pp. 196-204). Vet nostringent
necessity for this is apparent. It is true that the expression
(ἔκτρωμα) does not literally fit Paul, for it denotes an early birth,
whereas he could more appropriately have been called a late
birth. There is some difficulty, therefore, in supposing that
Paul himself can have actually chosen this expression, To
meet this difficulty we may perhaps supi that Paul is taking
up a phrase which had been used against him hy way of
reproach, because after all it has some applicability to his case.
This theory would also best explain the definite article (before
ἐκτρώματι), which is reproduced neither in AV nor in RV (‘one

rn).

That 1 Cor. 1581-11 is dependent on the Gospels has

been pronounced impossible even by Steck, since it

contains appearances of Jesus which

11, i Cor ir are not End there "It is only the

the Gospels, earlier date of 1 Cor. that Steck dis-
putes.

{a) Steck regards it as certainly historical that the

4056

RESURRECTION- AND ASCENSION-NARRATIVES

first. news of the resurrection of Jesus was brought by [ himself excludes this in the most decisive manner.

the women. In the omission of this point from 1 Cor.
he finds an artificial touch; the more naive representa-
tion is that of the Gospels.

Even if it be granted for the moment that the narrative about
the women at the sepulchre îs historical, the attitude of con-
servative theology itself shows chat the priority of the gospels

no means follows, for that theology attributes to the
historical Paul, who wrote his epistles before the gospels were
composed, a deliberate silence about the women. If, however,
the genuineness of the Pauline epistles cannot be effectively
disputed from this point of view, the question whether Paul did
not wish to say anything about the women, or whether he did
not know about them, remains quite open (cp ὃ 15).

(5) Steck conjectures further that matters in which
1 Cor. partially agrces with the Gospels, had been
drawn by both from a common source. Thus the
appearance to the 500 is perhaps a modification of the
original account of what happened at Pentecost, The
two accounts are, however, totally different. Steck
resorts to his conjecture, only because he finds the
application of the vision-hypothesis to the case of
500 men at once too difficult. As to this see, however,
$ 36.

(c) The appearance to James in 1 Cor. is considered
by Steck to be derived from the source of the Gospel
to the Hebrews, or from that Gospel itself. Here,
however, the question arises: Which is the more
original? The bare statement “he appeared to James,”
or the incredible fable discussed above ($ 4a, 3)? In
fact the question comes up in a still more general form :
Which is the more original—the bare narrative of Paul
asa whole, or that of the Gospels? In itself considered,
a narrative so brief as that given in 1 Cor. 15 could,
doubtless, be regarded as a later excerpt, as we have
shown to be the case with Mk. 169-20 ($ 85, c). But
the distinction in the Mk. appendix is just this, that the
excerpt is characterised, not by its bareness, but by its
embodying the most legendary features. Its freedom
from such features will always speak in favour of the
priority of x Cor. 15, so long as the spuriousness of the
entire epistle remains unproven. As to this last cp
GALATIANS, $$ 1-9. Indeed, were one compelled to
give up the genuineness of the epistle as a whole, it
would still be necessary to affirm with Brandt (415)
that the high antiquity of 15x-11 {before the Gospels
had arisen) stands fast quite apart from the question of
its belonging to 1 Cor. Nor is the question why the
Gospels, if they are later, have passed over so much
that is given in 1 Cor. 15 unanswerable (see 8 23 δ),

If we may venture to assume the priority of the
Pauline account to that of the Gospels, the main
12. Completeness question will be whether or no Paul

of 1 Cor.151-11. omitted any accounts of the resurrec-

tion of Jesus which were known to
him. Did we not possess the Gospels, the idea that he
has done so would never have occurred to any one.
For Paul nothing less than the truth of Christianity
rested upon the actuality of the resurrection of Jesus
(τ Cor. 1514 f 17-19). Paul himself had once found it
impossible to believe; he knew, therefore, how strong
was the inclination to disbelief, ΑἹ the more carefully,
therefore, must he have sought to inform himself of
everything that could be said in its support. During
his fifteen days’ visit to Peter and James (Gal.118£),
he had the best opportunity to perfect his knowledge on
the subject in the most authentic manner. In Corinth
the future resurrection and, along with it, as a togical
consequence according to the argument of Paul (1 Cor.
15:26), also the resurrection of Jesus was disputed, and
the entire basis of the Christian church. called in
question. In 15r2-s8 Paul presents every possible
argument wherewith to confute the deniers of the resur-
rection ; is it in these circumstances conceivable that he
could have passed over any proofs of the resurrection of
Jesus, whilst yet holding that resurrection to be the
first and most important fact wherewith to silence his
opponents? But indeed his very manner of expressing

4057

By

his careful enumeration with ‘then . next .
next . .. then... lastly' (εἶτα. . . ἔπειτα.
ἔπειτα... «lra... ἔσχατον; 155-8) he guarantees

not only chronolegical order but also completeness.
The only point which one can venture along with

Brandt (415) to leave open, is whether Paul here is only

repeating a fixed number of appearances

13.1 Cor.16: which according to 15x: he was in the
number Of μα μὴν of bringing forward everywhere, in
appearances. ᾿

agreement with the original apostles, in
his preaching of the resurrection of Jesus.

Now it is not inconceivable that from such an enumeration
this or that appearance to inconspicuous persons, which seemed
not to be attested with absolute certainty, or not to be of
sufficient importance, may have been excluded, just as we find
that of those received by Paul himself, only the first is related
(8104). This concession, however, in no way alters the signific»
ance for Gospel criticism of the Pauline account; for to this
category of accounts which Paul might conceivably in certain
circumstances very well have omitted, that to the two disciples
at Emmausta singularly characteristic narrative—-assuredly
does not belong; and still less do the other gospeì nanatives
which all of them speak of appearances of Jesus to the most
prominent persons known to ancient Christianity, and în circum-
stances of the most significant kind.

It is not to be denied that Paul only enumerates the
appearances of Jesus; he does not describe them. It
. Will therefore be illegitimate to argue

14.1 Cor.1B: fm his silence that he rejects or knows

pera nothing of any special cireumstances
touched? which may have been connected with

this or that appearance. Still, it does
not by any means follow that we are at liberty to regard
such important facts as that Jesus ate, or permitted
himself to be touched, as matters which Paul knew but
passed over. They are of such fundamental import-
ance, and go so far beyond the mere fact of his having
been seen, that Paul, had he known them, could not
but have mentioned them, unless he deliberately chose
to let slip the most important proofs for hîs contention.
It is a great mistake to reply that Paul knew that Jesus had
eaten and been touched, but passed over beth as being incon-
sistent with his doctrine that flesh and blood cannot inherit the
Kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15 50), When this is said, it is rightly
presupposed indeed that Paul regarded the risen Christ 45
eing already exalted to heaven (cp $ τό). This doctrine,
however, is one which Paul first elaborated for himself as a
Christian ; as a Jew he Knew no other conception of the resur-
rection than that which thought of ali forms of life in the future
world as exactly reproducing those of the present (cp $ 176).
If, accordingly, he had heard from eyewitnesses that Jesus had
eaten and been touched, this would have fitted in most ex-
cellentIy with the idea of the resurrection which he entertained
at the time of his conversion, ard he would have had no
occasion to construct another in an opposite sense. 1Cor, 1550
accordingly does not Poe that Paul knew that Jesus had
eaten and been touched, but was silent because he did not like
to think this true; it shows, on the contrary, that he had never
heard anything of the kind.

That Paul knew of the empty sepulchre, also, can be
maintained only in conjunction with the assumption
that for particular reasons he kept

15, 1Cor.15 .. το αν
silence regarding it.!
and the empty A
sepulchre. (4) Most perverse of all would it be

to seek for such reasons in 1 Cor. 14 34.
Even on the assumption that 72. 3345-35 are genuine
{which, in view of the inconsistency with 115 13 and the
introduction of 1434 / after 1440 in DEFG, etc., is very
questionable) the words are directed only against the
intervention of women in the meeting of the congre-
gation and merely on grounds of decorum; by no
means against the testimony of women as to a matter

1 It is quite illegitimate to find a testimony to the empty
sepulchre in Paul's ‘that he hath been raised’ (ὅτι ἐγήγερται τ
1 Cor. 15 4) on the special ground that he connects the ‘that he
was seen’ (dra ὥφθη) by means of ‘and’ (καί) and thereby seems
to indicate that he knows of an independent evidence of the
resurrection of Jesus apart from the fact of his having been seen.
If he really kmew of any such evidence it was bis interest to
mention it, If, however, the only evidence he had was the fact
that Jesus had been seen he still was under necessity, from his
own point of view, to regard the being raised up as ἃ separate
fact. He would have said less than he believed himself entitled
to say had he omitted this.

4058

RESURRECTION- AND ASCENSION-NARRATIVES

of fact, least of all a fact of such importance and one
with regard to which they alone were in a position to
give evidence.

(5) Not less wide of the mark is the other explanation
of Paul's silence upon the empty sepulchre, that the
idea of a reanimation of the dead body did not fit in
with his theology. If it were indeed the fact that his
theology was opposed to this, it is nevertheless true
that this theology of his came into being only after his
conversion to Christianity. When he first came to
know of Jesus as risen he was still a Jew and therefore
conceived of resurrection at all in no other way than
as reaniniation of the body (8 17 6). Since, as soon as
he had become a believer, he certainly held what had
been imparted to him about Jesus to be a divine
arrangement, he had no occasion whatever to alter his
conception. Thus nothing then prevented him from
believing that the grave was found empty—on the sup-
position that this was reported to him, And even in
the wording of 1 Cor. there was no hindrance to his so
believing.

That Jesus was buried and that ‘he has been raised’ (1 Cor.
15 4) cannot be affirmed by any one who has not the reanimation
of the body in mind. Itis correct to say that Paul has aban-
doned the Jewish conception in so far as he figures to himself the
body of Jesus as being like the dead at the Last Day, who ‘shall
be raised incorruptible,’ and like the bodies of those who shall
then be alive and who ‘shall be changed’ (1 Cor. 15 42-52). The
risen Jesus therefore was incapable of eating or of being touched
(see $$ τῷ, 17e); on the other hand, if he was to rise from the
dead his body must needs come forth from the grave, otherwise
the idea of resurrection would be abandoned. This is the case
in 2 Cor.5 1-8, according to which every individual immediai

]:
on his death passes into a state of glory with Christ: but it ἦν
not yet so in 1 Cor.

(c) Relatively the most reasonable suggestion îs that
Paul is silent regarding the empty sepulchre (though
acquainted with the fact) because he fears that an
appeal to the testimony of women will produce an
unfavourable impression. This, however, is to mis-
judge Paul. If he knew and believed what was reported
about the empty grave he must of course have regarded
the participation of the women as a divine appointment ;
and just as he refused to be ashamed of the gospel
although aware that in so many quarters it was regarded
as mere foolishness (Rom.1:6 1Cor,123) so also he
would have refused to be ashamed of an appointment
of God whereby women were made the chief witnesses
to the truth of the resurrection.

Before proceeding to draw our final conclusions,
however, from 1 Cor. 15, it will be convenient that we

«am should examine the accounts of the
16. Ascension. -ccension.

(4) ‘The view which is found in all books of doctrine
and which underlies the observance of the ecclesiastical
feast of the ascension, that Jesus was taken up into
heaven forty days after his resurrection, rests solely
upon Acts 139 (1331 is not so exact), and thus on a
datum which did not become known to the compiler of
Acts till late in life.

We conjecture ît to have been first made plain to the writer
of Acts by the consideration that the disciples seemed still to be
in need of much instruction at the hands of Jesus. The sug.
gestion that the number forty is not to be taken literally
becomes all the more natural in proportion to the lateness of
its appearing. Moses passes forty days on Mount Sinai with
God when receiving the law (Ex. 3428): according to 4 Esd.
1423 3642-49 Ezra spends forty days in dictating afresh the OT
{which had been lost in the destruction of Jerusalem in 586) and

seventy books of prophecy, and is thereafter taken up into
heaven

(3) In his gospel the author of Acts has assigned the
ascension to a time late in the evening of the day of the
resurrection (Lk. 241329333650/.).

Brandt (375-377) thinks Lk. cannot realiy have intended to
represent Jesus as having ascended at night and therefore
supposes the scene with the disciples at Emmaus not to have
been introduced by the author until after 24 36-53 Ceppeazance
to the disciples, and ascension) had been written, Brandt

1 According to the Valentinians and Ophites (2. Iren. i. 15
[8.9] 287 [30r4]) Jesus remained on earth for cighteen months
after his resurrettion; so also Asc, /se. 916 in the Ethiopie
text (545 days); according to Pistis Sophia, 1, eleven years.

4059

is right we may suppose Lk. thought of the ascension as having
occurred some hours earlier. The words ‘and was carried up
into heaven' (καὶ ἀνεφέρετο εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν : ©. 51) are wanting,
it is true, in g*D and some Old Latin MSS. But even if the
shorter form should be the more original, the words ‘he parted
from them' (διέστη am αὐτῶν), which all authorities have
(Ὁ ἀπέστη), would convey the same sense. Without some definite
departure of Jesus it would be incomprehensible how the
disciples should have been limited, as we read în. 52,7, to prais-
ing God in the temple without having further intercourse with
Jesus. It is highly probable that the words ‘and was carried
up into heaven” (xaì ἀνεφέρετο εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν) were struck out
at a very early period by a reader who wished to remove the
discrepancy with Acts13-9.1

{c) In any case the dating of the ascension as having
happened late on the day of the resurrection is con-
firmed by Barn.159: ‘We keep holy the eighth day
(ze, Sunday) . . . in which also Jesus rose from the
dead and, after appearing, went up to heaven‘ (&yoper
τὴν ἡμέραν τὴν ὀγδόην... ἐν ἣ καὶ ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς ἀνέστη
ἐκ νεκρῶν καὶ φανερωθεὶς ἀνέβη εἰς οὐρανούς), as also by
Mk. 16 9-20, where the order of the events in Lk. clearly
lies at the foundation ; in all probability also by Jn.
201722, according to which on the morning of the resur-
rection Jesus is not yet ascended and in the evening
already imparts the Holy Spirit to the disciples.

According to 7 39 the Holy Spirit first comes into being after
pes has been giorified, in other words after his exaltation to

caven where he is encompassed hy glory (δόξα). That Jesus
does not suffer hiniself τὸ be touched in 2017 is not formally
contradicted by what is said of the evening of the same day
(in 2020 he only shows the disciples his wounds); the con-
tradiction does not emerge till eight days afterwards (2027).
On the other hand it perfectly fits in with the theory of 7 39
that the Holy Spirit is called (EV) another comforter (ἄλλος.
παράκλητος ; 14 16) who cannot come until after Jesus has gone
away (Jesus must thus be thought of as the first παράκλητος and
in point of fact is called παράκλητος in 1 Jn.2 1, although there
he is thought of as exalted) and that Jesus will send him forth
from the father, that is, from heaven (1526): cp further 167.

(4) The Fourth Gospel is distinguished from 1k.,
Barn., and Mk. 169-20 by this, that it represents Jesus as
still continuing to appear on earth after he has ascended.

When Jesus foretells his coming agaîn in Jn. 14 18 it is clear
from the connection with 27. 16/ that he méans the coming of
the Holy Spirit, with whom, in fact, according to 7 30, 2 Cor.
817 he is identical. On the other hand, the manner in which
the same thought is expressed în 16 16 19 (‘a little while . . . and
ye shall see me ') speaks strongly for the view that the appear
ances of the risen Fesus are intended ; so also perhaps in 141921,
whilst 1422 1622 admit both interpretations and perhaps cught
to receive both,

(e) The original conception of the ascension has been
preserved in this, that the appearances of the risen
Jesus occur after he has been received up into heaven;
resurrection and ascension are a single act, Jesus is
taken up directly from the grave, or from the under-
world, into heaven.? Any direct proof for this, it is true,
can hardly be adduced apart from the Gospel of Peter
{above, $ 54}; the proof lies in the silence of the NT
writers as to a special act of ascension, In particuiar,
it ought (if known) to have been definitely mentioned
in x Cor.154-8, since, in point of fact, according to
Lk., the appearances to Peter and the apostles, etc.
were made before the ascension, whilst those to Paul on
the other hand undoubtedly occurred after that event;
and yet Paul uses with reference to them all the same
word ‘was seen” (9697, on which see below, $ 172).

1 On the apologetic side there is often an inclination to make
use of the well-known fact that the ancients were în the habit
of employing for their literary work ready-made papyrus rolls
of a fixed length, within the lîmits of which they were wont to
confine themselves. It îs suggested that Lk., through failure
of his space, may have found himself compelled to report the
ascension so very briefly and inexactly, that it was possible for
the impression to arise that he meant to assign it to the
resurrection day, whereas in reality he meant to place it forty
days later, and already had the intention of setting this forth
more precisely in his later work. It may suffice, in answer to
this, to say that Lk. must have perceived that the paper was
coming to an end long before the last moment, and cannot have
been forced, by any such discovery, into giving an account of
the events which was not in accordance with his knowledge.

3 The descent into the underworld is originally merely
another expression for his death and burial. Whether a preach-
ing of Jesus in the underworld is connected with this (50
MixistRv, ἢ 26) is for our present purpose indifferent.

4060

RESURRECTION- AND ASCENSION-NARRATIVES

So, also, Rom, 834, Eph.1lzo (and with reference to the
followers of Jesus Eph. 2 5./) place the sitting at the right hand
of God immediately after the resurrection, Heb.13 1012 122
immediately after the death of Jesus; Eph.49 / places over
against the descent (καταβῆναι into Hades only the ascent
(ἀναβῆναι) that raises Jesus above all heavens. ‘So also the
who brought up’ (ἀναγαγών) of Heb.1320 means direct
translation from Hades τὸ Reaven if at least by ἐν αἰματι we
are to understand ‘with blood, which according to 414 820 82
912 Jesus must offer in the heavenly sanctuary, 1 Pet.31922
too, and indeed also Acts232-35 Rev. 118, admit this sense
without violence, and equally litzle is the reader compelled by
the expression ‘goes before you into Galilee” (προάγει ὑμᾶς εἰς
τὴν Ταλιλαέαν), Mk, 187=Mt. 287, to assume that Jesus made
the journey from the sepulchre to Galilee by way of earth ; the

urpose of the expression is simply to convey that Jesus expects
ἤν disciples in Calilee in order that he may appear to them
there, and this he can very well have done from heaven. For
Με. this interpretation is directly indicated by the writers
closing his book without any ascension ; he must have thought
of it as inseparabiy connected with the resurrection Another
consideration pointing in the same direction rests on the fact
that in 28 18 Jesus is already able to say that ali authority has
been given him in heaven and on earth. As regards Mk. we can
say nothing positive with reference to this point; there is, how-
ever, not the least probability that his lost conclusion differed
from Mt. în this respect. In Clem, Rom., Hermas, Polycarp,
Ignatius we still find no mention of an ascension, nor yet is it
spoken of in the μέγαρα (this last, it ought to be added, indeed,
does not even mention the resurrection) Justin, Irenzeus, and
Tertullian continue to regard both eventsas two parts of one
act (see Von Schubert, Com. des pseudofetrin. Evangelien-
L'agments, 1893, 136-138): the Apology of Aristides (Syriac în
Robinson, 7exs and Studies, i. 141. 7/: Greek, ibid, 110 /.20/
[chap. 15], German in Raabe, 7 7) ix. 13, $ 2, end) says similarly
thar after three days he rose again ‘and was taken up into
heaven.l

Il. —DETERMINATION OF OUTWARD FACTS.

The original conception of the ascension as set forth

in the preceding section will supply us directly with

17, Real SOM guidance when we proceed to

π ᾿ τ th the task of disentangling the real

[rs POR TRACRE historical facts regarding the resurrec-

pp + tion from the multitude of the accounts
which have come down to us.

(a) As we do so we must in the first instance take
Paul's account as our guide. That account is fitted to
throw light upon the nature of the appearances made
not only to Paul himself but also to others, for he would
not have employed the same word ‘was seen’ (09607) if
anything had been known to him by which the appear-
ance made to himself was distinguished from those
which others had received,

(5) Appearances of the risen Jesus did actually occur ;
that is to say, the followers of Jesus really had the im-
pression of having seen him. The historian who will
have it that the alleged appearances are due merely to
legend or to invention must deny not only the genuine-
ness of the Pauline Epistles but also the historicity of
Jesus altogether. The great difference between the
attestation of the nativity narratives and that of those
of the resurrection lies in the fact that the earliest accounts
of the resurrection arose simultaneously with the occur-
rences to which they relate,

{c) The idea held regarding the occurrences was that
Jesus made his appearances from heaven (8 16, e). He
thus had the nature of a heavenly being. Broadly
speaking, the angels were the most familiar type of this
order of being—the angels who can show themselves
anywhere and again disappear.

(4) It was thought, as matter of course, that after
each appearance Jesus returned into heaven. 850
regarded, each appearance ended with an ascension.

1 The order in x Tim. 316 where ‘was received up in glory”
(ἀνελήφθη ἐν δόξῃ) comes after ‘was preached to the nations,
was believed on in the world” (ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν
κόσμῳ), accords with no known or conceivable position of the
ascension. May we hazard the conjecture that the author
perhaps placed it at the close of his enumeration simply in
order to close with a concrete fact rather than a somewhat
vague and indeterminate proposition, and so make a better
ending for his poetical piece, and that in doing so he followed
perhaps some such train of ideas as that in Mk. 1615 / 19, only
giving it a somewhat different turn : the command of Jesus that

his disciples should preach him and believe in him was fulfilled
and he was raised up to heaven?

4061

Precisely for this reason, however, it is not permissible
to suppose that any single ascension once and for all
was ever observed ; on such a supposition Jesus would
still have remained a denizen of earth after the appear-
ances preceding the final one,

(e) ‘That the risen Jesus ate or was touched was never
observed. Not only does Paul say nothing of any
such occurrence ; the thing would also be contrary to
the nature of a being appearing from heaven. Flesh
and bones, which are attributed to Jesus in Lk, 2439,
assuredly he had not; he really made his appearances,
although it is expressly denied in the verse just cited,
as spirit {πγεῦμα) in the sense in which the angels are
spirits (πνεύματα : Heb. 1 14). Onthis point the Jewish
Christians most certainly agreed with Paul ($ το δ) so
far as the person of Jesus was concerned.

It is indeed the case that in Jewish-Christian circles there was
current a conception of a resurrection with a new earthly body,
in accordance with which Jesus was taken to be the risen Baptist,
or Elijah (Mk. 614-16). This, however, was not the only con
ception by which Christians were influenced. On the contrary,
firom Jesus himself they had received the idea that in the resurrec-
tion men shali be as the angels of God (Mk. 1225 and Il). And if
there was any case in which more than în another they had
occasion to apply this exalted conception, it would be în that of
the body of their risen Lord. They knew indeed his prediction
that one day he would come again on the clouds of heaven
(GosrLSs, ὃ 145L/]). For them also, as for Paul (1 Cor. 15 20),
Jesus was the first-fruits of them that sleep ; with his resurrection,
Accordingly, a new era began. Not only so; it is extremely
probable that the ‘similitudes’ of the Book of Enoch (chaps.
87-71; cp APOCALYPTIC, $ 30) are pre-Christian: and there an
existence in heaven is attributed to the Messiah and Dan. 713
explained as referring to him.1. The original apostles may very
well have had knowledge of this, even without having ever read
the book. There is, therefore, not the slightest difficalty în
attributing to them the conception of the resurrection body of
Jesus which Paul himself had and imputed to them. It is only
‘with regard to the future resurrection of all mankind that Paul
parts company with them, in so far as he thinks of the resurrec-
tion body of believers as being as heavenly and free from flesh
and blood as was the resurrection body of Jesus (1 Cor, 15 44-53),
a consequence drawn neither by the Jewish Christians nor yet
by the later Gentile Christians who taught the resurrection of
the flesh (sy2rd0/uz: Romann, sce MINISTRY, $ 27, n., and,
later, sywndolum afostoticun; Hermas, Sint. v.7 2; Justin, Dial.
80, end; 2 Clem. Rom.91 143, etc., and already 1 Clem, 26 3).
That the Pharisaic, and accordingly also the primitive Christian,
expectation looked for a reanimation of the body appears in such
passages as 2 Macc, 710,7 1446 Mt. 27 55 Acts231 Rev. 20
Josephus also states this correctly in Anz. xviîi. 13, $ 14, 87)
8 5, ὃ 374; it is only in 47.814, $ 163, that by the expression
‘remove into another body' (μεταβαίνειν εἰς ἕτερον σῶμα he has
Hellenised the conception and thereby misled his readers.

(7) On the other hand, it is fully to be believed that
men had the impression that they saw in full reality
(below, $ 34 8, c, 4} the wounds which Jesus had received
on the cross, or perhaps even percelved that he showed
them. The form which men beheld must of course show
the most complete resemblance to that which Jesus bore
upon earth, and to this, after the crucifixion, the wounds
{not, however, the wound în the side, the spear-thrust
being unhistorical, see JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDFE, $ 23 d)
necessarily belonged. ΑΒ the form of the risen Jesus
at the same time appeared in heavenly splendour and
created the certainty that Jesus had vanquished death
and laid aside everything that was earthly, there remains
a possibility that in the case of many to whom he appeared
attention was not fixed upon his wounds. It is particu-
larly easy to suppose this in the case of Paul.

(£) From the nature of the appearances as described,
it is further quite possible that they occurred even when
the witnesses found themselves, as in Jn. 2019 26, shut
in with closed doors, or that, as we read in Mk. 1614 19,
Jesus was taken up into heaven direct from the apart-
ment. Even if one entertains doubts as to whether the
authors cited had enough certain information to enable
them to say that this actually was so in the cases which
they give, it still has to be acknowledged that the state-
ment is not inconsistent with the nature of the appear-
ances,

On the other hand, there is to be drawn from the

1 Muirbead, Τίνες o CArist (1898), pp. 140-150; Schmiedel,
Prot. Monatshefte, 1898, pp. 255-257} 1901, P. 3394

4062

RESURRECTION- AND ASCENSION-NARRATIVES

various accounts one deduction which goes very deep :
18. No words Jesus.

heard. words might appear not to be excluded
by the simple ‘was seen’ (ὥφθη) of Paul. It is to be
noted, however, that where Paul speaks of having
received messages from heaven, he expressly specifies
‘revelations’ (ἀποκαλύψεις) as well as ‘visions' (ὀπτασίαι :
2 Cor. 121-4), and where the distinction is employed it
is clear that spoken words come under the former not
the latter category.

(δ) As against this, appeal will doubiless be made to
the reports in Acts as to the appearances of Jesus to
Paul on the journey to Damascus. Not successfully,
however; they contradict one another so violently
(see ACTS, $ 2) that it is difficult to imagine how it
could ever have been possible for an author to take them
up into his book in their present forms, not to speak of
the impossibility of accepting them in points where they
are unsupported by the epistles of Paul. In these
epistles, there is not the slightest countenance for the
belief that Paul heard words, although he had the
strongest motives for referring to them had he been
in a position to do so. It is on the appearance on the
journey to Damascus that he bases his claim. to have
been called to the apostolate by Jesus himself. The
claim was hotly denied by his opponents : it was to his
interest, therefore, to bring forward everything that could
validly be adduced in its support. In pressing it (1 Cor.
91, “Am I not an apostle?’) he assuredly would not
have stopped short at the question, ‘ Have I not seen
Jesus our Lord?’ had he been in a position to go on
and ask, ‘Has he not himself named me his apostle?*
with such words engraven on his memory as those we
read in Acts96 2270 or (above all) 2616-18. The
analogy of the angelic appearances cited above (8 17 c}
thus no longer holds good. Words are heard from
angels; no words were heard from Jesus.

{c) Whai holds good of the appearance to Paul is true
also (see $ 17 4) of the others of which we read. If t00,
we apply a searching examination to the words which
have been reported, it is precisely the most characteristic
of them that we shall find ourselves most irresistibly con-
strained to abandon. The request for food and the
invitation to touch the wounds of the crucified Jesus
{Lk. 243941 Jn. 2027) are, as we have seen in $ 17e,
inadmissible. So also, as has been seen in $ τό e, the
saying, I am not yet ascended unto the Father (2017).
The power ta forgive sins or to declare them unforgiven
(2023) belongs to God alone, and cannot be handed
over by Jesus to his disciples (see MINISTRY, $ 4). ‘The
doctrine that the passion of Jesus was necessary in virtue
of a divine appointment is invariably brought forward
by Paul as the gospel that had been made manifest to
himself alone and must be laboriously maintained in the
face of its gainsayers; how triumphantly would he not
have been able to meet them had he only heard the least
suggestion that the men of the primitive church had
heard the same doctrine from the mouth of Jesus himself
in the manner recorded in Lk.2425-27 44-46! Once
more, how could the original apostles have been able to
call themselves disciples of Jesus if, after having been
sent out by him as missionaries to the Gentiles (Lk.
2247f. Mk.16:6 and the canonical text of Mt. 2819),
they actually made it a stipulation at the council of
Jerusalem (Gal. 29) that their activity was to be confined
within the limits of Israel? As for the text of Mt. 2819
on baptism and the trinitarian formula, see MINISTRY,
$ ge, cp ΑΠδό, Journ., Oct. 1902, pp. 102-108; and
on Jn. 2125-22 see above, e.

τ An equally important point is that

ἐδ Galileo the first appearances happened în
Ana ΟΣ Galilee. The most convincing reasons
the first for this conclusion have already been

APpearances. Li mmarised under GOSPELS (8 138 2).
(a) In addition to what is said there special emphasis

4063

may be laid on the fact that there is no gospel in which

no words were heard from the risen ! appearances to men (not women) are reported as having
{a) At first sight the hearing of | been made both in Galilee and in Jerusalem ; for Jn. 21

is an appendix by another hand.

It is only Mt. that, besides the appearance to the disciples in
Galilee, knows of that made to the women on the rettitn from
the sepulchre (289); this, however, will be regarded by very
many as unhistorical, being absent from Mk. (which neverthe-
less is in this section so closely followed by Mt.) and containing
nothing more than a repetition of the infunction already given
by the angel to the women, to bid the disciples repair to Galilee.
Ja any case the appearance comes from a separate source. If
we leave Mt. 289 Δ out of account it becomes perfectly clear that
no one gospel from the first reported appearances of the risen
Jesus in Galilee as well as in Fermo The gospels in fact
fall exactly into two classes: Mk., Mt. and the Gospel of Peter
are for Galilee; Lk., Jn., and Mk.169-20 for Jerusalem, and
the Gospel of the Hebrews also does not indicate in any way
that it looks for James and Peter and Peter's companions else-
where than în τῆς place where it finds the servant of the high
priest (see above, $ 4 α, 3), viz., in Jerusalem, It is only after.
wards that the writer of Jn, 21 sees fit to change this ‘either, or”
into a ‘both, and’; so also Mt., but without admitting an appear-
ance to any male disciples in Jerusalem,

If, however, Galilee and Jerusalem were at first
mutually exclusive, both cannot rest upon equally valid
tradition; there must have been some reason why the
one locality was changed for the other.

(δ) Such a reason for transferring the appearances
from Galilee to Jerusalem has been indicated in GosPELS
($ 138.2). Its force becomes all the greater when it is
realised how small has been the success of even the most
distinguished critics in attempting to make out the
opposite.

‘All that Loofs (see below, 8 39) has to say is (p. 25), ‘Those
narrators who represent the whole life of Jesus, with the ex-
ception of the last eight days, as having been passed in Galilee,
may have transferred to Galilee also the appearances of the risen
Jesus, with regard to which they were very defectively informed ;
they may have done so all the more easily because the first
persons of whom they had occasion to speak in connection with
the resurrection were women from Galilee.” The question at
once presents itself: What has the circumstance that they be
longed to Galilee to do with the present matter? They were in
point of fact in Jerusalem. What is the relevancy of the observa.
tion that the activity of Jesus, apart from the last eight days,
had been wholly in Galilee?” His grave at any rate was în
Jerusalem, and his disciples were also there, according to the
testimony of Mk., Mt., and the Gospel of Peter, at least. That
the present writer holds the statement as to the presence of the
disciples at Jerusalem to be unhistorical does not affect the argu-
ment; for the point is that Loofs regards precisely that state.
ment as historical. It is all the more necessary to ask: How
does Loofs know that Mk. and Mt. were very defectively informed
with regard to the appearances of the risen Jesus?

If this was indeed so, if Mk. and Mt. had to fall back
on their own powers of conjecture, where else were they
to look for appearances if not în Jerusalem where the
grave, the women, and the disciples were? ‘Thus the
tradition which induced them to place the appearances
in Galilee must have been one of very great stability.

B. Weiss (to pass over other names), in the interests of the
Jerusalem tradition, doubts the historicity of the statement that
the women received from the angel the injunction to bid the
disciples proceed to Galilee, especially as this injunction is
merely a reminiscence of Jesus words in Gethsemane, that after
he rose from the dead he would go before the disciples to Galilee
(Mk. 1423), So Zeden Jesu) 2590 (ET 8 393) On p. 596 (ET
399), however, Weiss says that that command of the angel to the
Women (to direct the disciples to go to Galilee) is only a reminis.
cence of the command of the same character which the risen
Jesus himself lays upon Mary Magdalene, according to Mt. 289
(where, according to Weiss, only the second Mary Îs errane:
ously conjoined with Mary Magdalene rightly mentioned by the
eye-witness John [201 £ 11-18])). Thus what Weiss holds to be
an error (the command to bid the disciples go to Galilee) must
be held (if the Jerusalem tradition is to be maintained) to have
got îtself clothed in a very remarkable form: not only as an
angelic word (Mt. 287 Mk. 167) but also as a word of the risen
Lord himself (Mt. 2810), in the account of an appearance that
is guaranteed by an eye-witness.

{c) In reality the error lies in quite another direction :
in making Jesus appear at the sepulchre to the women,
or Mary Magdalene, as the case may be. On the
account in Mt. see above (a). That of Jn., however,
is open to just as serious objections, for its chief saying,
“I am not yet ascended unto the Father,” rests on a
theory of the nature of the Holy Ghost that is peculiar
to the Fourth Gospel ($ 16, c). If, however, Jn.'s

4064

RESURRECTION- AND ASCENSION-NARRATIVES

account can lay no claim to authenticity we may be all |
the surer that it is a transformation of the account of |
Mt. Of its being so there are, moreover, several |
indications. In ]n., as in Mt., one of Jesus' sayings is !
only a repetition of a word of the angels: ‘ Woman,
why Weepest thou?' A reminiscence of the fact that
when the women met Jesus they had in Mt. already
retired from the sepulchre may perhaps be recognised in
‘she turned herself back' (ἐστράφη εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω) in Jn.
2014. Only one woman appearing at the grave in Jn.
is perhaps to be explained by the observation that the
recognition-scene becomes more dramatic when Jesus
has no need to utter more than a single word: ‘ Mary,"
Cp, further, $ 25, δ.

(ΑἹ in 1Cor.15 Paul mentions no place. The
enumeration he gives would not preclude the reader from
supposing that the various appearances had occurred
in quite different places—for example, most of them in
Galilee, even if that to James were to be thought of as
having been made in Jerusalem. It is, however, quite
improbable that James was in Jerusalem again so soon
{see MinisTRY, $ 214), or that he should have ex- |
perienced the appearance of the risen Jesus at so late
a time that it might nevertheless be supposed that ;
James had already removed to Jerusalem (see below,
8.367}.

‘The sealing and watching of the sepulchre (Mt. 27 62-66
284 11-15) is now very generally given up even by those
scholars who still hold by the resurrec-

20. Watch δῦ tion narratives as a whole. (a) As
ni erica], Already pointed out above ($ 2a), in

* MK. it is not only, as in Lk. and Jn.,
absent; it is absolutely exciluded by the women's
question : they have no apprehensions about the
watch, only about the stone. (δ) Again, it is ex-
ceedingly improbable that the Jews remembered any
prophecy of Jesus that he was to rise agnin in three ,
days (Mt. 2763). According to the Gospels Jesus made
prophecies of the kind only to the innermost circle of
his disciples (Mk. 827 31 930 £. 1032-34 and |). Indeed
in Mk. and Lk. not even the women remember the
prophecy, otherwise they would not have set out to
anoint the body. (c) Again, the explanation which the
high priests and elders suggest, according to Mt. 2813,
is untenable ; for if the soldiers were asleep at the time
they could not testify that the disciples stole the body.
(4) Not less unlikely is the supposition that the Jewish
authorities actually believed the account of the soldiers
regarding the fact of the resurrection of Jesus. Surely
the consequence must have been, as with Paul at a later
date, their conversion to the faith of Jesus. 1, on the
other hand, they remained unmoved, they must also
Nave believed that, however perplexing it might at first
sight appear, the affair was capable of explanation other-
wise than by the resurrection of Jesus, and must have
moved Pilate to institute a strict inquiry into the conduct
of the soldiers, rather than have sought to bribe the
soldiers. (6) Above all, the soldiers ‘could not have
accepted a bribe, least of all if they had nothing better to
say by way of ostensible defence than that they had fallen
asleep. For this the penalty was death. According to
Acts 1219 we actually find Agrippa I. putting to death the
soldiers who had allowed Peter to escape from prison,
and this is conclusive as to the nature of military respon-
sibilities, even if in point of fact the liberation of Peter was
brought about through no fault of his keepers (cp Simon
PETER, $ 3. e), Roman soldiers knew only too well the
strictness with which discipline was administered, and
the promise of the Jewish authorities to obtain immunity
for them from Pilate, if needful (Mt. 2814), would have
made no impression on them. (/) The best criticism
on this whole feature of the narrative is the simple fact
that the Gospel of Peter, which unquestionably is later
than Mt., avoids it altogether and concludes quite differ-
ently (above, $ 5 2).

That Jesus was buried in a usual way, not—as is con-

4065

jectured by Volkmar (Re/igion Jesu, 77. 257-259 [1857],
Die Evangelien [1870]-- Marcus τὰ

pal Empty die Synopse [1876], 603) on the basis
historical. of 15, 539 2216-18 Rev. 118f£—Jeft un-

buried, or at most cast into a hole and
covered with some earth, is established by 1 Cor, 154 (cp
Keim, Gesch. Jesu von Nazara, 8 525-521, ET 6 271-274).
But the accounts of the empty sepulchre are none of
them admissible. As to this the leading points have
already been summarised in GospELS ($ 138 e 7). Some
further considerations may be added.

(a) The three points from which we have to start are
the silence of Paul (as of the entire NT apart from
the Gospels; see, especially, Acts229-32) —a silence
which would he wholly inexplicable were the story true
{S 15); next, the statement in Mk. 168 that the women
seid nothing of their experiences at the sepulchre—a
statement which has to be understood in the sense that
Mk. was the first to be in a position to publish the facts;
in other words, that the whole story is a very late pro-
duction ; lastly, if {as we have seen) the first appearances
of Jesus were in Galilee, the tidings of them must have
arrived at Jerusalem much too late to allow of examina-
tion of the sepulchre with any satisfactory results. lf a
body had been found it would have been t00 far advanced
in decay to allow of identification ; if there were none,
this could be accounted for very easily without postulat-
ing a resurrection.

(6) The attempt to explain the evangelical reports
without assuming a resurrection is, however, the line
taken by very many theologians also whe hold by what
is said as to the empty sepulchre and yet assume no
miracle. In the first piace they postulate a removal of
the body by persons whose action had no connection
with the question of a resurrection.

On account of the approach of the Sabbath (they hold) the
body had in any case to be laid in some grave or other, even
perhaps without leave asked of the owner. It was, therefore,
necessary that ἦτ should be removed afterwards to a more suit-
able place; or the owner himself may have removed i. A
reminiscence of this is even discovered in Jn. 2015. Or, ifthe
sepulchre belonged to Joseph of Arimathasa, even he may not
have desired to have thè body of a stranger permanentiy occupy-
ing a place in the sepulchre of his family. On all these assump-
tions what strikes one is the promptitude with which the
transference must have been made. ‘To do so on the Sabbath
before sundown was unlawful ; yet very early next morning the
transference had already been effected (according to Mt. even
immediately after the sundown which marked the close of the
Sabbath ; see, however, $ 24).

(c) Others suggest that the enemies of the Christians
had removed the body of Jesus in order that it might
not receive the veneration of his followers. ὙΠῸ sur-
prising thing in this would be, not so much that such a
policy would have given the greatest possible, though
unintentional, impetus to such veneration, as rather this,
that such action would presuppose a disposition to
worship the dead body for which it would be difficult to
find a precedent among the Jews, for whom any contact
with a corpse meant defilement.

(4) For a long time the favourite view was that the
disciples themselves actually had done what, according
to Mt. 2764, the Jewish authorities were apprehensive
they might do, and, according to 281315, imputed to
them falsely, namely, that they had stolen the body in
order that they might afterwards proclaim that Jesus
had risen.

Renan (A$0tres, 45. 75, ET 69£), without expressly stating
this purpose of the disciples, is inclined to attribute a share in the
removal of the body to Mary Magdalene (whose predisposition
to mental malady [Lk.82] he accentuates), because only a
woman's hand would have left the clothes in such order as is
described in Jn.207. ‘l'hat a theft of this kind would have had
the effect of convincing gainsayers of the resurrection of Jesus
is not very easy to believe. On the other hand, ît could in
certain circamstances have made some impression on followers
of Jesus,

The question forces itself, however: Who was there
to set the plan on foot? The disciples were utterly
cast down; to all probable seeming, în fact, they were
not even in Jerusalem at all {GospELs, $ 138 a). The

4066

RESURRECTION- AND ASCENSION-NARRATIVES

theory thus breaks down at the outset, and'it seems
superfluous to ask whether the disciples would have
ventured to act in a sense contrary to the ordinance of
God who had suffered their master to die.

(e) We mention, lastly, yet another theory, which îs
most clearly a mere refuge of despair—the theory,
namely, that the carthquake (mentioned only in Mt.
282) opened a chasm immediately under the sepulchre,
into which the body of Jesus disappeared.

Not only this, however, but also all the other hypo-
theses mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs, become
superfiuous on the adoption of the view that the state-
ments about the empty sepulchre are unhistorical.

As soon as his approaching death came to be foreseen
by Jesus, he must have looked forward also to its annul-

ig Ment, unless, indeed, he at the same
22. The third time had abandoned the belief that he
Υ. was the Messiah ordained by God to
establish the divine kingdom upon earth. (2) As is
said elsewhere (GosPeLS, $ 145 [/]), it îs not probable
that Jesus foretold simply his resurrection ; that took
him into heaven, whereas the work of the Messiah lay
upon earth. ‘The most important prediction accord-
ingly was that of his coming again from heaven. The
time fixed by him is variously stated in the Gospels as
being at the end of the then living generation (Mt.
16277), after a probably shorter interval (1023), and
in the immediate future (ἀπ΄ ἄρτι, Mt, 2664). The
most certain conclusion that can be deduced from this
variation clearly is that Jesus never gave any precise
date, and this for the reason that he himself (see Mk.
1332= Mt. 2436) did not know it; yet it is also very
possible that he used the expression ‘in’ or ‘after’
‘three days’ as a conventional designation for a very
short interval {(Lk. 1332 Mk. 1458 1529 and parallels, on
which cp MINISTRY, $ 2.4).

(3) As soon as the question came to be one not of his
coming again from heaven, but of his rising again from
the dead, the expression 'after three days,' in itself a
very indefinite one, came to have a more exact meaning.
The Jewish belief was that the soul lingered for three
days only, near the body it had left, in the hope of
returning to it; after that the body became so changed
that a reanimation was no longer possible (see JOHN,
Son or ZEBEDEE, $ 202; and Edersheim, Life and
Times of Jesus, 2324f.). It was only natural that in
thinking of the resurrection of Jesus this limit should be
kept in mind (Mk. 83: 93x 1034 and ἢ; Lk. 247 2146).
If it is somewhat difficult to believe that Jesus uttered
these prophecies so early (especially in connection with
Peter's confession at Caesarea Philippi; see GOSPELS,
$ 145), and with such exactitude of detail, it must
nevertheless be recognised that he may very well, at
‘one time or another, have expressed himself in some
such sense.

(Ὁ) The OT texts that have special relevance in this
connection are 2 K. 205 and Hos. 62 (in both of which
the interval of three days is brought into connection
with a revivification, if not after death, at least after a
sickness or time of weakness) ; and Jonah 2x [117] also
— the three days' sojourn of the prophet in the belly of
the whale—is in Mt. 1240, albeit in a very inappropriate
and interrupting way {see GOSPELS, $ 140@), inter-
preted with reference to the period during which Jesus
was to remain in the grave. Paul expressìy refers to
the Scriptures in 1 Cor. 154. A forsaking ‘for a small
moment' is spoken of also in Is. 547.

{d) In this way it became possible for the resurrection
of Jesus, if expected at all, to be expected exactly after
three days. The expectation, however, would hardly
have had any result if those who had expected had not
also had the consciousness of having seen him. In
itself considered it was not absolutely imperative that
the first appearances should coincide with the precise
time of the expected resurrection. But if they had
occurred much later the belief that the resurrection

4067

actually had happened precisely three days after death
could hardly have been held very firmly. ΑΒ, however,
we find it in point of fact held with equal firmness by
Paul (1 Cor. 154) and by the evangelists, the balance of
probabilities favours the view that the first appearances
happened on the same day or only a little later.

With this it fits in very well if we suppose that the
disciples shortly after the arrest of Jesus, and Peter
shortly after his denial, had already set out for Galilee,
so that they might arrive there on the third day (cp Jos.
Vit. 52, 8 269). This is, moreover, the reason why the
Gospel of Peter, in spite of all appearance, has no prob-
ability in its favour if it really means to convey that the
disciples did not set out on their return journey to
Galilee until the eighth or rather the ninth day after the
death of Jesus, and that thus at least eleven days
elapsed before the first appearance of the risen Jesus
was experienced (see above, $ 5 e).

(e) According to the Gospels Jesus remained under
the power of death not for about seventy-two hours but
only for somewhere between twenty-six and thirty-six
hours. ‘These, however, in fact, according to Jewish
reckoning, are distributed between Friday, Saturday,
and Sunday, In two of the OT passages referred to
above—2 K. 205 and Hos 62—we read not ‘after three
days’ but ‘on the third day.’ Thus the Gospel tradi-
tion literally satisfies the expression.

It must have appeared fitting that the rising of Jesus should
occur at as early a moment as possible after the third day had
begun. From the same sense of fitness the visit of the women,
once it was accepted as a fact, was naturally assigned to the
early morning hours. Where Mk. bas ‘after three days’ (μετὰ
πρεῖς ἡμέρας 831 93110 34), the parallel passages consistentiy
have ‘on the third day" (τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ: Mt. 1621 1723 2019
Lk. 922 18.33 as also 24 24746, ‘cp also 2421 Acts 10 40). The latter
expression in Mt, and Lk. may possibly be dependent on the
account of the course of events as given by themselves, and thus
Mk.'s phrase might seem to have been the original one. Yet we
must not imagine that the two phrases were for the evangelists
really incompatible. Matthew himself says in one place (27 63.4)
that Jesus foretold his resurrection ‘after three days’ (uerà
τρεῖς ἡμέρας) and represents the Jews as basing upon this their
petition to Pilate that the sepul [chre may be guarded ‘till the
third day' (ἕως τῆς τρίτης ἡμέρας), Were this to be taken
literally ἐξ would have no sense, for în that case no watch would
have been asked for precisely the fourth day, which was the
critical one. From this it follows also that we are not compelled
to regard Mt. 12 40 (see above, c) as genuine for the reason that,
according to the report in the Gospels, the time of the fulfilment
‘was shorter than that appointed in Jesus’ prophecy. Jn.219-21
SAYS: ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις.

As for the number of the appearances, Paul knows of
more than we find in any one Gospel—viz., five, over
and above that made to himself.

(a) It is not possible, however, to identify each of
even the few Gospel accounts with one of Paul's,

Let one example suffice in illustration of the kind of violence
in dealing with texts required in order ta effect identifications.

Resch (7Uv.4421-426, x. 2381-389, x. 3.768
23. Number of 732 790-814 824-827) identifies the appearance
appearances. to Peter with that to the unnamed disciple
at Emmaus (see above, $ 29), that to the
Twelve with Li. 2436-49 and Jn. 2019-24 (above, $ 27), that to
the Five Hundred with Li 24 50, where, nevertheless, ‘them’
(αὐτούς) denotes precisely the same persons as we find in 2433 36,
That to James he identifies with that to Thomas and the other
disciplesîn Jn. 20 26:29, This James he holds to be identical with
James the son of Alpheus, ho may (Resch says) have been
named Thoma: + twin—-because his brother Judas of James
is called Twin in “Syrriac tradition (Lips. Asckr. A#.-Gesch.
i. 20 227, ii.2154173/). Finally, the appearance to ‘all the
apostles’ is, according to Resch, that mentioned in Mt. 28 16-20
and Acts1l4-12,

(δ) If one addresses oneself to the problems with-
out harmonistic prepossessions, the safest criteria. for
identifying an event of which there are two accounts
will be the presence of characteristic details and (next
in importance) exact time-data. Unfortunately Paul
supplies us with no details, and dates are gained only
indirectly, so far as they can be deduced from the order
in which he mentions the events. The number of persons
said to have been involved in a historical event is a
secure criterion of its identity only if the number is
small, As soon as it becomes considerable, an error
within moderate limits is not wholly inconceivable.

4058

RESURRECTION- AND ASCENSION-NARRATIVES

(€) On these principles the only identification that
admits of being made without question is that of the
appearance to Peter in 1 Cor. 155 with the appearance
mentioned in Lk. 2434. Next in Paul's account comes
an appearance to the Twelve. A similar appearance is
recorded by Mt. as the only one he knows. In Lk, the
only appearance to the Eleven (with others) is in 2433
36-31; Jn. 2019-24 contains the first appearance to ten
apostles ; but we must identify the two on account of
their exactly similar date ($ 27). Cp also the almost
identical words in Lk.2436, ‘stood in the midst of
them’ (ἔστη ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν) and Jn. 2019, ‘stood in the
midst' {ἄστη εἰς τὸ μέσον). The diversity of the special
features mentioned by Lk. and Jn. may be ignored all
the more readily if we find ourselves able to regard them
merely as unhistorical embellishments. Both date
{evening of the resurrection day), however, and place
{Jerusalem} are quite irreconcilable ‘with those in Mt.
Nevertheless it will remain open to us to recognise as
kernel common to all three accounts that after the
appearance to Peter there was another to the Eleven.
Here also belongs the second fragment of the Gospel
of the Hebrews (above, $ 46). ‘This, however, is the
only one of Resch's identifications that can stand
scerutiny, and even so Mt. must be left out.

(Δ) The appearance to the soo has no parallels (the
proposed parallel referred to in $ 1rò cannot be
accepted), that to James only in the Gospel of the
Hebrews (above, $ 44, 5). As parallel to that to ‘all
the apostles’ on the other hand we must not adduce
Acts 14-12, The event related there is, in the intention
of the author, not the sequel to the only appearance in
the Third Gospel (2433 36-51) to about the same number
of persons; it aims at correcting that part (2444-s1) of
the earlier narrative which ends with the Ascension.
Jn. 2026-29 admits of being cited in this connection
merely as being the only repetition to be met with in
any gospel, of an appearance to a company of disciples
approximating this number. Since, however, this com-
pany is in Jn. supplemented only by Thomas and în
Paul by quite different persons, we have no assurance
that even so much as a reminiscence of one and the
same occurrence underlies the two accounts. On the
other hand, in Paul the appearance of the risen Jesus
at the sepulchre to the two Marys (Mt.), or to Mary
Magdalene alone (Jn.), is unmentioned, as also that to
the two disciples at Emmaus and that reported in Jn. 21,
which has some resemblance to what we find in the
Gospel of Peter (above, $ αὶ δ).

(e) It has already been shown at some length (88
15, 18c) that Paul would certainly not have omitted
to mention at least the appearances at the sepulchre
and at Emmaus had he been aware of them. To meet
this difficulty, and establish the priority of the Gospel
narratives to Paul, the counter question has been asked :
How could the evangelists possibly have allowed so
much that is found in Paul to escape them, if they had
been acquainted with his narrative or even with the
tradition which underlies it? This question, however,
is easily answered. For a writer who could report an
instance in which Jesus had partaken of food (Lk.), or
in which his wounds had been touched (Lk., Jn.), or
who could speak of the empty sepulchre as all four
evangelists do, or of appearances of the risen Jesus close
to the sepulchre {Mt., Jn.)—for such a writer and for
his readers an accumulation of instances în which Jesus
had merely been scen no longer possessed any very
great interest; and a case even in which he had
appeared to five hundred brethren at once would, at
the time when the Gospels were written, hardly have
been considered so important as an appearance to the
apostles, whose place in the reverence of the faithful
had already come to be very exalted {see MINISTRY,
$ 34). Even the instance in which Jesus had been
merely seen (though) by Peter is only touched on by
Lk. (2434), not described, plainly because the narrative

130 a 4069

alongside of the others would be too devoid of
colour.

To this want of interest in mere visual appearances
of the risen Jesus we can add, however, in the case of the
evangelists a positive interest, that of

24, InfNence serving definite purposes by their narra-
οἱ tendency tives. (2) It makes for confirmation
on Gospels.

of what has been laid down in preceding
sections ($$ 17-22) as to the elements in the accounts of
the resurrection which alone can be recognised as histori-
cal, if we are in a position to show that everything in the
accounts which goes beyond such indubitably historical
elements is a product of tendencies which by an inherent
necessity could not fail to lead to a shaping of the
accounts în the form in which they now lie before us,
even where there is no substratum of actual fact. In so
far as these tendencies give us the right to pronounce
unhistorical everything that can be explained by
their means, in the absence of sufficient testimony to
historical fact, they may be appropriately considered
now in the course of the investigation as to objective
facts in the resurrection-narratives on which we are at
present engaged. It will appear that at all points the
reference to tendencies supplies an adequate explanation
of all the statemenis which we have been unable to
accept as historical.

(5) As regards the nature of these tendencies ;—some
are directly apologetical, having for their object to
preclude the possibility of certain definite objections
against the actuality of the resurrection. Others are
apologetical indirectly, their aim being to round off the
picture by supplying gaps so that no questions may
remain open. Lastly, some have in view the needs of
the church itself, tracing back, as they do, to the risen
Jesus certain instructions which were not found in the
reports of the period of his earthiy ministry (8 28), or
seeking to compensate for the want of that direct assur-
ance of the continued life of Jesus which later genera-
tions were no longer able to command ($ 29).

(c) That the evangelical narratives as a whole are ἴῃ
many ways influenced by tendency has been shown in
GOSPELS, $$ 108-114 and JOHN, SoN OF ZEBEDEE, $$
17, 20€, 23, 35 4, and elsewhere. How close at hand
apologetic interests were where the story of the resurrec-
tion was concerned is seen even in the fact that the
entire statement of Paul is made with an apologetic
view—only, in his case there is no justification for the
conjecture that the contents of his statement were
altered by this consideration (88 107). In the Gospels,
‘on the other hand, we have at least one point in which
this is particularly clear, and recognised even by very
conservative theologians.

In Mt. 2815 it is expressly said that the report of the theft of
the hody by the disciples was current among the Jews in the
writer's time. The writer traces it back to the false testimony
of the guard at the sepulchre procured by bribery on the part of
the Jewish authorities. If we find ourselves unable to regard
this'bribery, or indeed any part of the story as to the watch set
over the sepulchre, as historical, we are shut up to supposing
that the allegations arose from the desire (or tendency) to make
the story of the theft of the body by the disciples seem untenable.

(4) It must at the same time be expressly emphasised
that we are by no means compelled to think of this
tendency as operative în such a manner that an author
would produce from his own brain a quite new narrative
in the apologetic direction. Precisely the same result
—namely, the complete unhistoricity and the ‘ tendency *
character of a narrative-emerges if we assume that the
narrative has grown up only bit by bit, by the co-
operation of several, and has reached its present form
under the influence of naive and artless presuppositions
and pardonable misunderstandings, in some such manner
as we have sought to render probable elsewhere for
a series of narratives found in the Fourth Gospel (see
Jonx, Son or ZEBEDEE, $ 35, «:7). A special reason
for making the same attempt in the case of the resurrec-
tion is found in the character of the accounts themselves.
If they were pure inventions it would be very difficult to

4070

RESURRECTION- AND ASCENSION-NARRATIVES

understand why, for example, of the disciples at +
Emmaus one is nameless, and of those in Jn. 21 two
are unnamed, or why the appearances to Peter as being
the first, or that to the 500 as being the most imposing,
should not have received detailed adornment. Cp,
further, $$ 190, 250.

(e) To help us to realise how such a narrative could
come into existence by successive steps, let us take the
example referred to above—that of the watch set on
the sepulchre.

A Christian who found himself confronted for the first time

the uards had observed before the arrival of the women could
hardly have been other than to the effect that there had been an
earthquake and that an angel had come down from heaven and
rolled away the stone. That this conjecture also should have
been taken up as a statement of fact is easy to suppose.
Lastly, a listener perhaps would ask: ‘Why then did not the
Soldiers tell what had happened, and why have we been left in
ignorance of this until now?’ Once more the answer—-a conjec-
ture merely, yet ready to be accepted as a fact—was at hand :
The Jewish authorities will doubtless have bribed them to
suppress the truth and to spread instead of it the rumour that
the disciples had stolen the body.

Without pursuing this line of explanation further in
details, let us now endeavour to see what were the

conscious or unconstious apologetic
Pacini i tendencies at work which could have
onacco; unta of Biven rise to the unhistorical elements
sepulohre, !" the gospel natratives. (α) IF Jesus
* was risen, his grave must have been
empty. If this was disputed, the Christians asserted
it as a fact, and that with the very best intention of |
affirming what was true. Therefore, no hesitation was
felt in further declaring that (according to all reasonable
conjecture) the women who had witnessed Jesus' death
had wished to anoint his body and thus had come to
know of the emptiness of the grave. In the fact that
according to Mk. and Mt, this was not alleged regard-
ing the male disciples we can see still a true recollection
that those disciples were by that time no longer in
Jerusalem (see GosPELS, $ 138 αὐ; this feature was
not first added by our canonical evangelists Mk. and
Mt., for they already presuppose the presence of the
disciples in Jerusalem.

(32) Why then should not these disciples themselves
have gone to the sepulchre? In anearlier phase of the
narratives it was, no doubt, borne in mind that these
disciples, if in Jerusalem at all, had to remain in con-
cealment, and even a writing so late as the Gospel of
Peter (26) knew that very well. Lk., however (2424),
ignores it. His statement that ‘certain’ (τινές) disciples
went to the sepulchre is still very vague. But Jn.
forthwith lays hold of it and definitely names Peter and
the beloved disciple, and reports upon their rivalry ina
manner that betrays a conscious tendency much more
strongly than most of the other narratives (cp Simon
PETER, 8 228).

(c) The most obvious conjecture must necessarily
have been that Jesus was seen immediately at the
sepulchre itself. Here also may be distinguished two
stages. The earlier is the account of Mt.; Jn. recasts

‘selves had at first shared this doubt.

it (8 το ε). If Jn. had beena free inventor it would
4071

be hard to say why he does not assign the appearance of
Jesus at the sepulchre to Peter and the beloved disciple,
both of whom nevertheless he represents as examining
the sepulchre. Since he names only a woman as re-
ceiving the appearance he shows himself bound by the
representation which we now find in Mt., in spite of all
the comparative freedom with which he departs from it.
So also the Coptic account, and the Dideskalia (above,
886, 7.8). ;

(d) In all the reports hitherto mentioned, however,
Jesus was seen only after, not during, his resurrection.
The possibility of filling up this blank was offered by
the story of the guard at the sepulchre, which on its
own merits has already been discussed (above, 8 24 e).
It could in point of fact fill the blank in an (apologeti-
cally) extremely effective way, inasmuch as it was by
unbelievers that the actual fact of the resurrection was
observed.

The timidity which restrained the other writers from touching
upon this incident continued to be still operative with Mt. in so
far that he does not say that the person of Jesus was actual!
seen, and adds that the watchers became 45 dead men (284).
The Gospel of Peter has completely overcome this timidity ; the
watchers observe accurately each of the successive phases of the
resurrection and see Jesus himself as he emerges from the tomb,
The codex Bobbiensis (above, $ 7 2) relates this simply as a fact
without mention οὗ the witnesses. The statement οἱ ne Gospel
of the Hebrews—that Jesus gave the linen shroud to the servant
of the high-priest-—stands upon the same plane.

As long as there was still current knowledge that the

first appearances of the risen Jesus were in Galilee, the

fact could be reconciled with the presence
of the disciples in Jerusalem on the
τ morning of the resurrection only (a) on

Salle ST the assumption that they A Len

erusaletl. girected to go to Galilee. The natural
media for conveying such a communication must have
seemed to be the angels at the sepulchre in the first
instance, and after them the women. So Mk, and
Mt. So far as Mt. is concerned this direction to be
given to the disciples was perhaps the reason, or a
reason in addition to that suggested in $ 2 4, why the
women should be made to go to the grave so early as
on the evening ending the Sabbath, so that the disciples
might still in the course of the night have time to set
out and if possible obtain a sight of Jesus within three
days after his crucifixion.

(3) Yet such a combination as this was altogether
too strange. Why should Jesus not have appeared
forthwith în Jerusalem to the disciples? Accordingìy
Lk. and Jn. simply suppressed the direction to go to
Galilee, finding themselves unable to accept it, and
transferred the appearances to Jerusalem. Or, it was
not our canonical evangelists who did both things at
one and the same time, but there had sprung up,
irrespective of Mk. and Mt., the feeling that Jesus
must in any case have already appeared to the disciples
in Jerusalem ; it presented itself to Lk. and Jn. with a
certain degree of authority, and these writers had not
now any occasion to invent but simply to choose what
seemed to them the more probable representation, and
then, when in the preparation of their respective books
they reached the order to go to Galilee, merely to pass
over it or get round it (8 2 £), as no longer compatible
with the new view.

As against all assurances that the risen Jesus had
been seen, it was always possible to raise the objec-
tion that what was seen had been merely

26. (δ) On
question :

21. (e) On ‘a vision’ (φάντασμα). One good way
Set è of meeting this objection was (a) the
apre vacleli assurance that the eye-witnesses had

assured themselves of the contrary with
all the more care and circumspection because they them-
It is thus that
we are to explain the care with which the disbelief of
the disciples is accentuated.

So in Mt. 2817 (‘but some doubted,' οἱ δὲ è8(7agav)1 Li.

1 Should Brandt (355-357) be right in His conjecture that these
three words are a gloss, because, in the words immediately

4072

RESURRECTION- AND ASCENSION-NARRATIVES

24 11 37 4r—in 22. 37 41 we have a doubt that is hardly intelli-
gible în the present connection, since ἈΠ those present have
already în 2. 34 confessed their faith in the resurrection of Jesus
(an unevenness that would be removed by the hypothesis of
Brandt spoken of in $ τό 4)—also_ with special emphasis in Jn.
2025 Mk. 16 11 13// and in the Coptic account. ‘The counier-
part, a specially strong faith, is shown by James, in the Gospel
ofthe Hebrews, in his cath that he would fast until Jesus had
risen again.

(2) If then it was held important to be able to over-
come doubts, it was always possible to produce some ini-
pression if assurance could be given that Jesus had been
not only seen but also heard, As to the substance of
what he said something will be found in the next section
{$ 28); for the present, all that comes into consideration
is the simple fact of speech. For narrators who had
never themselves witnessed an appearance of Jesus it
was an exceedingiy natural thing to assume that Jesus
had been not only seen but also heard, and it was
equally easy for their hearers to take their conjecture
for fact. At the same time, since it was not impossible
also to hear words, as Paul reports himself to have done
{2 Cor. 124), without the experience being more than an
ecstasy, some yet stronger proof of objectivity still re-
mained necessary.

{c) In $ 17 [7] stress has already been laid on the
fact that in the bodily figure of Jesus which was seen the
marks of the wounds were also included; nay more,
that spectators even perhaps believed themselves to see
that he was showing them. Still, a real guarantee of
the actuality of his return to this earth had not been
received until the wounds had been touched.

Whilst, however, there is between such an ‘actual’ seeing and
‘actual touching a distinction so great that it can hardly be exag-
gerated, it is one which is capable of being almost entirely over-
looked by people who neither themselves had witnessed an
appearance of Jesus nor were familiar with the principles of
psychology ; and thus it would not be impossible for them,
without any consciousness of inaccuracy, still less of deliberate
perversion of the truth, to change the statement which eye-
witnesses had actually made as to having seen the wounds into
the different statement that Jesus had invited the disciples to
touch them. So Li. 2439 Jn.20 27 ; also the Coptic account and
the second fragment of the Gospel of the Hebrews (3 4 c), in the
last-cited case with the express addition that the disciples availed
themselves of the invitation. Im a naive way a touching of
Jesus by the women is mentioned in Mt. 289,

(4) T.k. goes yet another step further în his statement
{2442 /) that Jesus asked for food, and partook of it in
the presence of the disciples. This is in v. 41 expressly
characterised as a stili stronger proof of the reality of
his resurrection than the fact that he had been touched.
Here, accordingly, the popular conceptions as to the
nature of the resurrection body underlying Mk. 614-16,
which in the earliest period were not applied to Jesus
($ 17 e), gain influence. Jn, does not follow Lk. in
this; he declines to represent the risen Jesus in so
strongly and frankly sensuous a manner.Ì Yet even
Lk.'s representation is surpassed by the extra-canonicai
addition to Lk.2443 (8 7 <) that Jesus gave to his
disciples the remainder of the food of which he had been
partaking. An eating în their presence here becomes an
eating with them, which according to Acts 10 41 was, in
fact, continualiy happening.

(e) It becomes now quite easy to understand how,
‘©nce narrators had ceased to shrink from such repre-
sentations, the reporter passed over that particular touch
in the accounts actually proceeding from eye-witnesses
according to which Jesus had vanished after each
appearance, and how instead of this it was unsuspectingly

following, Jesus passes over the doubt of these disciples without
remark, îhe insertion would still show that a reader of the
oldest period found it fitting to presuppose doubtson the part of
some of the disciples.

1 The question in 7π. 9] 5, quite on a level with Lk.244r
Caught to eat?"), has a quite different significance; in Jn.
Jesus does not intend to eat, but to give them to eat. Neither
also does Lk. 24307 (the scene at Emmaus) imply a represen-
tation of Jesus as eating. See $ 2, 3.

£ The rendering of συναλιφόμενος in EVine. of Acts14 ‘eat
ing with them' is, however, very doubtful (EV ‘being assembled
together with them”).

4073

taken for granted that Jesus had still remained upon
earth and had dealings with his disciples in every respect
asa man. Intheearliest stage of this way of represent-
ing matters, such a condition of things was held to have
Jasted for only one day; but afterwards the time was
extended to forty days (8. 16 e, 5).

That this second view was not met with in tradition from the
beginning, but owes its existence to a transformation of the
earlier view, is absolutely certain unless we assign Acts to
another than the author of the Third Gospel. The cause of the
transformation is very apparent ; the disciples were, during all
the lifetime of Jesus; very weakly, and at the end still needed
much instruction ‘concerning the kingdom of God' (repì τῆς
βασιλείας τοῦ Θεοῦ : Acts13).

(7) The idea of a continuous presence of Jesus upon
earth, if only for a single day, necessarily carried with
it the consequence that this condition terminated in an
ascension.

No one needed to invent the idea; every account of eye-
witnesses had closed with the more or less definite statement
that Jesus had again disappeared, and disappeared into heaven
(8 174). At the same time the tendency to adorna plain story
shows itself at work with sufficient clearness if we compare the
simple ‘he parted from them and was carried up into heaven’
(διέστη ἀπ᾽ αὑτῶν καὶ ἀνεφέρετο εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν) of Lk. 24 51, or
even Mk. 1619, with the circumstantial account given in Acts
19-11. The original limitation of the period during which
appearances of Jesus occurred to a single day will have co-
operated along with the other causes mentioned in $ 23 to bring
about the exclusion by Lk. of the appearance to the 500, that τὸ
James, and that to “all the apostles,* τ

The belief once created that Jesus in his various
appearances had also spoken, the door lay wide open
28. (d) On for all kinds of conjecture as to what

he had said. (4) In this region the
words reported. rmost obvious conjecture was that Jesus
uttered words leading up to, or expiaining, the alleged
facts which we bave already considered,

Thus it fits the situation equally that in Mt. 38 τὸ Jesus re-
peats to the women the injunction of the angels to bid the
disciples repair to Galilee, and that in Lk. 24 49 and Actsì4,
on the other hand, he bids them remain în Jerusalem, whilst in
Τα. 2017 he merely sends them word that he is ascending to
heaven, and for this reason does not suffer Mary Magdalene to
touch him. It is still in accordance with the same principle
that he is represented as at a later date making the request that
his disciples should touch him, and asking the disciples whether
they have anything to eat (8 27.6, d).

(3) Other words of Jesus apply to situations which we
have not yet discussed. Thus, in Lk. 2438 and in the
Didastalia (8 7 δ), as well as in the speech to James
in the Gospel of the Hebrews, the purpose is to prepare
the way for a joyful frame of heart and mind. The
words in [πὶ 20.19 26, ‘ Peace be unto you,’ as also those
to Saul, “Saul, Saul, why persecutesi thou me?' (Acts
94, ete.), are singularly well chosen.

(e) What must have presented itself as the main
object must have been that of instructing the disciples,
before the final departure of Jesus, in everything which
was still necessary for their future tasks.

To this category of instruction belongs the repeated insistence
upon the uncertainty of the time of the end of the world (Acts
17: cp Mk. 18 32), but very specially, as new matter, the proof
that the passion of Jesus had been appointed hy God and fore-
told by the prophets (Lk. 2425-27 44-46). lf Jesus in chis
matiner established a correct understanding of events that were
past, ἴε was natural, indeed inevitable, to think that, over and
above this, he had given all the new directions for the future
which were in point of fact followed in the church and therefore
could not but have proceeded from its founder. Thus (it was
held) it must necessarily have been Jesus who told the disciples
that ‘ali authority had been given unto him in heaven and on
earth,’ and that he was with them alway, even unto the end of
the world (Mt. 28 18 20); he it was wlo must have instituted
the mission to the Gentiles (Mt. 28 19,7 Lk. 2447 Mk. 16 15), as
also baptism (Mk.1616, and the canonical text of Mt. 2819;
but cp $ 8), and he too it must have been who promised the
power of performing miracles (Mk. 16 17 /), yet also demanded
a faith that believed without having seen (n.20 29),—this in
view of the fact that he knew of, and was able to foretell, the
outpouring of the Holy Spirit ‘at Pentecost (Lk. 2440 Acts
14/ 8), if he did not himself impart the Spirit as in Jn. 20 22.

(d) This leads us to the significance which the words
of the risen Jesus have, especially for the apostles; for
it is only to them that in Jn. the Spirit is imparted, as
also the power to forgive or to retain sins {2023) or,
indeed, a formal mission of any kind (2021). We find,

4974

RESURRECTION- AND ASCENSION-NARRATIVES

further, that in the missionary precept the disciples
come first into account, just as in Acts (especially
26 16-18) it is Paul who does so, Jn.2115-23 has to do
entirely with fixing the relative rank în the regard of the
church between Peter on the one hand and the beloved
disciple on the other ($ 9 c); similarly 20 3-10 {cp Simon
PETER, $ 225). The gospel tradition has therefore made
use of its accounts of the resurrection of Jesus in a very
decided manner for the purpose of carrying back to
Jesus the high esteem in which the apostles were held
at a later time.

With other reasons ($$ 23 e 27 L/]) the purpose just referred
to may have co-operated to bring it about that the evangelists
recorded almost exclusively only appearances to apostles and

ass over in silence those to the 500 and to James,—indeed, that
Mt. contents himself with recording no more than one appear
ance altogether, an appearance in which B. Weiss even discerns
a free fusion of all that Mt. knew by tradition regarding the
appearance of Jesus.

At last, however, the emphasis that had been laid on
the literal historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus

gave place to something different. (e)

29. (0) On a Fowever firmly established the resurrec-

subsatitute |. : ΘΗ,

f ταῦ, tion might seem to be historically, however
‘or vision of 711] had f doubt in th
risen Jesus, 0115 open to any shadow of doubt in the

* minds of the faithful, its value for them
was nevertheless small: it was nothing more than
an event of past time. What faith demands is some-
thing present, something now and always capable
of being experienced afresh. ‘The demand for a faith
that could believe without having seen (Jn. 2027 29
1 Pet. 18) was hard to satisfy. Thus there came to be
felt a need for such a turn being given to the resurrection-
narrative as should make the continued life of Jesus
capable of being experienced anew at all times (Mt. 28 2
‘Lam with yoù alway’), and thus the historical state-
ments as to his long-past appearances—accounts which
had been elaborated with such care—in great measure
lost their importance.

(4) Towards this result Paul had already contributed,
The risen Christ is for him identical with the Holy
Spirit (2 Cor. 317 Rom. 89-11, and often). The fourth
evangelist followed him in this (8 16c; JOHN, SON ΟΕ
ZeseDeE, $ 26 e). Therefore in the Fourth Gospel the
risen Jesus having ascended to heaven bestows the Holy
Spirit already on the very day of the resurrection.
Only to the disciples, indeed, in 2022, but according to
738 f. expressly to all believers ; and therefore it is not
open to doubt that 17 13-15 1418 28 1526, ete., are also
to be interpreted in the latter sense. As Holy Spirit
Jesus is always present.

(c) A somewhat more sensible substitute for vision of
the risen Jesus is the observance of the ordinance of the
Supper. This is the true meaning of the deeply signifi-
cant narrative of the disciples at Emmaus (cp CLEOPAS).

The wish of Christianity—abide with us'—did not admit of
being fulfilled in a literal sense; but in every act of communion
*he went in to abide with them'(Lk. 2429). Not with flesh and
bones as in the case of the primitive disciples (24 39), but ‘in
another form’ (ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ : Mk. 1612); and whilst the result
of all that could be told about the empty grave was ‘him they
saw ποῖ, he is now presently recognised "in the breaking of the
bread' ‘(Lk. 2424 30 / 34). It is plain that the knowledge
ascribed to the two disciples, so skilfully embodied in this nar-
rative, could not have been drawn by them from the events de-
scribed by Like. even if they had literally happened to them on the
resurrection day ; it is naturally the product of a long growth,
and that too in Gentile-Christian circles in which the corporea
element in Jesus was neither so familiar nor so important as in
the primitive-apostolical. It is clearly a reminiscence of a
celebration of the Lord's Supper that we have also in Jn. 21 τὰ
and in the giving of the bread to James in the Gospel of the
Hebrews; only, in Jn. it has its prototype in the feeding of the
five thousand with loaves and fishes (ὁ 9 11=21 9), which, how-
ever, in turn bears the most express marks of being but a clothing
of the Supper (see Jonn, Son or ZeBEDEE, $$ 206, 236).
The number ‘seven’ as applied to the disciples corresponds to
the number of baskets which in the second ‘feeding’ in the
Synoptists (Mk. 88= Mt, 15 37) were filled with the fragments
that remained over; whilst im Jn, 613, in agreement with the
first ‘feeding’ in the Synoptists (Mk. 643= Mt. 1420= Lk. 9 17),
twelve baskets are filled, corresponding to the number ‘twelve*

as applied to the disciples, The mysterious character of the
presence of the risen Jesus at the Supper appears at Emmaus

4975

în his disappearance when the two disciples recognised him
(Lx. 24 31), at the Sea of Galilee in no one's asking him who he
was (Jn. 21 12).

III. EXPLANATION OF THE FACTS.

The last problem still demanding solution, is how to

explain the only fact that has emerged in the course of

our examination —the fact that Jesus

so, Nature of was seen, as we read in 1 Cor. 16:8.

rection-body. Any attempted explanation presupposes

' an insight into subjective experience

that perhaps can never be completely attained. lt

demands, therefore, the greatest caution. It cannot,
however, be left unattempted.

(a) The investigator who holds himself bound to
accept and make intelligible as literal fact everything
recorded in the resurrection narratives, even of the
canonica gospels merely, cannot fulfil his task on any
other condition than that he assumes a revivification of
the buried body of Jesus to a new period of earthiy life,
hardly less earthly than when Jesus was taken for Elijah
or the Baptist risen from the dead (Mk. 6 14-16 828 and ||,
cp 81-13 Mt. 1114). It only remains to be stipulated
that he who does so shall fully realise that what he is
assuming is a miracle in the fullest sense of the word.
Many theologians are strangely wanting in clearness, as
to this. Even, however, after one has clearly under-
stood what he is accepting, it is impossible to stop here ;
for such a view does justice only to one side—the
physical and sensuous—of the resurrection-narratives ;
not to the other, according to which Jesus was neverthe-
less exalted to heaven, a thing impossible for flesh and

| blood (τ Cor. 1550).

(3) In order to do justice to this second side also,
recourse is often had to the theory of a gradual sublima-
tion or spiritualisation of the resurrection-body of Jesus
—at first wholly material—whereby ît was gradually
made fit for its ascension. Again, what has to be
insisted on is that the miracle is not hereby diminished ;
on the contrary, to the original miracle of the revivifi-
cation of the material body is added a second—that of
the spiritualisation of the material body. ‘The thing,
however, is also quite inconceivable; how is one to
represent to oneself the stages of the transition ὃ

A body which is already capable of making its way through
closed doors muss surely have ceased to be tangible (Jn. 20 26 A,
Moreaver, such a view is in direct contradiction to what we find
in NT, not cnly in 1Cor.15 50-53 but also in the gospels ; for
the totiching there referred to and (in Lk. 24 39-43) the eating
happen precisely at the last appearance of Jesus which is
immediately followed by the ascension ; and τῆς precept not to
touch is placed în Jn. (2017) at an earlier point. 80, also, we
read that Jesus is immediately recognised in his later appear-
ances, but precisely in the earlier ones not (Lk. 24 τό Jn. 20 14).

(c) Η we decide to confine ourselves to the task of
explaining what we take to be the simple fact according
to 1 Cor. 15, we must not suffer ourselves to forget that
Paul thinks of the future resurrection-body of man—
which he regards as heavenly and pneumatic—as con-
formed to the pattern of the resurrection-body of Jesus
(so 1 Cor. 1545-49).! Jesus body also, then, in his view
must have been heavenly and pneumatic ; and as Paul
in 1 Cor. has not yet given up the revivification of
the buried body ($ τα δ), he must have thought of the
pneumatic attributes possessed by it as having arisen
through metamorphosis, such as, according to 1 Cor.
15 51-53, is to happen also to the bodies of those men
and women who shall still be alive at the last day.
According to what we have seen in $ 17 6 the original
apostles also agree in this. Thus the explanation of the
facts which proceeds on the belief of the apostles that a
body of Jesus was really seen must think of that body as
heavenly and pneumatic; not, however, in such a sense
that it was given to Jesus at his resurrection as a new

4 In v. 49 the future—'we shall bear' (gopéooper)—is τὸ be
read. An'exhortation, ‘let us bear' (φορέσωμεν ; 50 Ti. WH),
is meaningless, for the resurrection-body is obtained without

our co-operation. The confusion of o and w with copyists is
very common ; see Gal. 61012 1Jn.5.20 Rom. δὲ 149, etc.

4076

RESURRECTION- AND ASCENSION-NARRATIVES

body whilst the old body remained in the grave, but in
the sense that it came into existence through a change
wrought on the buried body. On this explanation the
resurrection has as much an entirely miraculous char-
acter as it has on either of the other two theories already
considered.

In order to escape so far as may be from miracle
of the character described in the preceding section,
and, generaliy, to be rid of the question

3. Resurreo- of the corporeity of the risen Jesus,
Spirit only. recourse is often had 10 the view that

it was only the spirit of Jesus that rose
and appeared to his followers. Here opinion is divided
as to whether such a thing is possible without a miracle
or not. Any one who holds appearances of the spirits of
the departed to be possible in the natural order will be
able to dispense with assuming a miracle here. The
majority, however, maintain the negative. Moreover,
such persons declare that the appearances of Jesus to
his disciples differ considerably from the manner in
which the spiritualism of the present day holds appear-
ances of spirits to occur. They find themselves com-
pelled accordingly, if it was merely the spirit of Jesus
that was alive and manifested itself, to postulate a
miracle whereby it was made visible.

It is to be observed, moreover, that this view—that
only the spirit lives on—-is in no respect different from
the doctrine of the immortality of the soul except in this,
that in the particular case in question the continuance
of the life of the spirit begins only on the third day
after death. This, however, is a collocation of quite
heterogeneous ideas. The essence of the doctrine of
immortality lies in this, that the life of the soul is never
interrupted, and thus there can be no thought at all of
revivification after remaining for a time in a state of
death. Revivification can occur only în the case of a
subject that is capable of dying—in other words, in a
body. This is a Jewish idea, that of immortality is
Greek. The latter is adopted in the Book of Wisdom,
and Paul comes near it in 2 Cor. 51-8 (8 154) ; for the
original apostles it is from the outset excluded ($ 17 e).

Τὶ is discovered to be necessary, accordingiy, to go a
step farther. The belief that the risen Jesus actually

i outica did appear is frankly given up.

83. Dbjoctive (α) The disciples, we are told, saw
BORA. nothing real: neither the body of Jesus,
clothed with earthly or heavenly attributes, nor the spirit
of Jesus whether in true spirit form or in some kind of
acquired visibility. What they believed they saw was
in reality only a visionary image, without any real
appearance of Jesus; but this visionary image was
produced in their souls immediately by God in order
that they might be assured that Jesus was risen. For

this reason the vision is called objective.

(δ) The belief is entertained that by this method of
regarding the matter the assumption of a miracle is
made superfiuous; all that is postulated is merely a
Divine act of revelation. Keim has invented for this
view, which he also supports, the phrase: telegram
from heaven. This act of revelation itself, however, is
nothing less than a miracle. Were it not miraculous
the visionary image of the risen Jesus in the minds of
the disciples could only have its origin in their own
subjective condition. This is exactly what is denied
and must be denied; otherwise the disciples must be
taken to have bad their faith in the resurrection within
themselves and needed no divine revelation of it.
subjective condition of the disciples must on this view
be represented as one of the greatest prostration, which
could be changed into its opposite culy by a revelation
really coming from God.

{c} It has to be remarked, further, that according to
this view Jesus' continued existence must be regarded
as miraculous in the full sense, If the presupposition
were that his soul was immortal like the soul of any
other man, his continued life would be a matter of

4077

The *

course and did not require to be made known by a
special revelation But what is aimed at in putting
forward this view is much rather to establish the
complete difference between Jesus and all other men
which has been from the first claimed for him by the
assertion of his resurrection, but yet to be able to
dispense with miracle. ‘This can never succeed.
If a really non-miraculous explanation is desired, then
apart from subjective visions {of which more hereafter)
two possibilities present themselves.
33. Non- n
τ (4) The hypothesis that Jesus was only
miraculous τ
OU8 Αρρατθην dead found many supporters
explanations ‘ - i A
(excludi in the days of rationalism, and it has
visione) E also been espoused by a writer so modern
"as Hase (Gesch. Jesu, 1876, $ 112).
. That cruciffed persons taken down from the cross while still
in life have been able to recover is testified by Herodotus (7 194)
and Josephus (Vîf 75 end, $ 420/), In a case of seeming
death indeed it is hardiy credible, and to call to one's aid the
wonderful power of healing which Jesus exercised on behalf of
other persons is in this connection quite fantastic. More tban
this: had Jesus presented himself merely as one who had all
but died οἱ the cross his appearance would have produced the
impression of weakness and helplessness, not that of a conqueror

of death and the grave, which nevertheless was the character he
required to present if he was to inspire his followers to a worid-
conquering faith. Finally, what could they say, if he neverthe-
less in the end died after ali? To escape the force of this
question the assumption was that he had withdrawn himself
into solitude, perhaps into some cave în order that his death
might not become known. It is vbvious that the theory of a
seeming death is not enough; it is necessary to assume also
various machinations, whether on the part of Jesus himself or on
the part of his disciples, whether at the time of his leaving the
sepulchre or with a view to covering the worst signs of weak-
ness before he presented himself to larger circles of his followers.
In this aspect the present hypothesis approximates—

(δ) The hypothesis that, althoagh Jesus did not
recover, the disciples spread abroad, and found credence
for, the rumour that he was alivi Apart from all
other difficulties, such a hypothesis is from the outset
‘untenable for two reasons : not only would the disciples
immediately after the death have been unable to
summon courage for so gigantic a task as the theory
implies, but also at a later date they would not have
had courage in persecution to surrender their lives for
such a faith,

Thus subjective visions are all that remain now to

lt with.
34. Nature be dealt with. Let us endeavour first of
; all to determine their nature in general so
of subjec- ὁ his i ; n
tive vision, 51 95 this is practicable, without a too
"minute discussion of the conditions implied
in the NT narratives and statements.

(a) In contradistinction from the so-called objective
vision (see $ 32 a), the image that is seen in the sub-
jective vision is a product of the mental condition of
the seer. The presupposition is, accordingly, that he
is not only in a high degree of psychical excitement
which is capable of producing in him the belief that he
is seeing something which în point of fact has no
objective existence, but also that all the elements which
are requisite for the formation of a visionary image,
whether it be views or ideas, are previously present în
his mind and have engaged its activities. That in these
circumstances the seer should behold an image for
which there is no corresponding reality, can be spoken
of as something abnormal only in so far as the ocenrrence
is on the whole a rare one ; as soon as a high degree of
mental excitement is given, the existence of visions is by
the laws of psychology just as intelligible and natural
as, in a lower degree of mental excitement, is the
occurrence of minor disturbances of sense perceptions.
such as the hearing of noises and the like.

(5) The view that a subjective vision could never
have led the disciples to the belief that Jesus was alive
because they were able to distinguish a vision from a
real experience is quite a mistake.! It is not in the
least necessary that we should raise the question whether
they were always able to do so; let it be at once
.1 On this point Beyschlag (Zeben 7esw 1422-40) is par
ticularly instructive.

4078

RESURRECTION- AND ASCENSION-NARRATIVES

assumed that they could. The distinction is not un-
known in the NT; see, for example, Acts129 : indeed
we may lay it down that ‘was seen' (ώφθη)} with the
single exception of Acts726 always stands for another
kind of seeing than that of ordinary sense-perception
(e.g., Lk. lix 931 2243 Acts23 723035 917 183: 169
2616 [τ Tim. 3162] Rev. 1119 1213). Nay, this is our
warrant for calling in visions to our aid in explaining
the appearances of Jesus. AIl that we have gained by
this concession, however, is merely that the seers dis-
tinguished once and again the condition in which they
were: whether ecstatic or normal; it by no means
follows as matter of course that they held the thing seen
in vision to be unreal, and only what they saw when
in their ordinary condition to be real. How otherwise
could the very conception of such a thing as an objec-
tive vision be possible ?

(c) On the contrary, it pertains precisely to the
subjective vision that the seer, if he is not a person
thoroughly instructed in psychology and the natural
sciences, is compelled to hold what he sees in his vision
for real as long as it does not bring before him some
thing which to his conception is impossible. Wherein
otherwise would consist the delusion, which nevertheless
every one knows to be connected with subjective vision,
if not in this, that the visionary seeks for the cause of
what he has seen in the external world, not in his own
mental condition? And indeed the visionaries of the
Bible had more extended powers than modern visionaries
have for taking a visionary image as an objective
reality; for, if they were unable to attribute to the
image they saw any ordinary mundane reality because
it was contrary to their ideas of mundane things, they
could always attribute to it a heavenly reality, and it
was only if it was contrary to thieir-conception of things
heavenly that they came to recognise it as a product of
their own fantasy.

(4) We have therefore to distinguish between three
experiences which were regarded as possible by the
disciples and their contemporaries : (1) the seeing of an
earthly person by the use of the ordinary organs of
sight: (2) the seeing of a person in a real yet heaveniy
corporeity, not by the bodily eyes but in a vision
(ὀπτασία : Lk. 122 2423 Acts2619 2 Cor. 121; or
ὄρασις: Acts217 Rev.9i7; or ὅραμα: Acts9ror
1031719 115 169 189), in a state of ecstasy (ἔκστασις:
Acts 1010 115 2217), or, it may be, outside of the seer's
own body (2 Cor. 122 Δ}; (3} the production of a false
image on the mind without any corresponding outward
reality. The first of these possibilities (ordinary seeing)
is contemplated only by those evangelists wlio speak
of Jesus as eating and as being touched, and who never
themselves had been present at appearances of the
risen Jesus. The second possibility {visionary seeing of
a heaveniy corporeity) is what the witnesses of such
appearances intended and what Paul indicates by the
word ‘was seen' (07). With the third possibility
(false image) it has this in common that in both the
condition of the participants is visionary ; with the first
(ordinary seeing), that the participants hold what they
see to be absolutely real and to have an existence
external to themselves {but not with a mundane reality).

{e) It was the mistake of many critics to assume that
by the use of ‘was seen' (ὥφθη) the purely subjective
origin of what had been seen was conceded by Paul
himself. The same error, however, is almost entirely
shared also by apologists such as Beyschlag when they
suppose that the participants, if they had held their
condition to be that of visionaries, would at the same
time have perceived the unreality of what they saw, This
hypothetically enunciated statement of the apologists
is distinguished from the categorical assertion of the
critics in only one point: the apologists will have it
that the participant need not necessarily attribute the
origin of what he sees to the state of his own mind, but
can attribute it to God—yet without the result that, in

4979

the latter case, in his view the thing seen becomes
invested with reality.

Thus Beyschlag (as above, 432-435) is of opinion that Acts
169 does not make Paul believe that in reality a man of
Macedonia stood before him, nor 10 10-16 make Peter think that
in reality a sheet containing real animals was let down from
heaven—-not only not in mundane actuality but also not even in
heavenly actuality; on the contrary, in cach case neither had
taken in more than this, that God was seeking to give them to
understand something by means of sensible images. This way
of looking at matters is utterly inconsistent with the beliefs of
that time. If it is God who sends the Macedonian or the sheet
containing the beasts, as a matter of course it is believed that
these things are sent really (possessing of course not mundane
but heavenly actuality); for where it is presupposed that God
can if he chooses send them really, it would be quite unaccount-
able to believe that he has nevertheless not done so. That the
sending is not done for its own sake merely, but has for its
purpose to incite Paul or Peter to a particular course of action,
ἧς indeed true; but this does not by any means divest the thing
which God has sent of its reality. Beyschlag makes it seem as
if this were so merely by a reference τὸ Acts129: ‘he knew not
that it was true which was done by the angel, but thought he
sawa vision.® Ir is correct to say that the same word (ὅραμα)
is employed here as is used în 169 101719 115, and that Peter
regards this vision (ὅραμα) as something unreal.” Here however
the distinction drawn in a preceding paragraph (above, c) falls
to be applied : that a Macedonian or a sheet containing beasts
endowed with a heavenly corporeality could be sent by God
was regarded by Paul and by Peter respectively as thoroughly
possible: on the other hand; in 129 it is presupposed that the
iberation of Peter when it was ‘not true but a_ vision’ would
have been regarded by him as impossible. In like manner, if
‘vision’ (ὅρασις) in Tobit 1219 means something opposed to
reality, a mere appearance (φάντασμα), that meaning is secured
only by the aatithesis in the sentence. The angel Raphael,
who has accompanied Tobias, says here by way of after:
explanation of what his real nature was: ‘I have neither eaten
nor drunken, but ye saw only an appearance.’ The identity
of the word (όραμα or Spavis) thus by no means proves identity
of judgment upon the matter here in question, namely the reality
or unreality of what has been seen,

(5) Equally mistaken would it be to maintain that
visions are throughout the whole OT and NT regarded as
an inferior form of divine revelation. Beyschlag deduces
this from a single text (Nu.126-8): to a prophet I
reveal myself by visions or dreams, but with Moses I
speak face to face. Not only is the dream placed upon
a level with the vision, an equality of which there can
be no thought in connection with the appearances of
the risen Jesus, but also in antithesis to both is placed
God's direct speaking, which undoubtedly makes known
the will of God more plainly than a. visual image
can, the interpretation of which rests with the seer. In
the case of the resurrection of Jesus, however, the
situation is exactly reversed, If God had announced to
the disciples by spoken words that Jesus was alive, even
if they fully believed these words to have been received
immediately from God, the announcement would not
have been for them so clear and impressive as when
they were themselves permitted to look upon the form
of jesus as of one who was alive.

{g) After what has been said in three preceding
paragraphs (c, 4, e) the decisive question comes to be:
what sort of appearances of a person risen from the dead
were regarded by the disciples as possible ἢ

To this the answer must at once be: Not incorporeal appear-
ances; for the idea of the immortality of the soul alone was
utterly strange to them (β 17e), Next, we must say: they
looked for a general resurrection of the terrestrial body to ἃ
terrestrial life on the last day; but in exceptional cases they
regarded it as happening even in the present (Mk. 6714-16; cp
$I7e). And as they would have felt no difficulty in regarding
Jesus as an exceptional instance of this last description, they
Would have regarded an appearance of Jesus in this form (with
a terrestrial body) as a real one. This case, however, does not
come into consideration ; for such an appearance of Jesus does
not come within the range of what is historically authenticated.

What is alone anthenticated is the appearance of
Jesus in heavenly corporeality ; but of that it has been
shown in $ 17 e that it corresponded with the conceptions
of Paul and likewise with those of the original apostles.

(4) The resultant conclusion then must be that when
the disciples experienced an appearance of Jesus in
heavenly corporeality they were under compulsion to
regard it as objectively real, and therefore to believe
that Jesus was risen because they had actually seen him.

4080

RESURRECTION- AND ASCENSION-NARRATIVES

Consequently, this belief of theirs does not prove that
what they saw was objectively real: it can equally well
have been merely an image begotten of their own
mental condition.

Having now, we believe, shown in a general way the
possibility that the things related concerning the risen

A ; lesus may rest upon subjective visions,

86. Sit I, remains fe ἀν τὸ inquire is

of Paul. whether such visions have any prob-

ability in view of the known situation of the disciples.

This question admits of an affirmative answer, very
particularly in the case of Paul.

It will ever remain the lasting merit of Holsten that he has
carried out this research on all sìdes with the most penetrating
analysis The view he arrived at holds its ground alike in
presence of conservative theology and in presence of the deniers
of the genuineness of all the Pauline episties, who find the
change from Pharisee to apostle of Jesus freed from the law t00
sudden. An energetic nature could only pass from the one
extreme to the other, and could not possibly hold a mediating
position.1

(2) Paul persecuted the Christians as blasphemers,
because they proclaimed as the Messiah one who by the
judgment of God (Dt.2123, cp Gal.313) had bcen
plainly marked as a criminal (6) If, in defending
their position, they quoted passages of the OT which in
their view treated of the Messiah, Paul could not gainsay
this application in a general way; all that he denied
was the applicability of the passages to one who had been
crucified. (ε) From their appeals to the appearances of
Jesus, Paul certainly had come to know quite well the
form in which they would have it that they had seen
him. (@) Apart from this blasphemy of theirs Paul
cannot but have recognised their honesty, seriousness,
and blamelessness of moral character. What if they
should be ἴῃ the right? We may be certain that, when
he entered their houses and haled them before the
judgment-seat, there were not wanting heart-rending
scenes, which in the case of a man not wholly hardened
could not fail to raise ever anew the recurring question
whether it was really at the behest of God that he had
to show all this cruelty. He repressed his scruples;
yet the goad had entered his soul. ᾿

(6) In his own innerlife he had no satisfaction. What-
ever may have been the zeal with which he followed the
precepts of the fathers (Gal. 114), unlike the great mass
of morally Iaxer Pharisees his contemporaries, he per-
ceived the impossibility of fulfilling the whole of the law's
requirements, And, not being able to fulfil them, he
was accursed (Gal. 310), and all men were in the same
condemnation with himself. In Rom.77-25 he has
impressively described this condition (/) And yet
God in the OT had promised a time of salvation, and
it was inconceivable that he should not hold to his
word. Buthow could he, if the universal fulfilment of
the law—which was so clearly impossible—were held to
be the indispensable condition ?

{g) Here of necessity must have come about in the
mind of Paul a combination of these two lines of
thought which had hitherto remained apart. ‘What if
the Christians were right in their assertion that the
Crucified One really was the Messiah, through whom it
was God's will to bring salvation to the world without
insisting on the fulfilment of the entire law? In that
case the persecution of the Christians was indeed a
crime; but Paul, and with him all mankind, was
nevertheless delivered from the anguish of soul caused
by daily transgression of the law; mercy, no longer
wrath, was what he might expect from God. (4) And
indeed, this being so, it could only have been through
the death of Jesus that God had willed to procure

1 Holsten, 277, 1861, pp. 223-284} Zum Evang. des Paulus
wu. des Petrus, 1-237 (1868); T'fleiderer, Pawulinistitus, 1873, (2)
1890, Einl. On the other side: Beyschlag, Sf A7., 1864; Pp.
197-264; 1870, pp. 7-50, 189-263. Specially interesting is Scholz
Deutsch.Fvangel. Blatter, 1881, pp. 816-841), who recognises
the whole psychological preparation for the conversion, and
then brings in the supernatural fact of the risen Jesus, which
his previous representation has enabled him to dispense with.

4981

salvation for men. For Saul, the Pharisee, could never
get away from the thought that some kind of propitia-
tion had to be made for the sins of men, before God
could bring in his grace. Perhaps the Christians had
even already begun to quote în support of their view
Is. 53, which Paul in all probability has in his mind
when, in 1 Cor. 153, he says that he has received by
tradition the doetrine that Christ, according to the
Scriptures, had been delivered as a propitiation for
our sins.

(ἢ) Whether, however, all this, which in one respect
promised blessedness, but in another threatened him
with divine punishment as a persecutor of the Christians,
was really true or not, turned for Paul upon the answer
to the question, whether în actuality Jesus was risen.
For, in addition to the doctrine of propitiation, Saul the
FPharisee was indissolubly wedded to the thought that
‘every one that hangeth on a tree’ is accursed, unless
God himself has unmistakably pronounced otherwise—
viz. that this proposition has no application to Jesus,
who did not die the death of a criminal, but the death
of a divine offering for sin. Such a divine declaration
was involved, according to the Christians, in the resur-
rection of Jesus.

(4) It will not be necessary to dwell upon the deeply
agitating effect which such doubts must have produced
in Paul's inmost soul; the vividness with which
the living figure so often described to him by Chris-
tians must, time and again, have stood before him,
only to be banished as often by the opposition of his
intellect; until finaliy, only too easily, there came a
time when the image of fancy refused any longer to
yield to the effort of thought, All that need be pointed
out further is that on his own testimony, as well as on
that of Acts, Paul was very prone to visions and other
ecstatic conditions (2 Cor.121-4 1 Cor. 1418 Αοίβ 91
169 189 2217 2723). That he does not place what he
had experienced at Damascus on a level with those
visions of his, but speaks of it as the last appearance of
the risen Jesus {1 Cor. 158), is intelligibile enough if he
was not aware of any further appearances having been
made to other persons (see $ 104); but it in no way
shows that in the journey to Damascus what befell was
not a vision, but an actual meeting with the risen Jesus.
‘The possibility, indeed the probability, of a vision here
has been pointed out; it is for each reader to choose
between this and a miracle.

(Ὁ Let it be clearly understood, however, that we do not here
employ the word ‘was seen’ (ὥφθη) as ‘evidence that Paul
himself concedes the subjective origin of the image which he
saw. (To the contrary, ste $ 346, 2) Neither do we male use
of the expression in Gal. 136, where Paul speaks of God ax
having revealed his son ‘in me' (ἐν ἐμοῦ, to prove that Paul
regarded the occntrence at Damascus as one that had taken
place solely within himself, The words ‘I have seen’ (ἑόρακα)
and ‘ was seen” (ὠφθη) in 1 Cor.9 1 158 are decisive against this,
for by them the apostle means to say that he has really seen
(although not în earthly but în heavenly corporeality) the risen
Jesus as appearing to him αὐ erira. Yet so far as Gal.l1sf
is concerned, neither is it probahle that ‘to reveal' (ἀποκαλύψαι)
denotes a subsequent inward illumination of Paul, since ‘but
when' (ὅτε δὲ) and ‘straightway’ (εὐθέως) mark the time
which followed immediately upon that of ‘the Jews' religion’
(Ἰουδαῖσμός) (1135). ‘In me’ (ἐν ἐμοῦ, in spile of the refer-
ence of ‘to reveal’ (ἀποκαλύψαι to the event on the road τὸ
Damascus, may mean ‘within me,’ in so far as the appearance
produced effects upon the spiritual life of the apostle ; but it can
easily mean also ‘upon me’—ie., by changing the persecutor
into a believer (not, however, ‘through the success of my mis
sionary labours,” which did not occur till later).

The situation of the earliest disciples very readily
suggests the same explanation of the facts. (a) The
: mental struggle between despair and

36.08 foi hope— the disaster involved in the
+ death of Jesus, and the hope they still

somehow clung to, that the kingdom of God might still
be established by Jesus—can hardly have been less
than had been the struggle in the mind of Paul.
Perhaps there was în their case the additional cireum-
stance that they were fasting, a condition highly favour-
able to the seeing of visions. Yet such a conjecture

4082

RESURRECTION- AND ASCENSION-NARRATIVES

is by no means indispensable, and we need not lay
stress on the indication as to this given in the Gospel of
Peter and în the Didestalia (above, 88 5 [7], 76), ANl
these psychological elements, however, will be more fully
considered later (8 37).

(3) On the other hand, we are unable ‘to attach
weight to the view that the disciples were gradually led
by a study of the OT to a conviction that Jesus was
alive, and that thus in the end they came to have
visions in which they beheld his form.

Visions do not arise by processes so gradual or so placid. _It
is certainly correct to suppose that certain passages of the OT
must have had an influence on the thoughts of the disciples in
those critical days; but not that they were then discovered for
the first time as a result of study, Rather must they have been
long familiar, when suddenly, under the impression made by the
death of Jesus, they acquire a new and decisive significance as
convincing the bereaved ones that the continued life of Jesus
was made assured hy the word of God.

(©) From our list of such passages must be excluded many
which are frequently quoted as belonging to it; for example,
Is. 258 Ps. 13313 τεῖς 18 5:9, Ps.27 (although ît appears to
be cited in Acts 18 33 in this sense), and, în particular, Ps. 1610,
although this is cited in Acts22731 1835. What is said in the
Hebrew text is that God will not suffer his pious worshipper to
die (cpv. 9). When & bya false etymology (nng='to destroy,"
instead of M='to sink") renders éf#af4, which, as the
parallelism conclusively shows, means ‘grave,’ by ‘destruction’
{διαφθορά), the mistransiation is innocuous as long as this word
is taken to mean ‘death,’ as the translators certainly took it; it
becomes misleading only on the Christian interpretation which
understands the bodily corruption that follows death. Passages
of the OT from which the disciples could really have drawn
their conviction as to the resurrection of Jesus are Ex. 36 (see
its employment by Jesus himself in Mik.1226£) 1s.589/
Hos.62 2 K.205, perhaps also Ps.11817 Jobl925:27, ta
very specially Ps. 8613 1101 (cp Brandt, 498-504). It must
always be borne in mind, it is hardly necessary to say, that
they did not interpret such passages în a critical manner and
with reference to the context, but simply as they seemed to
present to them a consoling thought.

(@) No weight can be given to the objection that the image of
the risen Jesus which presented itself to the disciples cannot
have been subjective because at first they did not recognise
it. That they failed to do so is stated only in passages
which must be regarded as unhistorical (Lk. 2416 Jn. 20.14);
in Lk. 243741 ît is not even said that he was not recognised.

{e) Another objection, that though perhaps the sub-
jective explanation might be admissible in the case of a
single individual, it wholly fails in the case of appear-
ances to several, not to speak of the case of g0o at
once, appears at first sight to have great weight. As
against this it is worth mentioning that one of the most
recent upholders of an objective resurrection of Jesus,
Steude (δὲ Ar. 1887, pp. 273-275), quite gives up this
argument, In point of fact there is ample evidence to
prove that visions have been seen by many, in the
cases of Thomas of Canterbury, Savonarola, the
Spanish general Pacchi, several crusaders—days and
even months after their death—and similar occurrences
also în the cases of 8ca French soldiers, the Camisards
in 1686-1707, the followers of the Roman Catholic
priest Puschl in Upper Austria în 1812-1818, the
‘Preaching-sickness ' and ‘ Reading-sickness' in Sweden
in 1841-1854, and so forth.! That in circumstances
of general excitement and highly strung expectation
visions are contagious, and that others easily perceive
that which at first had been seen by only one, is, in

1 E. A, Abbott, St, Thomas o/ Canterbury, 1898} Hase,
Gesch. Jesu, 1876, pp. 5954, and Newe Propheten, 333= (È) 299,5:
Reuter, Alerander der Dritte, B1ro-x12, 772-774 (1864);
Scholten, Zvang. mack Joh (Gem), 3204 (18673; Renani
Apptres, τὸ αὶ 22 (ET s1/ 55); Keim, Gesch Jesu von Nazara,
8559-5992 (1872), ET 6, 487): Perty, Mystische Erscheî-
nungent) 130-133 (1872); È. Stein, Peychische Contagior,
αι (Erlangen, 1877); Hohnbaum, Psychische Gesundheit,
βίαι (1845); Leubuscher, Waknsinn in den 4 letsten Jahrhun:
derten, 222.249 (1848); Îdeler, Teorie des veligiosin Wakn
sinns (1848-1830); Emminghaus, A/leem. Psychopathologie,
88 337 377 96, 113, 186 (1878), with the literature there referred
to; Allgem. Zischr. far Psychiatrie, 1849, PP. 253-261; 1854,
pp. 115-1255 1856, pp. 546-604; 1860, pp. 565-719; Wiedemann,
Die velig. Bewegung in Oberoesterreich τι Salzburg bei
Beginn des 19 Jahr. (1890); Die Secte der Paschlianer în
Oberostreich în dem Jahre 1817 (no place on title-page, 1819) ;
Misson, TAddtre Sacré des Cevennes, London, 1707; Blanc,
Inspiration des Camisards, Paris, 1859.

4083

view of the aceumulated evidence, a fact not to be
denied.

(7) The attempt has been made to argue from this,
on the contrary, that subjective visions cannot be
thought of as explaining the recorded facts of the
resurrection, inasmuch as in that case we should be
entitled to expect very many more recorded visions
than are enumerated by Paul. That, however, would
depend on the amount of predisposition to visions. It
is very easily conceivable that this may very rapidly
have diminished when, by means of a moderate number
of reported appearances, the conviction had become
established that Jesus had risen. On this account ît is
also best to presume that the first five appearances
followed one another very quickly. All the more
confidently in that case could Paul speak of that which
he had himself received as being the last of all ($ ro 4).

The consideration which above all others causes the
most serious misgivings, is the state of deep depression

τ in which the disciples were left by the
47. Bituation death of Jesus. Îs it conceivable that
*. in such circumstances subjective visions

should have come to them?

{a) This question, however, is essentially simplified
by what has been pointed out above ($ 36 e), if we
suppose în addition that it was Peter alone who re-
ceived the first vision. Could he but once find himself
able to say that he had seen Jesus, the others no
longer needed to be able to raise themselves out of
their state of prostration by their own strength; what
had happened to Peter supplied what was wanting în
this respect. ‘The question thus narrows itself to this:
Is the possibility of a subjective vision excluded in the
case even of Peter?

(ὁ) Undoubtedìy an unusually strong faith was
needed, if in Peter the thought that Jesus, notwith-
standing his death, was still alive, was to become so
powerful that at last it could take the form of a vision.
Al the requisite conditions, however, were present.
We do not at all lay weight upon the consideration,
that with the return to Galilee the reminiscences of
Jesus associated with those localities would again take
the upper hand over the impression which his death
had made; for indeed this impression was indelible,
But alongside of this impression there would also be
recollections of the predictions of Jesus. We do not
refer here primarily to the predictions of his resurrection
(see $ 22 a); those referring to his coming again from
heaven to set up the kingdom of God upon carth—
predictions which are certainly quite historical (see
GosPELS, $ 145 [{]}—are much more important,
They also, it is true, might seem to have been decisively
falsified by the death of Jesus; for with Peter also it
was an infallibile word of God, that every one that
hangs on a tree is cursed (Dt.2123; cp Gal.313).
Precisely here, however, there is a difference between
the cases of the two apostles: Paul could apply this
thesis to Jesus în cold blood, because he had never
personally known him (2 Cor. 516, when rightly inter-
preted); Peter could not—he owed too much to him.
To speak more exactly, the reason why Peter, even after
the crucifixion, did not cease wholly to have faith in the
prediction of Jesus, lay partly in the deep impression of
his utter trustworthiness which he had left upon his
disciple, and partly also in the religious inheritance which
Peter felt he owed him, in the ineradicable conviction of
the truth of his cause. From this conviction of the
truth of Jesus' cause the conviction of his continued
personal life was inseparable in the thought of that
age. In this sense Renan's saying (456/75, 44, ET
70) is true : *ce qui a resuscité Jésus, c'est l'amour.”

{e) There is yet another point, which for the most
part is utterly overlooked in this connection. We do
not mean the lively temperament of Peter; for whether
that made him specially susceptible to visions cannot be
said. We refer to the fact that Peter had denied his

4084

RESURRECTION- AND ASCENSION-NARRATIVES

Lord. Even if the circumstance, mentioned only in
Lk. (2261), that after his denial his eye met that of his
master, be hardly historical (cp SIMON PETER, $ 19 4),
there still remains a delicate suggestion of what must
most infallibly have happened ; the form of him whom
Peter had denied must have come up before him with
ever renewed vividness, however he may have struggled
to escape it. ‘Though at first he may have said to him-
self that this was a mere creation of his fancy, it is
certainly not too bold a conjecture that a imoment came
when he believed he saw his Lord bodily present before
him, whether it was that the eye was turned upon him
with reproach and rebuke, or whether it was that it
already assured him of that forgiveness, for which
beyond all doubt he had been praying with all the
energy of his soul.

(4) If this be sound, we shall find in the denial of
Peter an occasion for the occurrence of a vision as direct
as we have found the persecution of the Christians by
Paul to have been. If we will, we shall be able to
discern in these acts of hostility against Jesus or his
followers an arrangement in the providence of God,
whereby chosen vessels were prepared for the furiher-
ance of Christianity, In any case this deed of Peter,
that he held fast his faith in the imperishability of the
cause of Jesus and therefore also of the person of Jesus,
will remain the greatest of his life, greater still than bis
confession at Cresarea Philippi (Mk. 8 29 and |), and
would make to be true those two words even though in
the mouth of Jesus they be not historical : ‘thou art
Peter (i.e., a rock) and upon this rock will I build my
church ' {Mt. 1618, cp MINISTRY, $4/f.). and ‘Do thou,
when once thou hast turned again, stablish thy brethren'
(Lk. 2232, cp SIMON PETER, $ 155).

For all that has been said in the foregoing paragraphs
the most that can be claimed is that it proves the
possibility—the probability if you will
on visione —9Î the explanation from subjective

bypothesis. ‘iSions. From the very nature of the

yP case it would not be possible to prove
more, for the visionary character of the appearances
could not be established for us by the visionaries them-
selves—on the contrary, everything constrained them
to regard what they had seen as objective and real—-nor
yet by the reporters, who simply repeated what the
visionaries had related to them. Only scientifically
trained reporters could have assured us on the point,
and such reporters did not then exist. Let it be
expressly observed, however, that in the vision-hypo-
thesis it is only the judgment of the visionaries as to the
objective reality of what they had seen that is set aside;
every other biblical statement of fact, unless we have
been compelled to set it aside as inconsistent with some
other biblical statement, remains unaffected. The
hypothesis, furthermore, attributes no want of upright-
ness either to the visionary or to the reporter. The
error which it points out affects merely the husk—
namely that the risen Jesus was seen in objective
reality, but not the kernel of the matter, that Jesus
lives in the spiritual sense; thus it is an error, only in
the same relative sense as is the dogma that the Bible is
inspired in every letter (a dogma without the temporary
ascendancy of which the church of to-day would hardly
have existed), or in the same sense in which the anthro-
pomorphic view of God's being and his relation to
nature which possesses every child is an error—an error
but for which the number of grown-up persons of
unshaken religious conviction would indeed be small,

Reverting now once more to $ 1 and the ideas on
account of which it is held that the belief in a literal

38. Conclusion

resurrection cannot be given up, we remark that the

doctrine of the government of the church by Christ is
one that can give place without any religious loss to
that of the leading of the church by the spirit of Christ,
or, if it is desired to put it in a more personal form,
that of the government of the church by God. That

181 4085

the cause of Jesus did not die with him on the cross we
are assured by history, even if his resurrection did not
‘occur as a literal fact. It is undeniable that the church
was founded, not directly upon the fact of the resurrec-
tion of Jesus, but upon the belief in his resurrection ;
and this faith worked with equal power whether the
resurrection was an actual fact or not. The view of
Paul that, apart from the literal truth of the resurrection
of Jesus, there is no forgiveness of sins, has as its
necessary presupposition the dogma, not of Paul the
Christian but of Paul the Pharisee, that every crucified
person without exception is accursed of God ; as soon
as the possibility of a miscarriage of justice either in the
synedrium or at Pilate’s judgment seat is conceded, this
view eo ips0 falls to the ground. Finally, the view
that unless Jesus actually rose again the hope of the
final resurrection of the dead is vain would be a sound
one if this hope had consisted in the expectation that all
men were to rise three days after their respective deaths.
In its actual form, as hope of the resurrection at the last
day, it would come to be denied, in so far as an
event happening in the case of Jesus 15 concerned, only
if Jesus himself were to continue in the state of death at
the last day. In so far, however, as the idea of the
immortality of the soul takes the place of the hope of a
final resurrection—as in modern times is very extensively
the case—it ceases to be a matter of fundamental
importance whether Jesus rose again on the third day,
or not; for immortality consists only in a continued
existence of the soul, and that from the moment of the
death of the body onwards, and is just as incapable of
being confirmed or made known by a resurrection of the
body as of being called in question by the absence of a
resurrection. If immortality could thus be confirmed or
made known, that must have been possible on the first
and the second day after death, for immortality was then
present, For that time, however, resurrection is ex-
cluded by presupposition.
Prins, De realiteit van's Heeven ofpstanding, 1861, and
{against Prins) Straatman, De realiteit van’s Heeren opstanding
. νον en hareverdedîgers, 1862; Paul, ΖΗ,
39. Literature. 1863, 182-209, 279-311; 1864, 82-95, 396-408
and (against Paul) Strauss, ἐδέα. 1863, 386-
400; Gebhardt, Die Au/e>stehung Christi und ihre nenesten
Gegner, 1864; Steude, Die Auferstehung Jesu, 1888, and with
more scientific thoroughness in Sf. X7., 1887, 203-295 (see above,
ἢ 36 e); Robrbach, Der Schluss des Marcusevangeliums, 1894,
and Die Berichie iiber die Auferstehung Jesu, 1898; Eck,
* Bedeutung der Auferstehung Jesu fiir die Urgemeinde u. fiir
uns' in Wefte zur Christlichen Welt, No. 32, 1898; Loofs,
‘Die Auferstehungsberichte u. ihr Werth,' i6i4. No. 33, 1898;
Briickner, ‘Die Berichte tiber die Auferstebung Jesu "in Prof.
Monatshefte, 899, “τη, 96-110, 153-160, Amongst the writings
on the life of Jesus see Strauss, Keim, Weiss, Beyschlag (vol. ἢ}
and, quite specially, Brandt, Zvang. Gesch., 1893, 305-446,

517.
TTI bulk: of English work upon this subject (of which the
more useful or significant portions are indicated în the sub-
joined paragraphs by an asterisk) falls into one or other of two
classes: (2) one dealing primarily with historical and theo-
logical appreciations of the fact or truth in question; (6) the
other sensitive, în the fisst instance, τὸ the features of the record
and the historical evidence. Owing to the backwardness and
inefficiency of English criticism upon the synoplic question,
and the consequent paucity of scientific work upon Mt. and Lk.
especially (upon Lk. 24 note the strangely parallel story in
Plutarch: Μέδ, Lom. 28), the latter class of writings is as yet în-
adequately represented, being conspicuous for open-mindedness
(in cs better representative) rather than for thoroughness, and
more successful în criticising the weak points of opposing
theories than în constructing a satisfactory and tenable hypo:
thesis which might do justice to the complex of facts under
review. Cp Froude's Short Studies, 1229 /.

(@) The conservative side is represented by a long series of
writings, whose weakness consists mainly in the preponderance
of the dogmatic over the historical element or în literalism. ΟΥ̓
these the following are the more salient:—F. Ὁ, Maurice"
Theot. Essays (8); Westcott's /ntrod. to Study of Gospels
(© 1881), 333-941) ΤΑΙ Gosp. 67 the Resumr, The Historic
Faith (chap. 6), and Y%e Revelation ef the Risen Lord;
*Milligan’s exhaustive and theological 7ὰ: Resurr. of ox
Lord (0) 1894), and The Ascension and Heavenly Priesthood
of cur Lord, 1892; *M‘Cheyne Edgar' vigorons Gosp. 0/ the
Risen Saviour, 1892, pp. 21-135: È. A. ον The Jesus of
the Evangelists, 1868, pp, 262 7 (critique of mythical theories):
1. Kennedys sutvey in 7'ke Resurr. efouy Lord an historical
Fack, with examination of naturalistic hypotheses, 188%}

4086

REU

Latham's curious volume 714 Aisex Master, 1900; and Orr's
Christian View of God and the World, 1893, Lect. 6, n. Ὁ,
Simitarly, but with special bearing upon the narratives as part
of the biography of Jesus:—* Eairbainms S/udies ἐκ the LE of
Christ, 1881, chap. 18; G, H, Gilbert's Sfrdents' Lie af Jess,
1898, pp. 385-405; besides the Lives of Christ by Farrar, Eder
sheim, End E 1. Andrews (ed. 1892, pp. 589). The subject is
competently handled also, though from a more strictly philo-
sophicai and doctrinal standpoint, by *Newman Smyth (04#
Faitks in New Light, chap, 8); *D, W. Forrest (The Christ
of Hist. and Experience, 1897, Lect, 4 critique of visione
hypothesis); ἢ, Ἢ. Hutton (7%eo. £ssays,@® 1888, pp.
131 Δ): È. Griffith. Jones (ΤᾺΣ Ascent through Christ
1900, PP. 337-359); H. G. Weston (Zisliot4, Sacra, 1900,
PP. 356-265) and Lo 8, Potvin (bid, 1800, pp. 177-190); also

y s Denney (The Death of Christ, 1902, pp. 664 767. 121-
123).

At the opposite pole of radical criticism, the most noteworthy
works along this line are *R, W. Macan's 7.4 Resurrection of
Zesus Christ, the contributions of Dr. E. A. Abbott (cp P4:0-
Christus, Onesimus, and Through Nature to Christ, 1837,
chap. 21), and Martineau's Seat af Authority în Religion
@ 1890), 363/45, 481, 632/ besides the writirigs t0 be cited

elow.

(ὦ Examinations of early Christian evidence, and particularly
of the gospel narratives (with that of the ascension, Acts 1 sr),
from a fairly free but reverent standpoint may be found in
AR. Bruces διεβου, Ck, Test, vol. e (©), 1901), 330 643, Li
G. Li Cary's scholarly SymoAtic Gosp. (Internat. Handbks. to
NT, vol. i., 1900), #$ 198-202; 1}. Estlin Carpenter's First
Three Gosp. (8, 1890), 319.5, 368 5; A. C. McGiffert's Apost.
Age, 1897, pp. 36-44, 55/, and .]. V. Barilet'e Apost. Age,
1900, pp. το; See, further, Blair's Afosf. (σε, (372-385) on
the conclusion of Mk., with the editions by Swete and Allan
Menzies, Moffatt's Mist. New Testament (@), 1901), pp. 550-553
(on Mk. 169-20), 647-649 (on Mt, and Lk.), 694-696 (on Jn, 20-21),
and A. Réville's article in New Ward, 1894, pp. 498-547, The
distiactive aim of such contributions is to investigate net simply
the verbal contents of the narratives in question, but also theîr
mental and religious presuppositions ; to get behind the stories
into the world of their first hearers, with their beliefs and hopes,
Extreme forms of this critical hypothesis are variously repre:
senred în such works as *W. Mackintosh's Nat. Z/isÌ. of the
Christian Religion, 1694, pp. 259-328 (mythical theory), *St per
natural Religion, 8, 1877, Ὁ. 3087. (in which, as in the follow»
ing book, the problem is handled drastically, but uncriticaliy
isolated), le ἔσαν GOp. as Historical Recprds, 1805, PP. 451;
and Ὁ. Cone, 7'he Gosp. and its Farliest Interpretations, 1803,
pp. 121/, 2007, none of which, however, can be proncunced
entirely satisfaciory, either in method or in results, See
further 8, Davidson's NY /nfrod.A (3894)8 367% The opposite
side in pirasaatly but ineffegtively advocated by writers like
Purves (Christianity în Afostolie Age, 1900, 9-15) and Sanday
(Hastings' DA 2628643), while it is defended with a really
critical grasp of the problem and jts bearings by “Swete
(Apostles' Creed, 1894, p. 64/), *A. B. Bruce (Adolagetics,
1892, pp. 383-397), Schaittist δ᾿ Chiirck, Vegas, *Denney
(art. ‘Ascension’ in Hastings” D8 1161-162), and *Prof. S,
MceComb (£x505.18) 4 350-363, a critique of ET ef Harnack's
Wesen); see also *Knowling: The Witness of the Epistles,
1892, pp. 365-396, 397-414 (ascension); A. Hovey (Amer. Journ.
Thsol., 1900, pp. 536-554, a critique of Stapfer); W. F, Adeney
(Ex05,6) 8 137-146, a critique of Weizsàcker): N. J. D. WI
{‘Appearances of Risen Lord to Individuals, τος. (δὶ 10 66-74),
and È. R. Beard (‘The Value of the Ascension: Αἰ τ. ἦν
1900-1901, pp. 152-155, and in Hastings 248 4234), Despite
exaggerated staiements upon both sides, recent English discus»
sions display a growing sense that there is a serious problem
to be faced in the condition of the historical records, and that
exegesis has a vivid if subsidiary part to play in its solution.
This is a sign of health, if only that the demands of the public
are becoming more exigent ; but no advance can ba looked for
until English students are furnished with a scientific equipment
in the shape of thoroughly critical editions of the gospels, as
well as with monographs combining historical judgment and
sound scholarship with some philosophic and religious appreci»
ation of the subject.—j. Mo} P. W. 5.

REU (1); paravy) Ὁ. Peleg, a name occurring in
the genealogical table connecting Shem and Abraham
(Gen. 1118-21 [P], 1 Ch. las; cp Lk.335, AV Ragau).
An Arameean tribe bearing the name ὄν μα appear in
S. Babylonia în the time of Tiglath-pileser III (Schr,
KG£ 105f; KAT® 117; Del. Par. 2387); but
théir identification with Reu is denied by Schr. (ἦσο, cé2.).
The name, in common with the others in the same list,
is probably Mesopotamian, and we may possibly find
a trace of it in SZ, one of the kings of Edessa,
which is doubtless for ‘man of Re'u.' a formation
parallel to the Heb. bymar (cp Duval, ‘ Hist. d'Édesse,’
Zourn. Astat.,, 1891, 18126). Ret may have been an
old Mesopotamian god {Mez, Gesc&. der Stadt Harran,
23). Cp REUBEN, 88 gili., 10. F. B

4987

ΒΒΌΒΕΝ

REUBEN
Mention ($ 1). Other stories ($ 6),
A lost tribe (ᾷ 2), Name (8$ 7-9).

First-born ($ 3).
Bilhah, Bohan (8 4).
‘Altar’ story (8 5).

Meaning of stories ($ 10).
Genealogies (88 11-12),
Lists of cities (ἢ 14).

Reuben 1 is repeatediy mentioned in the Hexateuch
as a branch of Israel. Itis often associated with Gad,
; and is known to each of the documents
1. Mention. nderlying the Hexateuch. The reader
naturally infers that the writers of those documents had
knowledge of such a community, He may indeed think
it prudent to test the legitimacy of that inference, when
he misses references elsewhere in the Hebrew writings,
Still, the argumentum e silentio must be used with great
care.? The facts seem to be these. Outside of the fixed
tribal lists (in Chron., Ezek., and, in the NT, în Rev,)
and the Chronicler's genealogies,* Reuben is known,
apart from an at best anachronistie gloss in 2 K,1033
(descriptive of the district harassed by Hazael), through
the mention in the enumeration in Judg. 5 {v. 15 1},
That chapter contains very old material and few will
question its authority even when ît stands alone. Only,
however, if we are sure that the passage says what the
poet meant it to say. ‘That, however, does not
appear to have been questioned, so far as the mention
of Reuben is concerned.* Discussion has been con-
fined to the question, where the mention appearing
after 154 and again, în a slightly variant form,
after 162 really belongs. Still, is not the simplest exr
planation of the double occurrence, that the clause is
really a gloss? Other difficulties would thus be removed.
It always seemed strange that so remote a community
as the traditional Reuben should be mentioned by name.
To speak of Gilead în general, on the other band,
without naming tribes, would be natural Later,
Gilead δ would be taken to mean Gad, whilst Machir
was perhaps referred to ‘half-Manasseh’ and so a
reference of some kind or other would be made on the
margin to Reuben. If It be thought that probability is
in favour of the reference In Judg. 5 being contemporary
evidence,” the problem before us is to determine where
Reuben lived and to explain the fact that in historical
times Reuben had no significance. If the other view is
taken, the probiem is to account for the references in
the Hexateuch.
A survey of the references (in the Hexateuch} to
Reuben suggests that the solid element in them all is
the belief that there once was an important .
2A 108% community calted Reuben and that for some
tribe. reason it had lost îts piace; it was a sort of
Ad or Tham@d. It is usually supposed that tradition
preserved the memory of a more or less definite geo-
graphica] district occupied by Reubenites. It may have
done so. ‘The evidences of such a tradition, however,
are far from copious. Most of what we are told about
a territory of Reuben is in Ὁ (Dt. 812 16 443 Josh. 13
8-12) and P {much of Nu. 32 Josh. 1315-23 208 2136/}
and cannot safely be used for the present purpose (see
$ 14). There seems to be only one passage (Nu. 32

1 On the name see below: on the form, 88; on OT explana-
tions, ξ 75 on real meaning, ἢ 9. 7

% Special caution is needed in regard to questions bearing on
the tribes.

3 On the statements în 1 Ch, 5 see $ 13. On 1 Ch, 1145 seo
613 nd

4 Winckler has suggested that ‘Asher’ is not a tribe name
but a pronoun (“YN), and that ‘Dan’ was not mentioned
originally (G/2.134, no. 26/9).

6 O course Reuten may bave been settled In West Palestine
at the time referred to (see next note); but the pastora! character
assigned to the tribe in the clause probably shows that its author
thought of the East (cp Gan, $ 11, first small type μετ). 6

8 Steuernagel suggests (Ztnwarderung, 20) that the mention
of Gilead, not Repben, in 2. 174 may be because Reuben was
still seated in W. Palestine (see below, $ 10).

7 It would not decide the question where Reuben lived (see
preceding two notes),

4088

REUBEN

37£.) which can perhaps be attributed to J (see, how-
ever, Oaf. Hex.) All it has to say is that certain six
(Moabite) towns were, în the Mosaic age(?) ‘built’ by
the sons of Reuben (sce below, $ 14). ‘The absence of
any reference to a people called Reuben in the Mesha
inscription although it mentions three of the six towns
and refers to ‘the men of Gad” as having ‘dwelt in the
land of ‘Atàroth from of old {pbyn)' scems to require us
to suppose that the statement of 1, if not unhistorical,
rests on a memory of days long gone. That there was
a firm belief in an ancient Reuben is, indeed, clear.
The point is that it need not imply a knowledge of
where it had been settled, In Gen, 35217 ] seems to
connect Reuben with West Palestine (see $ 4), and even
in P there seems to be a trace of a belief of the same
kind (Josh. 186 1817 $ 4), which may be represented
in the strange story of the ‘altar' (8 5), and in the idea
that Reuben crossed into West Palestine to help the
other tribes to effect a settlement (cp GAD, col. 1585).
Whatever was thought of the place where Reuben
had lived, a great deal of interest was felt in hiîs fate
è {cp $ 10). Reuben is everywhere the
8. First-horm. coi a end of 8). In E indeed
there was perhaps an interval of considerable length
between him and Leah's other sons: Naphtali seems
to be for E Jacob's third son (cp NAPHTALI, $ 2).
Whether this was so in the original ] we cannot say :
it would account for Reuben's being the finder of the
ἀπαάα᾽ τι (i.),1 which E does not mention. In Jas we
have it, however, Reuben has three own brothers when
he finds the 4244722 which lead to the birth of Joseph 3
{cp ZEBULUN), ‘The only tale E has to tell about
Reuben is of how he tried to deliver Joseph? (Gen.
37 22 29), and reminded his brothers of the fact (4222;
ste below, $ το, end), and how he offered his own two
sons {cp $ 11) as a pledge of the safe return of Benjamin.
The most significant point in all this is that Reuben was
the first-born. On that point there seems to be com-
plete agreement. The problem is discussed in 1 Ch.
517 The view of the writer of that passage îs that
Reuben forfeited his right (as first-born) to the special
blessing, which fell to Joseph, who”thus became two
tribes, although his rival Judah 4 ultimately outdid him.
The rest of the points may belong to the decking out
of the story (see, however, below, $ 10, end).
Not so in the case of what J has to tell us in Gen.
3522. No doubt the story was once told with more
detail® (Test Reub. 3, and /ubilees,
4 Bilhah, Bohan. g 13. show how it could be done).”
This story seems to be J's explanation of how Reuben
lost his rank. What Jacob did when he heard* of

1 According to Stucken (‘ Ruben im Jakobssegen' in AVG
for 1902, 4 46:72, which appeared after this article was in type)
the finding of the 444° was ascribed to Reuben as a patri-
archal eponym on a level with Jacob. Later syncretism made
him Jacob's son.

2 Steuernagel suggests (Zinwanderzg, 17) that in the
original story what Reuben did was not to make over the dida ie
to Leah but to use them to win the favour of Rachel, or rather
Bilhah, whence Bohan (cp NarraLI, $ 1/5). This is very
fagenious, but does not explain the obvious relation of the
diida'in to Issachar and Joseph. According to Stucken (see
preceding note) Reuben's incest was with Leah herself, who
may at one time have heen called Bilhah.

3 It is probabile that in Gen, 37 21 (J) ‘ Reuben' is redactional
for Judah. See next note,

4 "In the Joseph story the leader is Judah in J, Reuben în E
(cp preceding foomnote); cp Steuernagel, Einmwanderung, 34

According to Guthe, GVZ 42, Reuben's hegemony belonged
τῷ the time preceding the settlement of the Rachel tribes (cp
Racuez, $ 1 4), Those tribes which acknowledged his leader-
ship were called Leah; the later (Rachel) tribes acknowledged
the hegemony of Josep
inst the suggestion of Dillmann and Stade (GYZ1 151)
ani story implies more primitive morals in the half-nomad
Reubenites, see Holzinger, ad ἦρε.

7 Later writers refused’ to believe the story (cp the case of
ΒΊΜΕΟΝ [8 95, end : see also $ 41). In Targum (Ps.-Jon. ad oc.),
Midrash (Ger. rada 98 4), Talmud (δα αόδ, 55 6), and Bk. of
Jashar, Reuben on, disturbed a couch (cp Charles, /udi/ees,
È 33,0 a and #31

"Thirough angels, according to Test. Rewd.

4089

REUBEN

Reuben's deed has been suppressed by R.1 It can be
inferred, however, from the ‘ Blessing of Jacob': 2
Reuben ! thou wast my first-born
My might and the first-fruits of my manhood;
Exceeding în impettosity,é exceeding în passion ἢ
Foaming like water . . . 4
For thou didst ascend thy father*s couch.
Then did I curse the bed# he ascended.6
Even without Gunkel's emendation of the last line it is
plain that the sequel to Gen. 3522 was a father's curse,?
which brought doom on the tribe (cp BLESSINGS AND
CuRsINGSs). The effect becomes still more clear in the
‘ Blessing of Moses’
Let Reuben live (on), let him not die (out)!
Still, let him 8 become a (mere) handful of men!9
The story of Bohan the son of Reuben may have
been connected with the same legend (cp NAPHTALI,
col. 3330 foot). We ought perhaps, however, to /rars-
late the word 'bohan.’ The landmark would then be
the thumb-stone19 of the son (or sons [@8% in Josh. 1817])
οἵ Reuben, The suggestion made elsewhere {col. 535
4), however, is perhaps better: the suggestion, namely,
that there is a slight corruption of the text, and that we
ought to read: stone of the sons of Reuben (3 ja&
181: reading +3 for 12m, as 1πὰ might be a trans-
posed mo="2).
The reading of 6551. in Josh. 1817 would support this
view. In its favour is the ease with which it could be
brought into connection with a story
δ. Tosh 22 which is otherwise perplexing. The stone
*. {or was it really a group of stones?) in
question was near ‘ Geliloth” (Josh. 1817: see GILGAL,
$ 6 δ). Now it was at the ‘Geliloth’ of the Jordan
that, we are told, there was erected a sacred object to
which was given a name that has been lost (see ED,
GALEED, 2). The present text of Josh. 22 leaves it
uncertair on which side of Jordan the sacred erection
stood, and it ascribes the building to Reuben and Gad
(and half Manasseh ἢ). Perhaps Gad is an addition!
connected with the view that the stone was east of the
Jordan. No doubt the object was not an ‘altar,' but a
massébah ora circle of stones (see GILGAL, $ τῇ, and
the story 1? may be connected in some way with an
attempt to account for the loss of Reuben's status.!*
The suggestion just made gains, perhaps, in plausi-
bility from the fact that in E, and probably 1, there is
amother story that may have served the same purpose
(next 8).
In the older parts of Nu. 16 the leaders of Reuben
(see below, $ 10) dare to challenge the authority of
6. Otner Moses and thus bring divine judgment on
stories. themselves. It is even possible that there
» was still another story of the same kind {see
below, $ 10 [r]). ‘These stories, as they attribute to

1 According to Stucken (above, col. 4089, n. 1) various
analogies suggest that Israel castrated Reuben for his crime
(eye for eve, etc.'), 53.

2 On this passage see n. 5.

3 Read perhaps N&# with Cunkel.

4 MT Oria 58, obscure ; see Stucken, MPG, 1902, p. 171.
5 Read perhaps “puo “pbbo with Gunkel. For some interest»

ing suggestions as to the original purport of the passage see
Stucken (as in col, 4089, n. 1), 46-52.

6 According to /w%i/ees, $ 887 9, and Test. Reub., Bilhah
became taboo to Jacob henceforth.

7 Gunkel compares /Z2d, 9.447,77. (Amyntor's curse [45571]

on his son Phoinix for a deed similar to Reuben' 8).

8 On the reference of this to Simeon în AL see Simon, $ 3.

9 Cp Ball, PSBA 18122 (1895): “np ‘no.

10 In Assyrian there is no conscious metaphor in the use of
abanu in this way.

Il Cp Oi ΕΤΟΥΣ ΤῬελειλώθ. τόπος παρὰ τὸν Ἰορδάνην, ἔνθα
ϑυσιαστήριον ἔστησα» οἱ υἱοὶ Ῥουβίν.

ΟΝ the geographical import of this and the preceding story
see $ το.

13 Does the story in Josh. 22 contain a reference to the name

Reuben i see 2, 28 MI NOTO ΠΌΠΗΓΌΝ ἸΝῚ GEO... [ta]bolith])
and τ. τὸ netob ... Sia ΠΗ nas (wayyilbni ...
{lema]r'a)?

4090

REUBEN

Reuben an importance which there is nothing in history
to suggest, may be due to a tradition of conflict between
some representative Israelitish clan and a Reubenite
community. On the other hand, they may be simply
popular or other stories designed to explain the sup-
posed collapse of a Reuben people.

The real cause of Reuben's disappearance may have
been the inroad of Moab, which was perhaps not so
early as to prevent a vague memory of what had pre-
ceded from surviving (see GAD, $ 11, col. 1585, mid. and
cp MOABR, $ 14, col. 3174, foot). On the other hand,
there is the possibility that Reuben's abode was not
really in the east. We have found several hints of a
belief that Reuben had been west of the Jordan (see
further, below, $ το), to which we shall return ($ 10) in
the light of the considerations suggested by a study of
Reuben's name.

‘The meaning of the name Reuben is not apparent.
There seem to be traces of more than one explanation.

i. J (Gen. 29320) takes it to mean

TOT esplana- ‘vahwè looks at my afiliction’ and

" finds in it a reference to what Leah

had had to bear as the hated wife (mini; Ὁ. 33: see

Gunkel ad Zac. ). ii. E (Gen. 29325), on the other hand,

sees a reference to some point in the conduct of Jacob :
“my husband will . . . me."

MT reads ‘will Zoe me'; but it is difficult to believe that
this is sound. The versions, indeed, agree (ἀγαπήσει, amabit;
nertiare [Pesh.]) with ΜΈΣ but so sight a chinge weuld malko
the word chime with Reuben (1amp*: qa) that it is natural to
suppose that it must have done so.l Gunkel suggests as the
original a word cognate with the Aramaic ΤῊΝ, ‘to praise.
‘The Reubenites are in the traditions so hard to distinguish from
the Gadites that E may well have connected with the name
Reuben a wish like that expressed in Dt. 3320 (11 2:1) with
regard to Gad : “he will make me spread forth'; or, since the
subject is ‘husband’ not ‘Yahwè,' might we give the word its
Arabic meaning and render ‘welcome me’?2

iii. Josephus explains Roubel, Ρουβηλος (4x6 î. 197),
his form of the name {see $ 8), by saying that Leah felt
she had experienced the mercy of God (διότι κατ᾽ ἔλεον
αὐτῇ τοῦ θεοῦ γένοιτο). 5

It is not certain what the last consonant of the name
is.
ba Form The traditionalformsare}338%; pov@nw[BADEFL],

«Bee [Gen. 4222 37 ἘΠ, -βιμ [1 în 2/K.1033 Ch.; E
in Gen. 30 14], ρουβιν 1 Ch. 51 3 [L], Joseph. -βηλος, 47 3, 8 166
var. ρονβιμ; Syr. γηδιέ; Va. Ruben; gentilic Rewbonito
pan, in & not usually distinguished from the ‘ personal’ form,
but x Ch, 11 42 ρουβηνι [L], 2632 ραυβην[ε}. [ΒΑ], ΠΡ 391 ρου-
βηνῖται [A]; Josephus, οἱ ρουβηνίται, ἢ ρονβηλις φυλή.

The explanations adduced already ($ 7) imply that
the final consonant was early pronounced ‘as n; but
Hos.415 58 105 make it probable that in the case of
Bethel the which has established itself in the modern
local pronunciation (Zei#7} took the place of 7 early.4

The real origin of the name is unknown. i On the
view that the final letter was x, Baethgen (Zeif. 59,

Meani 1888} connects with the Arabic Rwba=
9, Meaning. pubat.is (CZZ 82415), comparing the end-
ing &n in Yarden (EV ‘Jordan'), and so, before him,
Land (De Gids, Oct. 1871, p. 21) who is reminded of
Arab. γα αὖ, The inscription, Glaser 302, from
Hadakan, speaks of a tribe 1385 (75. 4 no. 37,
Δ 5). sons of R'bn',5 vowels unknown. The comparison

1 On the other hand, we must remember that the old etymo-
logists were easily content (cp Gunkel).

The most obvious derivation ‘ Behold ! a son’ îs passed over :
names with imperatives (Olshaus. Le476. 613), common in
Assyrian, were probably not in use among the Hebrews (cp
Gray, HPN 65£). Gesen. thought of ‘inn in the sense of
‘ provided.’ Τῆς G/osse Colbertinae gives Ῥονβην, ὁρῶν vide
ΓΗ͂Ν OS).

3 Did he think of Sig “3 (3 of agent: cp Targ. Jon.
πον vm», * 2), or possibly db mim?

4 Cp Barth, δένρει Stud., $ 19.

5 Cp pan; ZDMG 28425 TSBA 6199.

6 A name occurring several times in the Turin papyrus as
borne by kings of the thirteenth Egyptian dynasty, a resemblance

4091

REUBEN

of the ἔπ in Yarden is not necessary. Reuben might be
a name on the analogy of Simron ($ 8 i.), GIDEON, etc.

Reuben would then be a case of the kind referred to
by Barth, 8, p. xxix, n. 1, in which the termination
instead of preserving its old vowel 4 {as in 3x/4ax ; not
$ulhon, to avoid concurrence of ‘rounded’ vowels)
changed it to δὶ (cp μεν instead of x%3b, for earlier
προ).

ii. Some also of the explanations assuming the last
consonant to be l take the name to be simple. Ball
derives it from the root r'b* which in Arabic means to
repair,8 comparing the noun τα Ὁ which is applied
metaphorically {Zamabfari, Ass acc. to Lane, but not
in Cairo ed.) to describe one as a rectifier of affairs.4

Lagarde suggested (OS 367 /)that Reuben, or
rather Re'Gbén, is to be identified with Ra'45#/ shortened
from Ra'abil, plural of Ri'bal, a lion (or wolf}. Ac-
cording to the ΤᾺ e/Arzs the ravabil of the Arabs
were those ‘who used to go on hostile expeditions upon
their feet [and alone],

According to Ibn Sida the Andalusian {3Me4Zam:8)
‘some say that ri'bàl means also one who is the only
offspring of his mother” [z.e. opp. of twin: el-Bustani].'8
Another suggested origin is ‘ Jerahmeel -(JUDAH, $ 3);
cp REU [see Ογέξ, 2/0.].

ili. Others hold the name to be compound. (2) The
first element is taken by older writers to be τό ἃ in the
sense of ‘face’ {Kohler, Der Segen Jacobs, 27 [1867];
Kue. 7%. 75291 [1871]), or 78° in the sense of * flock ‘
{Redslob, Die A Tlichen Namen, etc., 86 [1846]; by
later writers to be ré'ù* in the sense of ‘ friend’ (Kerber,
Die Rel.-gesch. Bedeutung der Heb.-Eigennamen des
AT, 70) or rather as a divine name!9 (see below,
$ ro). (6) The second half was identified by Nestle
(/srael. Eigennamen, 1876) with Bin (=Bir, Bur), by
others (Redslob, 1846; Kéhler, 1867; Kue., 1871;
Houtsma, 1876; Wi., ΟἿ 1rzo n. 2) with Bel.

The theory that Reubel contains the names Reu and
Bel seems to merit consideration. A parallel forma-
tion!! is the name Reu-el.!2 When one
remembers the peculiar mystification that
has occurred in connection with the names
Hobal Jethro || Reuel one is led to ask, May not there
be some connection between Reu-el and Reu-bel?!3
There is, in fact, notwithstanding the difference in the
tone of the narratives, a strange parallelism between the
critical attitude adopted towards Moses by Reu-bel in
the earlier story in Nu. 16 and that adopted by Moses'

10. Meaning
of stories.

to which has been noticed (e.g., by C. Niebuhr, κόρ. Zeifgesch.
25011894], and, withont approval, by Ball, £402"[:896}) cannot
plausibly be connected with Renben : it is of course a personal
name, and is doubtless to be read Wbn-re' (‘rising of Rè‘'), not
Ra-uben.

1 After this article was finished the writer noticed that Barth
himself makes this very suggestion (22 320, end of long note)
with the same examples.

2 Cp the personal name ὈΝΞΝῚ în the inscription from Std,
Hal. 353, / 1.

3 The advent of Reuben was to reconcile Jacob to Leah.

4 It is τὸ 72%, not, as Ball seems to imply, to γα κό, that the
metaphorical meaning of ‘big, bulky, portly, or corpulent chief*
is assigned in the Kd4x%s and the 7.17 εἰ." Αρτῖσ.

5 He compares Aroer, plural of ‘Ar'ar (cp above, col. 317, n. 1).

8 Quoted by Lane, ad vec.

7 pian taliduhu umneuhu waldahu.

8 Reuben was the first-born of Leah. Rebecca had twins.

9 On the softening of gutturals when » or /occurs in the same
word see Wi. AOF1 287, G/ 12r0 n. 4, 120, n. 2.

10 Cp Duval, Rev. As. 8th Ser. 18 726 [1891]; A. Mez, Gesch.
d. Stadi Harrén 23 (1892). Cp the male proper name Ra--u
in one of the tablets containing deeds of sale, barter, and lease
with Phoemician dockets in 3 R. 46.14 d (no. 8, Δ 17). Rua is
the name of an Aramaic tribe mentioned in the clay tablet
inscription of Tiglath-pileser JII, 2 R.677, Ruv-u-a a tribe
mentioned twice in Sennacherib's clay prism 1 R. 37 44 41 36.

N Reu-bel and Reu-el were cited as similar tribe-names by
Houtsma, ‘Israél en Qain,’ 74.7 1092£ (1876). Cp Skipwith,
IQR11 247, 251 [1809].

2 Cp Jehi-el in τ Ch. 27 35.-- 5. 388. Ish [read y8%?: Mar.
quart, /OR 14 344 n. 1] -baal. .

13 The root an» (Jethro) occurs thrice în the “blessing' of
Reuben în Gen. 4937

4092

REUBEN

45then (inn; see JETARO, second paragraph) in Ex. 18 :
* What is this thing that thou doest to the people? Why
sittest thou thyself alone, and all the people stand about
thee from morning unto evening? . . , The thing that
thou doest is not good’ (Ex, 1814 17).

Whatever be thought of the particular parallelism
Just referred to and its bearing on the question of the
name Reuben, it is surely suggestive in regard to the
general Reuben-problem that we should have a com-
munity of no historical importance; but held to be the
first-born of Israel, into connection with which it is
possible to bring a whole series οἱ stories? differing
altogether in details, but coinciding in the fundamental
point of setting Reuben in some form in opposition to
the recognised representatives of Israel ;—

1. the criticism of Reuel (Ex. 18)

2. the discontent of the sons of Reubel (Nu. 16)

3. the stone[s] erected by Reubel (Josh. 22): cp stone of

Bohan

4. the ambition? of Reubel (Gen. 35 22)

5. the sacrilegious greed of Achar (Achan), if he was really a
Reubenite (see below, $ 12)

6, the disagreement between Reuben and the other sons of
Israel (at Dothan?),3 Gen. 4222 [E] [‘ye would not
listen ').4

We may even find a seventh story when we proceed
to consider the Reubenite genealogy $ (11).

These stories seem t0 imply a widespread conviction
of the occurrence at some time of a grave event or series
of events.® Such convictions are often due to actual
reminiscence of fact. It is possible even to go further
and reconstruct a history thus :—

The Nu. 16 story (on the details see DarHAN) implies, for
example, that Reuben disagrecd with its associates at Kadesh
and led îts party northwards into Palestine. The attribution of
Hezron and Carmi clans Loth to Reuben and to Judah (see $ 12)
means that Reuben settled W. of Jericho in contact with Judah.
The Bilhah story (8 5) means that the Jacob-Rachel tribe spread
southwards and had friendly relations with Reuben, but as
Benjamin branched off, absorbing such elements as Bilhah had
lef. (see NapsaLi, ἢ 1) when it migrated northwards, the
relations of Reuben towards Bilhah became less friendly, which
brought on Reuben a curse. The ‘altar' story (Josh.22) means
that the Josephites of Shechem took umbrage at the southern
Josephites (half Manasseh) for having a common sanctuary with
the Reubenites, and this anger was afterwards supposed to have
been against Reuben. The Dathan and Abiram story means that
the Reubenites on their part rebelled against certain pretensions
of the south-Josephite priests. Finally, Reuben crossed Jordan
and penetrated as a wedge into Gadite territory.® 1 Ch.221-23
means that the Reubenite clan Hezron subsequently united with
Gileadite clans to produce Segub the father of Jair (cp
Manasses, 1 $ 9, last small type).

The arguments for this reconstruction are set forth
with skill by Steuernagel (Ziwarderung). The result
is a priori plausible. Is there adequate warrant, how-
ever, for so high an estimate of the historical character
of the legends (cp B. Luther, ΖΑ͂ ΤῊ 1917 [1901];
Wi. OLZ 217 fi, KAT® 213, ete.)? The questions
involved are far-reaching and intricate, and are better
treated comprehensively than in relation to one particular
tribe (see TRIBES, and cp NAPHTALI, $ τ, begin.).
Here we may be content with the general conclusion that
a Reuben of some importance was believed to have

1 The fate of ‘Ad and Thamid seems to have appealed to the
imagination of Mohammed. Theyare referred to in the Korn,
together or apart, some twenty-one times. Cp the NT references
to Sodom.

2 Cp the cases of Abner, Absalom, and Adonijah.

8 Steuernagel supposes that some actual conflict between
Joseph and the Leah tribes occurred in the neighbourhood of
Dothan (Einwanderung, 97). Ifso, possibly Reuben sided with

Jose,

4 î seems to be only a further illustration of the extra-
ardinary confusion in the stories about Reuben that in the
earlier reference, which appears also to be in E, the brothers did
listen (Gen. 87 22/).

6 Stucken (above, col. 4089, n. τ) finds a mythologica! refer-
ence in the Reuben saying in Gen. 493, Reuben (ll Adam
1 Behemoth) was a being who once had world power but lost it.
He compares the description of Behemoth in Job 40 τό (p. 51),
and connects him with the sign Aquarius (p. 69). Otherwise
Wi. G/2 59.

6 On the question when this might have occurred see the
suggestion of Stenernagel (Zinsvanderxag, 20) that it may be
connected with x Ch, 5 10 (the Hagrites, temp. Saul),

4093

REUBEN

flourished sorre time, and the judgment that the belief
was probably justified.1

It must be remembered that if Reuben really lived
east of the Jordan there may have been many traditions
which failed τὸ find a place in the literature of Western
Palestine (cp Gab, $ 11), On the other hand, it will
not be surprising if additional reasons should be found
for connectinz Reuben with the southern tribes (cp
SIMEON, $ 8 Îi.).

Reuben was believed to have had two sons, In the
Joseph story ndeed he had 0r/y two (‘my two sons’

; Gen. 4237 [E]) ; and even there it is

11. Genealogies. the death te; ἘΝ two sons that is
thought of. In Nu.16 two sons of Reuben are buried
alive (1631 330, J; 324 336, E), They are called
Dathan 3 and Abiram ὃ (cp Ps. 10617 Dt.116). Dathan
is a strange name ὁ (reminding one of Dothan, the scene
of Reuben's argument : see above, $ 10, 6); but Abiram
we know as a first-born son who was said to have been
buried (alive?) in the foundation of a city. He is said
to have been a son of HIFL [g.v.] ‘ban’3, whereas in
Nu. 16 Abiram is a son of Eliab 25x ; but these (bam ‘a
and 9x8 2) are not impossible variants. Abiram's
brother is called Segub in MT of 1 K. 1634; but in 1 Ch.
221 f. the clan called Segub ben Hezron in MT is in
€? called Serug, which is in Gen. 11 20 a son of Reu (see
below, $ 12, end). The mention of Hezron brings us
to the stock genealogy of Reuben: Gen. 469= Nu. 266
12. InP Ξ ἔχ, 6r4=1 Ch. 53. Init there is, at least

u © at first sight, no trace of the famous two sons.
In their stead we find four names: Hanoch, Pallu,
Hezron, and Carmi. The first appears as a Midianite
clan in Gen. 254 (cp GAD, $ τι, last small type para-
graph), the second (gaX\ovs generally ; Jos. gaN[a]ovs)
appears in Nu. 161 as Peleth (φαλεθ [BAF]), which
suggests the Negeb (see PELETH); but (51 gives φαλεκ-
t.e., Peleg.5 ‘The third and fourth (Hezron and Carmi
appear also, as has been mentioned (8 ro), in a gene
alogy of Judah. In the case of Hezron that seems
certain ; although whether the inferences that have been
drawn from it are warranted is at least doubiful (cp
MANASSEH, $ 9, last small type, and above, $ ro, end).
The case of Carmi is less secure. In 1 Ch, 4: Carmi
may be a mistake for Caleb (We. Benz. ad /oc.), and
26/., orat least 27, is surely an interpolation. 27. might
just as well stand after 53. Οἱ the other hand, in Josh. 7,
although v. : may not be original, it is difficult to
account for Carmi in v. 18 unless there was known to be
a Carmi in Judah, or the story was originally told of
Reuben, not Judah, as Stenernagel suggests (Azn%wwan-
derung, p. 19 [e]).

As we have seen, Dt. 11 5 mentions a ‘son’ of Reuben
of the name of Eliab, who in Nu. 268% is introduced
into the genealogy as a son of Pallu.

1 Onthe possibility of a connection between the Leah tribes
and the Habiri see NAPHTALI, $ 3 (sec. par.), SIMEON, 8 6 ii.
ZEBULUN.

2 Josephus (Ax. iv.T 3, $ 166) reads daBau{ov].

8 Josephus (4x7. iv. 73, $ 166) adds Pallu ἰφαλαουε].

4 Da-atnu is a synonym of ferradu, ‘strong' (Del. Ass.
HWB τοῦ a, no. 36), and di-ta-nu is ‘ein[starkes) Thier
Shalmaneser's Black obelisk (/. 16r) mentions receiving tribute
from a certain Da-ta-na, of Hubuskia (towards Urmia).

5 The passage in Judg. 5 referred to above ( 1) accentuates a

strange parallelism between the Reubenites of the genealogies
and the Semites of Gen. 11 10 :—
Gen. 11 Reuben Judg.5

Eber (257) sap (Ὁ. 17)

Peleg (355) φαλεκ niabb (2. 15 ὅ, 169)

Reu (yi) Reu-bel Reu-bel

Serug (ame) Serug Ὁ. Hezron — mpup (©. 160)

(above, $ 11)
Abram Abiram (above, $ 11)

6 NEMUEL (g.2.), who appears in Nu. 269t as a third son
(the eldest) of Eliab, may come by mistake from τι 12, where he
is the eldest son of δ ήρεονε.

4094

REUBEN

Dt Ils Nu. 26 5-9
Reuben Renben
Pallu+3
Ἐμοῦ Eliab
Î J Î Ἷ 1
Dathan Abiram Nemuell Dathan Abiram

This (with omission of Nemuel!) seems to be the
scheme followed in Nu. 161, as we have it.? It appears
indeed to be complicated by Eliab and Peleth (for Pallu)
being treated as unconnected, and Peleth being given a
son ON [g.v.]; and this has been supposed to represent
the version of } (e.g., 0x/. Hex.).

Nu. 161 [as in MT]
Reuben

Pel mio
On

[ !
Dathan Abiram

Josephus, however, says nothing of On, which may

in Nu. 16: be due to a marginal variant?: the variant

represented by € which reads as usual Abiror for
Abiram (see, however, ON).

"The Chronicler has attached to the Reubenite

genealogy two appendices, one tracing the pedigree of a

certain BEERAH to an otherwise un-

13. Im1Chron. own Joel* {z Ch.54-6), the other

perhaps a variant form of the same list (Ὁ, 77): thus
Ὁ. 4 CA
Shemaiah ἃς ὃ Stema
Gog (n) νυ. 5 Azaz (115)
Shimei
v. 5 Micah
Reaiah
Baal (bp39) v. 3 Bela (pb)
r. 6 Beerah' 2. 7 {Zelchariah
Ὁ. 7 Jeiel

There is nothing to show what led the Chronicler to
connect these lists with Reuben (cp Gray, HPN 257 £),
unless it be the reference to Tiglath-pileser (cp 2 K
1529) and the geographical references in v. 9.f.

With Shemaiah, Shimei, Shema, and Zechariab may be com-
pared Shammva ben Zaccur, the name given to the Reubenite

spy’ (Nu. 134), and Eliezer ben Zichri, David's ruler (πάσαν
over the Reubenites (1 Ch. 27 16), On the natural omission of
a representative of Reuben from the list of dividers of western
Palestine, cp GAD, 1 $ 13 (last sentence). On the list containing
Adina5 ben Shiza® (1 Ch. 11 42) see Gray, 7/2.V 229/, and cp
Davin, $ r1 (8) ii.

Whether or not there was also a theory of a tribe

Reuben which entered Palestine by way of ihe Negeb,
τος the prevailing theory of the present
14 Geographical Hexateuch and related passages was
" that Reuben arrived in E. Palestine
from abroad, in close connection with Gad (g.v., $ τα).
The questions bearing on the real character,” origin, and
history of the population of E. Palestine are best con-
sidered elsewhere (GAD, 88 1-4). All that is necessary
here is to supplement what is said there (Gap, $ 12)
with regard to the geographical details given, in
indifference to each other, by the varicus Hexateuch
writers.

Of the nine towns asked for by Gad and Reuben in
Nu. 323 we are told in 8237 f. that the men of Reuben
[re]built the last five: HrsHRon, ELEALEH, SIBMAH
{called Sebam in τ. 3), NEBO, and Bron, with the

1 See n. 6 on previous column.

2 Cp Graf, Die Geschichilichen Biicher, 8g n.

8 ‘and -0n°—that is to say, ‘otherwise Abiroa.' Read:
Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab [and «onl, the son of
Paleth—Pallu, the son[s] of Reuben.

4 Kittel (SB07 [Heb.], 1895) follows Syr. and Arab. in
reading Carmi; but that may be an emendation (so Benzinger,
KHC, ad loc.).

È Perhaps late, cp ADIN; but cp also Jehoaddan.

6 Probably corrupt (BA σεχαλ, 8685 SHIZA.

7 Compare col. 4089 n. 6.

4995

i concubine of NAHOR (g.7.);

REZEPH

addition of KIRIATHAIM.! ΑΒ noticed above (8 2), ali
these six towns are Moabite in Is. 15, Jer. 48.

This list is, however, ignored by P in his enumeration (Josh.
208; cp Dt. 443, given by Moses) of the ‘cities of refuge’ and
(Josh, 21 36/=1 Ch. 678/ [e3£)) the ‘levitical' [Merari] cities

‘of the tribe of Reuben'(/3 προ): ΒΈΖεκ (city of refuge;
Bozrah în Jer. 48 24), Janaz (Jahzah in Jer. 4821), ΚΕΡΕΜΟΤῊ ἃ
(perhaps for Kiriathaim [mmp for bp] mentioned in Jer.
4823), and ΜΕΡΗΛΑΤῊ (Jer.4821); but He confines himself τὸ
cities assigned to Moab in Jer. 48.

In Josh, 1315-23 P_endeavours to define the territory

of Reuben.

He gives him, besides the levitical cities just. mentioned
(Jahaz, Mephaath, Kedemoth= Kiriathaim?), 440 cities said in
Nu.3234-36 to have bcen luilt by Gaz (Arcer, Dibon), one
assigned to Gad în Josh. 21 39, 1 Ch. 681 [66] (Heshbon}, four
assigned elsewhere τὸ Moab (MEDEEA, BamorH-BAAL, BETA-
BAAL-MEON, BETH-JESHIMOTH), and the following three:
ZeRETH-SHAHAR (only here), ASHDOTH-rISGAH (also Dt.), and
Betu-PEOR (the burial-place of Moses, and scene of the Dt.
discourses), but only one of the cities said in Νὰ. 8837 £ τὸ
have been built by Reuben (Sibmah).

The contradictions make it impossible to construct a

map. In general terms, however, what is claimed for
Reuben lies within what is claimed for GAD (9.2. $ 3).
See the map în Stade, GVZI1, facing p. 149. Cp
Steuernagel, Zinwarderung, τὸ (£.). H. W. H.

REUEL (5x119; paroyHA[BADEL]). τ᾿ The per-
sonification of a clan in Edomite and Arabian territory,
which, according to Winckler (G/ 1210), derived its
name from a divine name Re'u (= in n) be, Gen.
1613 and 1) in Snia, Reubel®? [true form of jan,
Reuben ?].. This explanation, however, is incomplete ;
both +35» and Sai are, judging from numerous
analogies in badly transmitted names, corruptions of
Sybny (Jerahme'el), and the same origin naturally
suggests itself for dimys (Reuel). See, however,
NAMES, 8 47, and cp REUBEN, 8 9. In the genea-
logical system Reuel is both a son of Esau by
Basemath {Gen. 364 τὸ 13 17 1 Ch.135 37) and the
father of Moses’ father-in-law Hobab, Nu. 1029 []],
where ' Midianite' should perhaps be ‘Kenite'* (Judg.
116 4τι). In Ex 918 (@A colop), | Renel' their father
is puzzling. On the principles of literary analysis of
documents we assume that Reuel is a harmonistie inser-
tion, Reuel being here represented by the redactor {R}
as father of Zipporah, in order that HoBaB [g.v.} and
JETHRO [g.v.] may both be brothers-in-law, For
consistency's sake the insertion ought also to have
been made in Ὁ. x6, where originally Hobab (J's name
for the father-in-law of Moses} must have stood.*

2. Father of EiasarH, a Gadite chief (Nu. 274 [P]). In
Nu. 114 also, & has ραγονηλ where MT has day3 (DevEL);
so too in 7 42 47 10 zo,

1A Bensacaite ἃ Ch.99). T.k.C

REUMAH (MPN; penpa [A]. -ma [DL]), the
Gen. 2224.

REVELATION, BOOK OF. See APoCALYPSE.

REZEPH (81; in Ki. pa@eic [BL], pa@ec [ΒΡ],
-e@ [A], in Is. ρᾶφεθ [BO®F], «erc [A], ec {RO*]),
mentioned by Assyrian envoys (temp. Hezekiah) among
other places destroyed by Sennacherib's predecessors,
(2 K.19x2 Is.3712). It is usually identified with the
(mf) Rasappa repeatedly mentioned in the cuneiform
inseriptions (cp Del. Zar. 297, Schr. Α΄ ΤΩ͂Ι 327),
and the name has been found in the Amarna Tablets
(Β ro), in a letter from Tarhundarau$ Arsapi to Amen-
hotep II. of Egypt. With this place we may identify

1 Perhaps the lists did not originally agree. Ririathaim
having in v. 37 the place occupied in 2. 3 by Sebam, Sibma is
in 2. 38 simply added at the end of the list.

2 Elsewhere only in Dt. 2:26, where it may be a corruption of
Kadesh : see KEDEMOTH.

3 Houtsma (74e0/. Τ τοῖν. 1092) also compares Reubel.
Hommel, however, reports a S. Arabian personal name by

4 So Bu., comm. on Judg. 1 τὸ Λ, who assumes the harmonising
of an editor.

δ In Gen, 253 @AE one of the sons of Dedan is called Reuel
δῦ has ρασου[ηλ].

4096

REZIA

the ρησαφα of Ptol. (515), and the mod. Ruséfa, 3% m.
SW. of Sura on the Euphrates, on the road leading
to Palmyra. We have no independent notice of the
destruction of Reseph, and this, together with certain
other suspicious phenomena, has led the present writer
to the supposition that, as most probably in many
other passages, th editor has been busy în reconstruci-
ing the geographical and historical background; d.e.,
that ‘ Gozan' has been put for ‘ Cushan' (the N. Arabian
Cush}, ‘ Reseph' for ‘ Sarephath,' ‘ Telassar' for ‘Tel
asshur” or ‘Tel-ashhur” (cp ASHAUR), ‘Arpad’ for
*Ephrath.' ΟΥ̓ the other names, ‘Haran’ {cp 1 Ch.
246), ‘Eden,’ ‘Hamath' (probably a /09z/ar distortion
of ‘Maacath’) need not be corrupi; they are good
N. Arabian border-names, familiar by tradition to
Judahite writers. SEPHARVAIM [9.v,] is made up of
Sephar (= Zarephath) and a fragment of ‘and Jerah-
meel'; ‘Hena’ and ‘Ivvah' also probably represent
the p/2ce-name ‘Jerahmeel,' uniess Ivvah has been mis-
written for cp ὅτ, 2 K. 1834. καὶ ποῦ (man) εἰσὲν
οἱ θεοὶ τῆς χώρας Σαμαρείας ; μὴ ἐξείλαντο τὴν Zap,
ἐκ χειρὸς μου; see SEPHARVAIM, and cp Crit. Bib.

The ironica! remarks of Winckler (4 7 Un. 40) and Benzinger
(Ken, 182) on the archzological learning of the late author of
è K.19 127, which was, however, thrown away on the hearers
of the supposed speech of the Assyrian envoys to Hezekiah, are
natural enough, if the accuracy of MT may be assumed. It is
probable, however, that even at a late date the people of Judah
would be able to appreciate historica? references bearing on

laces much nearer to them than Gozan, and Rezeph, and a
Mesopotamian Telasshur. ἘΚ C.

REZIA, ἘΝ Rizia (N°Y9, $ 28; ‘ Yahwé is gracious*
for Y9, or from some ethnic; paclelta [BAL]), in
a genealogy of ASHER (g.%., $ 4, ii}, 1 Ch. 739.

REZIN (ΣΙ; paaccwn, pacein [B in Is. 7],
paccewn [B in Is. 8], pacin [Aq., Sym., Th. in QM® in
Is.8]; Ass. Ra-sun-nu) If we take the MT as it
stands, it is evident that Rezin, king of Aram-damascus,
in alliance with Pekah of Israel, endeavotred to over:
throw Ahaz, king of fudah, and to enthrone ben-TAb'%1,
a creature of their own, în his stead. ‘To escape from
this danger, they applied for help to the Assyrian king
Tiglath-pileser (a K.16597 IST}.

To the present writer, however, it appears that there has
been another of those confasions which have made it so difficult
to retrace the true course of the history of Israci (see TABEAL).
The Aram of which Rezin was king was possibly not the
northern but a southern conntry of that name (see Crit 22.)
Critics have duly noticed that Is. 7Σ is realiy no part of the
biography of fsaîah, but borrowed from 2 165, and have
conjectured that the original opening of chap. 7 had become
illegible (see γε. Zs, 31). it is possible, however, that it was
omitted because it contained some definite historical statements
respecting the invaders which the redactor, from his imperfect
historical knowledge, could not understand. Ît is not even
certain that the king who is mentioned în the second place was
really Pekah, king of Israel. The present writer sees some
reason to think that both kings were N, Arabians, and that rhe
second king was confounded with Pekah, partly from a partial
resemblance of the names and partly because the traditional
father of each of them was called ‘ Remaliah,' which is a corrupt
form of ‘Jerahmeel’ (Che.). Ir was, however, certainly to
Tiglath-pileser (not to be confounded with Puî. [9.2.]) that
Rezin applied for help. In ls. 84 we should probably read,
* The riches of Cusham and the spoil of Shimron shall be carried
away before the king of Assyria” In 2 K.166 there is no
sufficient canse for emending ‘Aram’ into ‘Edom.’ It was a
matter of great importance to the southern ‘Arammites’ to
obtain command of a harbour. Hiram, king of Misrim (see
SoLomon, $ 34), was content to leave Ezion-geber nominally in
the hands of Solomon; but Rezin was not inclined to put any
trust in the Judahites,

See DAMASCUS, $ ro, ISRAEL, $ 32, and cp REZON.

T. K. C.

REZIN (@'Y): ρᾶσων [ΒΑ], -aacc. [L]). the name
of a post-exilic family of Nethinim, and therefore (see
NETHINIM), according to Cheyne's theory, N. Arabian
{cp such names as Sharlai [Ishmael}, Giddel {the
southern Gilead], Reaiah [Jerahmeel]}) ; Ezra 248= Neh.
Tso (paecwn [8], paacw [L])=1 Esd. 53: (λδιοᾶν
[B]. Zecan [A], ρᾶσων [L]), DAISAN, EV).

REZON (}îM, ‘prince?’ cp Sab. Nin, MI and ΠῚ,

4097

RHEGIUM

‘ruler’ [PRINCE, 13]; We. Z/eid.!? 59, n. τ, would
connect the name with the Ar. deity Add in such
Palmyrene compound names as }Y>M9*N [servant of R.];
but may it not be miswritten for }'X?), the founder of
a dynasty at Damascus, and a contemporary of Solomon
(1 K.1123 ecpwm [B], om. A, cp HEZION; razor
{Vg.]. Who Rezon was, is by no means clear from
our text (cp DAMASCUS, $ 7). Most regard him as a
northern Arameean,

Rezon is called, however, son of Eliada, which îs a Hebrew
name, and Winckler's way of accounting for this (see ELIADA, 3)
is improbable. ‘reating the subject in connection with ZosaH,
g.0.Ì, we may venture to conjecture that he was probably a
N. Arabian, and that his father's name, like ‘Jedi'a"el’ is a
modification of ‘Jerahme’'el.' lt was from the king not of
Zobah but of Missor (Musri) that Rezon fled, and the capita] of
the zealm which he founded was not Damascus, but Cusham
(cp Prorart, ὃ 37). We may presume that he was an ally of
Hadad, who was also an ‘adversary’ to Solomon, and appears
to have been king, not of Edom, but of Aram—z.e., Jerahmeel.
The geographical boundaries of these neighbouring kingdoms
we cannot determine ; but they were close to the Negeb, which
Solomon (see SoLomon, 8 7) appears to have succeeded in
retaining. Probably they were both vassals of the natural
overlord of that region—the king of Missur, whose daughter
became Solomon's wife. Cp, however, Winckler, G/2272,
AAT) 240. 1. Κι C.

RBEGIUM (purion, Acts 2813), A town on the
Italian coast, at the southern entrance of the straits of
Messina (mod. Reggio).

The name (='breach ') was generally supposed to bear refer.
ence to the idca that earthquakes or che long-continued action
of the sea had broken asunder or breached the land-bridge
between Italy and Sicily (Strabo, 258; Diod. Sic. 485), The
Latin form of the name, Regium, gave rise to an absurd alterna»
tive derivation (Strabo, ἐς,

The town was an offshoot of the Chalcidians settled
on the other side of the strait, in Messana (for a sketch
of its early history, see Sirabo, 257). Its position on
the strait made it very important, for the direct distance
to Messana is only abotit six geographica] miles, and
under Anaxilas (about 494 B.C.} the two cities were
united under one scepfre. Although the Syracusan
fyrant Dionysius I. totally destfoyed the town, so
important ἃ site could not long ἢς desolate, and it was
repeopled by his son and suecessor. During the
Hannibalic war Rhegium remained loyal to Rome and
materially contributed to Hammnibal's ultimate defeat by
eutting off his communications with Africa. After the
Social war it became a Roman municipium like the
other Greek cities of southern Italy. During the war
between Octavian and Sextus Pompeîus (38-36 B.C.),
Rhegium was often the Headquarters of Octavian's forces
(Dio Cass. 4814); and, by way of reward, its population
was increased by the addition of a body of time-expired
marines (Strabo, 239), and it assumed the name RAegium
Zulium (Oral. /nscr. 3838). About Paul's time it was
a populous and prosperous place, still preserving many
traces of its Heltenic origin {Strabo, 253). It continued
to exist as a considerable city throughout the period of
the empire (Plin. 86), It was the terminus of the road
which ran from Capua to the straîts (the Via Popilia,
made in 134 B.C.).

The ship in which Paul sailed kad some difficulty
in reaching Rhegium from Syracuse (Acts 2813, περὶ-
eA06vres,! ‘by tacking"; AV ‘we fetched a compass,'
ἘΝ, ‘made a circuit’), as the wind did not lie favour-
ably. At Rhegium she remained one day waiting for a
wind for the narrow passage through which for want of
sea-room a large ship could not easily work by tacking.?
‘The run with the S. wind northwards to Puteoli {about
180 τῇ. disfant) would take about twenty-six hours (cp
n.13, δευτεραῖοι ἤλθαμεν).

With the stages of Paul's journey as given here we may
compare that of Titus, afterwards Emperor, in 70 A.D. (Sue.

\ 1 So to be read în preference to περιελόντες WH, ‘casting
loose.

2 For the difficulties of the straits, see Thuc. 424, podfns
οὖσα εἰκότως χαλεπὴ ἐνομίσθη; Paus. v. 252, ἔστι γὰρ δὴ ἡ κατὰ
φοῦτον θάλασσα τὸν πορϑμὸν θαλάσσης Ἀειμεριωτάτη πάσης,
where also he gives the explanation of this characteristie.

4098

RHESA

Tit. 5,Quare festinans în Italiam, cum Regium, dein Puteolos
oneraria nave appulisset, Roman inde contendit 9.

Www.
RHESA (puca, Ti. WH), a name in the genealogy
of Jesus; Lk.327. See GENEALOGIES ii., $ 3.

RHINOCEROT (15, 347, ΑΚ πε"), See UNICORN.

RHODA (ρολη, Ti.WH), the name! of the maid
{πδιλιοκηὴ who answered the door when Peter knacked,
Acts 12r3t. ἴῃ one of the lists of ‘the seventy' it is
stated that Mark had a sister called Rhoda (see Lipsius,
Apokr. Ap.-Gesch., Erginzungsheft, 22).

RHODES (poAoc), a large and important island,
lying in the south-eastern AÉgean (the part called the
Carpathian Sea), about 12 m. distant from the coast of
Asia Minor; mentioned only incidently în the N'T (Acts
211). After leaving Cos, the ship in which Paul
voyaged to Palestine from Macedonia touched at
Rhodes, which was apparently her last port of call before
Patara, where Paul transhipped. The same name was
applied both to the island and its capital; but probably
the latter is meant in this place. It stood at the
northern extremity of the island, where a long point
runs out towards Caria. The city possessed two chief
harbours, both on the eastern side of the promontory.
The foundation of.the city of Rhodes (408 B.c.) was
due to the joint action of the ancient Rhodian towns of
Lindos, Ialysos, and Camiros {Diod. Sic. 1375). ‘The
forces which, outwardly at least, had hitherto been
divided, were now concentrated, and the good effects of
this concentration for the island, as well as for Greece
in general, were soon to appear' (Holm, G&. Hist., ET,
4484).

The great political importance of the new city gradually
asserted itself during the fourth century, and by Alexander's
time it had become the first naval power in the /îgean, and a
decisive factor (Diod. Sic. 2081, περιμάχητος τοῖς δυνάσταις καὶ
βασιλεῦσιν ἦν, ἑκάστου σπεύδοντος εἰς τὴν αὑτοῦ φιλίαν προσλᾶμ-
βάνεσθαι). So great was the reputation of the city that
Alexander chose it as the place di deposit of his will. The
commercial importance of the place is indicated by the fact of
the introduction of a new “Rbodian) standard of coinage;

Rhodian coins are remarkable for their beauty (see on this
Holm, σῇ. cit. 3 49, and Head, Z7ist. Numm., 5.0).

The commercial relations of Rhodes were principally
with Egypt, but in fact the central position of the
island in the mid-stream of maritime traffic between the
E. and the W. assured her prosperity, and this,
combined with good government at home and a wise
foreign policy, Nifted her τὸ a position analogous to that
of Venice in later times. ‘The Rhodian harbours
seemed to have been designed by Nature to attract the
ships of Ionia, Caria, Egypt, Cyprus, and Phceenicia
(Aristeid. Rod, 341); and the consistent policy of
neutrality, broken ‘only by vigorous and decisive action
when the peace and freedom of the seas were endangered,
attracted foreign merchants, among whom, we may be
sure, those of Jewish nationality were conspicuors

{1 Mace, 1523); young men were regularly sent to Rhodes |

to learn business (Plaut. Afere., prol 11}: Rhodes did
in the E. what Rome did in the W. in keeping the seas
clear of pirates (Strabo, 652, rà λῃστήρια καθεῖλε; cp
Pol. 419) Her maritime law was largely adopted by
the Romans (cp Paz4. xiv. 29); and the principle of
‘general average, for example, is Rhodian in origin,
with probably much else in modern naval law that
cannot now be traced.

Rhodes is connected with two passages in the life of
Herod the Great. When on his way to Italy he
contributed liberally towards the restorations rendered
necessary to repair the ravages of Cassius in 42 B.C.
(App. BC 472; Plut. Bre4. go) It was at Rhodes
also that after the battle of Actium {31 B.C.) he had
the meeting with Augustus upon which so much
depended for him (Jos. 4x4 xv. 66). It was in Rhodes

1 Another form of the name in classical literature is Rhodos

(ῥόδος, fem.). It was barne by a daughter of Poseidon, and by
one ofthe Danaids (see Smith, Dick. Gr. and Rom. Biogr., τοῦ).

4099

RIBLAH

that Antiochus VII, Sidetes (king of Syria, 138-128 B.C.),
son of Demetrius I., heard of the imprisonment of his
brother (Demetrius IL), and ‘sent letters from dhe is/es
of the sea unto Simon the priest and governor of the
Jews,’ as told in 1 Macc. 151 £ (cp App. Spr. 68).

᾿ The Rhodians gained 2 privileged position as allies of Rome
in the Macedonian and Mithridatic wars, but were deprived of
their political freedom by Claudius (44 A:D.) for the crucifixion
of Roman citizens (Dio Cass, lx. 244). ἴπ 56 A.D. this was
restored to them (Tac, 4xx. 12 58: ‘reddita Rhodiis libertas,
adempta saepe aut firmata, prout bellis externis meruerant aut
domi seditione deliquerant'). The island was finally reduced
to a province (i.e., made part of the province of Asia) by
Vespasian (Suet. Vess. 8). Its great importance in the carly
Empire was gained through its schools of rbetoric, as that of
‘Athens through her schools of philosophy.

Literature.C. Newton, Travels and Discoveries în the
Levant, vol. τ C. Torr, Rhodes in Ancient Times (Camb.
1885); Holm, G& Hist, ET, 4483/. (the best short account in
English); Mahaffy, Greeé Life and Thought, chap. 15; Ross,
Reisen τοι Studien auf den gr. Insela, 8707. On Rhbodian art,
see Gardner, Handbook af Greek Sculpture, 24687 Ancient
authority, Strabo, Ὁ. 652/ W.ILw.

RHODOCUS (porokoc [AV]), a Jew who betrayed
the plans of Judas the Maccabee to Antiochus Eupator
(2 Mace. 1821). On the discovery of his treachery he
was imprisoned,

RHODUS (1 Mace. 1523), ἘΝ ἘΒΌΡΕΒ.

RIBAI (*3‘9), the father of ITTAI (4.0.} (5 5. 2329,
perBa [Β], epiBa [L] om. A; x Ch.113x, peBie [B],
paBerai [N]. ρηβὰι [4], piBar [L]). Comparing @L
in 25. we may with Marquart (urd. 20) restore
tu; see JERIBAL

RIBBAND (NE), used in Nu, 1538 AV of the ‘cord’
(so ΕΝ) of blue worn upon the FRINGES [9.7].

Forother usages of the Heb. A44##/ see BRACELETS, 2, CoRD,
RING.

RIBLAH (N93); oftenest λεβλάθὰ [BNAFOTL],
and always ‘Diblath’ in Pesh.; on Nu. 34m see
below). A city în the territory of Hamath (2 K. 2333,
αβλαα [B], δεβλαα [Α1;} 256 cepdeBhaBav [Β]. εἰς
δεβλαθα [AL]; ν. ἡ ρεβλαθα [B]; Jer.395, p. [Theod.;
Gom,.]and o, 6 è. [Theod.; (δ om.]; 529 δεβαθα [R*];
5210 def. . θα [T]). It is hardly possible in our brief
space to give the reader a just idea of the new problems
connected with the name of Riblah.

Whether the foreign king who dethroned Jehoshaz was really
Necho, king of Egypt, has become rather uncertain (see ZEDE-
xian). For OMS5 Mizraim (ἢ. 2., Egypt), we should perhaps
in 2 K.23 34, as in so many other passages, read ΠΡ ΝΣ, Mizrim ;
cp Mizratm, $ 24. It was possibly, or even probably, a N.
Arabian king called Pir'u, not an Egyptian Pharach, who
brought the kingdom of Judah into vassalage. If so ‘Riblah'
may be a popular corruption of ‘Jerahmeel” It is not less
possible or probable that in the other passages where 292
occurs ‘Riblah’ should be emended into *Jerahmeel. The
accounts of geographical boundaries of Canaan in the OT have
been, it would seem, systematicaliy corrected, in good faith,
but in complete misapprehension of the documents.

If we assume, however, provisionally, the data of the
traditional text, how shall we explain them? In this
case, ‘Riblah' will be represented by the poor village
of Ribleh, on the E. bank of the Nar ell'Asi
{Orontes), 35 m. NE. of Baalbec, It was here that
Necho put Jehoahaz in chains {2 K. 2833) and NEBU-
CHADREZZAR (g.v.) some twenty years later made his
headquarters when he came to quell the Palestinian
revolt.8 Here Zedekiah saw his sons slain (9 Κα. 256=
Jer.395/=529 7), and certain officers and people
from Jerusalem Were put to death (2 K.2520f=Jer.

1 δεβλαθα is identified by a scholiast on 2 K. 25 20 în cod. 243
with Daphne the suburb of Antioch in Syria; cp Jerome on
Nu. 3411,

2 Aninscription of Nebuchadrezzar found in the Wady Brissa
(on the E. of Lebanon) refers to the devastation wrought among
the cedars of Lebanon by a foreign foe, and the flight of the
inhabitants. Nebuchadrezzar's (second) visit to Riblah in 586,
if historical, was to repair the damage done and to encourage
the population of Lebanon which probably resisted the ‘foreign
foe and suffered accordingly. The ‘foreign foe' must have
been Necho (Wi. 40 5047) This, however, must be ac-
cepted with some critical reserve,

4100

RIDDLE

52:65). The occurrences of Riblah recognised by
EV need some revision; the name should certainly
be inserted in Ezek. 614, where Riblah (misread in
MT as DibLAH: AV ‘Diblath'), as a boundary,
takes the piace of the more usual ‘Hamath,' and it
should as certainly be omitted in Nu 34rr. Here, as
most scholars suppose, the ideal eastern frontier of
Canaan is described. The border, we are told, is to
go down ‘ from Shepham HRBLH on the E. of Ain.” If
we put aside the prejudice produced by the pointing
(πϑβηπ), it seems probable that ‘to Harbel' (nbamn) is

the meaning intended, and not ‘to Riblah.' ὙΠῸ right
vocalisation was still known to the @ translator (ἀπὸ
σεπῴαμ ἀρβηλα ; see SHEPHAM), and also to Jerome and
Eusebius, who speak (0.5, 866 214172 23254) of Arbela
or afy}a as a point on the eastern confines of Canaan.
The Speakers Comm. finds Harbel {more strictly buon)
in the Har-baal-hermon of Judg. 33, and supposes the
border to pass by the southern end of Mt. Hermon
near the two best-known sources of the Jordan. If
the current theory of the reference may provisionally be
accepted, let us rather say that Harbel was synonymous
with Har-baal-gad, since ' Raal-gad at the foot of Mt.
Hermon' occurs in the parallel passage Josh. 13 5 instead
of the Har-baal-hermon of Judg. 33. This view îs at
any rate more plausible than van Kasteren's identifica
tion of Hariblah with Halibnah, between the Varmz£
and the Wady Samak (Rev. bibl., 1895, p. 33. One
of the spurs of the /ede/ esk-S4é24 (Mt. Hermon) is in
fact called Jebel Arbel.® But it is much to be feared
that the identification is illusory. T.K. C.

RIDDLE occurs nine times in EV (Judg. 1412-19,
mpoBAHma; Ezek. 172, AjHrHma) and twice in
EVms (Prov. 16, alnirma; Hab. 26, mpoBAHMa) as
the rendering of Heb. TTI, 4444.

The word mn; usually explained as ‘something twisted or
knotty,” but more probably (see Lag. Griech, Uebersete. der
Pyov. 73) ‘something shut up* (cp Aram. amg, and Bibl.-Aram.
gna), occurs seventeen times in MT and and once în Heb.
Ecclus. 47 17; in 1 K.101 2 Ch.91 it is rendered ‘hard question’
(αἴνιγμα); in Ps, 49 5 [4] 783 [5] ‘dark saying’ (πρόβλημα); in
Prov.16 ‘dark saying’ (αἴνιγμα); in Hab. 26 ‘ proverb* (πρό-
Bànpa); in Nu. 128 ‘dark speech" (αἴνιγμα); in Dan. 823 ‘dark
sentence’ (αἴνιγμα, πρόβλημα [Th.1) and in Ecclus, 47 17

‘parable’ (παραβολή): aiveyna also occurs in Wisd. 88 (‘ dark
saying ), Ecclus,393(AV ‘dark parables: RV ‘dark sayings of
parables'), 4715 (EV ‘dark parables," RVmy. ‘ parables of riddies,”
Heb. differs).

Thanks to its frequent parallelism with the word
maial (see PROVEREB), 4i4é% has acquired a considerable
range of meaning. ‘Thus it denotes {1) a riddle as we
understand the wordt—e.g. that propounded by Samson
to the Philistines, Judg. 1412, or those with which
the Queen of Sheba is said to have proved Solomon,
1 K.10: 2 Ch. 91; (2) a sententious maxim (Prov.
8015, etc.) still affecting to preserve the form of a
riddle but wanting its essentials—viz., the adequate
characterisation of the object, and the pause before
reply. Even the riddle form may be dispensed with,
4idahk, as in Prov.16, denoting simply any sententious
maxim, or as in Ps. 495 (where, however, there are
textual difficulties) the statement of a moral problem.
{3) A parable—as in Ezek.173-10, though the passage
is not pure parable, but partakes of the characteristics
of riddle and allegory as well On account of the
allusive and figurative character of many of the satirical
lays of popular history (e.g., Nu. 21277 18.187, cp
PoETICAL LITERATURE, $ 4 ili.}, the term 47444 15
not inappropriately used to designate them in Hab. 26,
but its use in Ps. 782 is probably only due to the poet's
needing a parallel to δα. (4) Lastly, 42444 is used
quite generally to denote any unusual or difficult and
perhaps esoteric mode of expression, Nu, 128 Dan. 823.

Bochart has discoursed learnedly of the use of the

1 So Furrer in Richm's 7478; cp Ritter, E-d&urnde, 151,
pp. 159, 183. In ZDPY 5292 different, and less plausibile, iden-
tification was proposed (with ‘47%7», 5 kil. NE. of Damascus).

4101

RIGHT, RIGHTEOUSNESS

riddle by the Hebrews at feasts,! and we could easily
believe that if our sources of information were not so
matrow, we should find that the Israelites had some
resemblance in this department to the Arabs, with whom
there was almost a separate branch of enigmatic litera-
ture, with many subdivisions. Still, we have only one
example of the riddle in the OT—the famous one of
Samson {Judg. 14141—‘a very bad riddle,' G. F. Moore);
of those referred to in 1 K.1013 the narrator has
favoured us with no specimen ; nor did Josephus (4x4
viii. 53) find in the Phcenician history of Dius any
details of the riddles said to have been sent by Solomon
to Hiram of Tyre, and by Hiram to Solomon (Jos. Axf
vili. 53 {S 149]. The information in post-biblical
writings like the Midrash Mishle or the end Targum to
Esther is certainly more curious than valuable.

In the NT ‘riddle’ occurs once, 1 Cor. 1312, where,
to some scholars, the combination of δι’ ἐσόπτρου and
ἐν αἰνίγματι appears difficult.

Ἐν αἷν. (to which Qrigen, c. Cels,T 50 and elsewhere, and the
MSS LP prefix καὶ [în Orig. καὶ αἰνέγματος}} may no doubt be
iliustrated by Nu, 128 (8). è ἐν εἴδει καὶ οὐ δι᾽ αἰνιγμάτων, which
may perhaps have been explained ‘in a well-defined form and
not in indistinct blurred outlines’ (for this use of αἴνιγμα see
Origen on Jn. 19).

We do not want the additional phrase ἐν αἰνέγματι,
which appears somewhat to mar the antithesis; what
we look for is rather ‘for now we see with the help
of a mirror, but then face to face.’ Preuschen would
therefore omit ἐν alriyuari as due to a later hand
(ZNTW, 1900, p. 180 £, cp MIRROR).

RIE occurs twice in AV (Fx.932 15, 285) as the
rendering of ΠΡΌΣ, for which RV has rightly ‘spelt.”
See FITCHES, ° N. μ᾿

RIGHT, RIGHTEOUSNESS, The Hebrew words
for righteousness are sAe£, sédakah (ἽΝ, ΠΡῚΝ}, con-
nected with which we have the adjec-
3. Heb. termns. tive 52445 (PYTY) ‘righteous,’ and the
verb sidaf (DIS) to be in the right—in Hiphil and
Pi'el, to declare a person in the right. Probably the
most original form of the root appears in the noun
sédek, from which the verb, appearing first in the Hiph.
form, is a denominative. Itis not easy to fix precisely
the primary meaning of the root. Gesenius takes it to
be ‘straight’; Ryssel, with less reason, ‘hard. In
any case the earliest sense which can be traced in actual
use appears to be conformity to a recognised norm or
standard.

Thus Beidawi on Sur 221 (quoted by, Kautzsch) rightly
explains the corresponding form în Arabic, viz. sad as mutaQik
—i.e., ‘congruent,' so that things as ἀπῆκε as a javelin and a
date may each be described as sAdik, if they are as they should
be. Nothing fresh can be learned from the Syriac usage, which
simply repeats with less fulness that of the Hebrew and New

ebrew. has used great freedom in translating séde£
and its derivatives. δίκαιος, δικαιοσύνη, δικαιοῦν are their
commonest renderings; but we also find, e,g., séd4£4% repre.
sented by δικαίωμα, ἐλεημοσύνη (9 times), ἔλεος (3 times), and
even by ἐὐφροσύνη(5. 61 10), sadidie, by ἀληθής, εὐσεβής, πιστός.
On the other hand δίκαιος, δικαιοσύνη, δικαιοῦν stand in &
for many Hebrew words unconnected etymologically with the

root PISTAY., for NEK, TOI, dine, Me, NPI, ΔῚΣ, na,
εἰς, ᾿ ᾿

It will be well before examining the history of the
words in the OT, to mention two facts which should
be borne in mind throughout, in tracing the idea of
righteousness as the Hebrews understood it. In the
first place, 56464 and its derivatives seldom occur in the
older documents. They are pretty common in the
literary prophets; they are exceedingly frequent in the
wisdom literature and in the Psalms. Next, the meaning
of these words becomes gradually wider, and assumes a
more strictly ethical and religious signification We
may compare the use of δικαιοσύνη which is unknown to
Homer and Hesiod, and also the expansion of meaning

1 Hieroz. ed. Rosenmiller. Cp Winsche, ‘Die
rarieciveiontio bei den Hebriern, /P27) 1883, and ‘cp for
examples Kraflt, Judische Sagen und Dichbungen.

4102

RIGHT, RIGHTEOUSNESS

in δίκῃ, δίκαιος from ‘ custom,’ ‘ observant of recognised
usage! till they stood for absolute justice and the man
of ideal virtue, Similar analogies obviously appear in
the Latin 7xsfzs, and in our own terms ‘right,”
‘righteous,’ etc.

It is doubtful whether real instances of the primitive

use—viz., agreement with a physical norm—-still survive
in Hebrew. Lev. 1936 Ezek. 4510,
2 Development ‘exact balances,' ‘exact weights,' eto,,
ot meaning. are commonly quoted 48 cases in point.
The passages, however, are late, and as the contrasted
notion of iniquity occurs in the immediate context, it
is by no means clear that we should not translate
‘righteous balances,' etc. Similarly ‘ paths of sédeZ' in
Ps. 233 may mean ‘ patlis of righteousness,' not simply
‘straight paths.' Still less can Joel 223 be alleged as
an example of s44444 in its original--..e., physical
signification, for tbe translation given by Kautzsch
‘early rain in full measure’ îs more than doubtful.
We may perhaps acquiesce in the translation ‘early
rain for your justification'—;.e., in proof that Yahwè
has once more graciously accepted his people (so Wellh,,
Nowack, and Smend, 47 Rel-gesch. 4197)

Passing from the idea of conformity to a physical
standard, we have to note the use of the plu. sé4@40t4
{mîpys) in the earliest fragment of Hebrew literature
viz., the so-calied ‘Song of Deborah.” There the poet
describes the valiant deeds of the Hebrews as due to
the help which Yahwè gave, and might as the tribal
God be fairly expected to give, his people. This seems
to be his conception of sé@Z£064, It involves little or
no ethica] element. Yaliwè acted in accordanee with
the natural bond between his worshippers and himself,
and the plural form indicates the various occasions on
which he did so.

To the same class we may perhaps refer De, 33 21, Where God
is said to have wrought the sé44644 of Yahwè, because he was
the instrument of the divine p by repelliag the foes of
Istael. In the same poem ἕως * Biessing of Moses, De. 88 19)
Zebulun calis the sribes to some sacred spountain that they may
offer ‘sacrifices of séde£,' and this may mean no more then
sacrifices offered duly—i.e., according to the recognised form,
and as a natural seturm for benefits conferred. ere, if this
interpretation be sound, the ethical elermrent îs not wholly
absent; but it is still faint and rudimentary,?

We have to deal next with the many cases in which
the legal signification predominates. © In the *Book

of ihe Covenant' (Ex. 237) we read,

Spesa or *Thou stralt not put to death him who

sense, is innocent and saddit, where clearly

" the legistator is rtot thinking of virtuous

character, bat of inmocence from the charge bronght

before the court. This restricted use always continued

long afier the. deeper and more universal meaning had
become familiar.

Isaiah, for example (523) speaks of P'IS NP19—Le., the plea
of a man who has a good case—amd în Prov. 13.17 we are told
that the first comer îs right (P*f2)—Ze., seems to be right in his

gpntention till is opponent appears and puis him to the proof.
See also Di.251 Prov. 1715 185 2424. Here it is necessary

to note the significant fact that no femsinine form of P"9S is found
anywhere in the OT: indeed the use of the verb np34 in Gen.

8826 (che only occurrence of Καὶ in the Hexateuch) may faly
be accepted as proof that the adjective had no feminine form.

This may be naturally accounted for on the ground that Ρ ὟΝ.

meant originally ‘right in law, and that a woman was not a
* person with legal rights.

In early literature the use of the verb is almost wholly
confined to the Hiphil, and the meaning of the verb
corresponds to that of the adjective. In other words,
the Hiphil verb means to decide in favour of a litigant,
by declaring him to be in the right. So, for example,

1 It is always assumed that the standard îs external and
recognised as correct. Thus, e,g., Homer speaks of Autolycus
28 ‘good’ (ἐσθλόν, Od. 19 394), adding that he excelled all men
*in knavery and the oath.' He would not have called him
δίκαιον. So now we mighé perhaps speak of ‘a good thiefy
bus not of a just one.

2 The use of ἔοικα, δοεκώφ n Homer is similar.

4103

| JUSTICE, $ 2).

RIGHT, RIGHTEOUSNESS

in Ex. 237 (6) after a warning against oppression of
the poor by corrupt administration of justice, the general
principle is enunciated, ‘for thou shalt not decide in
favour of a malefactor.' Α slightly different shade of
meaning is given to the verb in Absalom's exclamation
(2 5. 154), ‘O that they would make me a judge în the
land: then if any man came to me with a plea and a
case, I would help him 10 his right' (raprgm).!

By an easy transition the idea of legal right is extended to
that of being in the right on some particular occasion without
any implication 24 to general moral character. No more is
implied in Judah's admission (Gen. 8626), ‘She’ (Tamar) ‘is
more in the right than I (05 IRIS) or perhaps ‘She has acted
within her rights and can maintain her case against me.’ (For
this use of }D, cp Job:322.) Further, sàd44 is used of one who
is justified in his statement. This meaning is evident în Job
3312 where, after quoting Job's words, Elibu says, ‘Lo! in ihis
[statement] thou art not Justified ; I will answer thee. in the
same way the adiective is employed, Is. 41 26, ‘Who announced
this from the beginning that we might know it... and say
“Right”"'—à.e., ‘he is right’? not, ἐξ is true,’ for the Hebrew
adjective is never used of things. Examples of this meaning în
noun, adjective, and verb are numerous. See for use of the
noun (sédef) Is. 594 Ps. 525[3) Prov. 88 1613, of the verb in
Hiph. Job 27 κα and in Hithpa, (perhaps), Gen. 4416. In Arab.
the use of the root for ‘iruth-speaking,' ‘sincere,’ is much more
advanced and definite,

We may now turn to the idea of righteousness
properly so called, of righteousness in its ethical
signification; and here the investigation

4 Ethical has its stasting-point in the early literary
prophete. prophets. In the reign of Jeroboam TI. a

eapitalist class had arisen: the old tribal
justice, depending on the bond of clan and stili well
maintained among the Arabs of the desert, was well-
nigh gone in Israel {see GOVERNMENT, $ 127; LAW AND
Hence the passionate cry of Amos for
national righteousness, for justice in the gates—i.e,, for
right institutions riglitly administered. He reiterates
his protest that external ritual is of no avail without
justice, ‘Take away from me’ (Yahwè speaks) ‘the
tumault of thy songs, the music of thy lutes I will not
hear. But let justice roll in fike a river and righteous-
ness fike a perennial stream’ (523). True, Amos also
uses the adjective saddi£ in the old legal sense (26 δ 12),
and he has the administration of fustice constantly in
view. In his view, however, legal justice springs from
the essential nature of God, who demands righteousness,
net ritual worsbip from his people. The demand is
made to the nation as a whole. Unless it is satisfied,
Istae! must perish ἀπ Εν and there is no room left for
difference im the fate of the righteous and the un-
righteons individual. Hosea afso insists ont national
righteovsness ; but his conception of it is at once wider
and deeper than that of his predecessor. It is wider,
for righteousriess, as Hosea understood it, ἔς more than
bare justice. It includes 4ésed+—i.e., merciful con-
sideration fot others. It is deeper, for Hosea saw that
outward amendment could not be permanent without a
radfcal change of mind. 'Sow to yourselves in righteons-
ness: reap according to lovingkindness: dreaf up for
pourselves fallsto ground: for it is time to seek Vahwè,
that the fruit of righteousness may come to you' (10 τὰ,
cp 5). It is not enough to sow good seed: the ground
must first be cleared and broken up: in short, the
Israelites must become new men, and Yahwès will
must rule their lives. Yahwè will accept no superficial
conversion (61-4): the onty remedy is a new- birth by
which Israel becomes a new creature (13 r3).
Isaiah develops the principles of Amos and Hosea.
His moral code is much the same. ‘Seek out justice:
A set right the violent man : do justice to the
δ. Ieaiak- crohan : plead for the widow" (116/ 57
102). He, no less than Hosea, makes religion a
1 So δικαιοῦν in classical Greek means to give a man his due,
but always in a bad sense, viz., to condemn. Itis ontyin &and
NT that it means ‘to declare righteous,”
È Cp τὸ ἐπιικέᾳ, which corrects the defects of law, and

is, therefore, δίκαιον καί τιροᾷ βέλσιον δικαίου, Ariet. Etk.
Nicom. 5%

4104

RIGHT, RIGHTEOUSNESS

matter of the heart (2913). Righteousness is the
inexorable rule by which Yahwé governs the world
{23 17), and wickedness by its own nature blasts the
evildoer (917[18]). Because of Israel's sin the nation as
a whole is doomed hopelessly (6132). Still, those who
believe in Yahwè as the eternal principle of righteous-
ness can stand fast in the crash of run all around
them (79). Meanwhile the prophet was educating a
band of disciples (816) who were to be the germ of a
*remnant that was to be converted,’ and in one of his
latest prophecies (121-26) he passes from an ideal picture
of Jerusalem in Davidic days (the idealisation of the
past separates him in a very marked manner from
Hosea) and expresses the great hope of better times to
come. Judgment will have done [15 cleansing work:
once more judges will give impartial decisions and
Jerusalem shall be known as ‘the fortress of righteous-
ness, the faithful city.’
A century later Jeremiah maintained the same con-
ception of righteousness. In 223 he gives what almost
- amounts to a definition of righteousness:
6. Jeremiah. ;; consists negatively in abstinence from
murder and oppression of the widows and orphans,
positively in securing justice for those who were power-
less to help themselves. The same thought appears in
other passages—e.£., in chap. 7, though the word ‘right-
eousness' is not actually used. We must not, however,
forget that Jeremiah held fast to his belief in righteous-
ness at the cost of a personal struggle more searching
and severe than that which any of his precursors had to
face, It was his hard fate to learn that even a law like
that of Deuteronomy, embedying as it did the best
results of prophetie teaching, could not of itself change
the hearts of the very men who in form, and as they
believed, sincerely, complied with its requirements,
Moreover, Jeremiah had to contend with the organised
priesthood of Jerusalem, after the priests of the high
places had been removed and when those of the central
shrine claimed, on grounds which Jeremiah could not
altogether gainsay, a divine sanction for their authority.
Moreover his sensitive nature was exposed to continual
suffering from the enmity of his contemmporaries and
from the national ruin which he saw first in spiritual
vision and then with the bodily eye. Because of all
this, Jeremiah's faith in the divine righteousness had to
draw its strength from the very doubt which threatened
to destroy it. ‘Thouart in the right (504458) O Yahwè,
when 1 contend with thee : yet would I reason the cause
with thee: why does the way of the wicked prosper?'
(121). He knows well that the best law may be perverted
by the ‘lying pen of the scribes’ (88) and that Yahwè
is ‘a righteous judge (35942 s64e£) proving reins and
heart' (1120). More explicitly than any earlier prophet
he fuses morality and religion into one by reducing all
duty to the one supreme duty of knowing Yahwè's will
as revealed in his government of the world,

*Thus saith Yahwè, Let not a wise man glory in his wisdom,
neither let a hero gl glory ἢ fn his valour, let not a rick man glory im
his wealch. But în this let him that glories glory, that he has
understanding and knows me, [knows] that l'am Yahwè, who
do lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness on the earth :
for în these things do I take pleasure ; it is the oracle of Yahwè
(922/(23 7). Whereas Isaiah had seen that the people's heart
wasnot in their worship, Jeremiah recognised the radical evil that
the heart of man is weak and cannot be trusted (179), and he
saw the hope of spiritual religion, not in amendment on man's
part, but in the grace of Yahwè who would write his law in
their hearts (81 33).

Finally, the expectation of a Messianic king, or line of
Messianic kings, appears probably for the first time in
Jeremiah. Yahwè will raise from the family of David
“ἃ righteous branch.' He is to exeente true justice and
is to be called 'Yahwè is our righteousness' (235).
The context interprets this name of the Messiah. By
restoring Israel to its own land Yahwè the judge of all
is to vindicate the just cause of his people against the
heathen. ‘In his (£.e., the Messiah's) days Judah will
be saved (from heathen bondage) ‘and Israel will dwell

4105

RIGHT, RIGHTEOUSNESS

in security.' The history of the world is the judgment
of the world. Here, however, the idea of righteousness
is modified by fresh associations, and with the consequent
change in the application of the word we shall have to
deal presemily,

We have already given from the earlier documents
of the Hexateuch instances which illustrate the more
restrictedand primitive use of the root ps.

Kan We also meet there, as might have been
of morality. expected, with the prophetic use in which

it is co-extensive with moral excelience.
Yahwè, e.g., declares that he has seen how righteous
Noab is (Gen. 71, 1}: he knows that Abraham will teach
his descendants ‘to do judgment and righteousness’
(Gen. 1819, a late stratum of JE} Only one passage
in the Hexateuch calls for special notice here, both from
its intrinsic interest and from the famous argument drawn
from it by Paul. The words in Gen. 156 ([}} are
‘Abraham trusted in Yahwè and he reckoned it to
him as righteousness.' Paul identifies the faith of

| Abraham with justifying faith as he himself under-

stood it, It would be an anachronism to suppose that
the writer of the words in Genesis had risen to an idea
of this kind, nor is any such exegesis supported by the
context. Abraham believed, not in God's pardoning
grace, but in Yahw&'s fidelity to his promise. In fact
Abrabam’s faith or trust is precisely what faith as Paul
conceives it is not, an ‘opus per se dignum.’ See
FAITH, $ 1.
From the ethical we may now pass to the theocratic
sense of sédakik and the cognate words. We have
. already had a glimpse of this meaning
8. Theocratic πὰ the Messianic passage quoted from
sense. Jeremiah. It became prevalent from
the time of Habakkuk. It must be remembered that
Habakkuk, like Jeremiah, lived after Josiah's reform, but
does not, like Jeremiah, attribute the partial failure of
that reform to the depravity of the Judaran people. On
the contraty, he believed that the obstacle to striet legal
observance lay in the oppression of Judah by the
Babylonians (14); for it was very hard to believe in
Yaliwè or his law while the Babylonian oppressor had
it all hisown way. The people of Judah were at least
better than their oppressors ; hence to Habakkuk ‘ the
righteous' is the constant description of the Judzeans,
whilst 'the wicked' stands for the heathen conqueror.
This terminology was adopted by subsequent writers,
as may be seen from Is. 2610 Ps. 9617 1027 In the
end, as Habakkuk holds, Yahwè will vindicate the cause
of his people, and ‘the righteous man'—z.e., the man
of Fudah, is to live by fidelity to his God and confidence
in the ultimate victory of the good cause. Here we
have the outline of the picture which the Second Isaiah
(£e., Is. 40-55) fills in with completer detail and added
shades of meaning.! Whereas the earlier prophets
threatened, the unknown prophet of the Exile makes it
his chief endeavour to comfort Israel. No doubt the
nation has sinned ; but it has also been punished enough,
and more than enough, and now the day of its deliver-
ance is at hand. ‘For the sake of his own faithfulness
(φέρε) Yahwè has been pleased to give great and glori-
ous revelation' of his character (4221). He isa ‘truth-
speaking’ God (seddi£, 4521). He has stirred up Cyrus
‘in righteousness’ (4513), i.e, as Yahwè ought to do,
and therefore must do ; he has supported him with ‘his
trusty right hand” (‘right hand of séde£,' 41 το). Ἐν ἃ
glorious restoration Yahwè ‘justifies' Israel—.i.e., decides
in its favour (508). Hence in a multitude of cases sédef
and sèdafah mean triumph (so the verb 4525: cp νικᾶν
in Rom. 1221) ‘victory’ (412 4612), ‘redress’ (518),

1 We may perhaps compare καλοὶ κἀγαθοί, oftimates, prud
hommes, quis Manner, used of the aristocracy without any
ethical meaning. Of course the ethical words never lost their
ethical sense so utterly.

2 There is, however, some doubt both as ta the reference in
this passage, and as to its authenticity. See Marti, ad /oc.

4106

RIGHT, RIGHTEOUSNESS

‘salvation’ (4613). It is significant that when sé44£2%
retains its older and ethical force, it is used of a right-
eousness which comes as a divine grace being 'rained
down from above’ (458). In the Second Isaiah, however,
this purely ethical sense is rare, occurring only two or
three times out of some twenty-five in which the Hebrew
root is used.
The Second Isaiah, as we have seen, assumed that
the sufferings inflicted by Babylon had sufficed to purify
ΗΝ Israel, and hailed with joy the restora-
Movie tion of a righteous people. However,
* in the preceding generation Ezekiel had
given expression to a very different view. In the latter
period of his work he was a pastor of souls, a preacher
addressing individuals rather than a prophet with a
message to the nation. Naturally, then, he insists on
individual righteousness. Each man is to be tried on
his own merits; however righteous he may be, he can
secure the due reward for himself and only for himself.
Nay, even with the individual Yahwè deals according
to his present actions, admitting no appeal to the
righteousness of the past, and on the other hand for-
giving iniquity in case of repentance and amendment
{Ezek. 181 1414. 33127). His ideal of righteousness
in the individual conforms on the whole to the prophetic
standard of individual righteousness, though it includes
a larger amount of ritual observance (see esp. 186-8).
Now, after the restoration, the view of the Second Isaiah
proved untenable. The restoration itself lacked the
external glory of which he had fondly dreamt, and the
exile had failed to produce that righteousness of the
whole nation which was still the cherished aim of
religious reformers in the Jewish Church. How was it
to be accomplished? Finally and completely by the
juagment of the last days, which is to fall on unfaithful
Jews as well as the heathen. This is the favourite theme
of Apocalyptic writers (see esp. Is. 1022 which is a late
insertion : Mal. 33 Zech. 9g 126 139—Joel and Daniel
passim). ’Meanwhile the wisdom literature taught with
Ezekiel that God here and now, though not immediately,
recompenses the righteous and the wicked according to
their deserts, a dogma constantly reiterated in Proverbs
and Psalms. Here and there a distinction is made
between the ‘weightier matters of the law * and such as
are merely ritual, since Yahwè loves ‘righteousness and
judgment* more than ‘sacrifice’ (Prov. 213, cp, eg,
Ps. 50). But more and more the ‘righteous man’ is
one who studies and practises the whole law (Ps.15).
The righteous are really one with the Adsidiz: ; these
are to be found as a rule among the poor and afflicted
Israelites (Zech. 99 Ps. 56-59), and possibly the author
of Ps. 94, when he speaks (7. 15) of legal administration
returning to ‘righteousness,’ may be looking forward to
the triumph of the Pharisaîc over the Sadducean party.
Naturally those who made so much of the law laid great
stress on deeds of mercy. But εὐέαζσλ nowhere admits,
as in Mishnic Hebrew, of the rendering 'alms,’ though
such passages as Ps. 1129 Dan. 424 [27] are not far re-
moved from this later use.1
We have already, in discussing the various senses of
stdakah, ete., answered by implication the question,
“Ὡς How is a man justified or accepted as
το PRight- righteous before God? Something, how-
è ever, has to be added here on the
of sinnere. i vstification of sinners, the change from
divine condemnation to divine favour, As we have seen,
the ancient Hebrew believed that God's wrath could be
appeased by sacrifice (τ 5. 2619 314), whereas the earliest
of the literary prophets insisted that national amendment
was the only way of escape from national chastisement.
The idea that sin was a debt incurred and that payment
was still due, however sincere the conversion might

1 In Mt.61, δικαιοσύνην is certainly the true reading, and
that of TR ἐλεημοσύνην is a gloss. Whether the glossis correct
is another question. Weiss, 24 /oc., answers this question in the
affirmative; Holtamann, 7%. TAeel, 2.135, in the negative,

4197

RIGHT, RIGHTEOUSNESS

be, is altogether strange to Amos and his successors.
* Cease to do evil, learn to do well,' is the reneedy which
Isaiah proposes; nor does he doubt its efficacy : ‘If ye
be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the
land” (Is. 16-19). Ezekidl, in a passage quoted above,
proposes the same rule to the individual, and combats
the delusion that the merits of persons exceptionaliy
righteous could atone for the sins of their neighbours!
(see also Jer. 151 8129, and for an opposite view Gen.
18:77). On the whole this principle ruled in later
Israel. Τὸ keep the law is righteousness (Dt. 625), and
the man or church that does so receives st46444—ie,, a
favourable sentence ‘from the God who comes to his
help‘ (Ps. 245) It is true that neither the individual
Jew nor the Jewish church could always appeal with con
fidence to that perfect observance of the law which
justifed in the sight of God. On the contrary, the
Psalms abound in acknowledgments of guilt (σι ρ΄, Pss.
384-6 4013 696[5]). and the chief motive of religion was
to secure divine pardon : ‘ There is forgiveness with thee
that thou mayest be feared’ (Ps, 1304). We must not,
however, identify such misgivings with the reproach of
conscience, with the sense of sin as Christians under-
stand it. The Jews believed that God was offended
with them because he withheld the rewards of righteous-
ness and dealt with them as he deals with the wicked,
they believed restoration to prosperity was the sure sign
of pardon and of grace, a state of mind which finds its
classical expression in Ps. 32. But was there no way of
restoration except perfect righteousness, or, failing that,
supplication to the divine mercy (as in Dan. 920}?
On this point the later teaching of the OT is not
consistent.

The Priestly Code limits the efficacy of the sin-offering
which was introduced after the exile to venial or in-
voluntary transgression (Nu. 1527-31),

n Alone: and the mention of sacrifice in the
propitiation Book of Proverbs (158 166 21327) îs

at least in harmony with this principle.
Still, even the Priestly Code had to mitigate the strict-
ness of its theory, On the day of Atonement the high
priest laid the sins of Israel on the head of the goat
which was sent into the desert (Lev. 1620-22); the
dshém atoned for perjury and embezzlement (Lev. Ber f
(62/] Nu. 55) when preceded by restitution to the
person wronged, and incense could appease Yahwè when
provoked by the rebellion of his people (Nu. I71rf
[1646 /.]). Atastill later period it was thought that the
merits of the Patriarchs atoned for the sins of Israel (see
Weber, Alisya. Theol. 280 f.; and the essay on the
* Merits of the Fathers' in Sanday and Headlam's Com
mentary on Romans), and we may perhaps find the germ
of this dogma in the atoning efficacy which the OT
attributes to the prayers of holy men (Ex. 327 31f
Nu, 14xx/ 1622 1710J0s. 767 Jer. 716 111415: οδ ὅτ
3323) and of angels {Zech. 112 Job 51 3323), Very natur-
ally the doctrine that the merits of the Fathers availed for
the justification of Israel culminated in the belief that the
guilt of Israel was purged by the vicarious sufferings of
righteous men, This no doubt was the teaching of the
Rabbis. According to them, Isaac made propitiation
for Israel by the willing oblation of his own life. God
smote Ezekiel that Israel might go free, and martyrdom
made propitiation for sin as efficaciously as the day of
Atonement,? The OT, however, lends no real support
to such a theory of justification by vicarious sacrifice.
The famous passage (Is. 5213-5312) which describes the
sufferings of Yahwè's servant is treated elsewhere
(SERVANT OF THE LoRD). In spite of the corruption
of the text, the general sense seems to be clear.*

1 Almsdeeds also were regarded as a powerful means of atone-
ment for past sins.

2 Reft. in Holtzmann, N7Z. Theol, 165

3 Verses το are, as they stand, quite out of place, since the
context requires a reference to the resurrection, not the death
of the servant, See Che. ζηέν. ἐσ /s. 305, n. τ, and Duhm and
Marti, ad ἴσα. [also SERVANT OF THE LorD, $$ 4(4) 5(4)}.

4108

RIGHT, RIGHTEOUSNESS

Israel, the servant of Yahwè, does indeed suffer for the
‘peace’ and ‘healing' of the nations. This, however,
takes place because of the effect produced on the minds
of the heathen, not because of the effect produced on
the mind of God. At first the heathen regard Israel as
afflicted by an angry God : they shrink from him as men
shrink from a leper. But God reverses the tragic doom
of his people and raises up the nation to new life.
Then the heathen understand the divine purpose. ‘They
recall the meekness with which Israel endured its punish-
ment. They acknowledge their own sinfulness and come
to the knowledge of the true God who has scattered
Israel abroad for a season that he may make it the light
of nations and show his irresistible power in its glorious
restoration.

The words δίκαιος, δικαιοσύνη, which scarcely occur
in the Fourth Gospel, are exceedingly common in Mt.
and Lk., and serve to express the most
striking and characteristic features οὗ
Jesus ‘teaching. Jesus required from
his disciples 4 righteousness better than that of the
Scribes and Pharisees, and told them that otherwise
they could not enter the Kingdom of Heaven (Mt. 5 20).
Generally, it may be said that Jesus restored the pro-
phetic ideal of righteousness, at the same time deepen-
ing and extending it. The popular doctrine understood,
by righteousness, not so much an honest and upright life
as serupulous attention to moral and ceremonial rules,
conduct legally correct. These rules were contained in
the written and oral law; Jesus declared that the
traditions of the elders nullified the central purpose of
the law (Mk. 7 1-13), or at best were matters of indiffer-
ence (1.). Moreover, he not only distinguished between
the more important and less important precepts of the
Mosaic law {Mt.2323); he also criticised the law itself
and set its most solemn commands aside,

No less than this is implied în words such as these—‘Moses
because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to divorce
your wives' (Mt. 198= Mk. 10 5); ‘The Sabbath was made for
ian, not man for the Sabbath "(Mk. 227); ‘ Nothing that goeth
into a man from without can defile a man ‘(Mk.Tr5= Mt.1517/.;
contrast Lev. 11 Deut, 14), Again, the righteousness which
Jesus taught far transcended on its positive side that of the
Mosaic law : among his disciples the /ex falionis was to give
place to a very different rule—viz., ‘Do not resist evil'(Mt. 5 39)
—and that is followed by a kindred command, ‘Love your
enemies’ (Mt, 5 44).

12. Jesus'
conception.

More clearly and more consistently than any previous
teacher, Jesus demanded a righteousness of the heart,
and forbade malicious and impure thoughts as sternly
as the deeds of murder and Just to which they naturally
tend (Mt.521-28). He went deeper still, and instead of
reckoning the sum of good deeds, or even good thoughts,
against the opposing sum of evil deeds and thoughts,
he insisted upon righteousness of character, a righteous-
ness which is not accidental but essential, a righteousness
which is one and indivisible, various as its manifesta-
tions may be: ‘A good tree cannot bring forth evil
fruit, neither can a corrupt bring forth good fruit’
(Mt. 718). No sacrifice was to be counted too severe
when personal righteousness was in peril (Mt.529) or
the cause of righteousness to be advanced (Mt. 192
Mk,102: Lk, 1822). On the one hand, all was to
be done with a single eye fixed upon God and his
approval (Mt. 61 etc.); on the other hand, the service
of God consisted in the service of man for God's sake.
It is on duty to man that the ‘ Sermon on the Mount’
dwells throughout, that practical love for man of which
God himself is the supreme example, and hence an
infinite vista opens up before the disciple, who can never
feel that he has done enough since he is to be perfect as
his Father in Heaven is perfect (Mt. 548). So, too,
the Jewish notion of a contract with God who repays
service done disappears in that relation of son to
father which Jesus removed from the circumference and
set in the centre of religion. True, God rewards those
who do not reward themselves by ostentation and self-
complacency. But the quality of reward is the same

4109

RIMMON

for all faithful service, long or short; it consists in ad-
mission to the kingdom in which the ideal of righteous-
ness is realised (Mt. 20r-16) As God bestows the
powers to be used in his service, and has an absolute
right to that service, no room is left for merit which
does but claim its due: ‘When ye shall have done all
these things which are commanded you, say, We are
unprofitable servants’ (Lk. 1770).

Jesus opened the Kingdom of Heaven to those who
hungered and thirsted for righteousness such as this
(ΜῈ 56... Whereas, however, prophets and apocalyptic
writers had looked forward to a final separation of the
righteous and the wicked, Jesus began his work by
the great announcement that he came to call not the
righteous, but sinners, to repentance {Mt. 913= Mk. 217
=Lk. 532). He declared and pronounced the forgive-
ness of sins; he spoke of the joy in heaven over one
sinner who repents ; he taught men to believe in God by
first teaching them to believe in himself. He invited
men to believe in the good news (Mk.115)—i.e., to
have faith or trust in God as their Father, and to make
this trust the guiding principle of their lives.

It would be impossible within the limits of this article
to discuss the righteonsness of faith of which Paul

speaks or the connection of Christ's
τῷ 189 0Î death with justification It may be well,
10° however, to indicate in conclusion the
various uses of δίκαιος and the cognate words in the NT
apart from righteotsness in the Pauline sense and that
higher righteousness demanded by Jesus from his dis-
ciples of which we have said something already. The
adjective δίκαιος, ‘righteous,' is applied to God especially
as judge of all {Rev. 165), or to Christ (2 Tim. 48 Jn.
1725); to men as observant of the Jewish law (Mt. 1 19).1
It also is equivalent to ‘virtuous' in the widest sense
{Mt. 545 913= Mk. 620= Lk. 532, etc.) Once Paul
distinguishes the righteous man who fulfils 41} his
obligations from the ἀγαθός whose character is more
genial and attractive (Rom. 57). ‘Righteous’ is also a
title given to men eminently righteous (Mt. 1317 Mk.217),
and by pre-eminence to Jesus (Acts 814 752 2214). It
is predicated, as the corresponding Hebrew adjective
never is, of things (Mt, 204 Lk. 1257 Acts 419 Rom. 7 τῷ
Col. 41 Phil. 48 etc.)

The noun δικαιοσύνη means ‘fair dealing' between man and
man (passing into the wider sense of virtuous conduct ; Acts1035
2425 Rom.613 1417 τ Tim.61r 2 Tim, 222), Lk. uses ir once
only, viz., in 175 where it is parallel to ‘holiness,' z.e., piety,
Acceptance of John's baptism is spoken of (Mt. 8 15) as included
in the ‘fulfilment ofall righteousness'—i.e., as conformable tothe
divine will which the Baptist announced.’ So, too, the Baptist
is sail to have come ‘in the way of righteousness” (Mt. 21 32),
because he preached that course of conduct which righteousness
required. ‘The verb δικαιῶ, ‘justify,’ in the NT always means
to pronounce just, never, either in the NT or in profane writers,
to make just (the apparent exception, Rev. 22 11, in the received
text arises from a false reading), It is used of men who seek
to prove themselves in the right (Lk.102g), or to win credit
for righteousness with their fellow-men (Lk. 1615), Men are
justified before God when they obtain his approval (Lk. 1814
Mt.1237=Lk.735). In this sense Jesus, after his resurrection,
was ‘justified in the Spirit'(1 Tim, 8 16) inasmuch as he received
clear iokens of divine approval. As God justifies men, so men
may justify God, by confessing his righteousness (Lk.729 Ps.
51614] as quoted in Rom. 34; cp _Mt.11 10), an application of
the verb which is found in the Psalms of Solomon (2 τό 8 5).

See Diestel, /D7 5173"; Ortloph, ‘ Begriff von pus; Ζ2 Τ'

. 1860, p. 4o1r/; Ryssel, Synonyme des

14. Literature, Wakren τὶ Guten în den sem. Sprachen

(1872) Kautzsch, Derivate des Stammes

pus, Tub., 1881; Smend; ATXe/; W. R. Smith, Pr0/4.0),

389; Schwally, Heil Aree im’ Alt. Israel; Wildeboer,

ZATW 22 (1902). This last accentuates the juristic element

and even în so early a passage as Judg. 511 translates si4£5f4,

‘victories’ [of Yahwè]. Wildeboer' comparison ofthe Syr. 22444

to be pure, to conquer, 44% ‘to he guilty,' ‘to be defeated’ is
interesting and suggestive, W.E. A.

RIMMON (ΠΡ; pemman [BL] -@ [Α}. Accord-
ing to the traditional text, the name of a god worshipped
at Damascus (2 K. 518); apparently it enters into the

1 The passage is difficult; but it seems to mean that Joseph
was too strict an observer to marry a woman who had proved
unfaîthfui, and too kind to make a public example of her.

4110

RIMMON

name TAB-RIMMON [g.v.], though, as we shall see,
another view of the phrase in 1 K.15:8 is at least
equally possible.

A more correct pronunciation of the name of this
god would be Rammin. Both name and cultus of

, _ this deity were, it is generally held,
A Pim On= borrowed from Assyria, and certainly
ti " RammAn was the most prevalent name
of the god of thunder and lightning (ideogram IM} who
plays such an important part in the Babylonian Deluge-
story, and is often represented as armed with the
thunderbolt. The etymological meaning is ‘the roarer”
{ramdmu= "τὸ roar')—a name well suited to a thunder
god. The W. ‘Semites appear to have had another
name for this god, viz., Addu or Daddu, and Oppert
(ZA 93107 [1894]) supposes that Adad was the oldest
name of the deity. There is thought to be a remi.
niscence of the identity of Addu (or Adad) and Ramman
in the compound form Hadad-rimmon {ΜΤ 5 reading)
in Zech. 1211; the editor of Zechariah, however, will
in this case be responsible for the strange form (but see
Crit. Bib.). We often find Rammin associated with
amas (the sun-god), like whom he is (in an inseription
of the Kassite period) called ‘lord of justice," The
Massoretes may have confounded Ramman with σέφερεῦνε
(see POMEGRANATE); though H. Derenbourg disputes
the accuracy of this representation, Rimmon, according
to him, being the divinised pomegranate (Akt Afemoria!
Studies, 120-125 [1897]

See especialiy Jastrow, Rel. of Bab. and Ass., 156-161; and
Amer. fourn. of Sem, Languages, 12 159-162; also Schrader,
‘Ramman-Rimmon, δέ. Αι, 1874, pp. 334; Sayce, ‘the
god Ramman,’ ZA 23315 (; Zimmern, XAT'ÒS 442-451).

According to Ohnefalsch-Richter (Ay#r0s, Text, 115) the cone
fusion between the Hebrew word for ‘pomegranate’ (jîm3,

rimmon) and the name of the originaliy Assyrian god Ramman
is older than MT, and goes back possibly to the time of Ezekiel
(and earlier), In this connection he notes that pomegranates
were attached to the vestments of the high-priest and to the
columns of the temple at Jerusalem. On Carihaginian stele,
moreover, we find the seated figure of the boy Adonis in the
very pluce gccspiel elsewhere by the columa surmounted by a
pomegranate. Ohnefalsch-Richter thinks that it was ‘an easy
step’ to identify this tree-god Tammuz, to whom the ‘rimmon*
was sacred, with the storm-god Ramman, and to call him
* Rimman.*

According to Jensen, there is a cylinder în the Hermitage
at St, Petersburg inscribed with two divine names, the one
Rammànum, the other ASratum. Taking this in connection
with Assyrian texts which speak of the god Amurri (£e., the
god of the land Amurru, the Amorite god) as the consort of
Ἄξτατω, he infers that the Amorite god referred to is RammAnu,
i.e., the storm-god, also called by the Assyrians ‘the Lord of
the Mountain,'=]325 byz, ‘the Baal of Lebanon' The ‘land
of Amurru' was in fact originally the land of the Lebanon or
Antilibanus (cp Wi. ΟἿΣ Hi

The present writer, however (see Crif. 252.), suspects
much misunderstanding in the traditional text of the

2. Ri n= narratives of the kings of Aram, which

Terabmeel, i specially visible in names, Ben.

* hadad,” for instance, seems to be
equivalent to Bir-dadda, and Hazael to Haza'ilu, which
are attested as N. Arabian royal names in Assyrian in-
scriptions (/04 ΤΊ, 148); ' Damascus’ is constantly mis-
written for ‘Cusham'; and Rimmon, or rather Ramman,
may be regarded as a popular corruption of that famous
name ‘ Jerahmeel,' which was not only an ethnic name,
but also in all probability the name of a god {see Cri.
Bib. on 2 K. 1139} When, therefore, we read in 2 K.
518 of Naaman's accompanying his royal master to the
house of Rimmon, this is meant (not of the storm-god,
but) of the national god of Jerahmeel, who may possibly
have been called farham or Yarham (z.e., nr, ‘moon,
with the Arabic ‘mimation’). It was not unnecessary
to warn the Israelites that Naaman was only by a special
indulgence allowed to do outward honour to Jarham or
Jerahmeel, because there are several indications that the
worship of Jerahmeel had made its way into Judah some
time before the fali of the state. See, e.g., Zeph.155,
where we should very probably read, ‘(I will cut off)
those that prostrate themselves before the moon, that

4IIL

RIMMON-PAREZ

swear by Jerahmeel.'1 It now becomes doubtful whether
‘son of Tab-rimmon' in r K, 1518 is correct. The
king to whom Asa sent may have been, not ‘ Ben-hadad,
son of Tab-rimmon, son of Hezion, king of Syria, that
dwelt at Damascus,' but ‘Ben-hadad {= Bir-dadda],
native of Beth-jerahmeel? {or Rabbath-jerahmeel Ὁ),
king of Aram (= Jerahmeel), who dwelt at (or. in)
Cusham.' It should also be noticed here that Elisha,
who had such close relations with a king of Aram and
his general, was, the present writer suspects, a prophet
of the Negeb—i.e., of a region which was originally
Jerahmeelite. T.K.C

RIMMON guisa, pomegranate ?—scee NAMES,
869; or from ‘Jerahmeel'?—see RIMMON, i., $ 2).

τ, Josh. 1532 197 [AV REMMONI], 1 Ch. 4 32 Zech.
l4io. See EN-RIMMON, and cp AIN, I.

2. The nàme of a rock where 600 fugitive Benjamites
found shelter for four months (Judg. 2047, ἠδ, ρεμμὼν

[BAL]. There was a village of this name xs R. m.
N. of Jerusalem (0.5 1465 287 98}, identified by Robinson
(2:13) with the mod. Αἰ σηεπεῦη, rather more than 3 πὶ,
E. of Bethel, ‘on and around the summit of a conical
chalky hill and visible in all directions.’ This would
be in the wilderness of Beth-aven (Josh. 1812). Birch
{PEFO, 1879, p. 128) objects that there are only a few
small caves at Rammon, and refers to Consul Finn, who
heard of a vast cavern in the Wady es-Suweinît capable
of holding many hundred men. Canon Rawnsley in
consequence visited the caverns in this Wady, which he
describes in ΡῈ Ό, 1879, pp. 118-126. Birch, follow-
ing Ges. Tàes. 1296, identifies the Rimmon of Judg.
2047 with the Rimmon ‘under’ which Saul, with his
600 men, tarried (τ S. 142), The latter Rimmon was
‘at the limit of Geba' (so read for Gibeah). See
MIGRON.

3. ‘Rimmon' (rather “ Rimmonah, πῇ}, also
appears în RV of Josh. 1913 (E. boundary of Zebulun),
where AV again {see 1] gives ‘Remmon,' with the
addition of '-methoar,’ (RV ‘which stretcheth ‘) as if a
compound name. ‘The RV at any rate recognises that
the name is not compound ; it also does justice to the
article in nunpa (pesuora aualap cota [B]; ρεμμώναμ,
μαθαριμ, avvova [A]; emi ἀμαθαρι vova [L]). We may
render, with Dillmann and Kau. #5, 'and (their border)
extends to Rimmonah (972), and turns round (14m) to
Neah (0). No doubt it is the Rimmono (ini, AV
Rimmon), or rather Rimmonah, of 1 Ch. 662 [77],
probably also the DIMNAH {n3) of Josh. 21 35, corre-
sponding to the modern Rumgzel on the SE. edge of
the plain of Battauf, 4 m. N. from Gath-hepher, and
γᾷ m. N. from Chisioth-tabor.

4. Possibiy MADMENAX [g.2.] in 15,10 31 should rather be
*Rimmonah.” T.K.C

RIMMON (9; pemmwn [BAL], ‘ pomegranate”
[so Namrs, $ 69; Del. ProZ. 205], or the Ass. divine
name RammAn [Léhr, cp_KISH?], or [Che.] a dis-
tortion of the ethnic Jerahmeel), a Beerothite, the father
of RECHAB and BAANAH[g.v.](2 S. 4259). Note that
* Rechab' may be also from ‘Jerahmeel,' and that, as
the story of SAUL (g.v.) shows, there was a strong
Jerahmeelite element in Benjamin (Che.).

RIMMONO (190297; τὴν pemmown [BAL]; 1 Ch.
662(77]). Rather Rimmonah. See ΕἸΜΜΟΝ ii. 3.

RIMMON-PAREZ, ΕΝ Rimmon-perez (MB ἦθ.),
a stage in the wandering in the wilderness, perbaps=

2 G. A. Smith renders MT, so far as he thinks it possible,
, ‘and those who. , . swear by their Melech' and in a
note points out the disorder of the fext. Wellh. reads, ‘those
ow themselves to Yahwè and swear by Milcom.’ But
p35t; like bp, is very probably one of the current distortions
of bam. See Cri£ BIL.

2 The much-disputed word Fui is probably a corruption of

piro» a variant to pino: and nearer to the original form bamnor.
4112

RING

Zarephath-jerahmeel [Che.]; Nu. 33:9f (pemmon
Tpammoni or pammmwo]papec) See WANDERINGS,
$ 12.

RING. The signet ring was called in Hebrew
Asthàm (DIMM) from its use (,/ to seal), and /absd'atk
i (NPAD) from its form {al to sink, As,
5. Bignek. /304); aisoin Bibl. Aram. “ska. (ΜΡ) Dan.
6:8[17], and in Targum for both 4d/4dm and fabda' atk
{to cut, engrave).! See ENGRAYE. The seal was

worn, as it is still by some Arabians, on a cord, parkil *
later, on the :

(3ee RIBBAND), round the neck, Gen. 3818;
right hand, Jer. 2224. In Cant.86 both customs seem
combined, ‘on thine arm, on thy heart.' ‘The oldest
form of signet worn by all Babylonians (Herod.1 195)
was the cylinder, a large hole being bored through the
core to admit a soft woollen cord for suspension
round wrist or neck.? The Egyptian scarabzeus * had
a smaller hole to admit a fine wire. When used, the
seal was rolled over a piece of pipectay which was laid
on an object or attached by a ribbon to a document
(King, Antique Gems, 140). 11 was from the Egyptian
wire that the more convenient finger-ring was evolved,
Such rings were among the ornaments worn by Hebrew
women after the exîle, Is. 321 (27, 18-23 being an interpo-
lation). The word φλέ ‘ring' in Cant.514 EV, for
which RV®&- preferably suggests ' cylinder,' seems to be
used as a simile of the fingers of the hand (BDB, Bu.
ad loc.).

The transference of Judah's signet to Tamar had no
special significance—he simply gave her as a piedge an
object which could obviously be identified with him.4
On the signet was probably a precious stone, mostly
the ὕλαν» (see ONYX), on which was engraved a figure
or inscription, Ex. 28:r. Hence în an Oriental court
the conveyance of the signet attested a royal message
{1 K. 218), and in many lands was a mode of investing
officers with power (Gen, 4142 Esth.810 1 Mace. 815
Jos. Ant. xx. 22). ‘There is no indication that the
Wedding-ring was used in OT times; but in Egypt
some such custom anciently prevalled. It should be
added that a δακτύλιον was placed on ihe hand of the
prodigal .son on his restoration to his father's house
{Lk. 1522),

:Véezem (n}3) conveys the meanings of both an ear-ring
and a nose-ring, though usually the fuller form andsem

ino A4-Eph (nen bri) is used for the nose-ring.
ἢ Farina, Τὰ Tadg. 824 however, where the singular
* is used, it is probable that eee alone
means nose-ring. The whole of thia passage is, how-
ever, regarded as a late glose by Wellhausen, Moore,
Budde, and others. Neither nose-rings nor ear-rings were
worn by males, though Pliny (A 1137[50]) says that
Oriental men wore them, and, if Judg. 824 be genuine
Midianite soldiers did 505 The nose-ring was put
through the nostril and hung over the mouth. Robertson
Smith explains that all such ornaments were designed
as amulets and protectors to the orifices, as well as
for ornament (cp AS? 453, and n. 2). The ring put
through the nose of beasts (444, ‘ hook ') is sometimes
associated with xezem {Ex 8522, AV ‘bracelets,’ RV
‘brooches’); cp HOOK, 2.

Several forms of ear-ring are noticed in the OT,

The /e4dfim of Is.B20 were perhaps ear-rings (see

1 Hothémeth, Gen, 88 ast is fem. coli, sa‘ sealing apparatus.”
Ball suggests reading DANNI or NEMNN; Holzinger partly
appraves this suggestion.

Illustrazions in Perrot-Chipiez, 4x4 ix Ass. 2, fige. τι δὴ

3 The earliest dated
(Flinders Petrie, Mist

4 Wellhausen (47. /etd.(d, 164 PI ΕΝ that the cord from
which the signer hung was also an amulet. This would account
for the insistence on the transference of the cord in the narrative
in Genesis.

5 On these grounds Moore holds that ear-rings are probably
meant. For the wearing of nose-rings by Indian boys in order
e pass as girls and avert the evil-eye, see Frazer, Pamsanias,

286.

Eggpian ον! Eylinder fs as old sa sioo i,

4113

RITUAL

AMULETS), to which some symbolie figure was attached.
Other terms for car-ring were derived from the shape.
The ‘452 (5.}}} was round (Ezek. 1612, cp Bertholet on
Ezek. 17 Nu, 3150). Another kind, xé94%% (noe),
lit. drops (ΕΝ pendanis, AV collar), were probably
pearls {Abulwalid compares Arab. ras, a small,
clear pearl), or single beads or gems attached to the
fobe of the car (nes, t0 drop), Judg. 826 (στραγγαλίς
[B]. ὁρμέσκοι ενφωθ [AL]), Is. 319 (G κάθεμα Ὁ) worn by
Midianite men and Israelite women.

The ancient versions gave other explanations; Tg. 1»bo,
diadems, chaplets. Some Jewish interpreters connected nétz240/%
with 44/224 (Ἐπ. 30 34, see StAcTE) and render capsules of sweet-

smelling gum. Sec, further, ORNANENTS, and the articles
there referred to. 1A

RINGSTRARKED (ἼΡΨ) Gen. 30357 ; see CoLoURs,
8 τῷ.

RINNAH (ΠῚ, ‘shouting??' 8. 74; ἀνὰ [Β], ρὰν-
ΝΩ͂Ν TAI. sperma [Lj), son of the Judahite SHiMon
{quì
i RIPRATE (non, Gen.103 [P], prpa@ [AEL] ep.
[D]; Ch. 16, ND*9, DIPHATH [AVNE and ΕΚ], epei-
a0 [B], pibae [A], ριφὰθ [L]; in both places
RIPHATH [Vg.]. 46,4). one of the ‘sons’ of Gomer,
Gen. 103 1 Ch.l6t. According to the theory which
finds N. Arabian influence and interests pervading the
earlier chapters of Genesis (see PARADISE, $ 6), ‘Gomer’
represents ‘Jerahmeel,' ‘ Ashkenaz' comes from ‘ Kenaz”
{or Asshur-Kenaz), ‘ Riphath' from ‘ Zarephath.® ‘The
transformation has been systematic. On the time-
honoured theory, however, which bases itself on MT, wc
must look far away from N. Arabia. Josephus thought
pf Paphlagonia ; Bochart and Lagarde of the Bithynian
river ῥήβας and the distant ῥηβαντία on the Thracian
Bosporus. But if TOGARMAN [g.v.] is really Til
garimmu, on the border of Tabal, Riphath may be
identified with Bit Buruta3 (or Buriti3), a distriet-—men-
tioned several times with Tabali {see Schr. AGF 176)
whose king was an ally of Urartu and Musku. The
syllable -aò or -i$ may be regarded as a suffix (50 first
Hal. R£/, 17164). ‘The transposition of ὁ (or 2) and
is no difficulty. ‘The suggestion is plausible, if MT"
may safely be followed. T.K. C.

RISSAH (NPI; Aecca [Β]. p. [AF], Ap. [L]), a
stage în the wandering in the wilderness; Nu. 3321/
See WANDERINGS, WILDERNESS OF.

RITHMAH (7199 named from the DMI or juniper
tree, $ 103; if we should not rather read Ramath,
padama [BAF], pama@a [L]), a stage in the wandere
ing in the wilderness (Nu. 3818 £). See WANDERINGS.

RITUAL

[The facts and theories about Hebrew ritual are dealt
with in many articles, among the most important of
which are the following : SACKIFICE, TEMPLE [$$ 347);
NATURE WORSHIP, ALTAR, MASSEBAH, TABERNACLE,
ARK, DISPERSION, SYNAGOGUE. On the ritual of the
nations contemporary with Israel the reader may consult
ARAM, ASSYRIA, BaBYyLoN, EGyPT, ΜΟΑΒ, AMMON,
CANAAN, PHOENICIA, HITTITES, SCYTHIANS, ZOROAS-
TRIANISM, εἴς.

Of those nations, however, so great an influence on
the civilisation of the whole of hither Asia was exercised
by one, the Babylonian, that the facts about its ritual
acquire special importance. On the other hand the
amount of first-hand information on the subject is
unique and, besides, not generally accessible. [1 is pro-
posed, accordingiy, to give here some account of the
nature, and ceremonial institutions, of the Babylonian
sacrificial ritual. In doing this the points în which it
resembles, or differs from, the ritual of the OT will be
indicated, and a brief comparison of the two systems
| given.]

4114

RITUAL

CONTENTS
Names for sacrifice (ἢ 1).
Objects offered, age, etc. (82/4).
Time and place ($ 4).
Antiquity of sacrifice (ἢ 5).
Summary (8 12).

ASSYRIO-BABYLONIAN RITUAL.

A short account of Babylonian sacrifices has been
already given in the Supplement to Die Cu/tus-tafel von
Sippar (Joh. Jeremias, Leipsic, 25-32 [1889]. The
question of how far this system is original and how far
it is related to what we find elsewhere has received little
‘or no attention The treatment of such questions in
the difficult sphere of religious institutions being always
involved in uncertainty, it appears to be more than ever
appropriate in regard to sacrifice, as an institution
common to all peoples, to explain the same or similar
ideas not as borrowed the one from the other, but as
both drawn from the same source. In justification of
the common designation Assyrio-Babylonian it is to be
noted that, apart from a few modifications in their
Pantheon, the religion of the Assyrians agrees through-
out with that of the Babylonians. Of this agreement,
which was maintained in spite of all political strifes, we
have a historical attestation in the fact that ASur-bani-pal
had the MSS of the Babylonian priestly schools collected,
supplied with an Assyrian interlinear translation, and
preserved in his state archives (see 4 R).1

Sacrifices were called Airtazzu or 4urbannu (more
rarely ἀπμγδάπω, bitrubu; in ordinary usage, ‘back-
sheesh, aims. A much commoner

1. Names ΤΟΣ Word is rit, ‘to be bent, show

" reverence, offer homage' {cp for this
meaning Del. A4ssy. #/1W2), used of drink offerings
(Deluge, 147; cp mp pafera) and also of bloody
sacrifices.

The root of wife is 249 ‘to be empty,' II. 1 ‘to pour out.* It
mas probably, the pouring out of the blood that led to the

‘ansi

ference of πέξη from its original application ‘drink offering*
to che meaning ‘ blood offering.’ A rarer word than wi44 is 2:84

(K%ors. 172), Heb. m31, αὔδα, For' drink offering' we find also
the words muf4uru, makbiiru (in contracts), rame. To
minkak (MID), ‘food offering," corresponds SurEfs (Del. WE
surkînu), a word formerly incorrectly rendered ‘altar.’. The
regular stated offering (4774, T'DR) was called sattubbu (saf-

takam, ‘constaut') or gin, properly ‘right’ Both words
indicate the yearly, monthly, rarely (δεν. 1443) daily, con-
tribution to the temple for the support of the sacrifice and the
priests. Α synonymous word is gufée or gubfanu. The free.

will offering, Heb. néd4874 MID, is called nindadà (nidbr).

For ‘to sacrifice” the commonest word is na£4.

For the sake of comparison the following may be mentioned
from the many other expressions in use: <445%, Heb. D np;
sabiitu, Heb. ΠΡ; tabdbu, Heb, MID; rilsa vabasu, ‘to pre.
pare an offering Of special importance, moreover, are the
expressions in purification texts: ζαγιάδτε (191; often used
of pouring water, occurring with p [notwithstanding Del.
HWB], in Rassam2 168) and £a/47% {K 3245, fass.) “to wipe,”
then ‘to clear, purify,' a meaning that îs important in its bearing

on Heb. ἀήῤῥέν (282), Cp /VX 18511733; Zimmern, Beitrage
122.26, The offerer of the sacrifice îs called Zdribie or ὅθ] αὐξὸ
(cp Marseilles Sacrificial Table, nr 5y2).

It should be specially noted that everything that the
land produced was offered to the gods without dis-

Objects tinction. Whilst in Israel ît was only the
3. Objects. roduce of a people devoted to cattle-rearing

offered. and agriculture that was offered (cp Di,
Lev., 379)—and this was still further narrowed by the
exclusion of fruit, honey, and all sweet or fermented
preparations on the one hand, and of beasts of chase
and fish on the other—in the fruitful lands between the
two rivers every kind of produce was freely offered to the

Performance ($ 6).

Idea, purpose (8 7.2).
‘uman sacrifice ($ 9).

Lustration ($ 10).

1 Abbreviations used in this article. Κ followed by a number
=some one of the tablets of the Koyunjik collection in the Brit.
Mus.; Neb. Nabun. Cyr.=Babylonische Texte, Inschriften
des Nebukadnezar, Nabuna'id, Cyrus, published by T. N.
Strassmaier (Leipsic, 1887); Menant, PG= Les fierres gravées
de la Haute Asie (Parìs, 1883),

4ττ5

RITUAL

gods. Of vegetable products we find frequent mention
of wine (4aranz), must (£urzzzz), date wine (Fikarz,
prepared from corn and dates or honey and dates, cp
Neb. 1035, Nabun 612, 871; πο, cp Nu. 287), honey
(ditpu, 23), cream {fimétu, neon), a mixture prepared
from various ingredients and containing oil and fat
(invariably written GAR Ni-De-4 ; probably mirsu is
to be read; cp Nab. gra, Cyr. 3276, Arab. maris,
‘ date-stone ’), the choice produce of the meadow (sima
appari), garlic (?3ummu, ou), first-fruits (6/04; mean;
Saunh, 16: Kuj. 19)! Food specially prepared for the
gods was called a£2/ fa&nu (4 R. 61, 622), with which
should be compared the analogous expression πη
στρα. Upon the table of the gods were laid 12, or
3x 12, loaves of 43-14, that is to say wheaten flour, as
shewbread (cp Zimmern, Zeitràge 9833 104138; /VR
56208 56234; Craig, Relig. 7ext5166; King, Magic
and Sorcery 408); also aka! mutki, that 15 to say, un-
leavened bread, is several times mentioned {cp Lev,
245). Special abundance and splendour characterised
the vegetable offerings of the Neo-Babylonian and Neo-
Assyrian kings (cp Pognon, /nscriftions de Wddi
Brissa; Neb. Grot.116f.; Neb. Grot. 226 fi. Neb.
Grot.37f; Schr. X8278). They were in the form
of the daily saftukZu, the state sacrifice, a sort of
representation of the whole agriculture of the land.
Nebuchadrezzar lays on the table of Marduk and
Sarpanit the choicest produce of the meadow, fruit,
‘herbs, honey, cream, milk, oil, must, date-wine, wine
from different vineyards. Still more abundant is the
offering of Sargon (42278), a king who offers finally
ποῖ to the gods but to himself. His splendid offering
isa brilliant display of his royal wealth, at which even
the gods must be amazed.

The commonest bloody sacrifice mentioned is that'of
the lamb (written Lu 2444 or nifx).

The expression Lx Mife, often occurring in contracts, ἧς to be
read Aal&mu or 32 (1#) and to be rendered ‘lamb, kid. For

“goat' we find the words Sufadu, Jaffaru (in contracts), urizu
τῷ) Za ‘an old mature amb.” Of other quadrupeds we hear of
sacrificial oxen (gumaffz or alap makiu), bullocks (farru,

05), gazelles (sadi/4), wild kine (Ziztu, πρῶ). The following
birds were used for sacrifice ; doves, geese (155-125), cocks (4742,
4 R 26475; Talm. NAS), peacocks (Aas4as4), pheasants
@ dasnu; Nabun, 6725 Talm, Î'DS). Fish (22n6) are always
mentioned along with ‘birds of heaven' (i554» famà).

For a bird sacrifice see Botta, Nizievez, pl. 110; for
fish offerings see Menant 2 53.

No special prescriptions as to age are known. ζῶ
niki probably always indicates, like γαλαθηνά (Herod.

1:83}, the young sucking lamb. We
3a, Age and LAO) com Je Sniracte hat vicime
other details. ας vid were preferred, as in P in
Leviticus (2pa/ or mara? Fatti, like mag 13 or αὐ ΠΞῚ /
Nabon, 1961 2651 2722 69915 7681). Mention is also
made of victims of two, three (.Ved. 3991}, and four
years of age (Cyr. 1174).

With regard to the condition of the animals the
requirements were stricter: faultless growth (talri//2),
large size (rad), fatness (484, mart), physical purity
(edbu, ellu ; ‘ pure, shining '), and spotlessness ($w4Zx/z ;
Herod. rà τέλεα τῶν προβάτων). Cp Zimmern,
Beitràge 10072. In divination, bowever, the use of
unsound victims was permitted; in the prayers to the
sun-god (ed. Knudtzon, 73) we often read: iziò Sa
Balumu ilfitika fa ana diri bart math path: ‘Grant
that the lamb of thy divinity, which is used for
inspection, may be imperfect and unsound.' It
is well known that in the Israelitish cultus, thank-
offerings need not be.faultless (Lev. 2233].

The victim was as a rule a male, yet females also
were used (αν. Bav. 33 Cyr. 1174 Cyr. 2471). It

1 The incense (&u/ru, Fuirinna, nibp: formerly wrongly
read tarriani, was made from precious herbs (ἔα ἐξ N°NW) and
odoriferous woods.

4116

RITUAL

was probably always female victims that were used in
purification ceremonies: fara/ Sufatti Jé pitété, ‘the
skin of a she-lamb still intact’ (4 R 25 350; cp 4 R 28
no. 3 11 s R στ: 51: Nimr. EA. 44, 60), Compare
with this the prescription of a she-goat one year old for
the sîn offering of the individual (Nu. 1527).

The vietim was probably seidom placed entire (φαγὶ,
5:52) on the altar ΤῸ begin with, the remarkably
small size of the altars that have been found shows that

only certain parts of the victims were offered. ‘The
altar of Sargon’s palace is 32 inches high; that
from Nimrid, actually only 22 inches! That the

flesh was boiled, as in Israel in early times, is shown
by 5 R 61, 15, where the priest receives, along with
other shares, a large pot of meat-broth {dikdr mé Sri).

With regard to the details of sacrificial ritual and
practice our sources tell us little ; the sculptures represent
as a rule only the preparatory steps (cp Menant 254;
Layard, Monum. gf Nineveh 824). The usual form of
offering was burning by fire (ama ma&iiti aglu). We
know nothing of special ceremonies performed with the
blood in the Babylonian ritual, such as were usual in
Israel and ancient Arabia (Wellh. 4r. Heid. 113) Ina
text published by Zimmern (Zei?rdge, 126), which
describes the purification of the king's palace, the lintels
of the palace are smeared with the blond of a lamb (ira
dàmi urizi Suatum); compare for this interesting
passage Ex. 127. It may be remarked in passing that
we learn from 4 R 32 go that there were three ways of
preparing the victim: Sr Sa genti balla fa tumri,
‘baked, boiled, smoked flesh.’ The offering consisting
of vegetable food was probably consumed by the
sacrificers. A drastic exposure of this pia frawus is
given us in the apocryphal Bel and the Dragon.

The following parts are expressly mentioned in 2 R
44, 14-18g% 1-56: head (Za&tadu), neck ({4iXadu),

flank (pdf), breast (7742), rib (57/2), loin
sb. Parte οὗ (sinu), tail (sidba/u), spine ΤᾺ Moss
victim used. κρατὶ (7452), beliy (4erfz), intestines
(ga), kidney (δα πε), knuckles (#w>sizndétt). In the
contracts (cp especially the important texts, Strassm.
Neb. 247 and 416 ; also Peiser, Babylonische Vertrige,
107} many parts are mentioned that are still etymo-
logically obscure (with two of them, &r gadòz and ὅν"
ganni ‘sili, cp ‘Talm. soya tail; and pm flank).
Sacrificial flesh was probably not #2%00 as amongst the
Israelites and the Phcenicians (Movers, %òr. 2118);
according to a late statement of the Epistle of Jeremiah
(+. 28 [Baruch 628]) the Babylonian priests sold the
sacrificial flesh, and their wives also cured it.

No definite prescriptions as to the times of sacrifice
have reached us. The ZaZmzé4z or New Year's feast,
4. Time the A£î#2 feast held in honour οἵ Marduk
and place, (9%. Bor3. 48), were signalised by proces-

" sions and sacrifices. Daily sacrifices are
often mentioned (NeA. Grof. 116 226) ; an animal sacri.
fice, in Tigl.-96/.7 τὸ (cp 18.206). In the ritual tablet
for the month Ulùtu (cp Lotz, Wisteria Sabbati, 1507),
published in 4 R 8233, it is prescribed that the daily
sacrifice, consisting of a ‘9/44 and a wminfal, should be
offered once at each rising of the moon and appearance
of the dawn, fourteen times by night and fourteen times
by day {cp Ex. 2938 Nu. 283}. A morning offering is
mentioned in the text published by Zimmern, Beifrége
10069. Sacrifice as a free expression of prayer and de-
pendence (thank-offerings, #d44, can hardly have been
known to the Babylonians), as the highest product of
the religious life, is not severely confined to definite
times. On the contrary, every important event of
life is celebrated by a spontaneous offering of sacrifices
just as in ancient Israel, If the king of the Assyrians
returns victorious from a military expedition, if in
repairing a temple he finds an ancient foundation
stone, if he dedicates his palace, if he consecrates his

1 Perrot.-Chipiez, 471 in Chaldea and Assyria,1256£"
182 4517

RITUAL

weapons for the fight {ξαζξέξα κεἰ), if in hunting
he secures his prey, if he formally commemorates
his ancestors—in each and all of these cases he offers
sacrifice to the gods. It is a relief amid the annals of
cruelty and pride of Assyrian rulers when we read in

| their boastful accounts: ama #ldni /u nik? okki, ‘1

presented to the gods an offering.’ For innumerable
instances of this kind we may refer generally to #72.

The ordinary place of sacrifice was the temple.
Mountain and spring also were, in accordance with the
universal Semitic ideas {cp Baudissin, Studiez, 2143),
regarded as sacred spots, specially suited for sacrifices.
After the flood Xisuthros offered his sacrifice ‘on the
top of the mountain’ (ira zi6ura/ Jedi); and so
ASur-bani-pal (389) on the mountain Halman, and
Shalmanassar (Co. 103) at the source of the Euphrates.

The origin of sacrifice lies, according to Babylonian
ideas, beyond the limits of human history ; it existed

somito {om the time when the world was made
δ AntGuIY (71 ὅπα sit mati). Gods and genii
BACEMICE. are often represented as sacrificing {cp
Menant, PG 237 5153). Sin is called the founder of
free-will offerings (mz4în nindabé; 4 R 933); Adar,
the god of offerings and drink offerings (i/u migri ἃ
ramkuti; 2 R 735 2 R 6767). As the formation of
the earth was immediately followed by the institution of
places of worship, so the newly created man was charged
with religious duties towards the deity (Del. Das deb.
Welischipfungsepos, 111). Palépu dambka ullad nikf
balîtu tar ù taslitu arni +. ‘the fear of God brings
grace, sacrifice enlarges life and prayer (frees from)
sin. After the deluge (147 7.) Xisuthros sacrifices to
the gods; ‘then did I turn to the four winds, poured
out a drink offering, offered a cereal offering on the top
of the mountain; seven incense pans 1 set forth, and
spread under them calamus, cedar wood, and rig gir
(onycha ?).' In the old Babylonian Nimrod-epos (4460)
weread in the account of the Amores Veneris: taramima
ami rd'a fa kanamma iSpukatti umifamma utabbapakti
untkétî ; ‘thou hast loved the shepherd who continually
brought drink offerings to thee, daily sacrificed kids to
thee.”

The inscriptions of the old Babylonian king Gudéa
already contain notices about sacrifices. On the New
Year festival (see Schr. ΑΒ 8:6 61) he offers to the
goddess Ba'u amongst other things a cow, a sheep, six
lambs, seven baskets of dates, a pot of cream, palm
pith (?), fifteen chickens, fishes, cucumbers, as saz/uzz
or regular sacrifice. A rich source of information upon
the sacrificial arrangements in the later Babylonian
period is to be found in the thousands of Babylonian
contracts in which bills and receipts connected with
temple revenues and dues, as well as lists relating to
the regular sacrifices, bulk very largely.!

Sacrifice was in the hands of the priestly caste, who
were held in the highest esteem and enjoyed special

privileges.? So great indeed was the
6. Performance. c.icem in which they werc held in
Babylonia in earlier times that even the king needed
their mediation for sacrifice and prayer (cp Menant,
PG 1128 δ). In Assyria, however, the king reserves
for himself the supreme priesthood, calling himself the
exalted high-priest and sacrificing to the god with hisown
hand (Per.-Chip. Assyria, 41 [Assyrie, 455]; Menant,
PG 2:64). Just as Ezekiel in his ordering of the priest-
hood assigns to the king in the public worship an inde-
pendent and important position, so we repeatedìy read in
the liturgical tablets preserved in 4 R 8233; 78° 526
rabéti nindatéiu ukén; ‘the shepherd of the great
peoples shall bring his offering.’ In the contracts there
is frequent mention of the king's offering and of that of
the crown prince (Ja «sal Sarri); Nabon. 2658 3322

1 A good index to the relative texts îs provided by H, L.
Tallquist, Die Sprache der Contracte Nabona'ids (Helsingiors,

1890).
9 Diodorus Siculus (2 29) has given us a vivid and adequate
account of their functions.

4118

RITUAL

59420. As in Israel, the priests had assigned to them
definite portions of the offerings. According to the ritual
οὗ the Sun-temple at Sippar the priests received the loins,
the skin, the ribs, the sinews, the belly, the chitterling,
the knuckles of all cattle and lambs that were offered,
as well as a pot of sacrificial broth (5 R 61 col. s) In
the contracts minute details are met with as to priestly
dues (ΝΘ. 247, 416; Peiser, 808. Vert. 107). It is
interesting to observe that in Babylonia as in -Israel
(sce Lev. 21167) rules were laid down respecting the
freedom from bodily blemish that was required in priests.
In a priestly catechism of Sippar (K. 2486+4364,
published by Craig, Religious Texts, Leipsic, 1895)
we read as follows

Ummanu mud@ nésir pirifti ilani rabate apilbu fa irammu
ina tufpi ἡ kan tuppi ina malbar ilu Samai ἃ iu Ramman
utammastima uSahbasu inuma apil amé! barî ; and farther
on: ανιθὶ isfakku Sa carusu ellu è St ina kitti ἃ minitifu
Subiulu ana malar ilu Samat è ilu Ramman atar δέν ἃ
purhisé tehi abil ambi baré Sa carusu ἰὰ ellu è δὴ ina bitti ù
minnti Su IR Suklulu zabtu ind hipa sinné naghi «Banu ina
Siti » +. malb issulba hisgallu Supakilu pilfilanu . . 1A
sasir parst Sa ilu Samas ἡ ilu Ramman.

*A wise man who guards the secrets of the great gods
shall cause his son whom he loves, with tablet and pen
to take cath before Samaò and Rammfn, and the son
of a magician shall teach him when to do so. A priest
who is noble in descent, and whose clothing {?} and
measurement (?} are perfect, shall present himself before
Sama$ and Ramman in the place of augury and oracle.
The son of a priest whose descent is not noble and who
is not perfect in clothing (?) and in measure, who has
squint (?) eyes, broken teeth, bruised thumbs, boils or
swellings on his feet . . . shall not keep the temple of
Samas and Rammài

Sacrifice rests ultimately on the idea that it gives
pleasure to the deity (cp Di, Lev. 376). For Israel,

the conception of sacrifice as a meal for

τ Funda. Yahwè is refleoted in such expressions as
mental idea. Gen. 821 Dt, 3310 (*onb). In the Baby-

lonian records, the gods feast in heaven (4 R 1959:
ildni rabiiti issinu hutrinnu ckal Sam ellu kurunnu
damga Sa là ilpat kéti ikkalu; ‘the glorious gods smell
the incense, noble food of heaven; pure wine, which
no hand has touched, do they enjoy'); they eat the
offering (4 R 1756: azalfu abul πράξει mubur; ‘eat
his food, accept his sacrifice ') ; they inhale with physical
delight the savour of the offering (Deluge, rs1: iléni
esinu eréta ἐλᾶν esinu eréla tîba kima sumbt eli δὲ]
πὲξὲ ipfakrà; ‘the gods scent the savour, the gods
scent the sweet savour ; like flies do they gather them-
selves together about the offerer'; cp the analogous
expression ni) n", Gen. 821); the gods love the offering
that man brings (Asurz. 125: nadan sébifu ilAni rablità
Sa fami ἃ irsitim îramu; ‘the glorious gods of heaven
and earth love the gift of his sacrifice '), What is active
in the offering is the voluntary surrender of a private
possession (Tigl. 77 : ana biblat Hibbita abki ; ‘I sacri-
ficed as my heart enjoined'). As a subject into the
presence of his king, so does man come înto the presence
of his god with gift and tribute. In a text, printed in
4 R 20, which describes the solemn return of the god
Marduk from Elam to Babylon and the sacrificial feast
then celebrated in his honour, the imperia! sacrifice is
described in the following terms (rev. 22 f): 3am@
bigallaSunu irsitum fisibia tAmtum mibirtatu Sad@
iribiu ritrubafiu Sut ld mabré mala Sunnd lifinu
Rabitti bilatsunu néîu ana bilbilum. Alu tubbubu
dit alap mabbè sibu turrubu sbni butrinnu armanniu
uStessi eréft tdbu ; ‘the heaven pours out its abundance,
the earth its fulness, the sea its gifts, the mountains
their produce ; their incomparable offerings, everything
that can be named, their heavy tribute do they bring to
the lord of all; lambs are slaughtered, great oxen
sacrificed in herds, the sacrifice is made rich, incense
is prepared, a sweet smelling savour mounts up,
delicious odour.' Probably the step from the concep-

4rI9

Ἰ out.

RITUAL

tion of the offering as a gift and a meal of the deity
to that of a finer and, so to speak, spiritual, apper-
ception of that which was brought in sacrifice was
made at a comparatively early period. So much is
indicated by the fact that even from ancient times prayer
was associated with sacrifice. In the pictorial repre-
sentations of sacrificial scenes we constantly find him
who prays in close association with him who offers.
The gesture of prayer was threefold : rif &dti, Japétu
bîti, labénu appi—lifting up of the hands, folding of
the hands, casting down of the countenance,

The purpose of sacrifice is, invariably, to influence
the deity in favour of the sacrificer. Man brings gifts

to the gods in order that they may be
8. Purpose. moved therby t0 reciprocity—to showing
a favourable disposition in return.! "When the kings
Esarhaddon and ASur-bani-pal were seriously menaced
by the inroads of the Gimirri they multiplied their
offerings and prayer (see Knudtzon, Ze). In the
liturgies of that period a standing expression ἰδ as
follows :—r-ina Mbbi kalumi anni issisamma anna kéna
Suknamma ; ‘because of this lamb offered in sacrifice
arise thou and establish faithfulness and mercy.'

So, in like manner, the gods are represented as rejoic-
ing over the sacrificial gifts brought them by their human
worshippers (K. 1547, rev. τὰ: igdamré πιαξαξ δία
azléia ina tub libbi ilîni igdamru, ‘accomplished are
my cleansing sacrifices, to the gladdening of the
hearts of the gods are my sacrifices of lambs accom-
plished'). The feature of joy and gladness which so
markedly characterised the sacrificial meals of pre-exilic
Israel (1: ΓῺ noir, Dt. 127; SACRIFICE, 8 18} is by no
means absent from the Babylonian functions. Thus in
3 R 3662 we read (a&u/ αξάϊε Siti kurunnu ningutu
Sukun nw'id 118) ‘eat food, drink must, make music,
honour my god’. Predominant, however, over this
joyous note which finds such marked expression among
the peoples of classical antiquity there is found in the
Babylonian ritual a feature which is common to all
Semitic religions—the element of propitiation. Here,
of course, we must divest ourselves of all theological
preconceptions, and put aside all such notions as that
of an atoning efficacy attaching to the blood as the seat
of life, or of a divine wrath that expends itself upon the
sacrificial animal, or even of a ratio vicaria, when we
speak of the idea of propitiation as underlying Baby-
lonian sacrifices. The similarity of the words and forms.
does not necessarily involve similarity in the religious
conception. The Babylonians possessed the same
words for sin (fix), grace (anna), propitiation (pid)
as the Hebrews had; but it is certain that they did not
associate with the words the same thoughts, At the
same time it is significant and by no means accidental—
it has its roots firmly planted in the very nature of the
religious ideas involved—that every offering offered with
the ‘object of averting evil of any kind whatsoever was
associated with the notion of a propitiatory, cleansing,
purifying efficacy. In a hymn to Samai we read
(4 R 1746: amélu apil ilitu @nun arnam emid metri-
tutu marsit ibfà marsii ina mursi ni'il ilu Sama$ ana
nit kétiia khilamma abaliu akul nigéfu mupurma ilam.
Zlkat ana idifu Sukun ina kibitika énissu lippatir
aranfu linnasig), ‘man, the son of his god—sin,
transgression lies upon him. His physical strength is
impaired, he languishes in disease. O Samas, behold
the uplifting of my hands, eat his food, accept his sacri-
fice, O God. Take off his fetters. ΑἹ thy command
may his sins be taken away, his transgressions blotted
Other passages subjoined explain themselves.
4R 5447: mugur kadrafu liki pidétu ina kakkar
Sulmé mapraka littallak; ‘accept the gift he brings,
receive his ransom money (}5); let him walk before

1 Cp King, BaZylon, Magie, 17 28 (1896): aSrubba butrinnn
iris tabu Rinis naplisannima Simi kaba-aî, ‘Ì present you
with incense, agreeable vapour: look at me truly, hear my
words.”

4120

RITUAL

them on the ground of peace.’ 4R. 55, obv. 211; 2if
kétifu ilifu ana magdri ù nindabéSu ana rdmi ilanifu
séndt ittiîu ana Sulmi; ‘whereby his god accepts the
lifting up of his hands and takes pleasure in his free-
will offerings, whereby the angry gods turn themselves
propitiously towards him.' 4 R. 577 (αξάϊδ è παῤ-
Saltum Sa ina pànika kunnu lipsusu limntia) : ‘the food
and the fatness which is spread out before thy face, may
it take away mine evil '! The following remarkable
passage, from a hymn to Marduk, stands unfortunately
alone (Κ. 246; cp 2 R. 1853: amélu muttalibu ina
nîb yémè Sulmè hima ἐδ mati limmaS6f), ‘May the
man plagued with fever be purified like shining metal
through a gracious peace offering.” In contracts the
expression 2429 fapfiri, ‘redemption ox' (Ned. 13212
2133) often occurs; cp with this Lev.43 (nienò 5).
‘The idea of atonement in the OT has found its classical
expression in the ζαῤῥόγείά of P {see MERCY-SEAT, 8 2).

Τὴ this connection ît is important to observe that the root 559
is attested in Babylonia also, 424% in the rituals meaning “to
cleanse,* “to purify.* 4 R. 1640: améle muttalibu mar ilifu
kubtirma; ‘“Cleanse (with the water of the oath) the man

lagued with fever, the son of his god’ 4R. 2754: a&dla dii
Lo i dll'tuatu bubpirmas *cleanse the unclean foods" (of the

same). In K. 3245 the precept frequently recurs far fubappar

—' do thou, O king, purify, as also the phrase ἡαάῤέγέμ of the
ceremony of purification (ξένα fa4pirazi tuktétt0—' when thou
hast accomplished the rites of purification *), _Whilst the phrase
already alluded to—nîf s/n (corresponding to the Heb.
Séler:, which, as we see from 15.139 25.2425 Ezek. 4527,
denotes α purlficotory offering cp SACRIMICE, $ 11)—is of only
occasional occurrence, we frequently in contracts meet with the
word salfmu, falammeu, which in accordance with the primary
meaning of the root $2/4xx may be rendered ‘turning towards'
(on the part of the deity), and taken in the sense of a propitiatory
sacrifice, Cp Nadun, 2149 809 53 6414 767 2, Cyr. 2293 with the
sattukku named in Nabun. 799 1517.

A few words must be said on the subjects of human
sacrifice, offerings to the dead, and sacrifices of chastity.?

It is a remarkable circumstance that

hitherto no authentic evidence for the
“ burning of human sacrifices has been
met with in any of the cuneiform inscriptions. It
would be unwise, however, to base much upon the
argumentum e silentio here, for reticence with reference
to such a sad and repulsive practice is only what we
should expect. The passage, so often quoted in 4 R.
266, where the priest is bidden to offer for the life of the
sick man a kid {xrfcz)—head, neck, breast of the one
for head, neck, breast of the other—does not come into
account here. The text is a description of a magical
operation such as may be compared with that given in
2K.434 The Babylonian sculptures, on the other
hand, supply traces of human sacrifices that are almost
unmistakable (sce Menant, PG194/ 97), though it is
not impossible that the representations in question are
intended to figure, not human sacrifices, but ceremonies
connected with circumcision. In the wider sense of the
term the Babylonian ban (see BAN} has to be regarded
as of the nature of human sacrifice, ‘That the same
conception is not altogether absent from the Heb,
hérem (against Di. Lew. 377) is proved by 15, 846,
where the destruction of Israel's enemies at Bozrah is
treated as a *b my. Sennacherib (550) put to death

the troops of Suzub at the command of ASur his lord,
Shalmaneser (170. 05%. 17) burnt the young men and
maidens in his band of captives. The ban proncunced
by ASur-bani-pal (6101) over his enemies extends also
τὸ the lower animals (cp Judg. 2048). | A sacrificial offer-
ing of prisoners (cp τ S. 1533) is thus recorded by A3ur-
bani-pal (470): ‘the remainder of the people I put to
death beside the great steer, where my grandfather
Sennacherib had been murdered, making lamentation
for him." In 4 R.6340 IStar figures as the bloodthirsty
goddess who devours human flesh: ditaratti démi
nifbuti Sa améliti Sér Sa IA ahdli nérpaddu Fa 14 kardsi è

9. Human
sacrifice, etc.

1 Cp King, Ze. 5.7 76.
2 On human sacrifice cp Lenormant, Études accadiennes,
912; Sayce, 7.58.4 425; Menant, PGliso.

4121

RITUAL

‘she (the daughter of Anu) has drunk the satisfying
blood of men, flesh that cannot be eaten, bones that
cannot be gnawed." The probability is that the Baby-
lonians practised human sacrifice secretly without form-
ally taking it up into the recognised worship. In the
older period {of which we have a reminiscence in Gen.
22), as well as in times of religious declension (2 K.
1731}, the Israelites doubtless borrowed the practice of
human sacrifice from the peoples in their immediate
neighbourbood.

As for offerings to the dead, which indecd are
forbidden in the OT as relies of hcathenism (Dt.
2614), but the practice of which was not unknown
even at a late date (Jer.167), evidence of their use
among the Babylonians and Assyrians is of frequent
occurrence (see A. Jeremias, Vorstellungen vom Leben
nach dem Tode, 53). The Descent of IStar closes with
the charge of the priest to the necromancer: ‘if she
vouchsafe not liberation to thee, then turn thy face
towards her and pour out pure water with precious
balsam before Tammuz the husband of her youth."
ASur-bini-pal (Lehmann, SamaWumuzin, 223) says:
adi hispi πᾶξ mé ana chimmè Sarrini alikét mapri Sa
Subtulu arkus: ‘for the lament of the pourer out of
walter on behalf of the spirits of my ancestors, the kings,
I gave orders because it had been abolished.' In the
burying-places of Sirghula and Elhibba were discovered
traces of offerings to the dead : calcined date stones, bones
of oxen, sheep, birds, Representations of sacrifices to
the dead are given in Perrot, e. 361, and Menant, PG
254. The dirge as a Babylonian institution is attested
also by Ezek. 814. The sacrifice of chastity, mentioned
by Herodotus (199), is bluntly described in the Epistle
of Jeremiah (v.43{= Baruch 643]}. Even in the Nimrod-
epos, Istar the goddess of love already appears (491)
surrounded by a whole troop of attendants: uptoZzir
iltu IStar kiztréti fampdti è fAriméti: ‘there assembled
the goddess IStar, the servants, harlots, and concubines.'
In the period of religious decay the worship by such
hieroduli became naturalised in Jerusalem (2 K. 237).

The subject of lustrations stands in close connection
with that of sacrifice in the Hebrew Torah, and has a

. na large place în the Babylonian ritual.
20. Lustrationa. “he texis relating to it are very
difficult, especially because they are often written in
pure ideograms. At the foundation of these purifica
tions lies the conception that an unclean substance can
be removed by a clean, and a clean be taken up by an
unclean. That which is unelean has a contagious
character, that which is clean has a sympathetic power.
So 4 R.162: mé Sunditi ana harpati tirma ana vibîiti
tubukma maruitu Sa éimlki innaZfaru ribitu litbal
vu'tum nadîtum % Rima mt littabik kiipi Sa ina ru'ti
nadîti bullulu ana arkati littru: ‘this water pour
thou into a pot, then pour out in the street; let the
street carry off the sickness which deprives of strength,
and let the poison poured into ît be washed away like
the water, let the spell which has united itself with the
poison poured in be averted.' The spell (from which
the sickness proceeds) is transferred to the poison, the
poison is absorbed by the water, the water is carried off
by the street ; thus the sufferer has a threefold guarantee
that he will be healed of his sickness.

As ingredients were employed such things as from
their exiernal appearance or internal qualities were
fitted to be symbols of purity. Water is mentioned
with special frequency. © In lustrations libations of
water are offered to Sama$. Marduk and Ea the gcds
of pure exorcism are honoured with libations and
sacrifices in the house of sprinkling (δὲν rimZi; 5 R.
5051). In the temple was a laver (2exdéz). In an
vath formula (Mfaglu. 34, 47) occurs this expression:
ana ilAni Sa fam m? anamdin ξένια andku ana kifunu
ulallubuntti attunu ἐάξὲ ullilainni > ‘1 offer water to
the gods of heaven. As I perform your purificatioù for
you, so do ye cleanse me.” ‘The waters of the Euphrates

4122

RITUAL

and the Tigris were regarded as having special efficacy

(Nimr. Ep.4919; Zimmern, Surpu, 4466, ἐδ. 77}; we |

have this interesting passage : “By Marduk's command
be the bowl with thy guilt, thy ban, taken away like the
unclean water from thy body and thy hands and
swallowed up by the earth.

Besides water, frequent mention is made of honey (ήδη,
wine (kartint), milk (Frbu), cream (himéta); further, bright
minerals such as salt (£46/2), alum (ἐξξα το, allcali (? u4ete) ;
and, from the vegetable kingdom, corn (924%), the wood of
various trees, such as cedar (eri), cypress (3u745%), palm (£i2-

Simarri), calamus (ξάνιτε tab; cp STI MP), rig:gir(onycha?)
‘ll sorts of incense ($ugrinnu, MIDP).

As a clean place—a#x e/l4, exactly corresponding
to the ning cipp of Nu. 199—the wilderness is frequently
named! "4 R/843: mamil ana siri alri εἰ litesi,
*let the ban depart to the wilderness, the clean place *
(cp 4 R.142), 4 R. 6651: ara pdr παρα δ Sa stri
pdniki Sukni, “τὸ the beasts of the wilderness turn thy
face." It is ona similar conception of the wilderness as
the clean place that the Israelite custom of sending the
goat for Azazel into the wilderness on the day of Atone-
ment appears to rest (but see AZAZEL). Of the other
goat also which had to be burnt, Josephus remarks
(Ant. iii. 103) that before the burning it had to be
brought to a very clean place—(els καθαρώτατον χωρίον).

Purity—physical cleanliness—is postulated in every
sacrificial act, as în every exercise of religion (4 R. 2816:
ἀμ elléti ἐξξᾶ makparka + ‘ with pure bands he sacrifices
before thee." 4 R.19 no. a: Adlika misi katika ubbib,
* wash thy hand, purify thy hand.' Mag&z 10869 : sffurz
Firu misî kGtà Strumma Siru misé kétà, ‘the morning
dawn is past, I have washed my hands; the morning
glow has shone, I have washed my hands’). All who
were sick or who associated with those who were unclean
became themselves unclean. (4 R.6264: ἐᾷ ella 8
ellita ul ifamar, ‘the unclean man, the unclean woman,
shall he not look upon ').

‘That contact with the dead defiled may be assumed as matter
of course; of sexual defilement this is expressly stated by

Herodotus(1 198): cp 4 R. 26 no, 5 1 zinmiFtu fa ῥά ῥᾶξα la damba

ultambir ardatu Sa bétàsa ἐᾷ misà ittaflas: ‘to a woman

whose hand is not pre, he has joined himself; at a maid.servant
whose hand is not washed, he has looked.*

Foods also were distinguished as clean and unclean.
In the prayer addressed to the sun-god we often meet
with such expressions as these: meimema ἐκ μ ἐξιεῖ iStu
iptutu ulappitu ukabbisu, ‘if he perchance has eaten,
drunken, anointed with, touched, or trodden on, aught
that was unclean.’” In the calendar given in 5 R. 4849
occur food probibitions. For the gth of Iyyar fish is
forbidden, for the goth of Ab swine flesh (5 Sa&é), for
the 27th of Tiri swine flesh, beef {3#r a/si), for the roth
of Marbesvan dates, for the 25th of Iyyar, zoth of
Kisleu, and 6th of Tebet contact with women.

The Babylonian ritual of purification urgently needs
systematic exhibition, especially on account of its close
connection with OT views. Nowack (474 275) re-
marks with truth that the biblical ideas of clean and
unclean had their rise elsewhere than on the soil of
Yahwism (cp Smend, Rel. -gesch. 334). In such alaw
of purification as that which we find in Lev. 14 un-
questionably many pre-Israelitic representations are
present. The cedar-wood mentioned in Lev. 144 is one
of the cleansing media of the Babylonian ritual also
(4 R.1632 5 R.5lis); the bird which in Lev.147 is
charged with carrying off the leprosy into space is often
met with in Babylonian litanies {4 R.426 4 R. 592,
rev. 14: ‘I will rend asunder my wickedness, let the
bird carry it away up to the sky'). The sevenfold
sprinkling of the person to be cleansed (Lev. 147) recalls
such passages as 4 R. 2632: adî sibitu aumur améli
Suatu puîufma, ‘seven times anoint the body of that
man." The besmearing with blood on the tip of the
right ear, on the right thumb, on the great toe of the

1 The desert is perhaps regarded as pure because ît receives
unpurified and dead bodies without harm.

4123

i priate as sacrificial gifts.

RITUAL

right foot, prescribed in Lev.1414 has its analogies
in many magical texts {cp ASA7T9152: abra ella
ina bukéni Za énifu ina ubénifu sipirti ina Fumblitu
Fukun, ‘lay the shining stone on the lashes[?] of his
eyes, on his little finger, on his left side’). An
interesting parallel to the offering of purification pre-
seribed for the poor, which follows the magical operation
prescribed'in Lev. 142r, occurs in K. 8380. There the
person to be purified is bidden take hold of the hands of
the sacrificer who pours water upon the hand of the
sufferer, lays incense upon the dish, and solemnly pre-
pares the sacrificia! meal Then, further, we read:
Summa rub@ $0 tu kil issfiru ana mablîte ikalu Summa
mulkinu Su libbî Su'î ikalu, «if he is a rich man he
shall hand over a dove (?} to be burned, but if he is
a pauper he shall cause the heart of a sheep to be
burned."

i. Points of resemblance.—(a) A large number of
expressions relating to sacrifice are common to both
rituals_-eg., durbanza {1310}, εἴδτε
11. Summary. (nu), suzmu (obo), sardi (apo).
fabébu (nzp), Zas4ru (585). (4) In bloody sacrifices,
the same species of animals are employed (ox, sheep,
goat). Animals of a year old are preferred, sacrifices
ofa more advanced age are rare. Female animals are în
the one case used for purifications, in the other (Nu. 1527)
for sin offerings. The offering of defective animals was
in the one case allowed for purposes of augury, in the
other for free-will offerings (Lev. 2223). Generally speak-
ing, both rituals required that the victim should be
without blemish. As in the Babylonian ritual the
sattukku—i.e., the regular and obligatory sacrifices—lies
at the foundation of the worship, so also in P, and still
more in Ezekiel, is the 427244, the regular daily offering,
made statutory and the centre of the whole divine
service. (c) As for unbloody sacrifices, among the
Babylonians systematio use was made of various
materials of which the employment in Israel was only
exceptional, such as wine, water, oil. ‘The incense
offering (Zufrinnu) was unknown to early Israel. ΑἹ
the more striking is the frequent and important place it
takes in the ritual law of P which provides a special
altar for the 44/2re4. Jeremiah (620) has a polemie
against it as a modern and outlandish innovation. The
unknown author of Is. 653 names Babylon as the land
in which sacrifices are offered in gardens, and incense
offered upon bricks (cp Ckors. 172; Sarg. Ann. 434;
4 R. 4953). The incense offering of post-exilic Israel
may perhaps have been borrowed from the Babylonian
ritual.

ii. Points of difference. —(a) In the vegetable offerings
of the Hebrew Torah only those products figure which
represent a right of private ownership acquired by
labour and trouble. Honey, cream, milk, fruit occur
frequently as Babylonian offerings, but never amongst
those of the OT. The wine libation is no longer an
independent offering in P (SACRIFICE, $ 35), Ezekiel
prohibited it altogether—doubtless, however, only on
account of abuses connected with it (15.114). (2) As
regards bloody sacrifices, offerings of fish and game
were excluded from the Hebrew ritual, Both are
inherently the property of Yahwè and thus not appro-
The fish offering, on the
other hand, is frequently mentioned in Assyrian and
late Babylonian inscriptions, and game offerings were in
great, favour, In 7ig/-piZ74$ we read: ‘herds of
hinds, stags, chamois (?), wild goats, which I had taken
in hunting in large numbers, I brought together like
sheep, and the progeny that was born of them I offered
as my heart bade me, along with pure sacrificial lambs,
to the god ASur.*

{c) As for the fundamental idea underlying sacrifice,
the Hebrew sacrifice in its older form gave a special
development to the conception of a sacral communion
between God and the worshipper as represented in the

4124

RIVAL

act of offering (cp Wellh. Zeid. 114); the Babylonian |
cultus, on the other hand, affords no trace of this. All
the more strongly is the idea of the purificatory and
propitiatory character of sacrifice which comes into the
foreground in P and Ezekiel conspicuous in the Baby-
lonian cultus, Singular to say, however, that shows not
the faintest trace of dim (SACKIFICE, $ 27), 4hattatk
{SACRIFICE, $ 28); we may assume that the sin and the
trespass offering of the Hebrew Torah, although all
that we know of their technique is wholly of post-exilie
date, were entirely of Israelite growth. LL

RIVAL (11%). 1S.16 ΕΝ, AV ADVERSARY.

RIVER. For the rivers and streams mentioned in
the EV, see, generally, GROGRAPHY, $ 5; PALESTINE,
88 0, 13; EGYPT, $ 6; AssyrIA, $ 4; ΜΟΑΒ, $ 41;
also EUPHRATES, JoRDAN, NILE, etc.

The regular word for river is σ, «444 (της, N. Sem., Ar.
nahr is probably a loan-word). See GEOGRAPHY, $ 5, and cp
ARAM-NAHARAIM. Other words occasionally so rendered are:—

2. γῆ δε (gv; cp CanaL, Grograrny, $ 5. [iî.]) used regu-
larly of the NiLE[g.v.] or of its arms, once of ἃ mining-shaft
(Job 28 το), and in Dan. 12 5-7 of the Tigris.. The last mentioned
unrestricted use of the word appears again in later Hebrew.

3. dial (ny, N. Sem.) corresponds to the Ar. au&dy or
torrent-valley; see GrogrAPHY, $ 5liv.], and cp BrooK.

"Toro terme appear to designate pimarily canale or conduîts:—

4 γηδαὶ ON, vfiow, run), Jer. 1188 (ixuds [BRAO]) of
which ‘2025 bab]p in Dan.82,/ 68 (see ULA1) seems to be a
mere phonetic variation. Cp the form ye4/* in plu. 15. 80 25
(EV ‘ streams’), 444 (EV ‘ watercourses").

5. Péleg (355), Ps. 46 4[5] 66 το). Cp A#lagea*4, Job2017
EV Give in Judg. 6ag/ RV * waltercoutses' (o Moore ; cpy
however, Bu., Now.).

For the sake of completeness mention may here be made of:—

6. ’Aphiù (ηῈ.} see BROOK.

7. 'éfed (ex), Nu. 2115, AV ‘stream’; on the meaning see
ASHDOTH-PISGAH.

8. nazétrm (Π) 1)», lit. ‘flowing '), Ps. 78 τό Cant, 415, ‘streams.

RIVER OF EGYPT (DIS Um). See Ecver,
BRO0OK ΟΕ.

RIVER OF THE WILDERNESS (Π}ἼΠ 5).
See ARARAH, BROOK OF THE,

RIZIA (11°), 1 Ch. 739 ΕΝ, AV REZIA.

RIZPAH {ΠΡ ΥῚ; 8 71, ‘pavement’; pecpa [BAL},
daughter of AIAH {g.2.], Saul's concubine, 2 S.37
2187, (ρεφφδθ [A in 7. 8]). According to the existing
tradition ‘Ishbosheth ' was angry with Abner for taking
possesssion of his father's concubine, and Abner
indignantly repelle the accusation (on 2 5, 88 see
NABAL). Winckler, however, plausibly holds (G/2196)
that the original tradition interpreted this fact differently,
and that in reality Abner had dethroned ' Ishbosheth,'
and signified his assumption of Saul’s crown by taking
possession of Saul's wife (cp 1211 1622). The pathetic
story of Rizpah’s conduct when her two sons ARMONI
(see SAUL, $ 6) and MEPHIBOSHETH [9.2.] and the
five sons of Michal or rather MERAB {g.v.] had -been
put to death, to remove the blood-guiltiness of the land,
is also, according to Winckler (G/ 2241), unhistorical ;
‘hesuspects mythological affinities, and compares themyth
of Niobe (Preller, Grieck. Myek. 2269). According to
2 S.211:f., it was on hearing of the act of Rizpah,
that David sent for the bones of Saul and Jonathan,
that they might be buried together in the sepulchre of
Kish at Zela, or rather Laish (=Shalishah}. See
ZELAH.

On the Rizpah-story see further RS 419 7, and on the
mode of execution (Ypî7) see Ἠλνοινο, 28; on the source of

the narrative, see SAMUEL (Books), $$ 471; We. ΟἿ 263; Bu.
Ri. Sa, 257 Δ T.K.C.

ROAST. See Cooking, $ 6; SACRIFICE, $ 6.

ROBE, the rendering suggests an outer garment of
some richness, more elaborate and elegant than an

‘ordinary mantle.

4125

ROE

The word occurs most frequently as the rendering of 222"2/ (see
MANTLE, $ 2 [6)), occasionaliy, too, of a4déretà, Jon. 86, and
(for MT éder) Mi. 23 (see ἐδ. 5), and of »εαλα αρδέῃ, 15.355 RV
{see #6. 7), στολή, Lk. 1522 20,46 Rev. 6117913/ (ee 12. 16),
and χλαμύς, Mt.2728 (see ἐδ, 20), It is applied to the more
general terms Seged (1 K. 22 1030 ἢ 2 Ch. 189293 see Dress,
$ 1(1)), and ἐσθής (Lk. 28 rr, RV'* apparel), and is once used τὸ
render 4uzt6netà (Is. 2221), on which see Tunic. See DRESS,
MANTLE, and cp CLOTHING, GARMENT.

ROBOAM (Mt. 17), RV REHOBOAM.

ROCK. τ. NY, τσ See NAMES ΟΕ GoD, $ 15,
and Zur. [Under Zur thirty-five places are cited where sir
seems to have become altogether a synonym for ‘God.’ In
twenty-one of these & (from a dread of materialism?) has θεός,
in four βοηθός, in four φύλαξ; κύριος (15. 17 το), δέκαεος (1 S. 22),
κτίστης (2 S.22 32), ἀντιλήμπτωρ (Ps. 89 27 [26]) each occur once ἢ
and in Di, 32 37 Hab. 112 (5 shows a different text.]

2. vbp, sla. See SeLA, [In 25.222 Ps.183 [2],

314 [3] 4210 [9], 56/2 is a synomyn of s2r, and a divine
title. Kònig (Sty/ist£, 100) finds sé once used of a
heathen god, but into (EV ‘his rock‘) in Is.319, if
correct, is parallel to yy (EV ‘his princes') 868
Crit. Biò.]

3. risi 224'02 (Judg. 626 ἘΝ), cp FORTRESS; 4.
vpin, Aallamit (100 289), cp FLINT; 5. na, 422% (Jer.
429 Job 806); cp CEFHAS, SIMON PETER.

ROCKBADGER (}DY, Lev. 115 RV®8), EV Conev.

ROD. Of the following words, the first three are
also rendered ‘staff’; see Is. 8032 (the staff of judg-
ment); Ps. 234 (v2w, ll mpen, see STAFF, 1}; Gen. 3210
(Jacob's staff); for a very special sense of men and
nav, see SCEPTRE,

1, MOD, matfeh (4/09), to stretch out): of the staff or wand of
the traveller (Gen. 88 1825, etc.), shepherd (Ex. 4 2, etc.), wonder-
worker (Ex.T912, etc.), warrior (1S.142743), task-master
(Is. 9314), etc.); ruler (er. 48 17, etc.); an implement of punish-
ment (Is. 3031), used also in beating cut black cummin (4#524,
Is. 2827). The ‘rods’ in Νὰ, 1717 2: ΠῚ 2 75} are apparently
‘shafts,’ d.e., arrows or spears. Maitek is also rendered ‘staf*
(the staff of judgment), 15. 3032. Cp the Ar. #2527, Doughty,
Ar. Des. 1147, 379.

i, $éBet, cp Ass. Sabatu, "to beat' (whence 318%, ‘staff,
as something to beat with, but also “massacre,” Frd. Del .)
(4) As an implement of punishment (Prov. 1013 1824); thé
bastinado as authorised by law îs referred to in Dt. 25 1-3, and
(probably) Dt. 22 18. See Law AND Justice, $ 12. In @ the
verbs are μαστιγοῦν, παιδεύειν ; ῥαβδίζειν is used only of
threshing in agriculture. (3) As used for beating cummin
(kammon, Is. 2827). (2) Of the shepherd's staff, or club-stick
(Ar. naòit), Ps. 28 4 Lev. 2732 Ezek. 2037. (4) Of the ruler's
staff; see SceFTRE. (e) Of a weapon, in time of stress, 2 8.
2321. Both mafe and ἤφδεξ are used also metaphorically in
the sense of ‘tribe’ (sce TRIBE),

San, ma&4el, literally a shoot or wand (Jer. 111 Gen. 80 37,
etc.); of traveller's staff, Gen, 8211; of the shepherd's, τ 5.
17 45.43 Zech. 11 7 1014; once perhaps of a crutch, see STAFF,
3. Used in rhaldomancy, Hos, 412 (see DIvinATION, $ 2 [1]).

4. ὌΠ, 4òter, used only metaphorically (but as representing
its literal sense of ‘shoot,' ‘scion’ or ‘twig '), [5.11 τ Prov. 143t.

5. ῥάβδας, τ Cor.421 Heb.94 Rev.227 llt 125 1915, all,
except 1 Cor. (Zc.) and Rev. 111, influenced by OT.

The ‘beating with rods' (ῥαβδίφειν) in Acts1622 2 Cor.
1125 is the Roman punishment inflicted by the lictors (EV
* serjeants,’ ῥαβδοῦχοι : Acts 16 35 38).

RODANIM (DT), 1Ch.17 AVME, RV; AV
DoDANIM.
ROE. The renderingof: 1. s287, ‘*9Y (Ar. φαῦν, Aram.

fabyà [cp Tabitna], Ass. sadz/2; δορκάς [BKAL]) în EV of
1 Ch, 128, and 2 S. 218 (‘wild roe, lit. ‘roe that is in the field,”
cp RVme:), and, with RVmg. ‘gazelle in EV of Cant. 27 (|
δυνάμεσιν) and 17 (8 δόρκωνο) 8 ς ( δυνάμεσιν) 814; AV only
in Ecclus. 27 20 (RV ‘gazelle'); also the rendering of the fem.
form sibiyyak, 35, in Cant. 45 1314] RV (RVig. ‘gazelle,*
not in AV), When mentioned as an article of food sel? is
rendered Koebuck (Dt. 121522 145 1522 1K.423{53], AV;
RV ‘gazelle).

2. ga'alah, 35), Prov. 619, RV, DoE; cp Goar, $ 2.

3. ‘Apher, “Bj, Cant. 45 7314], AV ‘young τος, ΕΥ̓͂ ‘fawn,'
see Hart.

4 pagante, “NOM (lit. ‘red'), Dt.145 1K.423 [53]; AV
FatLow-DEER (βούβαλος [AL in Dt.]; B in Dt., and BAL in
Ki. om. ?).

4126

ROGELIM

Like the GazeLLE and HART, the roe is chiefly
alluded to for its swiftness, and partly on account of
its grace and beauty is a favourite image of female
charms.1! On the species in-general see GoAT, $ 2, and
note that the name ya4z:2» (no. 4 above) is still used
by the Arabs for the true Cervus cafreolus (cp Dr.
Deut., ad loc. and see ANTELOPE). The Capreolus
capra, with which the γαζηνεῖῖγ' has also been identified,
is a small form found distributed over Europe and
W. Asia, and still occurs in Palestine; specimens of it
were seen by Tristram on Lebanon, and by Conder
{Tent-Werk, gx [1887]) on Mt. Carmel. The fallow-
deer (cp AV), Ceruzs dama, is a native of N. Africa
and of the countries surrounding the Mediterranean,
whence it has been introduced into many civilised
countries. It occurs also in N. Palestine, but is said
to be scarce. A nearly allied species, C. mesoporamicus,
is found in parts of W. Persia. ALE SS. A.C.

ROGELIM osa: pwreAlAlerm [BA], ρᾶκδβειν
[L]) ; the home of ‘ Barzillai the Gileadite' (2 S.1727
1931). The existence of such a placé is questionable.
Probably the passages relative to Barzillai are based on
an earlier passage respecting MEPHIBOSHETH [g.v. $ 2]
which had already become corrupt, and p:bis (Rogelim)
is a corruption of m'%1 ἢ"5 Beth-gallim, i.e, Beth-gilgal
(see GALLIM; SAUL, $ 4).

The corruption arose from a scribe's Zagses ccali. In 2 5.
1727 £ the:true text probably ran (sce @BAL and cp YARNÌ

aggio ampi ming D'Ivpp pda ἼΡΡΩΠ ma But
D'IMIPD Was miswritten D19979; the consequence of which was
that one scribe (followed by MT and 458.) wrote 151, and
another (followed by 451.) wrote ΠΙΞΡῪΣ, instead of D'

The ἤνεγκαν of @BAL represents pealiypo (cp Judg.317 £).
2 S.193t was harmonised, as to the name of Barzillai's home,
with 2 8. 17 27 in each of the texts. T.K.C.

ROHGAH (13939 Kt. MIN) Kr.), a name ina
genealogy of ASHER (g.v. $ 4.3.} ἴπτ Ch.734 [Ahi]
and Rohghah" becomes [ayiloyia [B] [ax]cypa ora
[4]; [Heir] kai paroye [L.]; but rogge; Pesh. om.
passage) ; cp AHI, 2.

ROIMUS (poeimoy [Β]}, τ
REHUM, 3.

Esd. 58= Ezra 22,

ROLL. 1. nbxp, meQgillah; χαρτίον, χάρτης, κεφαλί5),
Jer.362, etc. See ὕγειτινα.

2. Sa, gillayoni for Dita “1 © has τόμον καινοῦ μεγάλον
[BHO] τόμον χάρτου «un LAI; RV “iablez.’’ A tabletof wood or

stone is probably meant. Is. 8 τή, For the gilyanim of 15. 8 43
cp Mirror, end.

3. 750, se64a7, Ezra61, RV ‘archives’ See Ῥπιτινο and
cp HisroRicaL LITERATURE.

ROLLER (DIAM; mararma [BAOT; cp 15.16}),
Ezek. 3021, one of the few references to surgical practice
in the EV (see MEDICINE). /75/#2/from y/entwine (used
in Ezek. 164 of swaddling, cp derivative în Job 389) is
properly a bandage (cp Toys rendering'in SB07)
rather than a poultice (as &).

ROMAMTI-EZER (3) ‘MOI, $ 23, according to
the Chronicler a son of Heman: 1 Ch. 25431 pwmei
Yior wà, pomeAxei [B, superser. +0 Β5Ρ], pwm-

emoi ezep, pumed miezep [A], pamagiezep [L],
romemthieser [Vg.]), but see HEMAN.

ROMANS (EPISTLE)

History of criticism (88 1-3).
What ‘Romans’ seems to be

Conclusion (ἢ 19).
Author (88 20-22).

His date ( 23).

Value of Work (ἢ 24).
Defenders of authenticity (8

4.
Contents ( 5)
Not a letter (88 6-8).
Structure ($$ 9-13). 25).
Late date (88 14-18). Literature (8 26).
Of Epistles to the Romans Old-Christian Literature
is acquainted with. two—that of Paul and that of

1 If these animals were sacred to the.goddess of love (see
Gazette), another plausible ‘origin of the reference might be
sought for.

4127

ROMANS (EPISTLE)

Ignatius. As regards the latter, the reader is referred
to what has been said under OLD-CHRISTIAN LITERA-
TURE ($ 28). The ‘Epistle of Paul to the Romans'
has come down to us from antiquity not as a separate
work but as one of the most distinguished members of a
group—the ‘epistles of Paul' (ἐπιστολαὶ Παύλου)-- ἴπ
which its title in the shortest form, followed by Ti. WH
among others (after NABC, etc.}, is ‘to Romans” {πρὸς
Ρωμαίους).

From the beginning (first by Marcion, about 140 A.D.}

the work, as an integral part of the authoritative
. * Apostle' (ὁ ᾿Απόστολος, τὸ ἀποστο-
cli igtor οὗ χικόν)- τὸ ας, Paul (Παθλου)-- ἴα other
ditional How. words as a canonical writing, was
* tacitly recognised as the work of the
apostle Paul. This continued without a break till 1792.
Justin took na notice of Paul; Irenzeus and Tertullian
—the latter with a scornful ‘heereticorum apostolus'
on his lips—laboured to raise the ‘apostle' in the
estimation of the faithful (cp PauL, ὃ 48}; but no one
ever thought of doubting the genuineness of the letters
attributed to the apostle—or of defending it. During
the whole of that period the question did not so much
as exist.

There is indeed a very old discussion—perhaps it had

already arisen even in the second century—as to the
existence of the epistle in two forms, a
εἷς Reory οὗ longer and a shorter, even after omis-
Ρ * sion of the two last chapters (15, 16).
Origentaxes Marcion withthis last omission ; but Origen's
older contemporary Tertullian says nothing of that,
though he several times reprimands the heretic for having
tampered with the text of chaps. 1-14. The probability
is that Tertullian had no acquaintance with chaps. 157
At any rate, he made no citation from them in his
polemic against Marcion (adv. Marc. 513-14), although
in its course he leaves none of the previous chapters
(1-14) unreferred to and speaks of one expression—
‘tribupal Christi’ (1410}—as written ‘in clausula’
[epistulze]; cp van Manen, Paw/#s, 210-118,

In recent times the tradition of the text as regards
chaps. 15-16 has frequently come under discussion.
The conclusion is not only that the chapters in question
were unknown to Marcion and probably also to other
ancient witnesses, including Irenzeus and Cyprian, but
also that there were in circulation at an early date MSS.
in which the doxology Rom.1625-27 either occurred
alone immediately after 1423 or was entirely wanting
(cp Ti.; Sanday-Headlam, Comm. (1895), 89f; 8.
Davidson, /25.8, 1894, 1120-123).

To these facts were added, at a later date, considerations
based on the contents of chaps. 15-16 tending to show that they
hardly fitted in wich chaps. 1-14. Semler (Diss. de diepdici
appendice ep. Pauli ad Rom. 1767; Paraphrasis ep. ad
Komanos, 1769), soon afterwards supported by Eichhorn (£74
in das MT), held chap. 15 £ to be by Paul but not to have
originally belonged to the Epistle to the Romans. Baur (T#8.
Ztschr., 1836, Paulus, 1845, cp Pawiust), 1 [1866] 303-409),
followed, in the main, among others by Schwegler (NechaZ,
Zeitalter), Zeller(ACL),S. Davidson(/x4r0d. (81, 1894, 1123-31),
and controverted by Kling (S6.A7., 1837), De Wette and others,
maîntained the piece to be Spurioue. Since Baur, many scholars
have endeavoured to steer a middle course by séeking—in very
divergent ways, it is true—-for the close of the letter supposed
lost, in chaps, 15, 16. So among others, Lucht (Ueder die
Deiden letzten δα. des Remerbriefà, 1871), Volkmar (Rémer-
brief, 1875), Scholten (TX. 7, 1876), Bruckner (Reskenfolge,
1890), Baljon (Gescà. v. d. Bocken des NVs. 1901, p. 95-6). In
these various attempts an important part was always played by
the conjecture, first put forth by Schulz (S4.47., 1829), that in
Rom. 161-20 what we really have is an epistle of Paul to the
Ephesians,

In this direction—that of holding more Pauline
epistles than one to have been incorporated with each
other or amalgamated together to form the canonical
epistle to the Romans—the way had already been led
(leaving 15, 16 out of account) by Heumann în 1765.

He argued, according to Meyer (40m. [1859], etc.), for
the ‘strange hypothesis' that a new Epistle to the Romans
begins at chap. 12, whilst chap. 16 contains two postscripts (77.

1-24 and 25-27) t0 the first. Eichhorn (4x4), 1827) guessed
that Paul în reading over the epistle after it had been written

4128

ROMANS (EPISTLE)

by an amanuensis made various additions with his own hand.
Οἱ H. Weisse (P4los. Dogne. 1855) held Rom, 9-11 to be a later
insertion. He found moreover a number of minor insertions in
the Epistle, and finally conciuded that chaps. 9-10+161-16, 206,
probably had belonged originally to an Epistie of Paul to the
Ephesians (cp his Seitr. sur A7it4 der paul, Br. 1867, edited
by Sulze). Laurent (Wewzest. Studien, 1866) supposed Paul
to have written with his own hand to his Epistle to the
Romans a number of notes which subsequently by accident
found their way into the text. Renan (Sf Paw/) was of
opinion that Paul had published his Epistle to the Romans in
several forms—e.g., chaps, 1-113-15 ; chaps. 1-14+16 (part); out
of these forms the cpistle known to us ultimately grew. Straat-
man (7%. 7), 1868, 38-57), controverted by Rovers ()6. 310:325),
came to the conclusion that chaps, 12-14 do not fit in with what
recedes ; that these chapters along with chap. 16 belong to an
E pistle of Paul to the Ephesians; and that the close of the
Epistle to the Romans, properly so called, îs found in chap. 15,
Spitta (Zur Gesch. w. Litt. des Urchristentums, 116-30, 1893)
contended, and at a later date (3 1-193, 140) reaffirmed, thou
with some modifications of minor importance, that our Epistle
to the Romans is the result of a fitting-together of two epistles
written by Paul at separate times, one before and one after his
visit to Rome, and addressed to the Christians there. ‘The first
and longer, a well rounded whole, consisted of 1 1-11 36, 152-33,
1621-27; the second, partly worked into the first, has not
reached us in its entirety ; we recognise with certainty only the
portions : 121-157 and 181-20.

Pierson-Naber (Verisimzilia, 1886), controverted by Kuenen
(7%. T, 1886, cp van Manen, Byblad van de Hervorming, 1887,
No. 4, and 884 mod. Theo. 1887), point to a number of joinings
and Sutures, traces of manipulation and compilation, in the
traditional text of the Epistle to the Romans, with a view to
proving its /acera conditio. Michelsen (7%. , 1886-7) sought
to distinguish in that text five or six editions of Paul's Epistle,
in the course of which various far-reaching modifications may be
supposed to have been made. Sulze (Prof. Kirchenetg. 1888,
no. 42) pressed still further for the recognition of addittons ai
insertions. Vélter repented his ‘ Votum, etc,' (recorded în 7. 7,
1889) in a separate publication (Die KomJosition der paulin.
Hawuptbrieft,1, 1890), andsought to proveagain that our canonical
Epistle to the Romans is the fruit of repeated redaction and
expansion of a genuine epistle of the apostle.

Thus, there has been no lack of effort on the part of
scholars to satisfy themselves and each other of the
composite character of the traditional text. Equally
decided, however, at least with most of them, is the
opinion that nevertheless the text is, for the most part,
and in the main, from the hand of Paul. This con-
viction was for a long time tacitly assumed, rather than
explicitly expressed. So even by Baur, Weisse, and
Straatman, whilst it was brought to the foreground, with
friendly yet polemical emphasis, as against the representa-
tives of ‘advanced criticism,' by Spitta. As regards
the others mentioned above, most hesitation was to be
noticed in Pierson-Naber, Michelsen, and Vélter ; but
even these, one and all, continued to speak of an original
letter, written by Paul to the Romans.

Not a few writers continued simply to maintain the
prima facie character of the canonical epistle or, as
occasion offered, to defend it in their notes and dis-
cussions, commentaries and introductions.

For details, 2γὺ e4 contra, and some fiuidance through the
extensive literature, the student may consult Holtzmann, Zi/.@},
1392, 242-6; Sanday-Headlam, Comm. 1805, pp. 85-98; Zahn,
Einb. Bi, 1900, 1258-2090; for a more complete though not always
accurate account of the doubts regarding the unity of the work,
Clemen, Die Zinheitlichkeit der palin. Briefe, 1894, cp THAT)
1895, 6407

The first to break in all simplicity with the axiom of
the genuineness of our canonical epistle to the Romans,
though without saying so in so many

pat words, was E. Evanson. He appended
questioned. τ τὴν none I fre Sour pone

received Evangelisti, 1792, some con-
siderations against the justice of the received view which
regarded Paul as author of the epistle—considerations
based upon the contents themselves and’a comparison
between them and Acts (pp. 256-261). Controverted
by Priestley and others, Evanson's arguments soon fell
ìnto oblivion,

Sixty years afterwards Bruno Bauer (Aritit der
paulin. Briefe, 1852, 347-16) took up the work of
Evanson, without, so far as appears, being acquainted
with the writings of that scholar. He was not successful,
however, in gaining a hearing—not at least until after

4129

ROMANS (EPISTLE)

he had repeated his doubts in more compendious form
in his Christus u. die Casaren (1877, pp. 371-380).

Soon afterwards A. D. Loman (‘Queestiones paulina *
in ΤΆ. 7, 1882) developed the reasons which seemed to
him to render necessary a revision of the criticism of the
epistles of Paul which was then current. Without going
into details as regarded Romans, he declared all the
epistles to be the productions of a later time. Rud.
Steck (Der Galaterbrief nach seiner Echiheit untersucht,
nebst Britischen Bemerkungen su den paulinischen Haupt-
Briefen, 1888) came to the same conclusion and took
occasion to point out some peculiarities connected with
the Epistle to the Romans. The. same investigation
was more fully carried out, and substantially with che
same result, by W. C. van Manen {Paxw/us 1]. De brief
&an de Romeiner, 1891; cp Handleiding voor de Oudehr.
detterkunde, 1900, ch. 8, $$ 10-19), and Prof, W. B.
Smith of Tulane University, Louisiana, has recently
begun independently to follow the same path. ‘The
OQutlvok (New York) of Nov. 1900 contained a pre-
liminary article, by him, signed ‘ Clericus’ (8 misprint for
‘ Criticus '), and in the Journal of Biblica! Literature,
r901, a series of articles bearing the author's own name
was begun-—the first entitled ‘ Address and Destination
of St, Paul's Epistle to the Romans,' and the second
«Unto Romans: 15 and 16."

The newer criticism has made itself beard and goes
forward on its path in spite of much opposition and
strife, applauded by some, rejected by many. For its
character and aìms see PAUL, $$ 34-36, and cp $$
37-48. Its desire is to read ‘the Epistle of Paul to
the Romans’ as well as the rest of the canonical books
without any fear of the ban that lies upon aught that
may perchance prove to be contrary to tradition, whether
ecclesiastica or scientific; uninfluenced by any ante-
cedent presumption as to the correciness of the current
views as to contents, origin, or meaning of the text as it
has come down to us, however highly esteemed be the
quarter—Tiibingen or any other—from which they have
tesched us; free, ἰοῦ, from the dominion of any con-
vietion, received by faith merely, and held to be superior
to any test of examination, as to the epistle being in-
dubitably the work of Paul and of Paul alone. 11 seeks
to read the epistle in the pure light of history, exactly
as it appears after repeated examination has been made
on every side, as it at last presents itself to the student
wha really wishes to take knowledge of the contents
with as little prejudice as possible.

Coming before us, as it does, as a component part of
the group known as ‘the Epistles of Paul, handed down

. , from ancient times, Romans appears

4 Grhat "Rom indeed to be neither more nor less

seems t0 De. than an epistle of the apostle, written
probably at Corinth and addressed to the Christians at
Rome, whom he hopes to visit ere long after having made
a journey to Jerusalem. Both superscription and sub-
scription, as well as tradition, indicate this, even if we
leave out of account the words ‘in Rome' (ἐν Ῥώμῃ) and
‘ to those in Rome” {τοῖς ἐν Ῥώμῃ) which are wanting in
some MSS in 1715. We have only, in connection with
the superscription and subscription, to look at the manner
in which the epistle begins and ends (11-15 1514-16 27),
at the way în which the writer throughout addresses his
readers as brethren (113 714.812 10: 1125 121 1514f
30 1617), stirs them up. admonishes them and discusses
with them, as persons with whom he stands on a friendiy
footing, and has opened a correspondence on all sorts
of subjects. ‘The appearance of Tertius as amanuensis
(1622) need cause no surprise, it being assumed that
perhaps Paul himself may not have been very ready with
the pen.

If we turn for a little from a consideration of the
literary form to occupy ourselves more with the con-

tents, the first thing that strikes us is the
5. Contenta. conspicuously metfiodical way in which
the writer has set forth his material. After an address

4130

ROMANS (EPISTLH)

and benediction (1 1-7}, an introduction (18-15), and a
statement of what he regards as the essential matter as
regards the preaching of the gospel—a thing not to be
ashamed of but to be everywhere preached as a power
of God for the salvation of every believer whether Jew
or Greek (1:67)—come two great doctrinal sections
followed by an ethical section. The first doctrinal
section, 118-839, is devoted to the elucidation of the truth
that the gospel is the means for the salvation of Jews
and Greeks, because in it is revealed the righteousness
of God from faith to faith ; the other, 9-11, to an earnest
discussion of what seems to be a complete rejection of
the Jews by God; the third, the ethical section (12 r-
1513), to a setting forth of the conduct that befits the
Christian both towards God and towards man in general,
and towards the weak and their claims in particular.

In substance the doctrine is as follows. Sin has
alienated all men, Jews and Gentiles alike, from God,
so that neither our natural knowledge of God nor the
law is able to help us (118-320). A new way of salvation
is opened up, ' God's righteousness has been manifested '
(δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ πεφανέρωται) for all men without dis-
tinction, by faith in relation to Jesus Christ (32r-x1). It
is accordingly of no importance to be descended from
Abraham according to the flesh ; Abraham in the higher
sense is the father of those who believe (4). Justified by
faith, we have peace with God and the best hopes for
the future (5). Let no one, however, suppose that the
doctrine of grace, the persuasion that we are under
grace, not under the law, will conduce to sin or bring
the law into contempt. Such conclusions can and
must be peremptorily set aside (6-7). The emancipated
life of the Christian, free from the law of sin and death,
is a glorious one (8). Israel, the ancient people of the
promises with its great privileges, appears indeed to be
rejected, yet will finalîy be gathered în (9-11), ὙΠῸ life
of Christians, in relation to God and man, must in every
respect give evidence of complete renewal and absolute
consecration (121-18 13), Finally, a closing word as to
the apostle's vacation which he hopes to fulfil in Rome
also ; a commendation of Phoebe, greetings, exhorta-
tions, benedictions, and an ascription of praise to God
(1514-1627).

If, at a first inspection, the work presents itself to us
as an epistle written by Paul to the Christians at Rome,

A sog» On closer examination it becomes diffi-
6. Difficulties: cut to adhere to such a view. Difi-
ope: a le past; cuities arise on every side. To begin
ΠΝ È with—as regards the form that is
n assumed. We are acquainted with no
letters of antiquity with any such exordium as this:
* Paul, bond-slave of Jesus Christ, called an apostle,
separated unto the gospel of God . . . to all those
who are in Rome . . . grace to you and peace from
God our father and the Lord Jesus Christ’ {Παῦλος
δοῦλος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, κλητὸς ἀπόστολος ἀφωρισμένος
εἰς εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ. .. πᾶσιν τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ρώμῃ
κεν χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ
κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ; nor with any conclusion so
high-sounding as the doxology of 1625-27, or the prayer
for the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ which is heard in
1620 {or 1624). In every other case the epistles of
antiquity invariably begin plainly and simply.

Thus, for example, in the collection of Oxyrhynchus papyri
(1181) we have Εἰρήνη Ταοννώφρει καὶ Φίλωνε εὐψυχεῖν . . | and
at the close εὖ πράττετε; or (1183) Χαιρέας Διονυσίωι τῶι κυρίωε
ἀδελφῷ χαίρειν and, at the close, ἐρρῶσθαξ σε εὔχομαι.

Greetings are indeed conveyed both from and to
various persons ; but never are so many introduced as
in Rom. 16 3-16, where in fact at the end 2// the churches
salute. A letter-writer may, at the outset, seek to bring
‘himself into closer relationship with his reader or to make
himself known more exactly ; but in the many ex-
amples of real letters that have come down to us from
ancient times we nowhere find anything even approach-
ing the amplitude of Rom, 12-6. Nor yet does any real
letter, whether intended for few or for many, so far as

4131

ROMANS (EPISTLE)

we are in a position to judge, ever give us cause, because
by its length or its elaborate method it resembles a
treatise arranged in orderly sections, to regard it as a
book, as our canonical epistle to the Romans does, with
its great subdivisions (already taken account of under $ 5).
We may, in truth, safely dispense with further com-
parison between our epistle and any real letters from
ancient times, so impossible is it to regard
τι Btyle of it as an actual epistle, to whatever date,
*. locality, or author we may assign it,
How could any one at the very beginning of a letter, in
which, too, the first desire he writes to express is that
of writing solemnly, earnestly, directly, allow himself
to expatiate, as this writer does, in such a parenthesis ?
He speaks as a didactie expounder who, for the most
part, directly and as concisely as possible, deals with a
number of disputed points, with regard to which the
reader may be supposed to be in doubt or uncertainty
because in point of fact they have gained acceptance
within certain circles. These expositions relate to
nothing more or less than such points as the relation
of the Pauline Gospel to the OT (7. 2), the descent of
the Son of God from the house of David (v. 3), the
evidence of the Messiabship of Jesus derived from his
resurrection (7. 4), the origin and the legitimacy of the
Pauline preaching (v. 5). ΑἹ the same time the readers
(who have not yet been named and are first addressed in
ὦ, 7) are assured that they belong to the Gentiles (ἔθνη),
with reference to whom Paul has received his apostleship,
although, according to l10-13, he has never as yet met
them and consequently has not been the means of their
conversion. All this within a single parenthesis. In
such wise no letter was ever begun.

The writer addresses himself to ‘all’ the members of a
wide circle—let us say in Rome; even if the words ‘in
Rome' (ἐν Ῥώμῃ) and ‘those who are in Rome” (τοῖς
ἐν Ῥώμῃ, 1715), according to some MS authorities, do
not belong to the original text, their meaning is assured
by the superscription ‘to Romans’ (πρὸς Ρωμαίους ; cp
1522-29) and by the unvarying tradition as to the destina-
tion of the ‘epistle.’’’ The Paul whom we meet here
addresses his discourse to a wide public, and utters in lofty
tones such words as these: ‘O, man, whoever thou be
who judgest, etc.’ (ὦ ἄνθρωπε πᾶς ὁ κρίνων x.7.)., 21),
‘O, man, who judgest, etc.’ (ὦ ἄνθρωπε ὁ κρίνων K.T.À.,
23), ‘If thou bearest the name of a Jew, etc.' (el dè σὺ
"Ιουδαῖος ἐπονομάζῃ x.7.)., 217), ' Nay but, O man,
who art thou that repliest against God?' (5 ἄνθρωπε,
μενοῦνγε σὺ τίς εἶ ὁ ἀνταποκρινόμενος τῷ θεῷ, 920), ‘ But
I speak to you that are Gentiles' (ὑμῖν δὲ λέγω τοῖς
ἔθνεσιν, 11 13}, ‘Tsay . . . to every man that îs among
you, εἴς," (λέγω... παντὶ τῷ ὄντι ἐν ὑμῖν K.T.À.,
123), ‘Who art thou that judgest the servant of another?"
(σὺ τίς εἴ ὁ κρίνων ἀλλότριον οἰκέτην, 144), ‘ But thou,
why dost thou judge thy brother?” (σὺ δὲ τί κρίνεις τὸν
ἀδελφόν σου, 1410), ‘ For if because of meat thy brother
is grieved, δἵο, (el γὰρ διὰ βρῶμα ὁ ἀδελφός σὸν λυπεῖται
k.T.A., 1415), ete. Often the argument proceeds unin-
terruptedìy for a long time without any indication of the
existence of a definite circle of persons to whom it is
addressed. Yet, on the other hand also, the abstract
argumentation gives place to direct address, the word
of admonition or exhortation spoken to the brethren
(ἀδελφοί), whether named or unnamed—the mention of
whom, however, when it occurs, is a purely oratorical
form and no natural expression of the existence of any
special relation between the writer and his assumed
readers. Of the passages coming within the scope of
this remark {some of them, already noticed in $ 4), none
presents any peculiarity in this respect. On the con-
trary, every one of them produces uniformly the same
impression ; in this manner no real letter is ever written.

‘The last chapter has nothing of the character of a
postscript to a letter already completed, although the
letter appears to end with 1530-33 Strange, in the
sense of being not natural but artificial, is the appearance

4132

ROMANS (EPISTLE)

in 1622 of Tertius ('I, Tertius, who write the epistle’ :
ὁ γράψας τὴν ἐπιστολήν), the secretary of Paul, who,
however, seems himself to have had a hand in the
letter, since we find him saying in 1515, ‘I wrote to
you' (ἔγραψα ὑμῖν). Strange especially is Tertius's
greeting of the readers in his own name, in the midst
of the greetings which Paul seems to be transmitting
through him, vv. 2123.

The contents of the epistle, largely consisting of
argument and discussions on doctrinal theses, differ as
widely as possible from what one is wont to expect in a
letter—so widely that many have long laboured at the
task of making a suitable paraphrase of the ‘ text-book”
while retaining their belief in its epistolary character.
(See, for example, the specimen in Holtzmann, £ir/. A,
237; cp 5. Davidson, /n#.®, 113-116.)

In vain do we make the attempt in some degree to
picture to ourselves what the relation was between the

supposed author and his readers. Acts
5. Supposed Supplies no light. There we read that

Teaders. when Paul is approaching Rome the
brethren go to meet him, not because they had previously
had a letter from him, but because they have heard
various things regarding his recent fortunes (2814 ΚΑ).
As for the Jews of the metropolis, they have heard
nothing either good or bad concerning him (Ὁ. 21).
Tradition, apart from the NT, has equally little to say
about the epistle, whether as to its reception or as to
what impression it may have made. The document
itself says something, but only what adds to the con-
fusion. ‘The truth of the matter seems umattainable.
Scholars lose themselves in most contradictory con-
Jectures as to the occasion and purpose of the writing.

See, amongst others, Meyer-Weiss, A/077%.19), 1899, pp. 23-33;
Holtzmann, £ir4(ì, 336-241 Lipsius, Commz.i2i, 1892, pp. 75-
76; Sanday-Headlam, Coz22%., 1895, chaps. 38-44; van Manen,
Paulus, 220-23.

Who the supposed readers of the epistle were can
only be gathered from its contents. But these are so
different in many aspects that it is possible to say with
equal justice that the church in Rome was Jewish-
Christian, Gentile-Christian, or a mixture of the two.

Cp the various conclusions in Meyer-Weiss, 19-22; Holtz-
mann, 232-236; Lipsius, 70-73; Steck, CaZ 359-363; Vélter,
ΤᾺ. ΤΊ 3889, pp. 270-272, and Aomp, 8,/.; van Manen, Pawlus,
223-205).

It may be added here that the work is throughout
addressed to ‘brethren' of all kinds, and sometimes it
seems also to have been intended for Jews and Gentiles
who stood in no connection whatever with Christianity.
Did any one ever give to a particular letter an aim so
general, without realising that his letter had ceased to be
a letter at all in the natural meaning of the word,
and had become what we are accustomed to call an
open letter, an occasional writing, a book? Everything
leads to the one conclusion ; the epistolary form is not
real, it is merely assumed; we have here to do, not
with an actual letter of Paul to the Romans, but rather
with a treatise, a book, that with the outward resem-
blance of a letter is nevertheless something quite
different. Cp EPISTOLARY LITERATURE, $ 1-3; OLD
CHRISTIAN LITERATURE, $ 18 Καὶ

‘The same conclusion results from a closer examination
of the whole as it lies before us, whenever we direct our

- attention to the connection of its several

9. Find ΟΥ̓ Darts. The relative unity of the book

Y- there isnoreasonfordoubting. It is not,
however, unity of the kind we are accustomed to expect
in a book written after more or less careful preparation,
in accordance with a more or less carefully considered
and logically developed plan; not unity such as îs the
outcome of a free elaboration of the materials after these
have been more or less diligently collected, and fully
mastered by the writer. T.east of all, a unity such as
we look for in a letter, whether we think of it as written
at one sitting or as written bit by bit and at intervals.
It is rather a unity of such a sort as reminds us of that

4133

ROMANS (EPISTLE)

of a synoptical gospel, with regard to which no one
doubts that it is the result of a characteristic process of
redaction and remaniement, curtailmeni, correction, and
supplementation by the help of older pieces drawn from
other sources. It is such unity as we find in reading
Acts, although we do not hesitate for a single moment
to realise that Lk. has made an often very palpable use
of written sources. There is unity of language and style,
of thought, of feeling, of opinion; but at the same time
there are, not seldom, great diversities in all these
respects. The result, obviously, of the unmistakable
circumstance that the writer of the canonical epistle has
made continual and manifold use of words, forms of
expression, arguments, derived from sources known to
him, whether retained in his memory or lying before
him in written form. i
Proof of the justice of this view is supplied by the
various attempts made by earlier and later exegetes to
A expound the epistle as a completely
alii, rounded whole—attempts in which it‘
* is found necessary at every turn to re-
sort to the assumption of all sorts of conceivable and
inconceivable figures and forms of speech, and thus
conceal the existence of joints and sutures, hiatuses,
and unintelligible transitions. More particularly is this
seen in the scientific line taken by Heumann, Semler,
Eichhorn, Weisse, Straatman, Vòlter, Michelsen, Spitta,
‘and so many others (some of these names are enumerated
in $ 2), who have argued, and continue to argue, for the
view that more than one epistle of Paul lies concealed
in the apparently homogeneous canonical epistle, or for
the view that there have been interpolations, more or
less numerous, on an unusually large scale. In the last
resort, on an (as far as possible) unprejudiced reading
of the text which has come down to us—a reading no
longer under the dominion of a foregone conclusion, to
be maintained at all hazards, that here we have to do
with the original work of the apostle Paul, sent by him
to the church at Rome—we shall find that what lies
before us is simply a writing from Christian antiquity
presenting itself as such a work, which we must try to
interpret as best we can.
The traces of additions and redactions in the various
sections and subsections of the epistle are innumerable.
- It would be superfluous, even if space
Reset allowed, to go throughall the details on
* this head. Α few examples may suffice.
Compared with the first part (118-839), the second
(9-11), although now an integral portion of the work,
betrays tokens of an originally different source. ‘There
is no inherent connection between them, although this
can, if desired, be sought in the desire to set forth a
wholly new doctrina! subject in a wholly new manner.
In the second we no longer hear of the doctrine of
justification by faith; the treatment of the subject
emunciated:in 1167. is no longer continued. What
takes its place is something quite different and wholly
unconnected with it; a discussion, namely, of the
doctrinal question, ' Why is it that the Gentiles are
admitted and Israel excluded from salvation?’ This
discussion is directed not, like the contents of the first
part, ostensibly to Christian Jews, but to Gentiles.
There is nothing in the first part that anywhere suggests
any such affection for Israel as is everywhere apparent
throughout the second part, and especially in 91-3 101
11125-36; nothing that comes into comparison with
the solemn declaration of 91 in which the writer bears
witness to his great sorrow and unceasing pain of heart
concerning Israel This exordium points to a quite
different situation, in which ‘Paul’ requires to be
cleared of the reproach of not concerning himself about
God's ancient people. Hence the wish expressed by
him that he might become anathema from Christ (ἀπὸ
τοῦ Χριστοῦ) for his brethren's sake, his kinsmen accord-
ing to the flesh (συγγενεῖς κατὰ σάρκα, 93). Hence his
zeal here and in 111 to declare himself an Israelite, of

4134

ROMANS (EPISTLB)

the seed of Abraham, the tribe of Benjamin. Hence
also the summing-up of the ancient privilege of Israel,

* whose is the adoption and the glory and the covenants *
(94), in comparison with which the simple statement
that they were entrusted with the oracles of God (82)
sinks into insignificance, In the first part a quite
different tone is assumed towards the Jew {[ουδαῖος,
217), with whom the speaker appears 10 have nothing
in common. There we find Jew and Greek placed
exactly on an equality (1:6 29,7. 39); the ìdea of the |
Jews that as such they could have any advantage over |
the heathen is in set terms controverted (211-321), and
it is declared that descent from Abraham, actording to
the flesh, is of no value (4). Here, on the other hand
(9-11), we have earnest discussion of the question how
it is possible to reconcile the actual position of Israel
in comparison with the Gentile world with the divine
purpose and the promise made to the fathers. Here,
ἴοο, a high-pitched acknowledgment of the privileges
of Israel, the one good olive-tree, the stem upon which
the wild olive branches—the believing Gentiles—are
grafted ; Israel in the end is certain to be wholly saved,
being, as touching the election, beloved for the fathers'
sake (κατὰ τὴν ἐκλογὴν ἀγαπητοὶ διὰ τοὺς πατέρας, 94 f.
3110211717 2628). Inthe first part, a sharp repudia-
tion of the law in respect of its powerlessness to work
anything that is good (320/. 27 415 61475/, ete.); in
the second a holding up of the giving of the law (vopo-
θεσία) as a precious gift (94). [ἡ the first part the
earnest claim to justification by faith (51), to being under
grace (614), to a walk in newness of spirit (76); in the
second the assurance that ‘if thou shalt confess with thy
mouth Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in thy heart
that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved’
(109).

Observe, again, the difference in respect of language.
The words ‘just,' ‘justify,’ ‘be justified’ (δίκαιος,
δικαιοῦν, δικαιοῦσθαι), nowhere occur in chaps. 9-11, nor
yet the expression ‘both Jews and Greeks' (Ἰουδ. re καὲ
EM. ). except in 1012 where apparently it is not original,
or at least has no meaning after the words 'for there is
no distinetion' (οὐ γάρ ἐστιν διαστολή). The words
‘Israelite' and ‘Israel’ are not met with in 1-8, whilst
in 9-11 the first occurs thrice and the second eleven
times. On the other hand, we have ‘Jew' nine times
in 1-3, but only twice in 9-11, and in both cases its |
oscurrence seems probably due to the redactor. The |

I
I
i

*adoption' (υϊοθεσία), which, according to 815 {cp Gal.
45 Eph. 15) is a privilege of all Christians, whether Jews
or Greeks, recurs in 94 in connection with a supposed
predestination of Israel as the son of God; the word is
the same but it sounds quite differently. Im 1-8 Christ
is seven times called the son of God, and in 9-11 never,
On the other hand, he is probably called God in 95 but
nowhere in 1-8. Whilst in 1-8 we find no other form
of the verb ‘say’ (ἐρεῖν) than ‘shall we say’ (ἐροῦμεν),
in 9197 1119 we also have ‘thou wilt say’ (ἐρεῖς) and
* shall the thing say?’ (ἐρεῖ). If the occurrence of the
expression ‘what then shall we say' (τὶ οὖν ἐροῦμεν) in
92430, as well as in 41 6: 77 831, points to oneness
of language, it has nevertheless to be noted that in 1-8
it never, as in 930, is followed by a question, but always
by a categorical answer. A speaker who says that Israel
‘following after a law of righteousness did not arrive at
[that] law” (διώκων νόμον δικαιοσύνης εἰς νόμον οὐκ
ἔφθασεν, 931) understands by ‘law (+5u05) something
quite different, and at the same time is following a quite
different use of language, from one who' declares that
the Jew sins ‘under law! (ἐννόμως or ἐν réuw); shall be
judged ‘by law' (διὰ νόμον, 212); doeth not ‘the things
of the law” (τὰ τοῦ νόμου, 214), is not justified ‘by works
of law' (ἐξ ἔργων νόμου), comes to knowledge of sin
‘through law ' (διὰ νόμου, 320) and lives ‘under law
(ὑπὸ νόμον, 814). Only the latter is thinking of the
Mosaic law, about which the former would not speak
so depreciatingly. In chaps. 9-11, as Steck (Ga. 362) |

4135

ROMANS (EPISTLE)

justly remarks, a much more superficial use is made of
the proof from scripture, ‘and the whole representation
and language is somewhat less delicate,’

The third part of the epistle (121-1813) seems to be
closely connected with that which precedes. Observe

τα the ‘then’ (οὖν : 121), and notice how the
12. Third sriter harks back to 9-11 in his declaration
Part (158) that Christ has been made a minister
of the circumcision with reference to the promise of
God, and to 116 £ or 118-839 în the same declaration
supplemented with the statement (159) that Christ
appeared also that the Gentiles might giorify God for
his mercy. But the connection when more. closely
examined will be found to be only mechanical. There
is no real inward connection. No one expects a
hortatory passage such as this after 1133-36. Nor yet,
where some would fain place it, after ch. 8 or ch. 6.
The exhortations and instructions given in 121-1513,
however we put the different parts together, stand in no
relation to the preceding argument; the same holds
good of the exordium 12:/ Though usual, ît is not
correct to say that Paul first develops his doctrinal
system 118-11 36, and then his ethical in 121-1513; or
even to say in the modified form of the statement that
he follows up the doctrinal with an ethical section.
Exhortations are not wanting in the first part, nor
doctrines in the last. The truth is that in 118-1136
the doctrinal element is prominent, just as the horta-
tory is in 12:-1513. In other words, the two pieces
are of different character. They betray difference of
origin. 1121-1813 is, originally, not a completion of
1.11, thought out and committed to writing by the
same person, but rather—at least substantially—an
independent composition, perhaps, it may be, as some
have conjectured, brought hither from another context.
It has more points of agreement with certain portions of
the Epistles to the Corinthians than with Rom. 1-11.
Compare, in general, the manner of writing and the
nature of the subjects treated. .

In detail, compare such expressions as ‘beseech . < . by"
παρακαλῶ... διά), 121, with 1Cor.1zo 2 Cor. 101, whereas
beseech” (ταρακαλεῖνλ, however Pauline, is found neither in
Rom. 1-11 nor in Gal. ; the ‘mercies’ (οἰκτιρμοῦ of God, 121,

1 Cor. 46 and 1212-30;

1
1-11: the special exhortations to subjectîon to authority and τὸ

4136

ROMANS (EPISTLE)

due discharge of one's various obligations (13 1-7) indicative of a
peaceful environment and hardly in keeping with the persecu»
tions suggested by the closing verses of chap, 8, but on the
other hand quite in accord with the special admonitions and
exhortations of 1Cor. 1107 ὅ ὅ τοῦτ 11 2-15, etc. } what is said
in chap, 14 regarding the use of certain meats, the observance of
sacred days, and the respect for the weak, with regard to which
no word is found in 1-11, but which reminds us throughout of
1 Cor. 3-10, not only by reason of the similarity of such expres-
sions as ‘eat’ (ἐσθίειν), ‘food’ (βρῶμα), ‘cause to stumble”
(σκανδαλέζειν), ‘a stumbling-block to the brother' (πρόσκομμα
τῷ ἀδελφῷ), “not to eat flesh” (μὴ φαγεῖν κρέα), ete., but also
very specially by reason of the agreement in the central thought
that to the fully developed Christian all things are allowed, but
that he must give no offence to the weak brother and therefore
ought rather to act as if he were still in bondage to ancient
customs and usages.
‘The conclusion of the canonical epistle 1514-1627
must be accepted, as such, notwithstanding the objec-
tions urged by Semler, and those who
13. Chap. 15% follow him, in rejecting chaps. 15 16 as
not original constituents of the writing sent by Paul to
the Romans. It nevertheless shows many evidences of
compilation by the aid of various pieces at the redactor's
disposal, a process to which reference has already so
‘often been made that it seems superfluous to dwell long
upon it now. Let the reader but observe the discon-
nected character of the five pieces of which ch. 16 con-
sists, each of which either has no relation to the
preceding, or is in contradiction with it. The recom-
mendation of Phoebe v. 1/ hangs în the aîr. "The
greetings of vr. 3-16 presuppose a previous residence
οἱ Paul at Rome and a circle of acquaintances formed
there, notwithstanding the positive statements on the
subject in 18-13 and 1522/ ὙΠῸ warning against false
teachers in vv. 17-20 finds no point of attachment in
what precedes. The greetings of others in vv. 21-23
raise unanswered questions, not the least of these being
those which arise in view of the existence of the already
complete list in 3-16, and the mention of all the churches
‘at the close. The detached character of the doxology
in vv. 25-27 is shown by the fact that in many MSS it
occurs after 1423.
The examples cited, along with others which might
be adduced (cp van Manen, /aw/45, 234-101), show
conclusively that the ' epistle’ has been

N pra | compiled with the help of previously
tioti theory existing documents. There are also

other reasons, however, against ac-
cepting the voice of tradition regarding the origin of the
work. Now and then the contents themselves reveal
quite clearly that they cannot be from Paul (οὗ. 64 A.D.),
50 that we have no need to dwell upon the improb-
ability of supposing that Paul, a tentmaker by calling
and personally unknown to the Christians at Rome,
addressed to that place an epistle so broad and so deep,
written in so exalted and authoritative a tone; nor
upon the question as to how it was possible that such
an epistle should, so far as appears, have failed to make
the slightest impression, whether good or bad, at the
time, and was doomed to lie for more than half a century
buried in the archives of the Christian church at Rome
in impenetrable obscurity, until suddenly it re-emerged
to light, honoured and quoted as an authority by—-the
gnostics ! Evanson long ago (1792) pointed to the fact
that the church addressed in it was apparently of long
standing, and to the silent assumption in 11 τὸ ser fi
that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. was a
thing of the past. As regards the first of these points,
he compared what is said in Acts and called attention
to the fact that nothing is there said of any project of
Paul's to visit Rome before he had been compelled by
Festus to make appeal to the emperor (2510-12), nor
yet anything about an Epistle to the Romans or about
any Christian community of any kind met there by the
apostle (2811-31). Vet even if we leave Acts cut of
account as being incomplete and not in all respects
wholly trustworthy, what the epistle itself says and
assumes with regard to the Christian church at Rome is
assuredìy a good deal more than, in all probability,

4137

ROMANS (EPISTLE)

could have been alleged about it at so early a date as
59 A.D., the year in which it is usually held to have
been written by Paul.
I The faith of the Roman Church is supposed to be
known ‘throughout the whole world'; and Paul is
A filled with desire to make its acquaint-
15 renga) ance in order that so he may be re-
* freshed (18 χα), The faith of both rests
on the same foundation. The Christians of Rome are
| Pauline Christians.
I
|
|

Like him they are justified by faith (51); reconciled with
God (5 11); free from the dominion of sin and now in the unin-
terrupted service of God (18-22); no longer under the law but
under grace, so that they now live in newness of spirit and not
in oldness of the letter (61576). Theyare well acquainted with
Paulinism. They know it as a defimite form of doctrine and
have fully and freely given their assent to it Ye were servants
of sin but ye became obedient from the heart 10 that form of
teaching whereunto ye were delivered' (ἦτε δοῦλοι τῆς ἁμαρτίας,
ὑπηκούσατε δὲ ἐκ καρδίας εἰς ὃν παρεδόθητε τύπον διδαχῆς : ὃ 17).
It is possible to speak to them without any fear οἱ Mnisunder
standing, abont ‘ faith” (wéer:5) and ‘grace’ (χάρις), ‘righteous.
ness' (δικαιοσύνη) and ‘love’ (ἀγάπη), ‘believing’ (πιστεύειν)
and ‘being justified’ (δικαιοῦσϑαι), ‘being justified by faith'
(δικαιοῦσθαι ἐκ πίστεως) and ‘by works of law (ἐξ ἔργων νόμον),
*sinning without law” (ἁμαρτάνειν ἀνόμως) and ‘under αν
(ἐννόμως or ἐν νόμω), ‘being delivered up’ (παραδοθῆναι) and
‘dying for men' (ἀποθανεῖν ὑπὲρ ἀνθρώπων), ‘redemption’
(ἀπολύτρωσις), ‘being baptized into Christ’ (βαπτισθῆναι εἰς
Χριστόν), ‘being crucifed with [Christ]" (συστανροῦσθαι
[Χριστῷ ; ‘living after the flesh' ({ν κατὰ σάρκα), ‘after the
spirit’ (κατὰ πνεῦμα), “τὸ God’ (τῷ Θεῷ), ‘in Christ' (ἦν Χριστῷ);
to use such expressions as: ‘for there is no distinction' (où γάρ
ἐστιν διαστολή: 322); ‘but where there is no law neither is
there transgression’ (οὐ δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν νόμος οὐδὲ παράβασις:
4 15); ‘but where sin abounded, grace abounded more exceed-
ingly' (οὗ δὲ ἐπλεόνασεν ἡ ἁμαρτία, ὑπερεπερίσσευσεν ἡ χάρις:
δ do: ‘to be under law, ‘under grace’ (εἶναι ὑπὺ νόμον, ὑπὸ
χάριν: 614); ‘spirit of adoption,’ ‘Abba, Father’ (πνεῦμα
υἱοθεσίας, ᾿Αββὰ ὁ πατήρ : 815); to throw out such questions as
these: Whether or not there be with respect to Jews and Greeks
“respect of persons with God' (προσωπολημψία παρὰ Θεῷ 211)?
| Has the Jew as such any advantage over the Greek, when both
| have sinned (39-20)? In how far does any importance at all still

attach to circumcision (225-29)? What value has the law
(2 12-29 B19-22 27-31 716)? Does faith ever make it void
(331)? In what sense may we pride ourselves on having
Abraham to our father (4)? Must we not think that the doctrine
of grace leads to continuance in sin (61)? [5 not the conviction
that we are not under the law but under grace, conducive to sin
(615)? Can the law be held responsible for sin because by
cons of the law we were brought to the knowledge of sin
7)?
AN this is umthinkable at so early a date as the year
59 A.D. There is, moreover, the one great simple fact
which overrides these considerations,
16 A developed and thrusts them, so to speak, into the
tini background—this, namely, that the
Paulinism with which we are made acquainted in the
Pauline Epistles, and particularly in that to the Romans,
is of more recent date than the historical Paul. Com-
pared with what the first disciples of Jesus believed and
professed, it is not merely a remarkable divergence ; it
is in point of fact a new and higher development
from the first Christianity. It presupposes, to speak
with Loman, ‘a richly developed stage of theological
thought.* It has learned to break with Judaism and to
regard the standpoint of the law as once for all past
and done with, substituting in its place that of grace as
the alone true and valid one. ’The new life ‘under
grace’ stands in sharp antithesis to the old one ‘ under
| the law” (614). It knows, and it is, a new divine
! revelation; it has a theology, a christology, and a
soteriology, which bear witness to a more advanced
thinking and to a deeper experience of life than conld
possibly have been looked for within the first few years
after the crucifixion. It is a remarkable forward step, a
rich and far-reaching reform of the most ancient type of
Christianity ; now, a man does not become at one and
the same moment the agdherent of a new religion and
its great reformer. ΑἹ] attempts to escape the difficulty
so far as Paulis concerned break down in presence of
the obvious meaning of Gal.lir-23; as was shown
| years ago by Blom against Straatman (7. 7, 1875.
1-44). It is of no avail continually to hark back to the

4138

ROMANS (EPISTLE)

possibility—which, in fact, no one denies—of a develop-
ment in Paul's mind during the years that elapsed
between his conversion and the writing of his epistles.

The Paulinism of the epistles in question is, on their ;

own showing, in its main features at least (with which
we are here concerned) as old as the Christian life of
Paul; but such a Paulinism is even for thoughtful
believers in the supernatural inconceivable as having
come into existence immediately after Paul had become
a Christian. Let the student read and ponder the sketch
of Paulinism given by van Manen in Pax/us, 2126-140,
©p 211-217; and in PAUL, 8 40.
The kinship of Paulinism (especially in the form în
which it occurs in the Epistie to the Romans) with
inehin SNosis, which has been recognised and
SLIP remarked both by older and by younger
+ critics—amongst others by Basilides,
Marcion, Valentinus, Irenseus, Tertullian, Holsten,
Hilgenfeld, Scholten, Heinrici, Pfleiderer, Weizsicker,
Harnack (cp van Manen, Paz/us, 2154-166)1éads also
to the same conclusion : that Paul cannot have written
this epistle, As to the precise date at which (Christian)
gnosis first made its appearance there may be some
measure of uncertainty; whether in the last years of
Trajan (οὐ. 117 A.D.), as is commonly supposed, or
perhaps some decades earlier ; in no event can the date
be carried back very far, and certainly not so far back
as to within a few years of the death of Jesus. With
regard to this it is not legitimate to argue, with Baljon
{Gesch. 77), that in the Pauline gnosis ‘no doctrine of a
demiurge, no theory of sons is found.’ It is years
since Harnack (DG 1196-7) rightly showed that the
essence of the matter is not to be looked for in such
details as these.
In addition to the assumed acquaintance (already re-
marked on) of the readers of the epistle with the Pauline
τ: gospel, there are other peculiarities that
Rie τὰ iridicate the church addressed as one of
* long standing. It is acquainted with
various types of doctrine (617). It can look back upon
its conversion as an event that had taken place a con-
siderable time ago (13x:). It has need of being stirred
up to a renewal of its mind (122) and of many other
exhortations (12-14). [τ has in its midst high-minded
persons whcse thoughts exalt themselves above the
measure of faith given them (123). It does not seem
superfluous to remind them that each belongs to the
other as members of one body endowed with differing
gifts. There are prophets, ministers, teachers, ex-
horters, givers, rulers, and those who show mercy, and
it appears to be necessary that each should be reminded
of what he ought to do or how he ought to behave.
The prophet must keep within the limits of the faith
that has been received, and be careful to speak according
to the proportion of that faith (κατὰ τὴν ἀναλογίαν τῆς
πίστεως, 126); the minister, the teacher, and the exhorter
must each busy himself exclusively with the work
entrusted to him; the giver must discharge his task
with simplicity, the ruler his with diligence; he that
shows mercy is to do so with cheerfulness (124-8). The
mutual relations must be considered anew and carefully
regulated, both in general (129-2r 138-10), and, in
particular, with respect to the special ‘necessities. of
the saints," the duty of hospitality, the attitude to be
maintained towards persecutors (12127), the public
authority, and the fulfilment of the duties of citizenship
(181-7). A vigorous exhortation to vigilance and an
earnest warning against revellings and drunkenness,
chambering and wantonness, strife and envy, are not
superfluous (1311-14). There are weak ones in the
faith, who avoid the use of wine and flesh (14: 21);
others who hold one day holy above others, and as
regards their food consider themselves bound by obsolete
precepîs regarding clean and unclean (145 αὶ 14/f 20).
Others again who regard all these things with lofty
disdain, making no distinction between clean andà

4139

ROMANS (EPISTLE)

unclean food, deeming that they are free to eat and
drink as they choose, and that all days are alike; but
these, just because of the freedom they rejoice in, give
offence to many brethren and are the cause of their
moral declension (145 13 τ5 20:23). ‘These divergent
practices have already continued for so long that the
writer, so far as the first two (wine and flesh, clean and
unclean} are concerned, is in perplexity between them
himself, and has no other plan than to raise himself
above them all in order to urge a general point of
view—a genuinely ‘catholic’ one—of ‘give and take,”
in which the principle of freedom is recommended and
its application urged in the fine maxims: let no one give
offence, let each one be fully persuaded in his own
mind, all that is not of faith is sin (145 1323).

The church is exposed to persecution ; it suffers with
Christ. It has need of comfort. What is said in this
connection cannot be explained from any circumstances
at Rome known to us before Nero and the time of the
great fire in 64. It points rather to later days when
Christians were continually exposed to bloody persecu-
tions. See 53-5 817-39 121214.

One decisive proof that in our epistle we are listening
to the voice of one who lived after the death of Paul in
64 A.D. is to be found in the manner in which the question
of the rejection of Israel is handled in chaps. 9-11. That
question could not thus occupy the foreground or bulk
so largely in the minds of Christian writers and readers
as long as Jerusalem was still standing, and there was
nothing to support the vague expectation of its
approaching overthrow which some entertained, The
allusions to the great events of the year 70, the over-
throw of the Jewish commonwealth, and the expectations
which connected themselves with this event are mani-
fest. Any one who will read what is said, particularly
in llrr-22, about the downfall of the Jews (τὸ rapd-
πτωμα αὐτῶν), about the branches that have been broken
οὔ (ἐξεκλάσθησαν κλάδοι) and the ‘cutting off (ἀποτομία)
which has come upon those who are fallen {ἐπὶ τοὺς
πεσόντα), can be under no misapprehension on this
point.

If we now sum up the points that have been touched
on in $$ 6-18, we need have no hesitation in deciding
that the arguments are convincing:
our canonicai Epistle to the Romans is
not what it seems to be, not a letter written by the
apostle and sent to a definite church; it is a tractate,
a book, designed to be read aloud at Christian meetings,
a piece to be read in Church (kirchliches Vorlesungs-
stick), or homily, as Spitta (Zur Gesc&. 359) has
phrased it, It is a book written in the form of a letter,
not written after the kind of preparation with which we
write our books, but compiled rather in a very peculiar
manner by use of existing written materials wherein the
same subjects were treated in a similar or at least not
very divergent way. We can best form some conception
of ihe method followed here by studying the text of one
of the synoptical gospels with an eye to the method in
which it was presumably composed ; or by tracing in
detail the manner in which such authors as the writer of
the present epistle make use of the OT. They quote
from its words alternately verbatim and freely, often,
t00, without any reference to the OT context, so that
we can trace the question only by comparison of the
text we possess which has been wholly or party
followed (cp van Manen, Pw/5, 2 217-9).

The study of the‘ epistle’ from the point of view of its
probable composition, enables us to distinguish what
treatises or portions of treatises were probably made use
of before the text came into existence in its present form.
In this way the work as a whole makes us acquainted
with underlying views then prevalent, and accepted or
controverted by our author—on the universality of sin
and its fatal consequences (118-320); on righteousness
by faith (321-31); on the connection between this and
Abraham as father of the faithful (4); the fruits of

4140

19. Conclusion.

ROMANS (EPISTLE)

justification (5); three objections against Paulinism (6 1-14
615-76 77-23); the glories of the new life in Christ (8);
the rejection of the Jews (9-11); what is ihe duty of
Christians towards God and man generalìy, and towards
the weak and the principles held by them in particular
(12:-1513). Such views, however greatly they may
vary in purpose and scope, all belong to one main
direction, one school of thought, the Pauline. We
give them this name because we gain our best and
most comprehensive acquaintance with the school from
the ‘epistles of Paui,' just as we speak of the Johan-
nine Schooi and the Johannine tendency, although we
know nothing about the connection between the school
or tendency on the one side, and the well-known
apostolic name connected with it on the other. To
suppose that the school originated from the historical
Paul, as was formerly maintained by Steck, is possible ;
but the supposition finds no support in any historical
facts with which we are acquainted (cp Pax/us, 2 222-227).
What is certain, at any rate, is that the canonical
epistle is not by Paul. A writing that is so called, but
on closer examination is seen to be no

20. The author. i istie but rather a compilation, in
which, moreover, are embedded pieces that plainly

show their origin in a later time, cannot possibly be

attributed to the ‘apostle of the Gentiles.” In this
connection, however, it is inappropriate to speak of
deception or forgery or pious fraud. There is not the
slightest reason for supposing that our author had the
faintest intention of misleading his readers, whether
contemporaries or belonging to remote posterity, He
simply did what so many others did in his day; he
wrote something in the form (freely chosen) of a tractate,
a book, or an epistie, under the name of some one
whom he esteemed or whose name he could most
conveniently and best associate with his work, without
any wrong intention or bad faith, because he belonged
or wished to be thought to belong, to the party or
school which was wont to rally under his master’
standard, His own name remained unknown ; but his
nom de piume was preserved and passed from mouth to
mouth wherever his work was received and read.
What reason was there for inquiring and searching
after his real name if the work itself was read, quoted,
copied, and circulated with general approval? ’The
work might bear evidence of the artist so far as con-
cerned person, surroundings, sufferings. In this case,
according to the epistle, he was a Christian, one of the
Pauline School, a polished and educated man with a
heart full of zeal for the religious needs of humzinity : a
A Paulinist, however, of the right wing.
31. His method. Ἧς raises himself above the different
shades of opinion which he knows so well by letting them
find alternate expression, by letting the voice now of the
one and now of the other be heard. He gives utterance
to words so sharply explicit as these : ‘by the works of
the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight (8 2ο); ‘now
are we delivered from the law wherein we were held'
(76); but also to other words, so friendly în their tone
as regards the very same law: ‘not the hearers .
but the doers of the law shall be justified' (213); ‘the
law is holy, ‘spiritual’ (7 1214). He asseverates that
there is no distinction between Jew and Greek (322);
that there is with God no acceptince of persons (211);
and that the privileges of the Jew are many (31f.};
that Israel is in a very special way the people of God
(94 111}. He says that to be a son of Abraham after
the flesh signifies nothing (4 τ 75}, and that to be of the
seed of Abraham is a specially great privilege (11 τ].
He recognises at one time that the wrath of God is now
manifest upon the sins of men (1:8), and at another
that this is yet to come (25-8). He speaks of it asa
matter of experience that the Christian has broken with
sin for good and has become a wholly new creature
(51-76 and 8), and also lays down a quite different
doctrine to the effect that he is still ‘sold under sin,*

4I4I

ROMANS (EPISTLE)

continually doing the thing he would not, and he longs
for emancipation from the body (7 7-25), He embraces
the doctrine of a redemption of man fron a power
hostile to God on the ground of the love of the father
(8.24 51 8332), and with this he associates the thought
of an atoning sacrifice on behalf of the sinner offered to
God by Christ ‘in his blood' (325). Paul is to him the
called apostle of the Gentiles (1 1513}. 151618); but
also warraly attached to the Jews and ready to do
everything for them (91-3 101 111); în possession of
the 1 first fruits of the spirit’ always working ‘in the
power of God's spirit,’ but also in the manner of the
original apostles ‘in the power of signs and wonders'
(1519). He recognises Jesus as God's son, who has
appeared ‘in the likeness of sinful flesh' (8332); but he
also says that he is of Israel according to the flesh (95),
and that he was first exalted to the dignity of divine
sonship by his resurrection {13/ 1512). He speaks
with the same facility of ‘Jesus,’ ‘Jesus Christ,’ and
‘our Lord Jesus Christ’ as he speaks of ‘Christ' and
‘Christ Jesus.' For him all distinetion in the use of
these various designations has practically disappeared.
Not seldom do we find him affirming and denying on
the same page. He knows how to give and take, when
to evade arguments, and when to meet them. Already
we perceive in him something of the ‘catholic' spirit
which rises above the strife of parties; which serves the
truth and promotes the unity of believers, by siding
now with the right wing, now with the left, by gliding
over thorny points, and boldìy thrusting difficulties aside.
As for origin, he was probably a Greek. He thinks
in Greek, speaks Greek, and seems to have used no
τ ; Other books than those which he could
22. His origin. 1 ve consulted in Greek {cp Paulus,
286-190). His hame we can place equally well in the
E. or in the W. In the Ε΄, and particularly in
Antioch or elsewhere in Syria, because Paulinism
probably had its origin there. The catholic strain, on
the other hand, within the limits of the Pauline move-
ment, seems rather to have proceeded from Rome.
The possibility is not excluded that the main portions
of the letter, or if you will, of a letter, to the Romans,
were written in the E., and that the last touches were
put to it in Rome or elsewhere in the W.; in other
words, that it was there that the epistle took the final
form in which we now know ît. There is a consider.
able number of writings which passed over from the
hands of the Gnostics into those of ‘catholic'-minded
Christians, and in the transition were here and there
revised and corrected, brought into agreement, some-
what more than appeared in their original form, with
the prevailing type of what was held to be orthodox
{cp Lipsius, “δοῦν. Ap.-gesch. 1883-1887; Usener,
Rel. -gesch. Unters. 1, 1889; van Manen, Paulus,
2227-2309).
The author has not given us the date of his work,
and we can guess it only approximately. Broadly
23. Date. speaking, we may say, not earlier than the
n " end of the first nor later than the middle
of the second century. Not before the end of the
first century, because after the death of Paul (about

64 A.b.) time enough must be allowed to admit of

epistles being written in his name as that of a highly
placed and authoritative exponent of Christianity, —the
representative, not to say the ‘father,' of Paulinism, a
forward-reaching spiritual movement, a deeply penetrat-
ing and largely framed reform of that oldest Christianity
which embodied the faith and expectations of the first
disciples of Jesus after the crucifixion. Paulinism in
this sense certainly did not come into existence until
after the downfall of the Jewish state in 70 A.D., and
—if we consider its kinship with gnosticism, and various
other features which it shows-surely not before the end
of the first, or the beginning of the second, century.
On the other side, we may venture to say, not later
than the middle of the second century. Clement of

4142

ROMANS (EPISTLE)

Alexandria, Tertullian, Irenzeus, use thebook towards the
end of that century, and we may be sure did not hold
it for a recent composition, So also Theophilus ad
Autolycum, 34, who about 180 A.D, cited Rom. 137
as ‘divine word' (Θεῖος X6yos). Basilides (125), and
Marcion, who made his appearance at Rome in 138,
knew the epistle as an authoritative work of ‘the apostle.'
Aristides (123-126), James (130), 1 Peter (130-140) in
like manner show acquaintance with the epistle. Various
circumstances combined justify the supposition that it
was written probably about 120 A.D., whilst some
portions of it in their original form may be regarded as
somewhat earlier (cp Pa:/5, 2 296-303 3 312-315).

If, in conclusion, we are met by the question, ‘ What
is the value of the writing when one can no longer

regard it as an epistle of Paul to the
24. Value. Romans?’ it must never be forgotten
that the incisiveness of its dialectic, the arresting
character of certain of its passages, the singular power
especially of some of its briefer utterances and out-
pourings of the heart, the edifying nature of much of
the contents, remain as they were before. The religious
and ethical value, greater at all times than the cesthetic,
is not diminished. The historical value, on the other
hand, is considerably enhanced. ‘True, we no longer
find in it, what we were formerly supposed to find,
the interesting. (though in large measure not well
understood) writing of the apostle, written, in the days of
his activity among the Gentiles, to a church which was
personaliy unknown to him. But what have we in its
piace? A book of great significance for our knowledge
of the ancient Christianity that almost immediately
succeeded the apostolic (the Christianity of the disciples
of Jesus în the years that followed his death). There is
no work from Christian antiquity that contributes more
largely to our knowledge of Paulinism (whether in its
first form—a form in which it has not reached us in
any deliberate writiag—or in its subsequent develop-
ment) in its strength as an inspiring directory for
conduct, and in the richness and depth of its religious
thought and experience.

No serious efforts to defend the genuineness of the
epistle have as yet ever been attempted. Those offered
25. Defenders cnsually and in passing, as it were,
δὲ genuinenena, IS! (as for example in Meyer. Weiss,

Komm.®, 1899, 33-34, and in 5, David-
son, /rfrod., 1894, 117-119, 150-2} on the so-called
external evidence. That is to say, its defenders rely on
what is excellent proof of the existence of the epistle at
the time when it was cited, or what clearly presupposes
an acquaintance with it, but is of no significance what-
ever when the question is whether the work was in
reality written by the individual who from the first was
named as its author. This the Tiibingen school have
long perceived; Baur also did not rely on such argu-
ments. Instead of doing so he thus expressed himself
{Paulus 1, 1866, 276) :

‘ Against these four epistles (Rom., 1 and 2 Cor., Gal.) not only
has even the slightest suspicion of spuriousness never been
raised, but în fact they bear on their face the mark of Pauline
originality so uncontestably that it is impossible to imagine b:

what right any critical doubt could ever possibly assert itself
regarding them,”

The utterance, it will be observed, wholly ignores
Evanson, 1792, and of course also Bruno Bauer, who did
not publish his criticism till 1851; but it also ignores
the view taken by so many, including F. C. von Baur
himself, who have vied with one another in the dis-
integration of the epistle, as also the possibility that
yet others at a later date might perceive what Baur
himself had not observed; nor yet does it take account
of the unsatisfactoriness of any assertion (however
plausible it may sound) as to the ‘ originality' of Paul,
whom after all we know only by means of the picture
that has been constructed with the aid of those very
epistles with regard to which we wish to inquire whether
they really were written by him. Nothing therefore is

4143

ROMANS (EPISTLE)

added to the argument when a countless host of others
since Baur are never weary of repeating that ‘even the
Tiibingen school’ have raised no doubts as to the
genuineness. The observation is correct, it is true.
Only they forget to add: nor yet have they offered
proofs that it is genuine.

Meyer-Weiss, S. Davidson, and others remain equally
sparing of their arguments even after the criticism of a
later date has made its voice heard. They put it aside
with a single word. Weiss, with a reference to a
‘ Parody,' by C. Hesedamm, Der Romerbrief beurtheilt
u. geviertheilt, 1891. Davidson, with the observation
that the genuineness, apart from the conclusive testi-
mony of witnesses, is fully guaranteed by internal
evidence.

‘The internal character of the epistle and its historical allusions
coincide with the external evidence in proving it an authentic
production of the apostle. It bears the marks of his vigorous
mind ; the language and style being remarkably characteristic.”

He omits, however, to tell us how he knows that
anything is a ‘production,’ not to say an ‘authentic
production of the apostle'; nor yet how he has obtained
his knowledge of the mind of Paul; nor yet why it is
impossible for a pseudonymous author to have any
characteristic language and style.

Harnack {ACZ ii. 1 [1897] p. vii) considers himself
absolved from going into the investigation until the
representatives of the newer criticism ‘ shall have rigor-
ously carried out the task incumbent on them of working
out everything pertaining to the subject afresh.'

Tilicher (Zix4, 1894, p. 17, 190109, p. 19) once and
again resorted to a severe attack on ‘hypercriticism' and
‘ pseudocriticism,' and subsequently proceeded, in deal-
ing with the Epistle to the Romans, as if nobody had
ever at any time argued against its genuineness.

Sanday and Headlam (Comm., 1895, pp. 85-98)
discuss exhaustively the integrity of the epistle, especi-
ally as regards chaps. 15-18, but say little about the
history of the question of genuineness. They cursorily
dismiss some of the objections without showing that
they have really grasped their proper significance.
Cotnter-arguments are practically not heard. So also
în other commentaries whose authors had heard any-
thing about the newer criticism referred to. Holsten
(‘Krit. Briefe ἂρ. die neueste paulin. Hypothese' in
Prot. Kirchenzig., 1889), Pficiderer (Paulinismus0),
1890), Holtzmann (£7/, 1892), Lipsius (A/09, 1892,
pp. 83 £), and others, made some general observations in
favour of the genuineness that had been called ἴῃ question.
But these discussions were little more than insignificant
‘affairs of outposts'; no real battle was delivered nor
even any serious attack prepared.

Then came Zahn (ἐπέ. ὦ), 1900, 13) with his censure
on his comrades in arms against the Tiibingen school for
their error in having defended indeed the genuineness of
the epistles ‘rejected’ by Baur, but not that of the
‘principal epistles,’ ‘alttiough Baur and his disciples
had never so much as even attempted any proof for the
positive part of their results." Forthwith he addressed
himself to the long postponed task. He gave some half-
dozen general observations (pp. 112-116) not differingin
substance from those which had already been made ; re-
ferred to the various particular investigations to be made
in a later part of the work, including the detailed treat-
ment of the Epistle to the Romans (pp. 251-310} where
31 full pages are devoted to the subject of the integrity
and not a single word to the question of genuineness.

Baljon (Gesck., 1901) perceived that something more
than this was necessary to put the newer criticism to
silence, if it was wrong. But what he wrote with this
end in view was neither (as might have been expected)
a confutation of the objections trged, nor yet an argu-
ment for the genuineness at least as solid and good as
(in intention at all events) that made on behalf of Philip-
pians, but simply a couple of pages (pp. 97-100)
devoted to the history of the newer criticism and a few
‘observations upon the objections urged by van Manen,

4144

ROME (CHURCH)

So far as appears, no one has as yet addressed him-
self to the task of an orderly scientific discussion of the
arguments on the other side, or to an effective setting
forth of the arguments on behaif of the genuineness.

Good commentaries—though all, it may be remarked, written
from the point of view of an undisputed and therefore
indisputable genuineness—-are those of È
26. Literature. Weiss (=Meyer-Weiss(®)), 1899, R. A.
Lipsius (2/03, 1892), W. Sanday and A. C.
Headlam (7x4. Crit. Comm. 1895). They all tuke account
ir important. predecessors” (see Weiss_39-43, Lipsius
i-vili, Sanday xcvili-cix), amongst whom are Origen (οὐ. 254),
Chrysostom (08. 407), Melanchehon (1560), Calvin (1564), Grotius
(1645), Theluck (1877), Riickert (1830)(2ì, J. G. Reiche (2833-34),
©. PA. Fritssche (1636-43), van Hengel (1854.50), de Wente
(1847)! ; as also of the works of H. Alford (οὖ, 1871), B. Jowett
(1855, 1859)0, C. A. Vaughan (874) 9, W. Kelly (18/3), F.
Godet (1879, ET 1881), G. Volkmar (1875). Cp H. J. Holzmann,
Enti (1892), 230-216 ; S. Davidson, fmtr.( (1894), 1 105-152,
Th, Zabn, Aire4. (1900), 1 251-310, J. Μ, 8, Baljon, Gesch, van
de boeken des NT5{1901), Bo-ro1, F. Spitta, Unt. sò. den Br. des
P. an die Romer (1901); A. D. Loman, ‘Quest, Pauline, ΤᾺ. Τ᾽
(1882); R. Steck, Gal. (1888), 154-161, 359-363, 374-382, W. C.
van Manen, Paulus 17.: De brief aan de Rom. (891).
W.C. VM

ROME (CHURCH)

Not founded by Peter and Paul Age ($$ 10.12).
Character (88 13-16).

1/0).

Not by Peter alone ($ 3). Constitution and government

Not by Paul ($8 4-7). (8.7.4). .

Origin among Jews in Rome Infiuence and importance
GBA) 8 το Δ).

Bibliography ($ Si

The earliest period of the Christian community in

Rome is wrapped in impenetrable obscurity. Tradition

attributes its founding to the joint

1 dgterPaul labours of the apostles Peter and Paul.

- This tradition, however, is unworthy

of our confidence, It is comparatively recent. The

oldest traces of its existence do not go back farther
than to the close of the second century.

According to a notice in Eusebius (Z7Ziì. 258), ‘Dionysius
of Corinth,' about the year 170 A.D., or somewhat later (see
[6 μκιστιαν Lrrerature, $ 31), wrote to the Romans as
follows: ‘So also by this so weighty admonition [of yours]--the
allusion is to the epistle of the Romans to the Corinthians
(=1Clem.)—ye have brought together [anew] that planting
[aforetime] made by Peter and Paul, of the fchurches of the]
Roinans and of the Corinthians. For, indeed, these two both
plavted us in our Corinth and likewise taught us; in like
manner also after having taught together în Italy they suffered
martyrdom about the same time’ [not necessarily, of course, at
the same hour, or on the same day, the same month, or even the
same year] (ταῦτα καὶ ὑμεῖς διὰ τῆς τοσαύτης νουθεσίας τὴν ἀπὸ
Πέτρου καὶ Παύλον φυτείαν γενηθεῖσαν Ρωμαίων τε καὶ Κοριν-
θίων συνεκεράσατε. καὶ φω καὶ εἰς τὴν ἡμετέραν Κόρινθον
φυτεύσαντες pad αν. ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ εἰς τῆν Ἰταλίαν
ὁμόσε διδάξαντες ἐμαρτύρησαν κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν καιρόν). Here the

*planting'or founding of the churches, alike of Rome and of
Corinth, is clearly recognised to have been the work of the
apostles Peter and Paul.” It is of no avail τὸ say with Sanday
and Headlam (Coro. p. xxix) that the ‘ planting' referred to
(φυτεύειν: cp 1 Cor. 36,7 97) is not to be taken ‘in che sense of
first foundation” We are not responsible for what ‘ Dionysius”
says; but we are under obligation to understand it în the sense
in which he meant ît.

"The same remark holds good with reference to Irenzus when
he speaks of the church at Rome as having been ‘founded and
constituted by the two very glorious apostles Peter and Paul’
('a_ gloriosissimis duobus apostolis Petro et Paulo Roma
fundata et constituta,' i. 8.1). These two, subsequently spoken
ofas ‘the blessed apostles,' the same authority (about 180 Ap.)
goes on to state, after having founded and built up the church,
handed over the government to Linus (θεμελιώσαντες οὖν καὶ
οἰκοδομήσαντες οἱ μακάριοι ἀπόστολοι τὴν ἐκκλησίαν Αίνῳ τὴν
τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς λειτονργίαν ἐνεχείρισαν, ili. 32; Eus. ΑΓΕ ν: ὃ τ).
In Eus, ΓΕ. 85 he tells us that Matthew wrote a gospel for
the Hebrews in their own tongue ‘whilst Peter and Paul were
preaching the Gospel at Rome and founding the church* (τοῦ
Terpov καὶ τοῦ Παύλον ἐν Ῥώμῃ εὐαγγελιβημένων καὶ θεμε-
λιούντων τὴν ἐκκλησίαν).

These clear testimonies, however, to the founding of
the church of Rome by Peter and Paul—however un-
2. Not Besitatinglytheymayhave been accepted

ti ti rth and built upon in later times—are one
TUSWOrtay. and all quite unworthy of credence.
Not only are they relatively recent and obviously framed
in accordance with a sèttled policy of glorifying the

4145

ROMH (CHURCH)

unity of the church as having been manifest even in its
oldest communities; what is more to the point, they
are at variance with older representations, whether we
receive these with absolute confidence or not, of the
course of events connected with the founding of a
Christian community in Rome,

‘Ignatius,’ in his epistle to the Romans (4 3), written about the
middie of the second century (see OLb-CHKISTIAN LITERATURE,
88285), indeed mentions ‘Peter and Paul’ as known and
influential teachers of the church he is addressing, but says
nothing as to their having founded ît. The church of Rome
itself speaks by the mouth of ‘Clement’ in the First Epistle to
the Corinthians, dating from about the year 140 A.D. (see OLL-
CHRISTIAN LITERATURE, 88 23-26), of Peter and Paul as known
witnesses to the truth (1 Clem. 5 3-7), but not as founders of the
church. Acts is not aware of any labours of Peter and Paul
carried out in common at Rome. From 2817-28 it might seem
to be a possible inference that Paul was the first to speak about
Christianity to the leading Jews there ; but of Peter there is no
word în this connection. Just as little is Peter mentioned in
the canonical epistle to the Romans, even in conjunction with
* Paul" when this apostle is speaking of his desire to become
acquainted with the Christians of the metropolis, whose faith is
everywhere spoken of, and whom he hoi ss ere long to be able
to meet (13-15 1522-2428/ 1619). Indeed, the arrangements
between Paul on the one hand, and To Cephas, and John
on the other, according to Gal. 29, ‘wé to the Gentiles and'they
to the circimcision' (ἡμεῖς εἰς τὰ ἔθνη, αὐτοὶ δὲ εἰς τὴν
περιτομήν), do not lead us to expect to find in epistles of Paul
any word 6f co-operation between Peter and Paul in the found-
ing of individual churches, What is related as to this at a
later date with regard to Rome cannot hold good in presence of
the assurance given us by the Epistle to the Romans, whether
by Paul himself or by an anonymous author using his name,
that at Rome there was a considerable Christian community
before Paul could possibly have been able to speak a single
word there,

Matters do not stand much better with the belief—
held absolutely for many centuries, called in question

at the Reformation, and again at

3. So also Peter: 2 iater period maintained by many
n Protestanis also—according to which

the church of Rome was founded by Peter alone. This.
tradition also deserves no credence, whether in the
form which represents Peter as having been bishop of
Rome for twenty-five years after the founding of the
church, or in the simpler form which merely conjectures
that the apostle may have contributed something to the
formation and extension of the church, or at least in
later years may have visited it for a shorter or longer
period. ‘The founding of the church by Peter is ex-
cluded by the silence of Ignatius and Clement on the
subject, and still more by the evidence of Acts, Gala-
tians, and Romans. Not only do they say nothing
positive to this effect; they make it perfectly clear that
from the point of view of their respective authors such
a thing is not to be thought of. Acts closes its account
of Peter in 1217 with the words, ‘and he departed, and
went to another place’ (καὶ ἐξελθὼν ἐπορεύθη εἰς ἔτερον
τόπον), and in the rest of the book Peter's name is
only once again mentioned, and in a different con-
nection (156-20), where he is represented as again in
Jerusalem. In view of this passage 1217 cannot be
understood as referring to a journey to Rome for any
lengthened period, not to speak of a period of five and
twenty years. Neither, however, can we understand a
visit to Rome of shorter duration, such as Harnack (ACL
21 [1897], 240-244, 704-710) still, with many, regards
as probable, not even with the aid of the assumption
that the contents of Acts15 were taken from another
source than that from which ‘Luke' derived his other
statements regarding Peter in Acts1-12. The words
quoted do not ‘of course’ say that we are to think of a
mere visit whether to Rome or to any other place.
‘They are quite clearly intended merely to indicate that
thè author does not propose to follow the fortunes of
Peter further : ‘and going his way, he journeyed to
another place.’ ΤῸ understand Rome as intended
here becomes possible only after one has learned other-
where, rightly or wrongly, to speak of a sojourn of the
apostle in the metropolis. Acts says nothing of this,
and plainly presupposes rather the exact opposite, since

4136

ROME (CHURCH)

chap. 15 alluded to Peter as again in Jerusalem, and
28 17-28, speaking of Paul's meeting with Jews at Rome,
leaves no room for the supposition that Peter had
preceded him there as a preacher of Christianity,
Galatians knows no residence of Peter other than
Antioch (21-21) apart from Jerusalem where, accord-
ing to 118 2 1-10, he seems to have his home, an agree-
ment that he is to address himself to ‘the circumcision'
being expressly mentioned, Romans knows of Chris-
tians in Rome; refers to their conversion from Judaism
and heathendom, their fidelity to the Pauline type of
doctrine once received (617), and the spiritual bond
subsisting between them, or many of them, and Paul;
but has not a word to say about any connection, whether
of long or short duration, between them and the apostle
Peter, and does not even so much as mention his name.
The writer, whoever he may have been, it has been
rightly remarked, has no acquaintance with any tradition
which represented Peter as having been the founder of
the Roman Church. His declaration made in 15 το
that he, ‘ Paul’ would not bvild upon another man's
foundation, however inconsistent with the desire ex-
pressed in 18-15 and 1522-24 29, wholly excludes it,
Especially so as soon as by the word ‘another’ we under-
stand, as is usually the case, an apostle—in this instance
Peter.

It is, in fact, improbable that Peter ever set foot in
Rome. The later traditions regarding this, including
those handed down by Eusebius, have no claim to our
acceptance, as has often been convincingly shown by
many scholars (and recently by C. Clemen, Preuss.
Fahrb., 1901, pp. 404-417, and C. Erbes, Zischr. καὶ Air-
chengesch., 1901, pp. 1-47, 161-231). They possess no
higher value than those reiating to Thomas's preaching
to the Parthians, Andrew's to the Scythians, John's in
Asia Minor. When Eusebius, immediately afterwards
(iii. 3 2, cp ii, 25 5), gives expression to the conjecture
that Peter preached to the Jews of the dispersion in
Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia, before
his crucifixion (head downwards) at Rome, he attributes
to him, obviously with his eye on 1 Pet. 13, a career
which he himself could not possibly reconcile with the
details that he gives elsewhere. According to ili. 362,
Peter was for some time bishop of Antioch before Igna-
tius; according to ii, 258 he was, along with Paul,
founder of the churches of Corinth and Rome; accord-
ing to ii. 146, the powerful opponent of Simon Magus
at Rome in the reign of Claudius (41-54 A.D.}; accord-
ing to vi, 25 8, the rock upon which the church of Christ
is built, and the author of two epistles,

A reference to 1 Pet. 11, though often made in con-
junction with 5 13, is of no avail to support the view that
Peter at some time or other had indeed made a stay,
longer or shorter, in Rome. There need, indeed, be no
hesitation, not even in presence of the objections of
Erbes,) to see în ‘she that is in Babylon, elect together
with [you]" (ἡ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι συνεκλεκτή, 1 Pet. 5 13) an allu-
sion to the church in Rome. In 1 Pet., however, it is
not Peter himself who is speaking, but an unknown
author writing in the first half of the second century,
130-140 A.D. (OLD-CHRISTIAN LITERATURE, ὃ 20;
PETER, EPISTLES OF, $$ 5/.; CHRISTIAN, $ 8). He
is the exponent of a tradition, not met with elsewhere,
regarding Peter as apostle in a portion of the countries
of Asia Minor where Paul also had laboured, and at the
same time of the other widely spread tradition that Peter
had his home in Rome. Acts, Galatians, and Romans,
so far as we can see, are not yet acquainted with this
latest tradition. Even I Clem., written professedly by
the church of Rome, and probably, in point of fact,
originating there, says nothing of a sojoum of Peter in
Rome, The writer assuredly would not have passed it
over in silence when speaking of Peter's glorious past in

1 Οὐ cit. below, 16-20. Erbes once more sceks to plead for a
sojourm of Peter among the Jews in Babylon, unless perhaps
we are to understand Jerusalem.

4147

ROME (CHURCH)

chap. 5, or treating of the life-work of the ‘apostles’ in
chaps. 42 and 44, if he had known anything of it.
Hermas and Justin, both of ihem witnesses belonging to
the Roman circle, are similarly silent as to aught that
Peter may be supposed to have done, said, or endured
there.

There are, then, as regards Peter's going to Rome,
and as regards his journeyings as a whole, traditions
which, in part, are mutually exclusive and in no case
admit of being combined together into one consistent
whole, The older ones do not imply the supposed fact
of the church of Rome having been founded by Peter;
they have no knowledge of it, or even bear witness
against it by making statements which cannot be har-
monised with it. Acts, Galatians, Romans, 1 Clem.,
undoubtedly come chiefiy into consideration here. On
the same side there fall to be grouped other NT testi
monies to the martyrdom of Peter, and, more precisely,
his crucifixion, drawn from very old, if not the oldest,
traditions relating to the careers of the apostles, though
without mention of the place where this violent death
occurred, See Jn. 2118-22 (cp 1336) Mt. 1057 16-18
22-33 232439 24914 Mk. 13913 Lk. 2447 Acts 18.
Within the circle of these ancient witnesses we can safely
say-—apart, if you will, from 1 Pet. 1513—-of all those
in the NT, to which also may be added that of the apos-
tolic fathers, that not a single word or even the remotest
hint is found in them as to a sojourn, whether of long or
of short duration, of Peter in Rome, whilst, in fact, more
than one of them, by implicit or explicit declaration, are
irreconcilably at variance with any such supposition.
Rather does everything plead for the view that Peter
never visited Rome, but worked continuously in Pales-
tine—occasionally, perhaps, outside its limits, but never
very far off—and that there, it may well have been in
Jerusalem, somewhere about 64 A.D. under Sabinus,l
or, at all events, some years before the destruction of the
temple and city în 70 A.D., he died a martyr's death.
[See, further, SIMON PETER.]

What remains of the jate tradition as to the founding
of the church of Rome by Peter and Paul conjointly

does not need any careful scrutiny after

4. Paul- the name of Peter has been eliminated.
tradition: ÎN We are not, în that event, shut up to

08° the alternative: if not by Peter and
Paul together, then probably by Paul alone. This is
nowhere said in any tradition so far as known to us.
Tradition seems rather to have followed this course:
since it is impossible that Paul can have founded the
church along with Peter, his name must not be thought
of in connection with the founding at all. Acts and
Pauline Episties, writings frequently read in a large cir
cle, indicated this.

Acts knows of no Christian church at Rome at a date
prior to a possible foundation by Paul after he had
proclaimed the glad tidings to the Jews assembled at
his lodging (2817-31). In 28 15, irideed, we read of
the ‘brettren’ who came from Rome to Appii Forum
and the Three Taverns to meet Paul, and it is no
doubt usual to regard these as having been Chris-
tians, but on no adequate grounds, They are, to judpe
from vv. 17-28, Jews, just as Roman Jews (+. zi) call
their kinsmen in Judsea ‘the brethren’ They are
amazed at Paul's plans, and declare as distinetly as
possible in 2. 22 that up to that hour they had heard
nothing of ‘this sect'—. of the Christians—beyond
the mere name. All this is in perfect agreement with
the current representation în Acts, according to which
Paul in his journeyings invariably first addressed
himself to the Jews and thereafter to the Gentiles
with a view to proceeding to the setting up of a
Christian community, whether composed entirely of
converted Gentiles, or partly also of former Jews (cp
13 46 and 13-28 passim). The view that by the
‘brethren’ of Rome, alluded to in 28 15, as also by

1 So Erbes, 212, conjectuses, relying upon Jos. Ané. xx. 9 5.
41498

ROME (CHURCH)

those of Puteoli in v. 14, we are to understand Chris-
tians, rests solely upon the representation in Romans,
according to which Christians are found in Rome long
before Paul has ever visited that city.

At the same time it must be remembered that the
opposite representation in Acts has no historical authori-
tativeness, being inextricably bound up with the tendency
of that book which has been already referred to.
Moreover, in Acts 2830 f. the founding of a Christian
church at Rome by Paul is rather tacitly assumed than
asserted in so many words. - It is possible that in the
"Acts of Paul’ (which were worked over by the writer
of our canonical Acts, and also made use of in the
composition of the Pauline Epistles, and which them-
selves in turn had their origin in a redaction and
expansion of the recognised We-source) the original
journey record (PAUL, $ 37; OLD-CHRISTIAN LITERA-
TURE, $ 9) may have given a somewhat different
account of the conditions which Paul found at Rome
and elsewhere în Italy, It may be that, according to
that representation, there were already in more than
one place at Rome Christians, ‘brethren’ in another
and higher sense than that of mere kinship, and that
their figurative designation is adopted by Acts so that
the ‘brethren' in Puteoli and Rome, according to Acts
2814f to be understood as Jews who were friendly
disposed towards Paul, were at the same time the
original Christians of these places.

However that may be, Acts nowhere contains any
express statement as to the founding of a Christian

church at Rome by Paul; and as little
5. In Romans. κέρας the epistle tothe Romans. What
Romans implies is, clearìy, rather this—that the church
had already been long in existence when Paul was
cherishing the hope that he might have an opportunity
of personaliy visiting it. This view is wont to be
accepted on all hands as just : by the majority, because
they hold it to come from the apostle Paul; by others,
the friends of advanced criticism, because, however
fully convinced of the pseudepigraphical character of
the epistle {see ROMANS), they have no reason for

doubting it. These have this advantage over the others
that they are not, like them, sorely per-

6. ROMAD8 lexed by Acts which betrays no acquaint-
Vite ance with the epistle held to have been

addressed to the church of Rome by Paul
‘at least two years before he himself undertook the journey
thither only to become aware on his arrival in the
metropolis that noone therehad ever heard anything about
him or even about Christianity at all otherwise than by
report merely. They set down the divergent representa-
tions in ‘ Luke" and ‘ Paul' simply to the account of the
separate writers, and as regards a supposed founding of
the church at Rome, can only say that according to
* Luke” it was perhaps the work of Paul, but according to
‘Paul,’ certainly not. According to ‘Luke,’ perhaps
it was, since we must interpret in accordance with the
general tendency of his ‘ historical* work; according to
* Paul," because everyone thought so in those days
nor yet had any oné any knowledge of a founding
of the church in Rome by Peter and Paul, or by
Peter alone. In other Pauline epistles also

T. Other ipere is no trace of acquantance vith
epistles. ,ny tradition which sought to represent
that founding as having been brought about by Paul.
In Romans there is no hint, of the kind we meet with in
1 Cor. 414 2 Cor. 613 1214 Gal. 419, that ‘Paul’ can
regard those whom he addresses as his ‘children.’ There
is no suggestion of such a relation of Paul to Rome even
in Philippians, Philemon, or 1 Clem. 55-7, where there
was such ample opportunity to call to mind the founding
of the Roman Church by Paul had the writer been
minded to refer to it. The Pauline literature says
nothing at allabout ît, nor yet do the kindred writings,
1 Peter, 1 Clement, Hermas, Ignatius. Rather must
we say that in all of them the undisputed and indisput-

188 4149

ROME (CHURCH)

able presupposition is that Rome was won for the gospel
without the intervention of Paul, either by his epistles
©r by his later personal intercourse.
Whom then are we to name as founder of the Roman
church? ‘Not any of the apostles,' as long ago
di Ambrosiaster in the so-called commentary
8. Founders 0; Ambrosius in the fourth century rightiy
TIinov answers (cp Sanday and Headlam, pp.
xxv, ci). We could almost venture to
guess : one or more of those who probably at a quite
€arly date, spread the glad tidings of salvation from
Jerusalem westward. ‘There was abundant oppor-
tunity in the constant intercourse between Rome and
the east, even before the middle of the first century, for
travellers from Palestine to return, or come for the first
time, to the banks of the Tiber and there to discourse,
as they had done in the various other ports and cities
they touched on their route, of the ‘things concerning
Jesus” (τὰ περὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ; Acts 1825 282331), ‘the king-
dom of God” (ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ; Acts 1422 198 2025
282331), ‘the preaching of the gospel’ (τὸ εὐαγ-
γελίζξεσθαι ; Acts 1332 147 1521 1535 1610). It is not
necessary to have recourse to the hardly historical
account of the first appearance of the apostles at
Jerusalem in Acts 2, where, as we read in 22, τὸ f.,
Romans, Jews as well as proselytes, were sojourning
(οἱ ἐπιδημοῦντες Ῥωμαῖοι, ᾿Ιουδαῖοί τε καὶ προσήλυτοι).
Such Jews living in Rome, as well as Gentiles who had
attached themselves to them and professed their
religion, may well have visited Jerusalem on other
occasions and become messengers, possibly very
capable ones, of what they had seen and heard there
to their brethren in the metropolis. We
se shall best picture to ourselves the subse-
+ Rome. quent course of events if we suppose that
al - the preaching of the gospel and the
establishment of the new religion made its way amongst
‘Jews and proselytes’ in Rome. Whoever wishes to
picture to himself the nature of the field in which, now
here, now there, the good seed was scattered by un-
known sowers, must try to form some conception of the
Jewish settlements in Rome as they then were. Very
many they were, ordinarily confined within certain
precisely defined limits, but within these moving with
social freedom bound only in so far as they themselves
chose to be so by the customs and practices received
from their fathers, the law and what it was held to
enjoin on the faithful children of Abraham by descent,
or on the proselytes who had joined them, Alternately
receiving the favours of the great and bowed down
under the heavy burden laid upon them by authorities
of a less friendly disposition ; constantly exposed to
risks of persecution, scorn, and derision, and seldom
allowed to pass altogether without notice; engaged in
the pursuit of trade and dependent on this for their daily
bread, now envied for their wealth and now plunged
into the depths of poverty or reduced to the ranks of
professional beggars. Such, just before and during the
opening decades of the first century, was the manner of
life of the Jews in Rome: a great brotherhood, we may
call it, broken up into a number of smaller communities ;
a band of aliens who know how to maintain their old
manners and customs, their nationality, and their religion,
in spite of many divergencies and divisions among them-
selves, in the midst of the surrounding Gentiles amongst
whom their progenitors had settled. At first they had
come to pay a visit there because commerce and political
reasons had brought them to the world-city ; so it had
been already in the days ofthe Maccabees. Others again
had been brought to Rome from their native country as
slaves, but on closer acquaintance were hardly found
suitable and often received their freedom or even were
invested with the privileges of Roman citizens. So, in
particular, shortly after the capture of Jerusalem by
Pompey in 63 B.C. By Caesar and others they were
shown great favour, Under Tiberius they were ex-

4150

ROME (CHURCH)

pelled from Rome in the year 19 A.D. and partly
employed in the war against the pirates of Sardinia.
Under Claudius about 49 A.D. they were again
banished. Under Nero it would seem they enjoyed no
small power and influence. (For details see Schiirer,
ΟΝ, 1898, 828-36 and specially the literature referred
to there on p. 28, ἢ. 70; cp Z89, 20 727-730 [1886]).
On this Jewish soil the earliest Roman Christianity,
we may safely affirm, had already come into being
10. before the middle of the first century.
» AGE: oldest distinet trace of its beginnings is
found în Suetonius (C/zz4. 25), where he says of the
emperor Claudius that he expelled the Jews from Rome
on account of their persistent turbulence under the
instigation of Chrestus (*Jud:eos impulsore Chresto
assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit'; cp CHRISTIAN,
ὃ 6 ii.). The banishment of the Jews (Acts 182 and
Dio Cassius 60 6), although probably in the event not
judged expedient or perhaps even possible, and in any
case not carried out on any large scale, had its occasion
in troubles and disturbances which had arisen among
the Jews ' impulsore Chresto —i.e., at the instance or
with the help of Chrestus, This Chrestus was, to judge
by the manner of speech of those days, no other than
{Jesus) Christ; his person and work, the views and
expectations connected with him, and his cause were
what led Ciaudius to seek to remove the Jews who had
thus become troublesome. Now, though the exact
year in which this resolution was come to by the
emperor is uncertain, if we remember that at the
beginning of his reign (41-54 A.D.) he was, according
to Josephus (4x4. xix. ὃ 2:3}, favourably inclined to the
Jews, we are led to think of a somewhat later date—let us
say with Schiirer (32) and others, the year 49 AD.
In that case the movement we are supposing, and its
procuring cause, the first systematic preaching of
Christianity in Rome, can have begun some months
or years previously. We must leave open the question
as to whether at a still earlier date some converts,
in the course of pilgrimages to Jerusalem or through
the agency of third parties in their adopted country,
may not have been won for the new confession and
the expectations connected with it, Rome had already
for a long time been a favourite and much frequented
harbour for new ideas in the sphere of religion.
With the date thus arrived at for the founding of the
Christian church in Rome it agrees tolerably well that a
writer many years later, in Acts 28 17-28,
ΑἿΣ mery of could still speak as if the new sect
οὐβ and Rom. è
were known only by name in the world
capital when Paul first proclaimed the tidings of
salvation to the Jews there, and that another writer-—
the author of Romans—did not hesitate to assume
throughout his work that at that very time there had
already been for a long time in Rome believers belong-
ing to various schools of Christian thought and practice.
When these books were written the days of the first
founding of a church in Rome were already so far
removed that in different circles divergent representa-
tions were given regarding it, though there was some
danger of misrepresentation ‘Luke’ is wrong
because he does not take account of the existence of
a0y Christian church at Rome before the apostle Paul
had made his voice heard there. ‘The Pauline writer,
on the other hand, represents the apostle of the
Gentiles as knowing that before his arrival among
them the faith of the Roman Christians was already
‘ proclaimed throughout the whole world' (Rom.
18), and in 617 it is the Pauline form of doctrine
whereunto they have been delivered. Both the one
view and the other may well be questioned as strict
history. Both writers make it manifest that they no
longer know the true position of matters so far as
details are concerned. At the same time they confirm,
each in his own way, the correctness of the date we have
arrived at ; at the beginning of the second century, the

4ISI

The |

ROME (CHURCH)

founding of the church at Rome belonged to a con-
sigerably remote past and at that distance of time could,
speaking broadly, be connected with a delineation of the
period when Paul was setting out for, or had arrived at,
the metropolis of the empire, .
The nearer determination of the date is to be sought
in such data as (1) the tradition regarding Paul's plans
with reference to a journey to Spain, by
1%. PUrÉleF ay of Rome, where a Christian church
“ πο longer needed to be founded (Rom.
1528 / cp τ Clem.55-7); (2) the tradition of Paul's
death at Rome, whether, as the ordinary reckoning
has it, in 64, as Erbes thinks, on 2grd Feb. 63, or
as yet others judge, at some date that cannoî be
more exactly determined, shortly before or in con-
nection with the persecution of the Christians in the
summer of 64; (3) ali that relates to the fact of the
persecution of the Christians at Rome by Nero; (4)
the appearance of the ‘ Church of Rome” as the writer
of Clement's first epistle to the Corinthians; (5) the

| activity of Marcion and Valentinus among the Christians

at Rome; (6) all that tradition tells us of the establish-
ment of a bishop's see at Rome by the apostles
Peter and Paul;—a very large series of testimonies
continuously assuring us, each in its own way, that the
founding of a Christian church at Rome goes back to
the middle of the first century of our era,
‘The character of this church was, to begin with, no
other than was to be expected from its origin within the
13. Character sphere of ‘Jews and proselytes’ (8 4).
of church, mbrosiaster in speaking of Jews alone
as fathers of the Christian community
at Rome has here again truly said that those who
believed confessed Christ and held fast by the law (‘ex
quibus [Judz:is] hi qui crediderant, tradiderunt Romanis
ut Christum profitentes legem servarent’). In this
there is no ‘exaggeration' as Sanday and Headlam
(p. 25, n. 3) have thought. They indeed could hardly
have thought otherwise as long as they were dominated
by belief in the genuineness of the Epistle to the Romans,
Whoever deems himself bound to maintain that belief
must inevitably assume that already, before Romans
was written by Paul—on the ordinary reckoning, that is
to say, before 59 A.D.-—there were to be met with in
Rome two divergent types of Christian faith and profes-
sion, the Jewish-Christian and the Pauline. Such an
one cannot avoid facing the question: What was the
church of Rome at that time? Jewish-Christian?
Pauline? Mixed? Yet all the while he is well aware—
or the discovery is ever anew forced upon him—that no
satisfactory answer to the question can be given, Some
texts speak very clearly for the view that the church in
question consisted of former gentiles, whilst others say
the exact opposite-—that it was composed of former
Jews (see Romans, ὃ 8; van Manen, Pazius, 2 23-25
166-7), Yet we cannot hold with Sanday-Headlam
(p. xxvi) and others the theory that it was a ‘mixed’
church. ΤῸ such a theory can be applied to the
full what these scholars remark in another connec-
tion: ‘there is no hint of such a state of things,' which
moreover would compel us, contrary to the manifest
intention of the writer, to think of ‘two distinct churches
in Rome, one Jewish-Christian, the other Gentile-
Christian, and that St. Paul wrote only to the latter.'
Any one who, on the other hand, has been able to free
himself from the axiom of the genuineness and has
satisfied himself of the pseudepigraphical character of
this writing of a later time (see RomaNS) no longer feels
his hands tied by the various impossible attempts that
have been made to answer the questions proposed. He
is no longer perplexed by that other troublesome
question : How are we to explain the fact that nowhere
in history has there remained any trace of the existence
of an important Pauline community in Rome, after the
apostle’s epistle had been sent thither? He takes no
notice of all ideas of this sort, the pictures suggested

4152

ROME (CHURCH)

in the epistle of the outward appearance and inward
semblance of the Christian church in Rome in the days
before Paul could possibly have preached there —as
being not renderings of historical actuality but pictures
of a past that never had been real, attempts to repre-
sent the old-Christian period after many decades had
passed. Such a student holds fast by the seemingly
insignificant phrase, which yet tells us so much, of the
instigating ‘Chrestus’ by whom the Jews in Rome,
according to Suetonius, in the days of Claudius (οὐ.
49 A.D.) were troubled; and holds by the pretty generaliy
accepted conception as to a Christian Church at Rome
which had arisen out of the faith and life, the active
exertions, of ‘Jews and proselytes' who had been con-
verted to Christ ; by what Ambrosiaster has said, with
equal sobriety and justice—that Jews living in Rome in
the days of the apostles had taught their brethren to
confess Christ and to hold fast by the law,
In other words, the church in Rome was originally
Jewish- Christian, and probably long remained so.
τς, Gradually more liberal ideas crept in,
18 demish- hanks perhaps to the influence οἱ more
* advanced preachers from abroad who had
wholly or partially cutgrown their Judaism, but thanks

still more to the case with which in every sphere of ‘

thought new ideas made way in Rome. Whether Paul
may have had any active share in this work we are not
now in a position to say. Acts leaves us in doubt.
Romans testifies to good intentions but not to any work
actually done, ‘The ‘epistle, inspiteoftheseemingabund-
ance of the light it sheds on the events of the years im-
mediately preceding 59 A.p. in Rome, really draws over
them all an almost impenetrable νεῖ]. It gives surpris-
ing glimpses into the history of the development of the
church in the direction of greater freedom, the emanci-
pation of Christianity from the dominion of the law, but
all from a remote distance in space, probably from the
Fast—Antioch or somewhere else in Syria, it may be, or
perchance Asia Minor—at all events, a long way off
and in a distinetly later time. In reality, in the

more trustworthy tradition there is no

15, perugia trace of all this; but on the contrary,

of Paulinism. »mistakable proof that Paulinism at
Rome though (i.) it struggled for a time for the victory
in the days of Marcion (04. 140 A.D.), (ii.) never really
took permanent root there, and never was other than an
exotie.

i. That Paulinism flourished in some degree at Rome
is very certain, as we may safely infer: (<) from the
way in which ît is throughout presupposed in Romans
(written probably about 120 A.D. ; see ROMANS, $ 23)
that, before his first visit to the capital, Paul already had
there a large circle of friends and followers, of whom a
whole series is mentioned by name in 163-15, and
who already for a long time had been instructed
in his distinctive type of doctrine (67); (6) from
the support as well'as the opposition, which Marcion
met with in Rome, in various capacities, and not least
of all as advocate of his ‘ Apostle,’” the Paul of the
epistles ; (c} from the friendly relation between Peter
and Paul presupposed în ‘1 Peter,’ probably written at
Rome, in evidence of which relation we point not only
to the Pauline form of the writing and to the mention,
at the end, ofSilvanus and of Mark{cp 2 Peter3 15}, but
also and chiefiy to the strongly Pauline character of the
contents; (4) from the liberal spirit of the gospel
according to Mark, probably also written at Rome,
along with which perhaps that according to Luke may
also be named; (e) from the honour with which
*Clement' as spokesman of the church at Rome writes
* to the Corinthians ' concerning Paul (τ Clem. 55-7 47 1),
and more than once declares that he is influenced by
the reading of his ‘epistles'; (Y) from the mention of
Paul along with Peter as a teacher of authority by
‘Ignatius’ în his epistle to the Romans (‘I do not com-
mand you as Peter and Paul did’ 43); (9) from the

4153

ROME (CHURCH)

wide currency of the later tradition of the founding of
the Christian church at Rome by ‘ Peter and Paul.’

ii. Paulinism was, however, only partially successful, as
is no less clearly evident: (2) from the way in which
in Romans Paul now admonishes the Jews (chaps. 1-8,
passim, and especially 217-29) and now shows them
the greatest deference (chaps. 9-11 passim, especially
317 9r-510:); (δ) from the opposition met with by
Marcion in Rome which ended in his expulsion from
the new religious community; (6) from the position
of the name of Paul in the younger tradition—already
in ‘Clement’ and ‘Ignatius’—after that of Peter;
(4) from the spirit of works brought out at Rome
and extensively read there, the most outstanding of

: which is the so-called first Epistle of Clement to
i the Corinthians,

The spirit there breathed, notwith-
standing the reverence expressed for 'Paul’ and
the deference occasionally paid to the principles
inaugurated by him, is much moreof a Jewish-Christian
character than one that testifies to warm sympathy with
the gospel of freedom ; rather one that is slowly gravi.
tating toward the left than one that is averse to the right
in principle ; a conciliatory and advancing spirit, if you
will, yet rather in many respects showing lingering attach-
ment to the old than still standing with both feet upon
the basis of the law, firmly rooted in Judaism, filled
with the rich contents of the Old Testament ; in a word,
a spirit that in its inmost nature is becoming Catholic.
The Christian Church of Rome, in its beginnings a
shoot from the Jewish stock, in the course of years took
up and assimilated elements that were
16. Gradual brought to it from other quarters : from
ChADZE. she East, and particularly from Syria and
Asia Minor. Its power of adaptation was of great use
to it in regard to those elements in the new faith which
were originally strange in it and were at home rather in

| the more developed circles of Paulinism, but in adapting

itself the original power of the Pauline spiritual move-
ment was in many respects taken away. In the course
of years—let us say, in round numbers, between zo and
150 A.D.—the character of the church at Rome, from
being Jewish-Christian with occasional deviations towards
the right and towards the left, had become, we shall not
say Pauline or Gentile-Christian, but Catholic. At the
later date—.e., about the middle of the second century
-—it had recently been the scene of the labours of
Marcion, who was excommunicated afterwards, Marcion
the eager and serious advocate of ‘ Paul' who had already
probably some years before become known to it by means
of the ‘epistles.’’ It had at the same time come into
touch with, among others, that highly gifted teacher, well
nigh lost in broad and deep speculations, alternately
held in reverence and covered with scorn, the gnostic
Valentinus. [τ had learned to listen to preachers of
repentance like Hermas who, eminently practical,
sought to win it before all things else to the urgent
duty of conversion. But, however divergent may have
been the paths by which it was so dissimilarly led by
these and other leaders to clearer insight on many sides,
and deeper experience of the fruits of faith as that
translated itself into a genuine Christian life, the
structure as carried out appeared always, in spite of
the multifarious and manifold additions, to rest upon
the old foundation—destined, as it would seem, never
to become obsolete—that of the law and of Judaisti, to
which, as a new and indispensable element, confession
of Jesus as the Christ, had been added,
How this Christian community at Rome was originally
governed and organised can probably be best conjectured,
17. Constitu- in the absence of all positive informa»
tion of Jewish UO by calling to mind conce more
its what we know of the spirit of that
community religious fellowship of the Jews out of
which it arose. Like this last it had no political aims,
and consequently as yet knew nothing of those who at
a later time were to be called rulers and leadérs, charged

484

ROME (CHURCH)

with the care of the outward life of Christians as subjects
of the state. ‘The Jewish ‘Church,’ although it can be
so called in respect of the religious confession of its
adherents, formed no unity placed under the leadership
and government of a single council or of one head. It
was made up rather of a great number of separate and
independent congregations (συναγωγαί), each having
its own synagogue, its own council (yepovsta), its own
rulers (ἄρχοντες), who also sometimes at least, were
partly called ‘elders’ (πρεσβύτεροι), and, whether for
life (διὰ βίου) or for a limited period, were chosen at
the beginning of the Jewish civil year (in September).
They were charged with the general leadership of the
community, sometimes also with the task associated
with the special office of chief of the synagogue
(ἀρχισυνάγωγος). The language employed was Greek,
as indeed the whole constitution with rulers (ἄρχοντες)
and councils (yepovria:), so far as form was con-
cerned, seems to have been borrowed from the civil
organisation usual in Greek cities (see Schirer, Die
Gemeindeverfassung der Juden în Rom, 1879, and ΟἿ Κ᾽ δ),
3: pp. 44-51 [1898]).

The Christian Church also, we may safely take for
granted, very soon after its members had been excom-
municated, or had voluntarily withdrawn

ΟΝ from the Jewish synagogues in Rome,
Church, Pad their own centres, with a government

proper to themselves (modelled mainly,
so far as form was concerned, on that which they had
left at the call of religious principle and duty}, their
own places of meeting (συναγωγαί), their own rulers
(dpyovres), who are often called elders {πρεσβύτεροι}.
This was what happened elsewhere throughout the cities
of the Dispersion Why not also in Rome? Acts calls
the rulers ‘elders' (πρεσβύτεροι) in 1130 1423 2017;
whenever Jerusalem is spoken of, where the apostles
are regarded as having lived and laboured, we read
of ‘apostles and elders’ (1524623 164), just as the
same writer elsewhere when referring to the rulers
(ἄρχοντες) of the Jews speaks of their ‘elders’ (217
45823 612 2314 241 .2515). For the rest, in Acts we
find no allusion to any government of Christian com-
munities, just as, in fact, of the community that arose
after the arrival of Paul in Rome nothing more is said
than that they met in Paul's own house (2830). In
Romans there is no evidence as to the terms employed
in this connection by the Christians at Rome, except
in a single passage where allusion is made to ‘him that
ruleth' (ὁ προϊστάμενος : 128).

1 Clem., the ‘epistle’ of the ‘church of God' at
Rome to that of Corinth, has more to say. The church
(ἡ ἐκκλησία) comes before us as a unity embracing all
believers within the boundaries of a definite locality ;
so in the opening words and also in 443 476 (cp 2 Clem.
21 141241). We are not precluded from thinking that,
as in the case of the Jews, this unity was made up of
various circles or congregations within the larger whole
which comprehended the whole body of the faithful,
The supposition finds support when we consider the
manner in which the occurrence of divergent ideas and
practices with regard to the choice of officials is spoken
of. Some consider themselves free in their choice ; but
others, including the writer, hold themselves bound to
tradition and obliged to adhere to the ancient holders
of spiritual offices as long as they have not disqualified
themselves by misconduct {cp 13 33 216 42 44 592).
True, this applies, so far as form is concerned, in the
first instance and especially, only to the Corinthians
who are being addressed, but yet also to the Romans
who are speaking of themselves in the plural number
{cp 71; see OLD-CHRISTIAN LITERATURE, $ 24)
The most obvious explanation is to be found in the
supposition that the divergent views and practices
referred to were found in the different circles or congre-
gations (ἐκκλησίαι) within the bounds of the one church
---ἡ xAnola—whether that of Rome or that of Corinth.

4155

ROME (CHURCH)

However that may be, 'the church' had its rulers or
leaders (ἡγούμενοι ; 13) just as had the Jews (322), the
Egyptians (515), and others (373 55x 601). They are
usually called ‘elders’ (πρεσβύτεροι ; 1333 216 445
476 542 ὅττι, cp 2 Clem.1735), but în one instance,
though in no different sense, ‘overseers’ (ἐπίσκοποι)
and ‘deacons' (διάκονοι, 424/., cp 441 503), charged
with the sacred service (λειτουργία, 411 4427 6). They
were ‘ministering’ (λειτουργοῦντες ; 463) just as in
their manner were the Jews (322 40), Enoch (92),
Aaron (434), the angels of God {345}. In this service
or ministry were included, or at least came under their
superintendence, (τ) the reading of scripture (ἡ γραφή
or αἱ ἱεραὶ ypadal)—the OT as we now know it and
whatever other writings were at that time reckoned as
belonging to it ; also Christian writings such as Paul's
‘ Epistle to the Corinthians ' and other treatises, including
1 and 2 Clem. (cp 2 Clem.191 151 175 1 Clem.471
632 71, OLD-CHRISTIAN LITERATURE, $$ 2-4; Herm.
Vis. ii. 13 41 Eus. HZ ii. 258 ili. 88 5)---[2) exhortation
(cp τ Clem. sassi) and (3) prayer (1 Clem. 593-61
2 Clem. 22). All of these, as with the Jews, at least
down to near the end of the second century, were
performed in Greek.

Of a monarchical government of the Church there is
as yet no trace în 1 and 2 Clem. Neither is there any
in the Shepherd of Hermas which, like the Epistles of
Clement, knows only of elders (Vis. ii. 42 3 iii. 18) and
overseers, along with ‘teachers’ and ‘deacons’ {} 75.
iii. 51 δέρε, ix. 272). The oldest traces of monarchical
church government in Rome are met with in the seven
epistles of ‘Ignatius’ which were probably written there
about the middle of the second century, and in the
earliest lists of Roman bishops—little trustworthy
though these are in their substance, and put together in
the interests of the recognition of the episcopate, which
was then coming into being, or had recently come to be
important. They do not go farther back than to
Apicetus, and were probably drawn up under his
successor Soter, about 170 A.D. (see Harnack, ACZ
ii, 1 1897, pp. 70-231, esp. pp. 144-202. See, further,
MINISTRY).

If the question be asked, finally, as to the influence
and importance of the Christian church at Rome, it was

small and certainly for the first few
19. Importance ecades, not to be compared with that
of Rome. cfthe church at Jerusalem nor yet with
that of other churches of Palestine, Syria, and Asia Minor.
It was only gradually în the course of the second
century that a change in this respect came about, under
the influence of great historical events such as the fall
of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., the rebuilding of that city as
Zlia Capitolina under Hadrian (see JERUSALEM,
$$ 33/), and the continual process by which the West
manifested its preponderance over the East. In all this
there made itself felt the favourable situation of the
Christian Church at Rome in the centre of Greeco-
Roman civilisation; the inborn inclination, and the
corresponding aptitude, of what had been the Gentile
element in the new church, to lead and soon to dominate
believers who had their homes elsewhere, as well as
unbelievers ; and last, certainly not least, whatever that
church was able to contribute from its own resources
towards its internal growth and its external prestige.
In this connection we may particularly specify : the
accession not merely of slaves and people of the lower
orders but also of rich and often infivential persons,
sometimes even from the immediate entourage of the
emperor ; the courage shown by martyrs there as else-
where; the zeal of outstanding personalities such as
Valentinus and Marcion; the activity of efficient men
such as ‘Clement’ and ‘Ignatius’ in labouring for the
establishment of the Catholic Church; the labour
expended on various sides to advance far and near the
cause of knowledge, of Christian practice, of edification,
of consolation.

4156

ROME (EMPIRE)

Marcion laid the foundations of a recognition of a
written norm of truth, of belief (κανὼν τῆς ἀληθείας,
sog τῆς mistews), one gospel and ten
Si Caristian Pauline Epistles (τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον καὶ
Ὁ δ᾽ Ἀπόστολος [τὸ ᾿Αποστολικόν ), which
the church as it grew Catholic soon spread far and
wide and accepted—along with the older tradition —
as the touchstone of truth. Into this (ecelesiastical)
canon Rome, according to the list discovered and
published in modern times by Muratori, introduced a
larger collection of Old-Christian writings differing but
slightly in extent from the NT as that was finally fixed
by well-nigh the whote of Christendom. Marcion also
wrote an orthodoxly conceived ‘ Epistle” and ‘ Antitheses"
or ‘Separation of Law and Gospel' (Arzfitheses or
Separatio legis et evangelti) ; Valentinus was the author
of ‘Epistles,’ «Homilies,' and ‘Psalms.’’ Some un-
known writer prepared the Gospel according to Mark;
‘Clement,’ iwo ‘epistles' to the Corinthians, of which
the first is a ‘ Treatise concerning Peace and Harmony”
(ἔντευξις περὶ εἰρήνης καὶ buovoias), conceived, according
to its own description of itself (632), in the interests of
peace in the churches, and especially în the matter of
the election of clders, and the second is an ‘ Exhortation
concerning continence’ (Συμβουλία περὶ ἐγκρατείας,
151), Hermas wrote his Skepkerd to stir up all to
repentance; ‘Ignatius’ composed his ' Epistles* upon
love for the promotion of martyrdom and on behalf of
right views in doctrine and in life. He and others
contributed largely to the upbuilding of their own as
well as other churches, where their epistles were diligently
read. Thus the Roman leaders exercised influence in
ever-widening circles, and opened up the way, often
quite unconsciously, for the spiritual predominance of
their fellow-believers abroad, From the middle of the
second century another element that had no small
influence also was the effort after a one-man government
of the church, first on the part of Rome alone, but
afterwards also on that of others who afterwards
associated themselves with it in this. Polycarp of
Smyrna, seeking for comfort at the hands of Anicetus
of Rome in the matter of orthodox observance of Easter,
still knows how to maintain bis freedom of thought and
action in another direction than that prescribed to him.
But one of his successors in the Asia Minor controversy
of the Quartodecimans, Polycrates of Ephesus, was
excommunicated by Victor of Rome and cut off from
the fellowship of the faithful (see Baur, Das ChristentAzm
u. d. Christl. Kirche der drei Ersten Jahrh. 1853,
PP. 141-157), Jm this manner the preponderance and
authoritativeness, and ultimately the supremacy, of the
church of Rome had already come to be recognised in
the East before the end of the second century.

For the extensive literature dealing with our subject reference
may be made, amongst others, to such studies on the supposed
mac 0 ai ojourm of Peter and Paul în Rome as these of
21. Biblio- A. Hamack, de dl 1897, PP. 240-244, 703:
30 Jen, ‘Ist Petrus in P

BTRPRI: πολ Gue Falk. ager pp. κρατὶ Ele
‘Petrus nicht în Rom sonde in Jerusalem gestorben’
Brieger's Zischr. /. Kirchenzgesch. 1901, pp. 1-47 161-231; on
the Jews in Rome in Sanday and Headlam, 72 E. 15 the
Romans, 1805, xviîi-xxv; Berliner, Gesch. der Juden ‘in Rom
E. Schiirer, Die Ghmeindeverfassung der Juden în Ross,
1879 and G///131, 11}. 1898, pp. 28-36 44-56. Alsoto the comment-
arfes on Romans such ‘as those of Sanday-Headlam, 1895,
aviîi-xliv; R. A. Lipsius în Z/C(), 1892, pp. 70-78: Meyer:
Weissl8), 1890, pp. 16-22: to the NT introductionssuchas those of
S. Davidsond), ἀρᾷ, 1105-1135 H. 1. Holtrmannt, 2802, pp.
232-236; ΤῊ. Zahn(@, 1900, pp. 299-308; J. M. 5. Baljon, 1907,
Pp. 88-92. See also ‘Romans (Epistle to the) in Zncy. 475.19),
20 727-730 [1886], and OLD-CHRISTIAN LITERATURE, PAUL,

Romaxs, Simon PETER, in the present work. w, Ὁ, v. M.

ROME (EMPIRE). The Roman Empire has been
supposed to be alluded to in Dan. 2 and, but the interpretation
“is one which the progress of history has shewn to be untenable*
(Driver, DarieZ, 98 5 see the whole discussion, 94-102). Rome
is referred to by name in biblical writings for the first time in
connection with Antiochus Epiphanes; this ‘sinful root," we
are told, had been a hostage at Rome (1 Macc, 1 το, ὅς ἦν ὅμηρα

ἐν τῇ Ῥώμῃ).

4157

ROME (EMPIRE)

The topography and history of Rome and of the Roman
Empire is so vast a subject and is so fully dealt with by various
‘writers and in easily accessible works of reference, that it has been
deemed sufficient, în the space at our disposal, simply to touch
upon the problem of the relation of Rome to Judaism and to
early Christianity.
Destined to play such an important part in the
political and religious history of the Jews, the Empire
came into close touch with them for
1. Rome and the ye fr5t time in the early days of the
revolt against the power of Syria,
About the year 161 B.c. Judas the Maccabee having
heard of the great fame of the Romans, sent an embassy
‘to make a league of amity and confederacy with them,
and that they should take the yoke from them ; for they
saw that the kingdom of the Greeks did keep Israel in
bondage” (1 Macc. 817; cp 2 Mace. 1134, Jos. Ang.
xii. 106 Justin363). ‘The mission was successful; but
before the news arrived Judas was slain {1 Mace. 91-18;
Jos. Ant. xii. 111), in 143 B.c. the alliance was
renewed by the statesmanlike Jonathan (1 Mace.
12:-4 16; Jos. Art. ΧΗ]. 58). On the death of Jonathan,
Simon, his brother and successor, like his predecessors,
also sent to Rome to seek a renewal of friendship.
The ambassador, this time Numenius, was again
successful, and ‘the Romans issued a decree to all the
peoples of the East, announcing that they had entered
into a league of friendship with the Jews’ (W. Ὁ.
Morrison, Ze Jews under Roman Rule, 13). Hyrcanus,
again, Simon's son and successor, after the death of
Antiochus (129 B.C.), to escape paying any more the
tribute which the Syrian had exacted, sent yet another
embassy to Rome, and again ‘in accordance with the
settled principle of Roman policy in the Fast, the Jewish
mission was received in a friendly manner, their
grievances were attentively heard, and a decree was
issued, ordering the Syrians to relinquish their claims
to tribute, and declaring void whatever Antiochus had
done in Judaa in opposition to previous declarations
of the senate [Jos. Ax. xilì, 927/]' (Morrison, gp. cif
16 f.). After this several causes combined to weaken
the power of the Syrians, so that the Jews no longer
had any cause to fear them.
Such were the first relations of the Jews with the Roman
Empire, if we are to trust tradition; but as Morrison again
observes (19), ‘some of these supposed alliances rest upon very

slender historical foundations.' For further details we must
refer the reader to the article MaccaBEES (cp ISRAEL).

While the Roman Empire was becoming more and
more imperialistic, within the Jewish nation was arising,
A through the play of new ideas, that spirit

2. Jewish. of fagtion which was τὸ rend it asunder
party-spirit: ven în the face of a common foe (sce
SADDUCEES, SCRIBES AND PHARISELS; cp ISRAEL),
See again on the history of the period MACCABEES,
and JANNAUS. ‘The disputes between Fharisees and
Sadducees did not end with words; in the contest
between the soldiers of Alexander and the Pharisees
much blood was spilt. The struggle went on through-
out the reign of Alexander, though towards the end
he was able to sulxlue the Pharisees and their allies
the Syrians; it continued during the reign of Salome
Alexandra (78-69 B.c.), in which John Hyrcanus, one
of Alexander's sons was content to act as high priest;
and into the reign of Aristobulus (69-63 B.c.),
Alexander's other son, It sapped the strength of the
nation so that it was ready to fall an easy prey to a
power that aimed at expansion. When the Romans,
who for a time had been otherwise occupied, again
turned their attention to the East, having been roused to
action by the revolt of Mithridates, king of Pontus, in
88 B.c., and when success had attended their arms in
the very neighbourhood of this people that had wantonly
reduced itself to a state of miserable weakness, it was
natural and inevitable that the Roman Empire should
be further extended, Another civil war in Palestine
(66 8.6.) gave Pompey his opportunity. Hyrcanus,
influenced by the schemer Antipater, had plotted to

4158

Hasmoneans,

ROME (EMPIRE)

overthrow Aristobulus. ‘When, however, the Pharisees,
assisted by the Nabateans, were besieging Aristobulus
in the temple, Marcus Scaurus, one of Pompey’s
lieutenants, appeared on the scene, put an end to the
fight, and set Aristobulus on the throne for a time at
least. The struggle between the two brothers soon
broke out again ‘This time Aristobulus, having
offended the Romans, was besieged by them in Jeru-
salem. With the help of the Sadducees, and in spite
of the Pharisees, he was able to hold out against the
besiegers ; but in the end Pompey, attacking him on a
Sabbath (63 Β..}, broke through and inflicted severe
punishment on the Jews,

Judaa was then regarded as a conquered province.
We may venture to say with Morrison that the new

arrangements that resulted ‘were on the

8. Gloser hole a blessing to the peoples of the

comestion Fast, who were rescued from chaos and în-
with Home. crapility, and enabled, after years of
anarchy, to enjoy the fruits of peace' (41). Graetz
{Hist. 267) points out that ‘the Judan prisoners that
had been dragged to Rome, were to become the nucleus
of a community destined to carry on a new kind of
warfare against long-established Roman institutions,
ultimately to modify or partly to destroy them.'
Certainly the war between the new and old ideas was
to go on uninterruptedly until some adjustment could
be effected. Under the Herods, when the Jews were
again in large measure allowed to govern themselves,
the adoption of Hellenic culture was encouraged by the
rulers to such an extent that the people revolted against
it. The Jews determined to rid themselves of their
half-Jewish rulers. At the request of the people them-
selves they were at length put under the direct govern-
ment of Rome, ‘With the return of Judaza to a Roman
administration begins the prelude of the destruction of
Jerusalem and the Jewish people-—perhaps the most
shocking tragedy known to the history of the world"
(Cornill, Mist of the People of Israel, 259). The
tragedy was due to the refusal of a large section
‘amongst the people, such as the Pharisees, the Zealots,
and the Sicarii, to accept the inevitable—-Roman rule
and the spread of Greeco-Roman ideas.

After Pompey's conquest Jewish and Roman history are
closely bound up together, and the details have been sufficiently
dealt with in ISRAEL, 88 85-15, HEROD, PILATE, GOVERNMENT,
JerusaLEM, SeLEvcIDA, TRADE, and other special articles.

One of the problems of history is to discover the
precise attitude adopted by the Romans towards
4. Rome and Tudaism, on the one band, and towards

the Gospel. ristianity on the other. e know

that important concessions were made to
the Jews and that on the whole they enjoyed a large
measure of religious liberty. Unfortunately, however,
we are unable to treat the history of Josephus or the
narratives of the NT as in all respects historically
accurate. As to Josephus, ‘his persistent endeavour
to make it apparent that his people were actually friends
of the Romans, and in reality took up arms against
them unwillingly, is a notable example of his colouring
of the situation, and compels the acceptance of his
assertions with some caution’ (Riggs, /ist. of Jewish
People, 145; cp De Quincey, Works, 713: 7). As to
the Gospels, it is admitted that their present form is
due to editorial redaction. Christianity was no sudden
growth. It arose gradually, and only made its way by
slow degrees. It represents the result of that inter-
play of Eastern and Western ideas which began under
the DISPERSION (g.v.). Judaism, under the influence
of Greek thought, had undergone during the disper-
sion a striking change. Later, the transition from
Greeco-Judaism to Christian Judaism, and from the
ideas of Philo to those accredited to Jesus, was easy
and natural. Even the stricter Judaism, itself, in the
person of Hillel, helped to promote the new develop-
ment. The process was accelerated by contact with

4159

ROME (EMPIRE)

Rome. But the new movement at first met with no very
great success. Christian Judaism appealed neither to
the Jew nor to the Gentile. ‘The Jew refused to give
up his characteristic rites; the Gentile would not
submit to purely oriental institutions, Christian
Judaism was obliged to throw off more of its oriental
trappings. Hence arose the purely Christian movement.
This form of Christianity was probably represented by
the primitive gospel. But the evolutionary process was
still at work. The struggle of ideas was now going on
with renewed vigour. The Roman empire had become
a world-empire; everything was tending towards a
world - religion. *Christianity’ had long been in the
air, or in other words, ‘the fulness of time had come."

This is admitted on all hands, “H the Empire was the
greatest of hindrances to the gospel, it was also the greatest of
helps. . , The single fact that the Empire was universal went
far to complete the fulness of time for Christ's coming. Rome
put a stop to the wars of nations and the great sales of slaves
resulting from them, to the civil strife of cities and their
murderous revolutions. Henceforth they were glad to live
quietly beneath the shelter of the Roman peace. . Intercourse
and trade (witness the migratory Jews) were easier and freer
than ever since in Europe till quite recently. .. This was
her [Rome's] work in history—to be the link between the
ancient and the modern—between the heathen city states of
the ancient world and the Christian nations of the modern’ (H.
M, Gwatkin, ‘Roman Empire’ in Hastings' 20) Cp Ramsay,
Church in the Roman Empire, chap. 9, $ 6; also Seeley,
Ecce Homo, x; J. H. Muirhead in The ΑὔΤδό. Journ. 1153
[Oct. 1902), a criticism of Kidd's Princibles of W. Civilisationi
1. M. Robertson, A Skoxt Hist. of Christianity (1902).

‘Writing of the state of the world towards the end of
the first century, Renan shows (see the references in his
notes) that ‘expanded ideas of universal brotherhood
and a sympathy with humanity at large, derived for the
most part from the Stoic philosophy, were the result of
the broader systen of authority and the less confined
education which had now assumed control. Men
dreamed of a new era and of new worlds. . , Maxims
of common humanity became current, and the Stoics
earnestly taught the abstract notions of equality and
the rights οὗ men. . . Love for the poor, sympathy
for all, and charity, became virtues.” But at the same
time, as often happens during a period of transition,
‘on the whole, the middle of the first century is one of
the worst epochs of ancient history." Philnsophers,
however, were doing much to bring about a reforma-
tion, and ‘there was as much grandeur in the struggle
of philosophy in the first century as in that of
Christianity' (Te Apostles, ch. 17). But it was not
merely a struggle of two independent forces against a
common foe. A struggle of ideas was going on within
and between the two reforming agencies, and between
both and the popular Roman religion. The conflict
resulted in the victory of neither one nor the other, but
in a compromise, in the evolution of a religion adapted
and adaptable to its surroundingst—in other words in a
paganised Christianity.

The primitive gospels seem to have been edited and
amplified in view of this development. We have in
. Our present gospels, apart from the

δ Romana in fact that there are doubtless ‘gospels'

8 Gospela. (Gnostic, Ebionitic, and even Essenic}
within the gospels, on the whole not a picture of what
really took place at the rise of the Christian movement,
but a representation coloured and suggested by the
ideas of a later age. Although therefore they may
contain much correct information as to Roman ad-
ministration in Palestine, we can hardly trust them
as ta the genera! conduct of the Romans. To take
an instance, the Gospels suggest that the Romans
were interested in the new movement from the start,
but that the ruling Jews were almost persistently hostile
to it (espec. Lk. [cp also Acts]; cp Ramsay, Wes
Christ born at Bethl.? 67). But the movement was
not such as to appeal to the Roman mind in the first
instance, and the name of its founder ‘appears only in
profane authors of a hundred years later, and then in

4160

ROPE

an indirect manner . . .' (Renan, Li/e of Jesus, ch. 28).
Writings, such as the Gospels and the Acts, written in
the interest, or to explain the rise, of a religious move-
ment, are especially liable to be influenced by bias or
tendency, so that there is every reason to treat them
with caution and critically to examine their statements
before regarding them as strictly historical. In par-
ticular, the accounts of the betrayal, trial, and execution
of the hero, whether we consider the part played by
the Jews or by the Romans, are very difficult to under-
stand, We might naturally suppose that Jesus would
have been treated by the Romans asa political offender,
Deliverers kept coming forward, we may be sure, in
answer to the Jewish expectations. The Romans would
hardly have been likely to discriminate between the new
Messiah and other agitators. Each and all would be
regarded equally as politically dangerous; the career
of each and all would be abruptly terminated as soon
as the outskirts of the cities were abandoned and an
attempt was made to openly preach ‘a new kingdom”
in the market-place. We have examples later of the
treatment which these prophets received.

For instance, to quote Cornill's graphic description (ist. 260),
‘a certain Theudas . . . had summoned the peorle fo the
Jordan where at his command {πε miracle of Joshua was to be
repeated. Βαβι sent thither a company of cavalry, who
simpiy cut the people down and brought the head of Theudas
to Jerusalem.' See THEUDAS,

It is difficult to believe that the Romans behaved as
they are reported to have done at an earlier date, even
when it is admitted that the circumstances at the time
were rather different. It has been handed down again
that the Jews themselves, or a section of them, actually
anticipated Roman action, that they betrayed the
author of the new movement to the Romans and were
themselves allowed to play a chief part in carrying out
his death-sentence. Lut this representation of the
Jewish attitude, as well as that of the Roman pro-
cedure, looks very much like a late attempt to take the
blame as far as possible off the shotnlders of the
Romans and lay it on the Jews, The pagan-Christian
movement, and the widening gap between Jews and
Christians, would give rise to a tendency to say as little
as possible in disparagement of the Romans, and as
much as possible to bring odium on tha Jews; to
adapt the teaching more and more to the mind of the
Roman, to make it diverge more and more from the
doctrines and practices of the Jews.

Cp Gospets. On therepresentation of Roman administration
given in Acts, see Acrs. For other details see the special
articles on the Roman places, governors, etc., mentioned in
NT. See also Curistian (NAME or), Government, Rowe
(CÙurck or), Romans, PauL, PiLate, Pkocuratok, Pro-
VINCE, QUIRINIUS, M. A.C.

ROPE. For &eéel, ‘dboth, and nikfak, see CORD,

and for ‘agrida, Job 412 [4026] ΒΨ, AV ‘hook,’ see

RusH, 2, and cp FIsH, 8 5, n, 1, col, 1529.

ROSE. τ. bai 1; ἄνθος, Cant.21; kpinon,
Is.351t) is now usually taken, as in RV®£, to be the
autumn crocus, Co/chicum autumnale, L., or some
kindred species. The Heb. word, #dbasslelk, is closely
akin to Syr. 2aw2sa//2ythd, the meaning of which is well
assured (Lòw, 174).

The rendering ‘rose, found in Kimhi and other Jewish writers,
seems to rest on mere conjecture ; ‘lily’ stands in &, Vg., Tg.
(but only once in each), whilst ‘narcissus'is in Tg. on Cant,
and is upheld by Celsius (1 489 75) and others. Delitzsch (Prol.
82 22) compares Ass. gabasillatu, ‘reed,’ and argues for the
word being a general name (cp (δ and Ve. of Cant. 21) fora
flower-stalk or a flowering plant. As Nldeke (Z24/G 40 730)
and Halévy (Λ΄ 87 14 149) urge, however, the mame must be
specific (at all events in Cant, 21): and the Aramaic word
provides a satisfactory parallel, though, of course, this argument
is not decisive against an Assyrian connection.! Various species

1 [The Ass. comparison is accepted by Che. (δγοῤᾷ. Zs.18ì, on
*Is.' 4.) after discussion ; it is pointed out that the same plant-
name often has a different reference in different countries. See
also Ges. (18) s.2., who recognises the connection. ]

4161

RUBY

of colchicum found in Palestine are enumerated by Tristram
(FAP 425).

2. The ῥόδον is referred to in Wisd. 28 (στεψώμεθα
ῥόδων κάλυξιν), Ecclus. 2424 [18] 3913 (17), and 508 (γ:5
ὌΨΙ: sce Schechter and Taylor). What is commonly
called the ‘ Rose of Jericho,' the Azastazica hieruntica,
is certainly not meant by Ben Sira, when he speaks of
the ‘rose-plants in Jericho." In all these passages he
apparently means the rhododendron (Tristram, NHB
477; ep Schick, PEZO, 1900, pp. 63-65). In 3 Mace.
71, PIOLEMAIS [g.0.] is called ῥοδοφόρον [V], or ῥοδο-
φόνον [A] The roses of Egypt are celebrated by the
Roman poet Martial.

Gràtz even finds the Hebrew, or more strictly, New Hebrew
word for roses in a passage of Canticles (413, pri for per).
This may be right (see col. 693}; but cp Budde, ad loc. du
“mm, ‘rose,’ in Mishna, and its Syr. and Ar. cognates, see Low,
Aran, PRanzennamen, 131 f. N. M.

ROSH (δ; pwc [BAO]), according to most, is
the name of a people in Asia Minor, which, like Meshech
and Tubal (confidently identified with the Moschi and
the Tibareni), belonged to the empire of Goc [g.v.]
(Ezek. 882/ 891). It is very strange, however, that
all the names of peoples in Ezek. 381-6, except Rosh
and Paras (v. 5), should occur in the Table of Nations
in Gen. 10, and, from the conjunction of Tiras with
Meshech and Tubal in Gen. 102, von Hammer long ago
plausibly conjectured the identity of Tiras and Rosh.
It is noteworthy that in Judith 223 the ‘sons of RASSES'
(g.v., and cp Tiras) are mentioned directly after Put
and’ Lud, and 11 is natural to identify, first, Rasses with
Rosh, and then, on the ground of the phenomena of the
Lat. MSS.,1 Rasses with Tiras. This would produce
the reading ‘ prince of Tiras.'?

This is decidedly better than explaining wx® 1, ‘ chief
prince (of Meshech, etc.),' as RV®£ and Smend (after
Tg., Aq., Jer.} But the whole of the prophecy of
Gog appears to need reconsideration (see PROPHET,
8 27). Ifitistrue that the prophet foretells a great N.
Arabian invasion, we must suppose that ex, like sn and
ew, is a corruption of Aèsur (ngi), the name of one
of the peoples in N. Arabia bordering on the old Judahite
territory. Cp ‘TARSHISH, TIRAS,

Winckler would omit ww) as a gloss on gigi (‘chief’); but

this is too superficial a correction. pvisg ÎS specially one of
Ezek.'s words (cp PRINCE, 2). τι K. C.

ROSH (iN; pwc[ADL]}, a Benjamite family name
(Gen. 4621). In the corresponding list in Nu. 2638 Καὶ
for Ehi Rosh Muppim we find Ahiram Shephupham,
and the three names probably grew out of the two either
by a simple transposition of the letters 47 and δὰ (cp
C. 1. Ball, S807), or in some such way as that explained.
by Gray {A/PN 35).

The MT in Gen., indeed, requires Rosh to make up its ten
‘sons’ of Benjamin (z.e., fourteen ‘sons’ of Rachel; v. 22); but
@aL, although naming ten, preserves the original summation
nine (£e., eighteen ‘sons’ of Rachel). 655 is lacking at this
point; but @D sees the discrepancy and, since it retains Rosh,
changes the eighteen to nineteen.

ROSIN. 1. ‘1, siri, Ezek. 2717 AVOE-

gr
2, νάφθα; Song of Three Children, 23 (Dan. & 846) ΑΥ̓͂,
RV NAPHTHA.

RUBY.

1. Biblical
references,

See BALM,

In EV ‘rubies' represent ῥῥηεκῆπε, D'IVD,
six times (Job 2818 Lam.47 Prov.315
811 20x5 3110); in Lamentations RVme-
has ‘corals’; in Job it has ‘red coral’
and ‘ pearls.’

1 Vet, Lat. reads 7 έγας ef Rasis, with which Pesh, must
originaliy have agreed: T&izas and Rasis represent different
readings of the same word.

2 07 8°9, instead of ΘΝ ‘1; *n, as Herz has remarked,
might casily fall cut after κι. Toy (Ezek, SE07) has also
combined the names Rosh and Tiras The above was written,
however, before the appearance of his work.

4162

RUDIMENTS

The renderings of € vary and (sometimes at least) manifestly
represent another text (in Job, καὶ ἕλκυσον σοφίαν ὑπὲρ τὰ
ἐσώτατα [BNC, dovra, Al; Lam., ὑπὲρ λίθους ; Prov.815 StI
8110, λίδων πολυτελῶν ; Prov. 2015, wanting?); Vg. has a
different rendering în each case (Job, frakitur aufens sapientia
de occultis; Lam., ebore antigno; Prov.3 15, cunctis opibus;
811, cunctis pretiosissimis ; 2015, multitudo gemmarum; 8110,
de ultimis finibus).

2. In Is. 5t12 (κρύσταλλος), Ezek. 27 16 (xopxop [ΒΟ],
xepxopvs [A]) ΕΝ has ‘rubies,’ but AV ‘agate’ and
AV [Ezek.] ‘chrysoprase,' for 3513, Aadtid. Sce
AGATE, CHRYSOPRASE,

3. In Ex. 2817 Ezek. 2813 RV& has ‘ruby’ for
DIR, ᾿δάενε,

The question whether rubies are referred to in the
OT may at first sight appear rather complicated. It is

A not so, however, in reality. The claims

2 Identifica” 5 ‘rubies' as ἃ rendering of W0rinzm

10, have long since passed into abeyance ;
the revisers of AV, it is clear, only acquiesce in certain
cases in AV's rendering ‘rubies’ from a feeling of un-
certainty as to the absolute correctness of the marginal
renderings which they propose. On the correctness of
their renderings we may refer to CORAL, PEARL, and
with regard to Lam. 47 (where the strange statement,
' they were more ruddy in body than rubies,’ is ventured
upon in EV) to LAMENTATIONS [BooK], $ 5, SAPPHIRE,
If the precious stone called ‘dem is’ really from
a/ota, ‘to be red,’ and not rather from the name of
Edom,! it is most plausible to identify it with the
carnelian (see SARDIUS), We have, therefore, only
the passages Is. 5412 Ezek. 2716 to deal with. Here
the greatest weight is due to Prof. Ridgeway/s remark
{CARBUNCLE, col. 702), that there is no proof that the
ruby, which is found only in Ceylon and in Burmah,?
was known to the Hebrews any more than it was to the
Greeks till after the time of Theophrastus. If the ndphef
is the wa/Zaf-stone of the Egyptians (see CARBUNCLE,
end), the 424444 might conceivably be the garnet ; on
the possible root-meaning (to emit fire, as a fire-stick),
see Ges.-Bu, and BDB. We must not, however, ignore
the possibility (see CHALCEDONY, 1, end) that the true
reading of the word is, not 2515, but "512 {r for d).
Both for the stone called ’é4em: and for that called (as
we now assume) “502, the name of a country may be
surmised as the origin-—viz., in the case of 'adeze,
Edom, and in that of 3259, Jerahmeel (such corruptions
of this name turn out to be common); the stones
so designated may in fact have reached the Hebrews
from N° Arabia, and so have been called respectively
the Edomite and the Jerahmeelite stone, Cp SARDIUS,
Toraz.

The true or Oriental ruby is a red variety of corundum or
native alumina of great rarity and value, and to be inguished
from the spinel (an aluminate of magnesium), which is of much
less estimation as a gem stone. The phraseology of ancient
writers was even more confused than that now current, for they
appear to have classed together under a common name, such as
the carbuncewlus of Pliny or the dg of Greek writers, not
only (perhaps) our two kinds of ruby, but also garnets and
other înferior stones of a fiery colour. See further STONES
[Precious]. T.K.C.

RUDIMENTS (croiyeia), Col. 2820 EV, RVme
ELEMENTS (g.v.).

RUE (trHranon [Ti. WH]) is once mentioned {Lk.
11421) as a small garden herb; in the parallel passage
Mt. 2323 anise and cummin are mentioned instead.

According to Tristram (ΕΓ 478) Ruta graveolens is at this
day cultivated in Palestine, whilst Rua Bracteosa is a common
wila plant. Cp Léw, no, 317.

RUFUS (poyoc [Ti. WH])) occurs several times in
©Old-Christian literature.

1. Mk. 1521, as the son of SIMON OF CYRENE and
the brother of ALEXANDER (gg.v.). In the Apocryphal

1 See TARSHISH [STONE], 8 3.
3 Cp ‘The Ruby Mines in Upper Burmah,' Cormhil! Mage
zine, Dec. 1

ΤῊΝ
3 Cp, for instance, *Calcol,’ τ Κ. 431 (5 χα].
4168

RUMAH

Acts of Peter and Andrew, and .of others, Alexander
and Rufus are mentioned as disciples of Andrew, who
were his companions in the country of the barbarians ;
cp R. A. Lipsius, Apotr. Ap. -gesch. 1533 f. 617 621; 877
7983, E. 94 οὔ.

2. Rom.1813, as a Roman Christian, well known to
Paul and to the Christians in Rome as being ‘the elect
{or the chosen) in the Lord.’ We do not know the
force of this expression Weizsicker thinks that it
hints at some special circumstances connected with his
conversion. B. Weiss, Sanday-Headlam interpret :
‘eminent as a Christian. In any case it will be an
epitheton ornans to celebrate the friend of Paul, the
supposed author, who goes on to salute ‘his mother
and mine,’ as if the Roman wife had once kindìy treated
him, who had not yet been in Rome. The list of greet-
ings in Rom, 16 is not historical; the names and the
additions are fanciful; cp ROMANS({EPISTLE). Accord-
ing to Epiphanius this Rufus was reckoned among the
seventy ‘others’ (apostles), Lk, 101. A Spanish local
tradition makes him the first bishop of Tortosa, conse-
crated by Paul. Another tells us that he was conse-
crated bishop of the Egyptian Thebes by Peter. His
birthday is said to have been the 8th or the rgth April;
cp Lipsius, 2222 227, E 242.

3. Polycarp, P4iL.91; cp Eus. Z/Zili. 3613, as a
companion of the martyrs Ignatius and Zosimus, com-
memorated every year on 18th Dec. at Philippi, accord.
ing to Mertyrol. Rom.

It is difficult to say whether these three, or any two
of them, originally indicate the same person.

W.C.v.M

EUG (N99), Judg. 418 RVY; see col. 509, n. 4.

RUHAMAH. See LO-RUHAMAH.

RULE (9), Is. 4413 AV, ΕΝ LINE
HANDICRAFTS, $ 2.

(σιν. 2) Cp

RULER. On the wide use of general terms of this.
nature, cp what has been said under the headings
CAPTAIN, GOVERNOR, OFFICER.

The different Hebrew and Greek terms thus rendered
are as follows :—

1. sdgan, see DEPUTY, 1.
κα sar, sce PRINCE, 3, and cp ARMY, $ 4, GOVERNMENT, $21,

ING.

3. ndgid, see PRINCE, L,

4. dg?n, Hos. 4 18, lit, SutELD [g.2.]—the text is not certain.

τ mé351 (a “ruler’ in the general sense, Gen. 458 Prov. 67

ΜῈ 5 2 [1)), see GovERNOR, 11.

6. Sallit, see GOVERNOR, 9.

7. ἀρχισυνάγωγος, Mk. ὃ 45, see SYNAGOGUE, Β 9.

8. ἀρχιτρίκλινος, Ju. 285, see MEAL, $ 11.

9. πολιτάρχης, Acts1768 (ruler of the city), see Tures
SALONICA.

10. ἔπαρχος, 2 Macc. 427 AV (ΕΥ̓͂ ‘governor’), see Sos:
TRATUS, and

11. ἄρχων, the most widely-used of all terms both in LXX and
NT, applied, e,g., to rulers of nations (Mt. 2025), magistrates
and judges (Lk. 12 58 Rom.133), officers and members of the
Sanhedrin (Mt. 91823 Lk.841 231335 Jn.31); to Jesus the
“ruler” of the kings of the earth (Rev. 15), arid to Satan the
‘prince’ (so EV) of devils (Με. 9.34).

RUMAH (090), the birthplace of Zebidah or
Zebudah, Jehoiakim's mother (2 K. 2336 [ΕΚ] KkPoyma
[B], [ex] p. (AJ, [ex]AoBenna [L]; Jos. 428 x. 52,
ei aBoymac Î.e., apoymac), has been thought (see
HWB%) to be the poyma οἵ Eusebius (OS 288 το,
POYMA H Kai apia, in his time called pemgic),
with which he identifies Arimatheea, unless | 2 Ch. 365
{54 not MT) be correct in giving Ramah for Rumah
(so Pesh. in 2K. It is the modern Raxziek in the
plain N. of Diospolis {Lydda). There were, however,
several places called Rumah. Another is referred to
in the Talmud as Ruma and once as Aruma (Neub.
Géog. du Talm. 203); this seems to be the Galilean

1 See above, col. 297, n. 2.
4164

RUNNERS

Ruma of Josephus {2} iii. 721), which may be the
mod, Rimeh, on the S. edge of the plain of Battauf,
about 6 m, N. of Nazareth.

ArumaH [(g.2.] în Judg. 9 4ris at first sight excluded by its
northern situation, Probably, however, the original story spoke
of Abimelech as king of Cusham în the Negeb (see SHECHENM).
If so, it is plausible to identify Arumah with the Rumah of
2K., because of the matrimonia! connections between the kings
of Jidah and the Negeb. Like ‘Ramah' (which, indeed, Pesh,
reads in2K. and GBA in the supplement to 2Ch. #65), Rumah'
and ‘Arumah' probably come from ‘ Jerahmeel' ; the place so
designated was of Jerahmeelite origin, τι Κις,

RUNNERS (07).
8.4 (col. 314).

RUSH, BRUSHES. τ. NPi, cime (Ex.23 [Syro-
hex., Ald., 15 TratTypoc ; s0 Aq.! Sym., 65 om.], Job
81r[rrarrypoc], Is. 182 [επτπιστόλὰς BYBAINAC], 3577
[eroc]f} is almost certainly the papyrus (cp @& Ex.
{2}, Job), the Hebrew name being derived from
Coptie Zam. This plant (Cyerus Papyrzs, L.), which
was a characteristic growth along the Nile banks in
ancient Egypt,® and still occurs in several localities in
Palestine, rises to a height of about six feet, with a
triangular tapering stem; see PaPyRI, 8 1. Its stem
supplied material for the making of boats, sails, mats,
cloth, cords, and, above all, writing material. In
particular, îts use for the construction of light Nile
boats is mentioned by Theophrastus, Pliny, and other
ancient writers (cp EGYPT, $ 8, end), and explains the
references in Ex. 23 Is.182, and probably also Job 9.26
(see νη. but cp REEDS, OSPRAY).

2. fiat, ‘agmon (15. 9 τῳ [13] 19154 585 (xplios), Job
4124026, xp.] 4120%[12]f) is a word for ‘ marsh reed,’
derived from ‘dgare, pix, a ‘marsh' or ‘pool’ (Barth,
NB 341), and very probably to be identified with Arwrdo
Donax, L. {cp Tristram, N48 436/). In 15. 9 τα [13]
1915 the ’agron or ‘reed’ is contrasted with the kagpd%
(n39) or ‘palm-branch," the latter indicating those in

high position and the former the humbler classes in the
state—so @ (below, n. 4) In Is.585 among the
spurious tokens of pretended piety is mentioned that
of bowing the head as the head of the reed is bent by
the flow of the stream în which it grows; cp 1 Κ' 1415
Mt ly.

In Job412 [40 26] the name is transferred to the rope or cord
(see RV) of reed used to noose the crocodile ; and in Job 4120
[12] the hot vaporous breath of this animal is compared to the

steam of ‘a seething pot' and (see RV) the smoke of ‘(burning)
rushes.’ {In both passages the text is doubtful, On Job4lz

see Fisr, $ 5, and n. 1, where DI), ‘ring'is proposed as an
emendation, and on Job4120 see Budde, who (with Bi., Du.,
Beer) reads DIR]; ‘and boiling.’] N. M.—w. τ΄ T.-D.

RUST. τ. πο, delaz; 100, in Fzek.2461:/
of ‘the ΠΝ city, that caldron full of rust [AV ‘scum 1 where:
from the rust is not yet gone.

2. βρῶσις, in Mi θοῦ of ‘“moth and rust’ (σὴς καὶ βρῶσις)
which consume *treasure.’

3. ἰός, in Jas. 53, spoken of rusting gold and silver,

EUTE (N. poye, Land), a Moabitish woman,
the heroine of the Book of Ruth. Through her marriage
with Mahlon, and subsequent marriage-at-law with
Boaz (in the name of Mahlon), she became an ancestor
of David, who, according to our present text, was a
native of Bethlehem in Judah. Ruth's noble unselfish-
ness was thus rewarded {cp Ruth 212}. Her sister,

See CHARIOT, $ 10; ARMY,

1 Aq. gives παπυρεών for ἢ), Ex. 253 Vg. Aagyrion.

2 AV has ‘bulrushes' in Ex.23 (RVmg. ‘papyrus’), Is. 182
(ἈΝ ‘papyrus?), ‘rush’ in Job811 (RYme ‘Papyrus’), and

rushes' in 15. 357.

3 It is said to be now extinct in Egypt—thus Boissier (77. Or.
5375) ‘olim in Egypto, ubi destructus nunc esse videtur.’
Tristram : ‘no longer found in Africa, excepting in) marshes of
the White Nile in Nubia, Τ᾽ 7° N. latitude* ΠΩΣ 433).

4 In both cases (δ paraphrases, μέγαν καὶ μικρὸν and ἀρχὴν
καὶ τέλος.

ὃ 6 ἀνθράκων (Ὁ ὉΠ).

4165

RUTH, BOOK OF

whose impulse to follow Naomi to her home în Judah
was less effectual than Ruth's, was named Orpah, a
name which suggests the meaning 'obstinacy.’ Hence,
following Pesh., it is usual (cp Geiger, Ursc4r. 50) to
explain Ruth as a contraction of Re'tth, Z.e., ‘the
companion,’ ‘one who lovingly attaches herself.” Sce,
however, for other explanations, RUTH [BOOK], $ 5.
The account of her levirate-marriage with Boaz is
given with archeeological fulness as an obsolete custom.
Cp SHOES [e).

[By old Hebrew law, as by the old law of Arabia, a wife who
had been brought into her husband’s house by contract and pay»
ment of a price to her father was not set free by the death of her
husband to marry again at will. The right to her hand lay with
the nearest heir of the dead. Originally we must suppose,
among the Hebrews as among the Arabs, this law was all to the
disadvantage of the widow, whose hand was simply part of the
dead man's estate; but, while this remained so in Arabia to the
time of Mohammed, among the Hebrews the law early took
quite an opposite turn ; the widow of a man who died childless
was held to have a right to have a son begotten on her by the
next kinsman, and this son was regarded as the son of the dead
and succeeded to his inberitance so that his name might not be
cut off from Israel. The duty of raising up a son to the dead
lay upon his brother, and in Dt, 255 js restricted to the case
when brothers live together. Im old times, as appears from
Gen. 38, this was not so, and the law as put in the book of Ruth
appears to be that che nearest kinsman of the dead in genera!
had a right to ‘redeem for himself' the dead man's estate, but
at the same time was bound to marry the widow. The son of
this marriage was reckoned as, the dead man's son and succeeded
to his property, so that the ‘redeemer’ had only a temporary
usufruct in it. Naomi was too old to be married in this way,
but she had certain rights over her husband's estate which the
next kiasman had to buy up before he could enter on the
property. And this he was willing to do, but he was not willing
also to marry Ruth, and beget on her a son who would take the
name and estate of the dead and leave him out of pocket. He
therefore withdraws and Boaz comes in his place. ‘That this is
the sense of the transaction is clear τ there is, however, a little
obscurity in 45, where (see Vg., Pesh.) one letter has fallen out
and we must (with Cappellus, Geiger, Bertheau, etc.) read
mne Da), and translate ‘What day thou buyest the field from
Naomi thou must also buy Ruth,’ etc. Cp vo. g/—w. R. 5.1

The notice in Ruth 47 has caused some difficulty.
Kalisch (26% Studies, 1 [1877] 62) actually suggests
that ob (EV ‘in former time') may perhaps mean
‘from olden times.’ Driver (/2/.9 455), who ap-
parently finds 47 and 4:8-22 the only passages which
may indicate a late date, thinks that, while 48-22
*forms no integral part of the book,' 47 ‘has every
appearance of being an explanatory gloss,” and coni-
pares the admitted gloss in 15.99, which begins with
ΚῚΣ ον. This is a perfectly legitimate view,
though it entails an alteration of the text in . 8. But
we may ask this question: Supposing that the custom
referred to in 47 had become antiquated, was not such
an explanatory notice called for? ΤΙ Κι C.

RUTH, BOOK OF. The story of RUTH (g..) forms
one of the OT Hagiographa, usualiy reckoned as the
ΜΝ second of the five Megilloth or Festal

1. Original Reis. ‘This position corresponds to the
position. Jewish practice of reading the book at
the Feast of Pentecost ; Spanish MSS, however, place
Ruth at the head of the Megilloth (see CANTICLES);
and the Talmud, in a well-known passage of 2457
Bathrà (146), gives it the first place among all the
Hagiographa. On the other hand, @ and the Vul
gate make Ruth follow Judges, It has sometimes been
held (e.g., by Ewald, Fist 1rs6; Bertheau, Richter τίν
Ruth, 292) that this was its original piace in the
Hebrew Bible also, or rather that Ruth was originally
reckoned as an appendix to Judges, since it is only by
doing this, and also by reckoning Lamentations to
Jeremiah, that all the books of the Hebrew canon can
be reduced to twenty-two, the number assigned by
Josephus and other ancient authorities. It has been
shown elsewhere (CANON, $$ 11-14), however, that the
argument for the superior antiquity of this way of
reckoning breaks down on closer examination, and,
whilst it was very natural that a later rearrangement
should transfer Ruth from the Hagiographa to the

4166

RUTH, BOOK OF

historical books, and place it between Judges and
Samuel, no motive can be suggested for the opposite
change. That the book of Ruth did not originaliy
form part of the series of ‘ Former Prophets' (Judges-
Kings) is further probable from the fact that it ἰδ quite
untouched by the process of ‘ prophetic' or Deuterono-
mistic editing, which gave that series its present shape
at a time soon after the fall of the kingdom of Judah ;
the narrative has no affinity with the point of view which
looks on the whole history of Israel as a series of ex-
amples of divine justice and mercy in the successive
rebellions and repentances of the people of God, But
if the book had been known at the time when the
history from Judges to Kings was edited, it could
hardly have been excluded from the collection; the
ancestry of David was of greater interest than that of
Saul, which is given in 1 S. 91, whereas the old history
names no ancestor of David beyond his father
Jesse.

As to the date. A very early period is clearly impos-
sible. ‘The book does not offer itself as a document

2. Date. written soon after the period to which it

" refers; it presents itself as dealing with
times far back, and takes obvious delight in depicting
details of antique life and obsolete usages {on Ruth
41-12, see RUTH); it views the rude and stormy
period before the institution of the kingship through
the softening atmosphere of time, which imparts τὸ
the scene a gentle swceetness very different from the
harsher colours of the old narratives of the book of
Judges. [We cannot therefore very well say with Dr.
C. H. H. Wright (//rod. 126) that the book ‘must
have been written after the time of David, and long
prior to the Exile.'] Indeed, the interest taken in
the pedigree of David points to a time when ‘ David"
had become a symbol for the long-past ideal age. In
the language, too, as we shall see presently (see $ 3).
there is a good deal that makes for and nothing that
makes against a date subsequent to the captivity, and
the very designation of a period of Hebrew history
as ‘the days when the judges judged’ (Ruth11) is
based on the Deuteronomistic additions to the book of
Judges (2:65), and does not occur till the period of
the Exile,

An inferior limit for the date of the book cannot
be assigned with precision Kuenen formerly argued
(ον, ΠῚ [186r] 212 234) that, as the author seems
to take no offence at the marriage of Israelites with
Moabite women, he must have lived before the time
of Ezra and Nehemiah {Ezra9 Neh.13); but the
same argument would prove that the Book of Esther
was written before Ezra, and indeed, as Wellhausen
{Bleek's Ziz/.15, 206} points out, the singular Talmudic
statements respecting the descent of eminent Jewish
teachers from supposed heathen proselytes of antiquity
(Sisera, Sennacherib, Nebuchadrezzar, Haman—see
RAHAB) appear to imply a theory very similar to
that of the Book of Ruth, which nevertheless had
no polemical bearing on the practical exclusiveness of
the prevalent custom. We cannot therefore assert
that the Book of Ruth was not written later than
about 444 B.C.

At the same time it must be admitted that the story
of Ruth was written before the living impulses of Jewish
literature had been choked by the growing influence of
legalism. As Ewald remarks, ‘we have here a narrator
of a perfectly individual character," who, ‘ without
anxiously concealing by his language all traces of the
later age in which he wrote, had obviously read himself
into the spirit of the ancient works both of history and
of poetry, and thus produces a very striking imitation
of the older work on the kings' (7156. 1154 1}. The
manner, however, in which he tells the story îs equally
remote from the legal pragmatism of Chronicles and
from the prophetic pragmatism of the editor of the older
histories. His work has therefore some advantage over

4167

RUTH, BOOK OF

the histories just mentioned, an advantage, it is true,
of which the Targum {see 15} endeavours to deprive
it. By the tone of simple piety and graciousness which
pervades it, and by its freedom from the pedantry of
legal orthodoxy, the book reminds us of the prologue to
the colloquies of Job and the older poetica wisdom,
Legalism, then, was still far from having triumphed in
the field of literature when the story of Ruth was written ;
even a superficial student cannot close his eyes to this
important fact.
The necessity of a somewhat late date will appear also
from the following stylistic and linguistic considerations.
sronsatio That the style of the narrative lacks the
3. Linguistio freshness and popularity which distinguish
si the best sections of the Books of Samuel
must be apparent, and upon examining closely the
linguistic details, we shall probably become convinced
that a pre-exilic origin is impossible. The learned
Benedictine Calmet (Dictionnazre historique et critigue,
1722, art. ‘Ruth’), indeed, following Baba sa/krà,
145, ascribes the composition to the author of the
Books of Samuel, a view which he supports by re-
ferring to the phrases, ‘ Yahwè do so to me and more
also,’ Ruth 1x7 (cp τ 8. 317, and ten other passages in
Sam. and Kings), ‘to uncover the ear,' Ruth 44 (cp x S.
915, and six other passages in Sam.). For other points
of contact between Ruth and Sam, and Kings, see 415
and τ 8.18 (pe); 119 and 1S.4s1K, 145 (cam); ἐπ
and τ 8. 213 2 K. 68 (nba ba); 23 and 1 S.69 2026
{rmpp, ‘accident '), and the second fem. sing. imperf.
în je, 282: 84:8 15, 114 (also 15. 4510 Jer.3122). These
coincidences, however, are outweighed, not only by the
difference of style {in the more general sense) between
Ruth and Sam., but also by certain forms and expressions
found in Ruth but not found in Sam., some of which at
least point distinctly to a post-exilic age.

The following forms and idioms (to which add the second fem.
sing. imperf. in >; see above) are post-classical and mostly post-
exilic or exilic'in use—the second fem. sing. perf. in sno, 33/7
{also in Jer. [often], Ezek.16 Mic. 413 [hardly Micab'od;

ΝῺ for mit, Mara, 120 (cp parallels in Ezek. 27 31 86 5 etc.);

129, ‘to shut up,’ 113 (Mishuic, Jewish Aram., Syriac, but cp
Driver);

a", ‘to confirm," 47 (also Ezek. 13 6 Esth. 921 27 2931 £ Ps.
11928 106, and in [Aram.] Dan, 68);

"25, “to hope,' 113 (Esth.91 Ps. 119166);

MY xPI3, ‘to take a wife," 14 (Ezra 9212 Neh. 1325 1Ch.
23.22 etc., but of Judg. 21 23 [Budde]);

1nD, ‘therefore, "113 (as in Aram. Dan. 26 etc.); cp Driver.

It is also well worth noticing that the divine name or
title στρ (exilie and post-exilic in use) occurs in Ruth
120/11 (without 5g), as often in Job—Ewald rightly com-
pares Job 27 2, and (against the view that Ruth is written
in a pre-exilic N. Israelitish dialect) that the relative is
always τῶν, never εἰ (cp Kònig, Ziz/ 286).

According to Kénig (Zizi 287), the book in its
present form belongs, on linguistic grounds, to the
period: of Jer., Ezek., and the Second Isaiah, whilst
marks of the later Hebrew are wanting. Whatever
may seem to point to an earlier period (e.g., the use of
the older form ‘mx seven times, and of va only twice)
this eminent linguistic critic regards as conscious archaiz-
ing. It should be remarked, however, that portions of
Jeremiah can be shown to be of very late date, and
that the unity of the date of authorship for Is. 40-66 is
doubted by an increasing number of scholars. Kénig's
dating, then, is necessarily subject to revision, and so,
still more, is that of Driver {7πέγοα, 6) 453), who em-
barrasses himself with the theory that Canticles and
Ruth (although included in the Hagiographa) may have
been written in the N. kingdom, and preserve words
current there dialectically. The book, in its present

1 The passage, as Ewald (//5s% 1154) points out, îs highly
poetical.

4168

RUTH, BOOK OF

form, must surely on linguistic grounds be regarded as
a post-exilic work, and we shall see later that, even if
it is to some extent based on an earlier folk-story, the
skill of the artist has enabled him so to expand, to
enrich, and to fuse his material that it is virtually alf
his own work, and that a later editor has only touched
the proper names and appended the genealogy.

Wellhausen is of opinion that the most important sign
of date is the genealogy of David {Ruth 418-22, cp 1 Ch.
ἃ. Genealogy, 219-I7). The names of the ancestors

i ἜΣ. of David were known as far as Boaz,
Then memory failed, and a leap was made în 1 Ch. 2rx
Ruth 421 to Salma (in Ruth, Salmon), who, in x Ch.
251, is called ‘the father of Bethlehem.” But Salma
belongs to the same group as Caleb, Abi, and Hur,
and, “if anything is certain, it is this—that in the olden
times the Calibbites dwelt in the S. and not in the N.
of Judah, and that David in particular by his birth
belonged, not to them, but to the older part of Israel,
which gravitated in the opposite direction to Israel
proper, and stood in the closest connection with Ben-
jamin.' Wellhausen adds that ‘of the other members
of the genealogy Nahshon and Amminadab are princes
of Judah in P, whilst Ram is the firstborn of Hezron
{τ Ch. 225), and by the meaning of his name (‘the high
one’ is, like Abram, qualified to be the starting-point
of the princely line.’ On the other hand, Sam. only
knows of David’s father Jesse.!

[The argument that Salma is a tribe foreign to old Judah,
which was not ‘father’ of Bethlehem till after the Exile, has
been very generally admitted, and seemed to Robertson Smith
in 1886 to decide the post-exilic origin of the genealogy. The
present writer, however, cannot sec his way to follow his prede-
cessor în this particular; the genealogy is no doubt pesezilio,
but is not proved to be so by Wellhausen's criticism of the proper
names, all'of which appear really to refer to Jerahmeelite-;.e.,
N. Arabian—clans and localities.? But he heartily agrees with
W. R. Smith that ‘the genealogy in 1 Ch. 2107 15 quite in the
manner of other genealogies in the same book. ἢ

That the genealogy was borrowed from Chronicles and
added to Ruth by a later hand seems certain, for the
author of Ruth clearly recognises that ‘ Obed was legally
the son of Mahlon, riot of Boaz' (4510). [Driver, too,
remarks (/r404.10 455) that the genealogy ‘may well
have been added long after the book itself was written,"
and, like Kénig (287), leaves out of the linguistic data
for the solution of the problem of age, ‘0/24 and
Adlid, which are characteristic of P in the Pentateuch
(cp GENEFALOGIES i., $ τὴ. Bertheau, Kuenen, and
Budde adhere to the view that the closing section ìs an
integral portion of the book. But surely], if the author
had given a genealogy, he would have traced it through
Mahlon. The existence, however, ot the genealogy
suggests the possibility that two views of the descent of
David were current, one of which traced him to Perez
by Mahlon, and the other to the same Perez by Boaz.

[We have arrived at this point without having been
obliged to interfere with the traditional text. It is, how-

ever, necessary to take that step if we would
5. ProDer obtain a more complete comprehension of
"the narrative and of its historical origin.
That Ruth, as it now stands, is a post-exilie work is
certain; we must therefore examine the text in connec-
tion with that of other not less certainly post-exilic
works, în the study of which we have already reached
results which, though in points of detail subject to
revision, yet on the whole seem to throw considerable
light on ancient editorial processes. We shall thus
find reason to suspect that the personal and geo-
graphical names in the Book of Ruth (11-417) were
not altogether originally as they now stand.
. Bethlehem-judah, as in the strange stories appended to Judges,
is a corruption or distortion of Beth-jerahmeel, the name of some
place in the region called Ephrath in the south, possibly, but
by no means probably, the same as the place known as Carmel.

1 Bleek's ZixZ.(9) 204 £, ProlW) 227 [ET 217 £1; cp De
Gent. 16f. The passage in Zix/.(4) îs mostly reprinted in CA
357390: 09) 233-235.

‘e reckon the Negeb as the N, Arabian bosderland.

4169

RUTH, BOOK OF

‘Ephrath® itself (like the ‘Perath' of Jer. 14 4.7) is possibly a
mutilated form of ΖΑΝΕΡΗΑΤῊ [g.v.), and “Moab! may be
a substitute for ‘Missur’ (cp _Moas, $ 14), a region to the
S. of the country called Sarephathite or Ephrathite. ’Elimelech,
Mahlon, and Chilion—the two latter of which have been so
fatally misunderstood, as if they were symbolica] names —are
no doubt clan-names (or different forms of the same clan-
name) derived from the great ethnic name, Jerahmeel.
‘Orpah’ has probably arisen by ‘metathesis’ from ‘Ophrah'
., “Ephrath.' Ruth (Re'uth, cp_Pesh.) is probably the
of σὰ (Gen. 1118 7.), which is surely equivalent to
Re'uel; now Re'uel appears in Gen. 364 as a son of Esau, and
his name is most probably a distortion οἵ Jerahmeel, a name
which in its various broken forms attached itself to different N.
Arabian clans. Naomi (No'omi) is doubtless connected with the
clan-names Na'ami, Na‘amani.1” ‘Boaz'(y3)istless transparent;
hence Stucken and Winckler do not hesitate to identify the
original Boaz with a mythological figure. But the place of the
bearer of this name in the genealogy, as well as in the story of
Ruth, shows that he too must have 4 clan-name,? and remember
ing the ‘Ezbi’ (18) of 1 Ch. 1137, which corresponds to +33%
(AT) or rather Ἰ5ν (cp GBA) in 2 8. 28.35-- ἡ., to Sap,
Ὁ Jerahme'eli,' we may restore as the original name any ‘Arab.
ΞΡ, ‘Obed,' too, is probably by metathesis from 274, Arabia?

The statement of the narrator then, if the present
writer's conjectures are sound, amounts to thistthat a
member of a Jerahmeelite clan who belonged to Beth-
jerahmeei (in the Negeb) removed with his family,
under the pressure of famine, into the land of Missur,
and sojourned there for about ten years. This agrees
with the original form of the story in Gen. 12 τὸ 7,
according to which Abram (='father of Jerahmeel')
removed from the same cause from the Jerahmeclite
country to Missur or Misrim (see MIzrAIM, $ 26).

Another parallel story is that of the Shunammite woman who
was wamed by Elisha of the approach of a famine and went to
the land of the ‘Philistines' (2 K. 8 1-3); the original story, the
present writer tbinks (cp Suunem), represented her as a dweller
in the Jerahmeelite Negeb (still in Israelitish occupation), and
as going farther 9, to the land of Sarephath (in a wide sense
of the phrase).

Nor was it only famine that drove dwellers in the
Negeb to the neighbouring land of Missur. The original
text of 1 S.223/. seems to have represented David as
piacing his father and mother under the protection of
the king of Missur at Sarephath (see MizPEH, 3), while
he was himself a wanderer in the land of Jerahmeel,
and there is, in the present writer's opinion, hardly
room for doubt that David lived in, or close to, the
Jerahmeelite Negeb (see NEGEB, $ 3, and note 3), and
had strong Jerahmeelite (and Misrìte) affinities. The
latter passage is specially important, because the osten-
sible object of the writer of Ruth is to prove the descent
of David from a noble-minded Misrite woman.® It
was natural to represent that David's ancestor had al-
ready set the example of taking refuge in Missur.

We are not expressly told that ‘ Sarephath'—i.e., that
portion of Missur which lay nearest to and included the
city of Sarephath-—was the locality to which Elimelech
and his family repaired. But the connection of Sare-
phath with Moses, with the Levites, and apparently with
the prophets, conjectured by the present writer (see
Moses, 8 4; PROPHECY, 8 6), makes it seem to him
ποῖ improbable that the narrator had this place or
district in his mind, and in 4:2 the Kindly wish is ex-
pressed that the house of Boaz might be like the house
of ' Peres' (from ‘ Sarephath Ὁ) whom Tamar (=Jerah-
meelith ?) bore to Judah.

1 Many Benjamite clan-names appear to the present writer
to be demonstrably of N. Arabian origin.

2 Stucken's connection of the name with astral mythology
(Astraimythen, 205, note) will hardly stand examination.

3 agis (Jesse), too, very possibly comes ultimately from ‘bupng®
(Ishmaelite), a term which did not originally belong exclusively
to nomads. The names of the ancestors of David in the gene.
alogy are, as suggested above (8 4), exclusively N. Arabian clan-
names.

4 Budde (ZA47W” 12 [1892] 44) thinks that the notice in 1S.
223 does xe? imply a sace-connection between David and the
Moabite (.e., Misrite) king or chieftai. David, he thinks, had
to negotiate with the king, whereas if his grandmother had been
a Moabite, this would have been unnecessary. But this is to
press the words too strongly ; and indeed (assuming the tradi-
tion to be historical) tact may have required that David should
represent the desired protection as a favour.

4170

RUTH, BOOK OF

The view here taken renders it probable that the story
οἵ Ruth as it now stands is not of very early post-exilic
6. 0: origin. For the feeling of bitterness towards

. OFIBIR. the Misrites and their neighbours, on account
of their long-continued oppression of Israel, apparently
persisted till close on the Greek period, The date of
the traditional elements, out of which, with imaginative
freedom, the present story of Ruth may have been
partly composed, is quite another point. As in the
case of Job (see Jos [BooK], $ 4} and Jonah (see JONAH
[ΒΟΟΚΊ, $ 4 7.) some of these elements may have been
derived from mythology or folk-lore (cp Wi. 407°
366 £). As Stucken points out,} ‘ Ruth corresponds
exactly to Tamar; she obtains Boaz by taking him
unawares (Ruth 3), as Tamar obtains Judah (Gen. 38).
A dim consciousness of this connection shows itself in
the fact that the pedigree of Boaz is traced to Perez.'
The original story of Ruth probably gave her two sons
{corresponding to the two sons of Tamar), only one
of whom is recorded (simply out of interest in David)
by the narrator.

The ‘altogether peculiar’ character of Ruth among
the historical and quasi-historical narratives has been
pointed out by Ewald, who is ‘led to conclude that this
story is only one taken from a larger series of similar
pieces by the same author, and that through mere
chance this is the only one preserved’ (/7is?. 1155}.
More definitely, Budde suggests {ZA 7 712. 437 [1892])
that the story of Ruth may originally have formed part
of the ‘ Midrash of the Book of the Kings’ referred to
in 2 Ch. 2427. In so far as this theory is based on the
language of the genealogy in 418-22 (in connection with
Wellbausen's view that τ Ch. 2 ro-17 is a later insertion),
we must agree with KéGnig {Zfx/. 289, note) that it is
unproven. At the same time, Ewald's impression that
the narrative of Ruth did not always stand alone seems
natural,

That one of the objects of Ruth was to explain the
traditional descent of David from a Misrite woman, has
7. Objects been mentioned already. It was true, said

Di RI, the writer, that his grandmother was a

0 *. Misrite; but what a noble woman she was!
how obedient to those fundamental laws of morality
which the true God values more than sacrifice! And
so a second object naturally unveils itself—viz., to
prepare the readers of the book to arrive at a more
favourable opinion of the moral capacity of the Misrites
than, owing to the cruel oppression of Israel by the
Misrites, previous generations had been able to form.

Many critics (e.g., besides Winckler and most com-
mentators, Umbreit, 52. A7., 1834, pp. 3087; Geiger,
Urschr. 49 ff; and especially Kue. ReZ. of /sr. 2242 f.,
and Ord. 1523 527) hold that the narrator was one of
those who protested against the rigour of Ezra in the
matter of mixed marriages. It is not clear, however,
that any such protest would have been detected by a
Jewish reader of the book. The great point with the
narrator is not the marriage of Mahlon but the next-of-
kin matriage of Boaz. It cannot be shown that, when
married to Mahlon, Ruth became în the full sense a
worshipper of Yahwè. It is much more probable that
the statement of Mahlon's marriage to a Misrite woman
is simply a proof that the writer was a good historical
scene painter. Like the Chronicler, he knows that în
early times there was a great mixture of clans, and that

1 Astralmythet, rio, note. We may add that we take
“Tamar* and ‘Ruth’ to be ultimately corruptions of ‘ Jerah-

me'elith” (cp_JupaH, $ 7). Neither Stucken nor Winckler
criticises the ἧς Hebrew names.

4175

RYE

Israelites often intermarried with Jerahmeelites and
Misrites. Besides, in order to produce an impression
on the Jews it would be necessary for the dwelling of
Boaz to have been in Judah, not in a district which
in post-exilic times was not in Jewish occupation. ‘The
latest editor did no doubt arrange the geographical
statements accordingly; but the author himself, as we
have seen, placed Boaz in the Jerahmeelite Negeb.
Surely no one who thoroughly appreciates the charm
of this book will be satisfied with the prevalent theory
of its object. There is no 'tendency' about the book;
it represents în no degree any party programme. And
even if the writer started with the object of illustrating
the life of David, he forgot this when he began to
write, and only thought of it again as he was about to
lay down the pen. Justly does Robertson Smith re-
mark, ‘the marriage acquires an additional interest
when we know that Ruth was David's great-grand-
mother, but the main interest is independent of that,
and lies in the happy issue of Ruth and Naomi from
their troubles through the loyal performance of the
kinsman's part by Boaz. Doubtless the writer meant
his story to be an example to his own age, as well as
an interesting sketch of the past; but this is effected
simply by describing the exemplary conduct of Naomi,
Ruth, Boaz, and even Boaz's harvesters, All these act
as simple, kindly, God-fearing people cught to act in
Israel.’ [Atthe same time, the writer must have shared
the religious aspirations of his time, which, as we have
seen, was probably the post-exilic age—i.e., perhaps
that quieter period which followed after the first century
of the Greek rule. Now, there is good evidence for the
view that one of these aspirations was for a cessation of
the bitter feeling between Israel and Jerahmeel. As
yet the sad exclusion of Jerahmeelites and Misrites
from the religious assembly had not been enacted,! or,
if enacted, it was ignored by the noblest Jews, who held
that the N. Arabian peoples were not incapable of
repentance, and that ît was no disgrace to David that
his pedigree contained the name of a Misrite woman.
A thorough study of certain psalms and prophecies
will, it is believed, strongly confirm this view, and show
that the best of the Jews looked forward to a true
conversion of the Misrites to the religion of the God of
Israel —the ‘Lord of the whole earth.’ Jerusalem
would yet be thronged by the children of Israel’s bitter
foes, seeking first for instruction and then for admission
into the religious community, and it ἰδ possible to see a
glance at this hope in the touching words of Boaz, ‘and
how thou hast left thy father and thy mother, and the
land of thy nativity, and art come unto a people which
thou knewest not heretofore' (Ruth 2x1). And so,
ultimately, the book becomes (like Jonah) a noble
record of the catholic tendency of the early Judaism.]
Among other commentaries reference may be made to J. B.

Carpzov, Collegium vabbinico-biblicum in libellum Ruth,
Leipsic, 1703. [Among recent commentators,
Literature.

È works of Berthean (ed. 2, 1833), Bertholet

τ (858), Nowack (1901) may be specially men-
tioned. See also Wi. 4036-76, and references in the course
of this article.]

(88 1, 2, partly 4 and 7) w. 8. 8.
(88 3, 5, 6, mostly 4 and 7) τ᾿ κ᾿ c.

RYE (NDDI). See Rie, ΕἸΤΟΗΕΒ.

1 In Dt. 28,3:6[4-7)aZegethe» a later insertion—the etbnics
should probably be ‘ Jerahmeelite ‘ and ‘ Misrite.' The passage
conflicts with v.7 [8], where the ethnics should be ‘Arammite”
(=Jerahmeelite) Tind *Misrite: — Dillmann's criticism here is
very incomplete. The passage must be later than the fall of
Jerusalem.

4172

SABANNUS

SABANNUS (caBannoy) [BA]), RV

= Ezra 833 BINNUI, 2.

1 Esd, 863

SABAOTE, LORD OF (minay 10'), See NAMES,
$ 123.
SABAT. τ. RV SAPHAT, a group of children of

Solomon's servants (see INETHINIM) in the great post-
exilic list {see EZRA ii., $ 9, $ 8 δ), one of eight inserted
in 1Esd.534 (cabar [B]: capa [4]. om. L) after
Pochereth-nazzebaim of || Ezra 2 57= Neh. 7 59.

It_apparently represents the form SWapHAT=Shephatiah
gn Ezra257= Neh.7 s9=1Esd.533 (δι, AV SarHeTh, RV

APHUTHI).

2. RV SeBAT (σαβατ [AV] σαββατ [μ]}, the month of that
name, 1 Macc. 16 14. See MONTH, $ 5.

SABATEAS (caBBatalac [A]) 1Esd.948 AV,
ἘΝ Sabatens= Neh. 87, SHABBETHAI, I.

SABATHUS (caBagoc [BA]) τ Esd.928 RV, AV
Sabatus= Ezra 1027, ZABAD, 4.

SABBAN (caBannoy [BA]) τ Esd. 862= Ezra 8 33,
BINNUI, 2.

SABBATEUS (caBBataloc [BA]) 1 Esd.914 ΕΝ
= Ezra 1015, SHABBETHAI, 1,

SABBATH (NI? caBBaton), the day of sacred
rest which among the Hebrews followed six days of
labour and closed the week ; see WEEK.

The grammatical inflexions of the word ‘Sabbath’
show that it is a feminine form, properly Jada for

Fabbitt, from ni (Pie conjug.).
1. EtymologY. ‘The root has nothing to do with rest-
ing in the sense of enjoying repose; in transitive forms
and applications ît means ‘to sever,' to ‘ put an end to,"
and intransitively it means to ‘desist," to ‘come to an
end.' The grammatical form of 426544 suggests
a transitive sense, ‘ the divider,' and apparently indicates
the Sabbath as dividing the month. It may mean the
day which puts a stop to the week's work; but that is
less likely. It certainly cannot be translated ‘the day
of rest." (Cp Lag. Ueders. 113; Κα, Ze&re. ii. 1280/.;
Hoffni. Z471W312:; Wellh. Pro/. [1883] 117, n. Lj
Jastrow's article cited în $ 8.)

[According to Jensen, ZF, 1887, p. 278, the As
syrian $a(p)bat{td)-tum=‘ penitential prayer,' and hence
‘day of penitence and prayer. Hirschfeld {see $ 8),
however, derives περ from nyaz. Cp Benz. 44 202,
‘perhaps in its oldest form it was connected with
rag (week).' For Jastrow's view, see $ 8.]

By way of preface to the present historical inquiry,
and to clear away, if possible, any remnants of theo-

logical prejudice against criticism, let

ἃ Joe and ‘us consider the attitude of Jesus towards
* Sabbath observance. It is not too
bold to say that in his opposition to the current Rab-
binical views he is in harmony with the main result of
modern historical criticism. This thesis will be justified
at a subsequent point. The well-known and probably
{see col. 1888, near foot) authentic saying, ‘Think not
that I am come to destroy the law’ (Mt. 517}, expresses
one side of that teaching. Jesus revered the Sabbath
as he revered the other religious traditions of his
people ; but he had also a freedom of inspiration which
put a new life into his interpretation of the Sabbath
law. That he was in the habit of attending the syna-
gogue on the Sabbath, we know from Lk. 416 (cp ©. 31).
But he would not adhere to the letter of the law
where works of necessity or of mercy claimed to be
performed : ‘the Sabbath is made for man, and not
man for the Sabbath; wherefore the Son of Man is
Lord also of the Sabbath' (Mk 227f).

4173

There is a |

î

SABBATH

traditional saying of Jesus which may express his Janus-
like habit of mind as regards the Sabbath. It ceased,
indeed, to be understood when the Christian Sunday
had become an institution, and so was thrust out of
the canonical Church tradition ; but it certainly gives
us the impression of being an ancient and a genuine
tradition.! It is the well-known addition of D (Codex
Beze, cd. Scrivener, 173) after Lk.64: ‘On the
same day when he saw one working on the Sabbath he
said to him : Man, if thou knowest what thou art doing
thou art blessed; but if thou knowest not, thou art
cursed and a transgressor of the law'(r$ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ
θεασάμενός τινα ἐργαζόμενον τῷ σαββάτῳ εἶπεν αὐτῶ"
ἄνθρωπε, εἰ μὲν οἶδας τί ποιεῖς, μακάριος εἶ" εἰ δὲ μὴ
οἶδας, ἐπικατάρατος καὶ παραβάτης εἶ τοῦ νόμου. The
sense is clear—-it is what we find in Εοπι. 144 τ “3.2
*If thou knowest what thou art doing,'—in other
words, if thou art doing this work on the Sabbath
day with the consciousness that it is a work of necessity
—if thy conscience justifies thee in it—then blessed
art thou," ‘But if thou knowest not '—in other words,
if thou art acting against thy conscience, with a lurking
fear that thou art doing aught amiss—then art thou
aceursed, and a transgressor of the law." The saying
in the Oxyrbynchus papyrus-fragment discovered in
1897,3 ‘if you do not keep the Sabbath you will not
see the Father ' (ἐὰν μὴ σαββατίσητε τὸ σάββατον οὐκ
ὄψεσθε τὸν πατέρα), may also very well have been
actually spoken by Jesus în its literal sense, as the ex-
pression of the same conservative temper as we find in
Mt. 5 17-19, and against noisy fanatics who thought to do
honour to their master by showing contempt for the
day. It is more probabile, however, in view of the
parallel clause, ‘If you do not fast [to] the world you
have not found the kingdom of God” (éàr μὴ γηστεύσητε
τὸν κόσμον οὐ μὴ εὕρητε τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ), that
the saying is not intended to be understood literally.
[This is not the place to discuss the relation of the
Pauline teaching to that of Jesus. Without entering
3. Earl: into the question as to the historical origin
Chri red of each of the Pauline epistles referred to,
Sta des, VE may recall that, according to the Pauline
teaching, Jesus was sent in human flesh to
liberate men from servitude to the law as a whole and
in every particular. ‘The conservative side of the teach-
ing of Jesus regarding the Sabbath could not, there-
fore, be reproduced in the corresponding teaching of
Paul.] It is clear from Rom. 145,7 that Paul regarded
the observance of the Sabbath as essentially an ἀδιάφορον
for Christians ; it is possible to serve the Lord by
observance of a fixed day, and equally possible to
serve him without such observance; the important
thing is to have a clean conscience (cp also vw. 14
and 23). The Pauline attitude towards the Christians
of Colosse is not inconsistent with the magnanimous
tolerance here expressed. ‘The sharpness of Col. 216 Καὶ
(cp Gal. 49/) is due to the situation: Paul perceived
that the Judaising false teachers had raised the ἀδιά-
ῴορον into an ἀναγκαῖον, and that an energetic protest
against the imposition of any such yoke was urgently
required. [There ἰ no definite conzict between the
attitude of Paul and that of Jesus. ‘The position taken
up by Jesus was perfectly natural to him, as a son
οἵ a pious Jewish family, and a preacher to the chosen

1 Ropes, ‘Die Spriiche Jesu, in Texte τι. Untersuckungen,
xiv. 2 126 (1896) also regards this as possible.

2 It is more probabile that the ideas in these passages rest
upon an utterance of Jesus known to the apostle than that the
saying attributed to Jesus in D should be an invention resting
on the utterance of Paul.

3 Λόγια Ἰησοῦ (ed. Grenfell and Hunt, 1897), τοῦ

4174

SABBATH

people of God. It would not have been natural to
Paul, a preacher to the Gentiles and not of purely
Jewish culture, who seems to have felt as free towards
the earthly life of Jesus as Jesus himself did towards
the letter of the Mosaic Law. There were ‘other
Christians, however, who felt and acted differently from
Paul.]

That the earliest Christians in Palestine observed the
Sabbath is nowhere indeed expressly said,! but is
certainly to be assumed, The silence of Acts is not
to be taken as a proof of the non-observance, but con-
trariwise as a proof that it was observed as matter of
course.

[Eusebius (48327) remarks that the Ebionites
observed both the Sabbath and the Lord's Day; and
this practice obtained to some extent in much wider
circles, for the Apostolica! Constitutions recommend that
the Sabbath shall be kept as a memorial feast of the
creation, and the Lord's Day as a memorial of the
resurrection. —W,R.S,]}

Was the Sabbath observed in the Christian mission-churches
of the Dispersion? This is not an inquiry that affects our
main subject, and only a glance at it can be given. We may be
certain indeed that where a mission-church consisted essentially
of those who had formerly been Jews or σεβόμενοι (sce PrOSE-
LYTE) the observance of the day did not forthwith cease. It is
instructive, however, to note that in the decree of Jerusalem (Acts
15237) Sabbath observance is as litile imposed as binding on
Gentile Christians as is that of any other holy day.2 In estimat.
ing the historical bearing of this festimorizne e swentio it matters
little whether we take the decree as actually pronounced by a
council of aposties at Jerusalem or regard it as a later finding of
the church of that city (cp COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM).

We now return to the thesis with which this article
opened, viz., that the attitude of Jesus towards the Rab-

- binical Sabbath {see Με. 121-4 Mk.
+ ptitudo 227) is in harmony with the main result
ἃ, of modern criticism. In his trenchant

Tesumed. Criticism of the scribes the general position
which Jesus takes up is that ‘the Sabbath is made for
man, and not man for the Sabbath," which is only a
special application of the wider principle that the law is
not an end in itself but a help towards the realisation in
life of the great ideal of love to God and man, which is
the sum of all true religion. On the other hand, the
rules of the scribes enumerated thirty-nine main kinds
of work forbidden on the Sabbath, and each of these
prohibitions gave rise to new subtilties. Jesus' disciples,
for example, who plucked ears of corn în passing through
a field on the holy day, had, according to Rabbinical
casuistry, violated the third of the thirty-nine rules,
which forbade harvesting; and in healing the sick,
Jesus himself broke the rule that a sick man should not
receive medical aid on the Sabbath unless his life was
in danger. In fact, as Jesus put it, the Rabbinical
theory seemed to be that the Sabbath was not made for
man but man for the Sabbath, the observance of which
was so much an end in itself that the rules prescribed
for it did not require to be justified by appeal to any
larger principle of religion or humanity. The precepts
of the law were valuable in the eyes of the scribes
because they were the seal of Jewish particularism, the
barrier erected between the world at large and the ex-
clusive community of the grace of Vahwè. For this
purpose the most arbitrary precepts were the most effec-
tive, and none were more so than the complicated rules

1 Zahn, Gesch. deo Sonntags, etc., 168, 353.

3 Id., κέ sur. 17.

8 So Wei sei % postolic Ag6,1199£

4 [In like manner the length of journey that could be under-
taken withont breach of the Sabbath came to be also strictly
defined (cp Mi. 2420). For by the thirty-ninth rule it was for-
bidden to carry anything from one ‘piace’ to anothera
probibition plainly based on Ex. 1629, ‘let no man go out of his
piace on the Sabbath day'—in other words, ‘let every one stay
at home.” A definition of ‘piace’ in this connection was found
in the measurement of the ‘suburbs’ of a Levitical city as laid
down in Nu.85r-2—z0c00 cubits square. This gave the
‘Sabbath limit’ (35/7 Din), and thus the ‘Sabbath days

journey! (Acts 112; σαββάτου ὁδός) was fixed at 2000 cubits or
about 1000 yards.

4175

SABBATH

of Sabbath observance, The ideal of the Sabbath which
all these rules aimed at realising was absolute rest from
everything that could be called work; and even the
exercise of those offices of humanity which the strictest
Sabbatarians regard as a service to God, and therefore
as specially appropriate to his day, was looked on as
work. To save life was allowed, but only because
danger to life ‘superseded the Sabbath.’ In like
manner the special ritual at the temple prescribed for
the Sabbath by the Pentateuchal law was not regarded
as any part of the hallowing of the sacred day; on the
contrary, the rule was that, in this regard, ‘Sabbath
was not kept in the sanctuary.’ Strictly speaking,
therefore, the Sabbath was neither a day of relief to
toiling humanity nor a day appointed for public wor-
ship ; the positive duties of its observance were to wear
one's best clothes, eat, drink, and be glad (justified from
Is. 5853).

A more directly religious element, it is true, was introduced
by the practice of attending the synagogue service ; but it is to
be remembered rhat this service was primarily regarded not as
an act of worship, but as a meeting for instruiction in the law.
So far, therefore, as the Sabbath existed for any end outside
itself, it was an institution to help every Jew to learn the law,
and from this point of view it îs regarded by Philo and Josephus,
who are accustomed to seek a philosophical justification for the
peculiar institutions of their religion. But this certainly was
not the leading point of view with the mass of the Rabbins.1

Such was the position of the scribes ; the Sabbath was
an end in itself—a mere barrier between God's people
and the world at large. Jesus maintains, as we have
seen, the opposite doctrine. He declares too that his
view of the law as a whole, and the interpretation of the
Sabbath law which it involves, can be historically justi-
fied from the Old Testament. And in this connection
he introduces two of the main methods to which histori-
cal criticism of the Old Testament has recurred in
modern times: he appeals to the oldest history rather
than to the Pentateuchal code as proving that the later
conception of the law was unknown in ancient times
(Mt. 123 4), and to the exceptions to the Sabbath law
which the scribes themselves allowed in the interests of
worship (Ὁ. 5) or humanity (v. 11), as showing that
the Sabbath must originally have been devoted to
purposes of worship and humanity, and was not always
the purposeless arbitrary thing which the schoolmen
made it to be. Modern criticism of the history of
Sabbath observance among the Hebrews has done
nothing more than follow out these arguments in detail,
and show that the result 15 in agreément with what is
known as to the dates of the several component parts of
the Pentateuch.

The historical results of criticism may be thus sum-
marised. Of the legal passages that speak of the

3 Sabbath all those which show affinity

ai Pre ennio with the doctrine of the scribest—re.
Sabbath. garding the Sabbath as an arbitrary

ia sign between Yahwè and Israel, enter

ing into details as to particular acts that are forbidden,
and enforcing the observance by several penalties, so
that it no longer has any religious value, but appears as
a mere legal constraint—are post-exilic (Ex. 1623-30
3112-17 35r-3; Nu. 1532-36); the older laws only
demand such cessation from daily toil, and especially
from agricultural labour, as among all ancient peoples
naturally accompanied a day set apart as a religious
festival, and in particular lay weight on the fact that
the Sabbath is a humane institution, a holiday for the
labouring classes (Ex. 2312 Dt. B1e-15). As it stands
in these ancient laws, the Sabbath îs not at all the
unique thing which it was made to be by the scribes.
‘The Greeks and the barbarians,' says Strabo (x. 39),
‘have this in common, that they accompany their
sacred rites by a festal remission of labour," So it
was in old Israel: the Sabbath [which the Israclites

1 See the Mishnah, trace ‘Shabbath,"and /x2i/ees, chap. 1; and
compare Schirer, σ 196), 2428 451 470-478, where the rabbinical
Sabbath is well explained ad iustrated in detali.

4176

SABBATH

may have taken from the Canaanites—an agricultural
people (see WEEK)] was one of the stated religious
ieasts, like the new moon and the three great agri-
cultural sacrificial celebrations (Hos. 311}; the new
moons and the Sabbaths alike called men to the
sanctuary to do sacrifice (Is. 113); the remission of
ordinary business belonged to both alike (Am. 85),
and for precisely the same reason. Hosea even takes
it for granted that in captivity the Sabbath will be
suspended, like all the other feasts, because in his day
a feast implied a sanctuary.

This conception of the Sabbath, however, necessarily
underwent an important modification in the seventh
century E.C., when the local sanctuaries were abolished,
and those sacrificial rites and feasts which in Hosea's
time formed the essence of every act of religion were
limited to the central aitar, which most men could visit
only at rare intervals, From that time forward the new
moons, which till then had been at least as important
as the Sabbath, and were celebrated by sacrificial feasts
as occasions of religious gladness, fell into insignifi-
cance, except in the conservative temple ritual. ‘The
Sabbath did not share the same fate; but with the aboli-
tion of local sacrifices it became for most Israelites an
institution of humanity divorced from ritual. So it
appears in the deuteronomic decalogue, and presumably
also în Jer. 17 τοῦ). In this form the institution was
able to survive the fall of the state and the temple, and
the seventh day's rest was clung to in exile as one of the
few outward ordinances by which the Israelite could
still show his fidelity to Yahwè and mark his separation
from the heathen. Hence we understand the impor-
tance attached to it from the period of the exile onward
(Ezek. 2012 228 2338 Jer. 17 19-27 15. 5617 5813), and
the character of a sign between Yahwè and Israel
ascribed to it in the post-exilic law. This attachment
to the Sabbath, beautiful and touching so long as it
was a spontaneous expression of continual devotion to
Yahwè, acquired a less pleasing character when, after
the exile, it came to be enforced by the civil arm
(Neh. 13; cp Neh. 1031), and when the later law even
declared Sabbatb-breaking a capital offence, It is just,
however, to remember that without the stern discipline
of the law the community of the second temple could
hardly have escaped dissolution, and that Judaism alone
preserved for Christianity the hard-won achievements
of the prophets.

As the Sabbath was originally a religious feast, the
question of the origin of the Sabbath resolves itself into
τοὶ an inquiry why and in what circle a

6. Origin of festal cycle of seven days was. first
the Sabbath. established. In Gen. 2-3 and in Ex.
2011 the Sabbath is declared to be a memorial of the
completion of the work of creation in six days. It
appears certain, however, that the decalogue as it lay
before the deuteronomist did not contain any allusion to
the creation (see DECALOGUE), and it is generally believed
that this reference was added by the same post-exilic
hand that wrote Gen. 11-24. The elder account of
the creation in Gen. 248-253 does not recognise the
hexameron, and it is even doubiful whether the original
sketch of Gen. 1 distributed creation over six days. The
connection, therefore, between the seven-days week and
the work of creation is now generally recognised as
secondary. The week and the Sabbath were already
known to the writer of Gen. 1, and he used them to give
the framework for his picture οἵ the creation, which in
the nature of things could not be literal and required
some framework. At the same time, there was a
peculiar appropriateness in associating the Sabbath with
the doctrine that Yahwè is the Creator of all things;

3 [Hence also the Sabbath was quite readily made use of for
the purpose of paying a visit τὸ a man of God (2K. 423), or the
like; guite the opposite of the later practice, which forbade all
travelltag on Sabbaths and feast-days (cp Mt. 24 20 and Jos.
Ant. xii, 84: οὐκ ἔστιν δὲ ἡμῖν οὔτε ἐν τοῖς σάββασιν οὔτε ἐν
τῇ ἑορτῇ δδεύειν).- -ΚιΜμ.}

4177

SABBATH

for we see from Is, 40-55 that this doctrine was a main-
stay of Jewish faith in those very days of exile which
gave the Sabbath a new importance for the faithful.

But, if the week as a religious cycle is older than the
idea of the week of creation, we cannot hope to find
more than probable evidence of the origin of the
Sabbath, At the time of the exile the Sabbath was
already an institution peculiarly Jewish, otherwise it
could not have served as a mark of distinction from
heathenism. This, however, does not necessarily imply
that in its origin it was specifically Hebrew, but only
that it had acquired distinguishing features of a marked
kind. What is certain is that the origin of the Sabbath
must be sought within a circle that used {he week as
a division of time. Here again we must distinguish
between the week as such and the astrologicai week,
i.]., the week in which the seven days are named each
after the planet which is held to preside over its first
hour.

If the day is divided into twenty-four hours and the planets
preside in turn over each hour of the week in the order of their
periodic times (Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Sun, Venus, Mercury,
Moon), we get the order of days of the week with which we are
familiar, For, if the Sun presides over the first hour of Sunday,
and therefore also over the eighth, the fifteenth, and the twenty-
second, Venus will have the twenty-third hour, Mercury the
twenty-fourth, and the Moon, as the third in order from the
‘Sun, will preside over the first hour οἵ Monday. Mars, again,

as third from the Moon, will preside over Tuesday (Dies Martis,
Mardi), and so forth.

This astrological week became widely current in the
Roman empire, but was still a novelty in the time of
Dio Cassius (37 18). That writer believed that it came
from Egypt; but the old Egyptians had a week of ten
(not seven) days, and the origina! home of astrology
and of the division of the day into twenty-four hours
is Chaldzea. It is plain, however, that there is a long
step between the astrologica! assignation of each hour of
the week to a planet and the recognition of the week as
an ordinary division of time by people at large. Astro-
logy is in its nature an occult science, and there is not
the slightest trace of a day of twenty-four hours among
the ancient Hebrews, who had the week and the
Sabbath long before they had any acquaintance with
the planetary science of the Babylonian priests. More-
over, it îs quite clear from extant remains of Assyrian
calendars that our astrological week did not prevail in
civil life even among the Babylonians and Assyrians:
they did not dedicate each day în tum to its astrological
planet. These facts make it safe to reject one often-
repeated explanation of the Sabbath, viz., that it was in
its origin what it îs in the astrological week, the day
sacred to Saturn, and that its observance is to be
derived from an ancient Hebrew worship of that planet.
In truth, there is no evidence of the worship of Saturn
among the oldest Hebrews (see CHIUN AND SICCUTH),

The week, however, is found in various parts of the
world in a form that has nothing to do with astrology
or the seven planets, and with such a distribution as to
make it pretty certain that it had no artificial origin, but
suggested ilselî independently, and for natural reasons,
to different races. In fact, the four quarters of the moon
supply an obvious division of the month; and, wherever
new moon and full moon are religious occasions, we get
in the most natural way a sacred cycle of fourteen or
filteen days, of which the week of seven or eighi days
(determined by half-moon) is the half. Thus the old
Hindus chose the new and the full moon as days of
sacrifice; the eve of the sacrifice was called upavasatta,
and in Buddhism the same word {x/osafZa) has come
to denote a Sabbath observed on the full moon, on the
day when there is no moon, and on the two days which
are eighth from the full and the new moon respectively,
with fasting and other religious exercises.!

From this point of view it is most significant that in
the older parts of the Hebrew seriptures the new moon

1 Childers, Pali Dict. 535: Kem, Buddkismus (Germ.
Transi.) 8; Μαλάναρμα, i, Τὰ (ET 1239, 291).

4178

SABBATH

and the Sabbath are almost invariably mentioned
together. The month is beyond question an old sacred
division of time common to all the Semites; even the
Arabs, who received the week at quite a late period
from the Syrians (Birùnì, C4rozo/ogy, ET 58), greeted
the new moon with religious acclamations. And this
must have been an old Semitic usage, for the word
which properly means ‘to greet the new moon' (a42/%2)
is, as Lagarde (Ordezzalia, 219) has shown, etymologi-
cally connected with the Hebrew words used of any
festal joy. Among the Hebrews, or rather perhaps
among the Canaanites, whose speech they borrowed,
the joy at the new moon became the type of religious
festivity in genera Nor are other traces wanting of
the connection of sacrificial occasions—i.e., religious
feasts—with the phases of the moon among the Semites.
The Harranians had four sacrificial days in every month,
and, of these, two at least were determined by the con-
junetion and opposition of the moon.!

That full moon as well as new moon had a religious signi.
ficance among the ancient Hebrews seems to follow from the
fact that, when the great agricultural feasts were fixed to set
days, the full moon was chosen. _ In older times these feast-days
appear to have been Sabbaths (Lev. 2311; cp Passover, New
Moon). ᾿

A week determined by the phases of the moon has an average
length of 295-+4=71 days—i.e., three weeks out of eight would
have eight days. But there seems to be in τ Sam. 2027, com-
pared with 27. 1824, an indication that in old times the feast of
the new moon lasted two days—a very natural institution, since
it appears that the feast was fixed in advance, whilst the Hebrews
of Saul's time cannot have been good enough astronomers to
know beforehand on which of two successive days the new moon
would actually be observed. In that case a week of seven
working days would occur only once în two months. We cannot
tell when the Sabbath became dissociated from the month ; but
the change seems to have been made before the Book of the
Covenant, which already regards the Sabbath simply as an
institution of humanity and ignores the new moon. In both
points it is followed by Deuteronomy.

The word ‘Sabbath® (%a52#2), with the explanation
‘day of rest of the heart,’ is claimed as Assyrian on the
©. The basis of a textual emendation made by
Babylonian Fried. Delitzsch in a Rawl. 32 τό. The
and Assyri value of this isolated and uncertain
Ss; for e testimony cannot be piaced very high,
and it seems to prove too much, for it
is practically certain that the Babylonians at the time of
the Hebrew exile cannot have had a Sabbath exactiy
corresponding in conception to what the Hebrew Sab-
bath had become under very special historical circum-
stances. What we do know from a calendar of the
intercalary month Elnl IT is that in that month the 7th,
14th, 1gth, zist, and 28th days had a peculiar char-
acter, and that on them certain acts were forbidden to
the king and others. There is the greatest uncertainty
as to the details (cp the very divergent renderings in
RP,7160f.; Schrader, KA TH 19; Τοῖς, Qu. de historia
Sabbati, 39 f.); but these days, which are taken to be
Assyrian Sabbaths, are certainly not ‘days of rest of
the heart,' and to all appearance are unlucky days, and
expressly designated as such.8 If, therefore, they are
‘Assyrian Sabbaths' at all, they are exactly opposite
in character to the Hebrew Sabbath, which was described
by Hosea as a day of gladness, and never ceased to be
a day of feasting and good cheer. (Cp Jastrow, in
the article mentioned below.]
Besides the works already mentioned, reference should
be made to W. Lotz, Questionum de historia Sabbati
libri duo (1888), which takes account of
iù Recent the Assyriological evidence. Hirschfeld's
" * Remarks on the etymology of Sabbath®*
(RAS, April 1896, pp. 353-359), according to Jastrow,
misunderstands and misquotes the Babylonian material.

1 The others—-according to the Fi4risf, 819 14—are the 17th
and the 28th.

2 It appears from Judith 86 that even în later times there were
two days at the new moon on which it was improper to fast.

3 Lotz says they are lucky days; but the expression which he
renders, dies /axstws, ἴδ applied to every day in the calendar.
‘The rest of his book does not rise above this example of acumen.

4179

SABBATICAL YEAR

Nowack {Zebr. Arch. [1894] 21407 ) gives a lucid sketch
of current theories and their grounds. See also Jensen,
Sunday School Times (Philadelphia), Jan. 16, 1892, and
Jastrow, Amer. /. of Theol. 1898, pp. 315-352.
Jensen is cautious and reserved on the question of a
Babylonian origin of the Sabbath, which, however,
Gunkel (Sc432f 14) and Jastrow (00. cit.) expressiy
affirm. ’The bridge which Gunkel fails to construct
between the Babylonian atonement-Sabbath and the
Hebrew rest-Sabbath, Jastrow endeavours to point out,
He remarks that the Heb. Ja55d/4én does in fact, like
the Bab. #25e/fum, convey the idea of propitiation or
appeasement of the divine anger, and he is of opinion
that the Hebrew Sabbath was originally a $a55afton—
i.e., a day of propitiation and appeasement, marked by
atoning rites. At this stage of development it was
celebrated at intervals of seven days, correspondiug
with changes in the moon’s phases, and was identical
in character with the four days in each month (7th, 14th,
2Ist, and 28th) that the Babylonians regarded as days
which had to be converted into days of propitiation.
There were also, however, other Sabbathén days, such
as the New Year's Day, the Day of Atonement, the
first and eighth days of the annual pilgrimage to the
chief sanctuary.

The introduction, in consequence of profound changes
in religious conceptions among the Hebrews, of the
custom of celebrating the Sabbath every seventh day,
irrespective of the relationship of the day to the moon's
phases, led to a complete separation from the ancient
view of the Sabbath, whilst the introduction, at a still
later period, of the doctrine that the divine work of
creation was completed în six days removed the Hebrew
Sabbath still further from the point at which the develop-
ment of the corresponding Babylonian institution ceased.
Hence the position of the Sabbath in the Priestly Code.
The field, however, is still open for further investigation,

Cp also Toy, ‘The earliest form of the Sabbath,”
IBL18:90/ (1899); and C. H. W. Johns, Assyriar
Deeds and Documents (who finds that the 1oth day of
the month was observed by abstinence from secular
business; but the deeds do not indicate that the 7th,
14th, 2Ist, and 28th days were Sabbaths).

W.R. SK. MT Κ΄ C.

SABBATH DAY’S JOURNEY. See
84.

SABBATHEUS (caBBararoc [BA]), 1 Esd,914=
Ezra 1015, SHABBETHAI, 1.

SABBATICAL YEAR. The Jews under the second
temple observed every seventh year as a Sabbath accord-
ing to the (post-exilic) law of Lev. 25r-7. It was a
year in which all agriculture was remitted, in which the
fields lay unsown, the vines grew unpruned, and even
the natural produce was not gathered in. That this
law was not observed before the captivity we learn from
Lev. 2634 7: ; indeed, so long as the Hebrews were an
agricultural people with little trade, în a land often
ravaged by severe famines, such a law could not have
been observed. Even in later times it was occasionally
productive of great distress (x Macc. 64953; Jos. Az
xiv. 162). In the older legislation, however, we already
meet witil a seven years' period in more than one con-
nection. The release of a Hebrew servant after six
years’ labour (Ex.2127 Dt.15127) has only a
remote analogy to the Sabbatical year. But in Ex
2310 it is prescribed that the crop of every seventh
year {apparenily the self-sown crop) shall be left for the
poor, and after them for the beasts. The difference
between this and the later law is that the seventh year
is not called a Sabbath, and that there is no indication
that all land was to lie fallow on the same year. In
this form a law prescribing one year's fallow in seven
may have been anciently observed. It is extended in
v.11 to the vineyard and the olive-yard ; but here the

SABBATH,

SABBEUS

culture necessary to keep the vines and olive-trees in
order is not forbidden; the precept is only that the
produce is to be left to the poor. In Deuteronomy
this law is not repeated ; but a fixed seven years' period
is ordained for the benefit of poor debtors, apparently
in the sense that in the seventh year no interest is to be
exacted by the creditor from a Hebrew, or that no pro-
ceedings are to be taken against the debtor in that year
{Deut, 1517). w. RS

SABBEUS (caBBarac [BA]) τ Esd. 932= Ezra 1031,
SHEMAIANH, 19.

SABEANS occurs four times in AV, representing
three. distinct Hebrew words in MT; (1) in Joblis
(N2W, RVmg SHeBA) and Joel 88 (D'NA}, RV MEN
or SHEBA}; (2) in Is. 4514 (D'N3D), see SEBA; and
(3) in Ezek. 234: (AV8 and RV ‘drunkards'), where,
however, it is no part of the original text. ‘The Kt.
memp—ie., p'gnîp, the reading for which the Kre sub-
stitutes p‘szp with the same meaning {drunkards), is
an obvious interpolation due simply to dittography of
the preceding ww. ©On the further textual corruption
of the verse see Cornill, ad /oc., and Toy (5307). Of
course none of these words has anything to do with any
of the religious sects that have at one time or another
been called Sabians—i.e., Baptists (see art. SABIANS
in πεν. Brit.21x28)—a name which is etymologically
quite distinct.

SABI. 1. (cabei [A]), 1Esd.5:8 RV=Ezra242,
SHosar,

ΕΝ ᾿ἰσαβίεἸνη [ΒΑΡ τ Esd. 5.34 AV, RV Sabio=Ezra 257; see
POCHERETH-HAZZEBAIM.

SABIAS (caBiac [BA]) 1 Esd.19 RV=2 Ch, 859,
HASHABIAH, 6.

SABTA (NM2D, caBara [Β], caBa@a [A], ce. [L],
1 Ch. 19), or Sabtah (MMAD, caBada [ADEL], Gen.
107), one of the sons of Cush. See CusH. If ‘Cush'
here means the N. Arabian region of that name, we are
entitled and indeed compelled to suppose that ‘Sabtah'
and ‘Raamah' have arisen by corruption and editorial
manipulation from the names of places near the S.
border of Canaan. »nzo will probably come from n>yp
‘ Maacath' (the southern Maacah), which is also the
original of SUCCOTA in the earliest story of Jacob and
in Ps. 608, and of SocoH in 1 S. 171. Cp SHABRETHAI
From the ordinary point of view Dillmann finds some
plausibility in Tuch's suggestion that Sabta= Σαββαθα
(Peripi. 27 ; also Piolemy, Strabo), the Sabota of Pliny
(6 32 1232}. This was the capital of the Chatramotite
(see HAZARMAVETH}, and was famous as the centre of
the trade in incense. The name is the Sab. maw.
According to Glaser, Sabta is the Σαῴθα of Ptiol. vi. 730,
and is to be placed at Sudeir or in the NE of Yemamah;
Sabta, Raamah, and Sabteca representing the districts
on the coast of the Persian Gulf (.Skisze, 2252 Δ}.

T.K.C.

SABTECA (N3NDD, caBakaga [ADE], ceBe. [L]
in Gen. ; ceBeka0a [BL], -daya [A] în Ch. ; ἐδ there-
fore indicates rather SBKTHA), one of the sons of Cush
{Gen. 107 1 Ch.lgt). AV has Sabtechah in Gen.
and Sabtecha in Ch. Glaser, following Bochart, con-
nects this with the name Samydake in Carmania, on
the E. side of the Persian Gulf (.S4izze, 2252); but
Dillmann calls attention to the phonetic difference.
It is perhaps really a dittographed SABTA, the 2 being
a record of a reading wnoo {cp @ in Gen.), T.K.c.

SACAR (MW). Probably an ethnic of the same
group as ISsACHAR, ZICHRI. ‘The name has, of course,
no connection with that of the little known Egyptian
god Sakar (cp ISSACHAR, col. 2292, n. 5). I. On
the name in 1 Ch. 1135, see SHARAR and ISSACHAR,
$ 6 (end).

2. A son of OBED-EDOM (g.v.), 1Ch. 264 (cwyap
[Β], cayap [L1, caxiap [A]).

134 4181

SACKCLOTH

SACK. The wide diffusion of this word throughout
the European languages is probably due in the first
instance to Phcenician trade and commerce.! ὙΠῸ
word, it is true, does not happen to be found in either
Pheenician or Punic; but it is vouched for in Hebrew,
Syriac, Ethiopic, and possibly Assyrian. See SAcK-
CLOTH.

1. saf, PL (σάκκος [but μάρσιππος, Gen. 441 £01), seccus),
Gen. 422535 (E); in 0. 274 ît is due to R (Holz.); Lev.1132
Josh, 94. See SACKCLOTA.

2. &èlî, "53, Gen. 42 254 (ἀγγεῖον), RV ‘vessel’; cp Bac.

3. ’amidhath, ΠΠΡΙΌΝ (Vspread out, cp 15. 4022), only in
Gen. 41-42 } (422527735 4812 etc.) On E's term see (1)
above. (δ in 42275 48 12 μάρσιππος.

4° sibkalon, {ipy 2 K. 4424 ἘΝ (ΑΝ, RVmg. 'husk,' AVmg.
‘scrip,’ ‘garment’), cp Foo, col. 1539 n. 2. AVmg. gives a
superficially plausible sense (cp Scki#}—derived from an anony-
mous Greek translator's κώρυκος (Field's Hex.); but a/bpy is
unknown.

{It has been conjectured elsewhere (see PROPHET, $ 7) that
Elisha, like Elijah, was specially a prophet of the Negeb, and
that Sbuy is a popular corruption of bgbnv. If so, vbpsi
probably comes from b'93°M°3, ‘Beth-gallim,' where 093 is
another corruption of Sab. Elisha was at a place called
Beth-gallim, or (see 38) Beth-giigal, or (since Gallim and
Gilgal= Jerahmeel) Beth-jerahmeel, in the Negeb formerly be-
longing to the Jerahmeelites. But Lagarde's reading npbp,
‘wallet'(?), suggested by the βακελλεθ of GA and Theod. (see
BDP), is ingenious,—T. k. C.]

SACEBUT (N39), Dan. 3571015f See Music,
8 6 (10).

BACKCLOTH (PÒ; caKkoc:; saccus, cilicium®). It
is probable that the Heb. ie£ was originally a coarse

1. Use textile fabric made from the hair of the camel or

τσ ΒΘ. the goat(cp the meanings of σάκκος, a borrowed
word}, Like the 5522/24 it could be used also as a wrap
or bag (cp MANTLE, $ 2 [x]); see SAcK. Referring
the reader, generally, to the articles DRESS and MourN-
ING CUSTOMS, we propose here to indicate the nature
οἵ the garment expressed by the word izZ, and to
endeavour to ascertain the origin of the custom of
wearing it.

‘The usage of the word suggests that the ἐσ was
nothing more than a loin-cloth, similar, no doubt, to
the ##rdm* of Moslem pilgrims at Mecca. It was worn
as a token of grief after a death (Gen. 8734 25.331
Joel 18), more commonly, however, in times of trial, to
remove a calamity, or as a means of propitiation.

Thus, the ἐᾷ is worn after hearing bad news(2 K. 6 30 191 Est.
4 1-4, etc.), to avert a pestilence (1 Ch. 21 τό), when one's neigh-
bour lies in sickness (Ps, 35 13), or as a sign of general undefined
grief (Ps. 30 11{12] 69 11 [12] Is. 22 12). Ît is often preceded by
the rending of the clothes (Gen, 37 34 1K.2127—the rending
alone in Job 120), or by the covering of one's head with ashes
or {Neh.91 2 Macc. 1025) earth.4 Like the 742-427, the sad is
also worn by women (Joel 18, cp Judith85 103 2 Mace. 319).
In Jon.38 it is ordered to be wom by both man and beast
(ὀδκδρια αν

The passages in which the 524 is mentioned as worn
next the skin are probably not exceptional (1 K., 2127

2K.630 15. 821); Doughty has re

3. Ὁ a0red marked the half-naked appearance of the

BarmMent \vearers of the ikram— like bathing-

1 Some (eg., Whitney, in the Cert, Dict.) have supposed
this diffusion to be due to the incident în the story of Joseph,
where the cup was hidden in the sacé. This does not explain
the various meanings of σάκκος, saccus, and, as a matter of
fact, the Heb. sa& appears only thrice in the story, whilst the
synonym ‘amidtatà occurs no fewer than fourteen times
(ce SAck, 3).

Saccus and cilicium are about even}y distributed. For
cilicium (a goat'schair cloth used for tents), see ΟΠ ΓΙΑ, $ 3
end, and cp TENT, $ 3.

3'Sak is frequently used with 44ga», "gird on, the reverse
process being described by #i//24, ‘loosen’ (Ps.3011 [15]
Is. 202). The ἑάγῶν»ε (on which cp Wellh. //eid.0} 116//
(2 123) is a loin-cloth covering the knee, one-lap of which may
be cast over the shoulder (Doughty, Ar. Des.2479 482). In
ἘΞ’ sa-g, with the determinative chair, is a woollen Palestinian
garment of the poor (WMM OZZ, 1901, col. 191).

4 Jastrow 740520139 suggests that in Judith 91 (σποδόν),
the îranslator mistook ἄῤλδν (see Turan, ὃ 2) for #4%67, like

+ his predecessor in 2 5, 18 19.

4182

SACKCLOTE

men' (Ar. Des. 24797. sar), and the dress donbiless
resembled the propher's girdie which, in Job12:8, is
worn as a mark of humiliation by a king. See GirbpLE,

‘The sackcloth of the OT, therefore, must not be
regarded as in any way akin to a sack or sackeloth in
the modern sense of the word, and, in endeavouring to
ascertain the origin of the custom of wearing such a
garb, we must not be led away by the early Christian or

the later ideas with which it is associated. ἵ

That conservatism prevails longest in matters of cult is a
familiar experience, and Schwally, Nowack, and Kittel (474 on
1K. 2127) favour the view that the ἐᾷ is the clothing of an
enrlier half-forgotten time, which, though it may long have con-
tinued to he worn—c,g., by slaves and the poorer people—was
nevertheless adopted exceptionally by the ruling classes on
specific occasions (cp Dress, $ 2, col. 1136, πι 4). Another
view is possible.

It is to-be observed (2) that the corresponding
ihram is essentially a dress for a sacred occasion; (δ)
that the prophets wore a garment similar to the s2#;
and (c) that the sacred ephod itself was probably once a
mere loin-cloth (see ErHoD, $ 1, and cp T. C. Foote,
JBL 21 41-44 [1902]). On these grounds, therefore, it
seems extremely probable that the #24 was pre-eminenily
a sacred garment, and it agrees with this interpretation
that we find it worn by people of all classes on any
especially solemn occasion {1 Ch. 2116 Joel1:3 Dan. 93
1 Mace. 847 2 Macc, 1025 etc.).

In view of what has been said elsewhere an the bear-
ing of ideas of holiness upon such a matter as dress,? a

piausible explanation of the custora

3. Why WOEM. may be attempted. Garments that
have come in contact with holy things are unfit for
common use, and in early Arabia certain rites were per-
formed either in a naked state or in clothes reserved for

SACRIFICE

SACRIFICE

the purpose. There are some indications that this held
good among the ancient Hebrews; and if we bear in
mind that the i2£ is worn at times of great trouble,
when Yahwéè's help or forgiveness is besought, we may
perhaps surmise that such occasions were formerly
accompanied by a sacrificial rite when a special garb (if
we may judge from the Arabian evidence) would not be
unuatural. It would be just at such a time as this that
the individual would feel himself brought into closest
contact with his deity. ΑἹ all events, ideas connected
with worship of the dead do not cover the whole
ground.

The kirig of Nineveh removes his royal mantle before donning
the sa£ (Jon.36),1 the ‘holy’ occasion requires ‘holy ' clothes;
and the primary object of the rending of the garmenis is prob:

ably to put oneself in a state of nakedness as quickly as possible
(Schwally, Frey).

That the use of this special garment should have been
retained long after the (ex 4x2.) ritual died out is not
without analogy. ‘Yhe gradual decay is further illus-
trated by the fact that sometimes even it was the custom
not to wear the 42£ but to lie upon it (25.21 το Is. 585),
and that in later Jewish times the rending of the gar-
ments was confined to a small slit {Nowack, #4 1193).

See the literature at the end of MourNING CUsTOM$s; also
Schwally, Das Leben nack d. Tode (1892), 11/2, Frey, Tod,
Seelenglaute, etc. (1898), 34.7

©n sackcelotb and nakedness, cp Jastrow, ZATW 221177
(ἀφο), which appeared since the above article was written.

SAC

SACRAMENT (sccramentum, the Vg. rendering of
μυστήριον in Eph. 19 33 532 Col.127 1 Tim. 8 τό Rev.
120 177). See MySTERY, $ 5.

SACRED (iepoc) 1 Cor. 913 2 Tim. 315 ΕΝ, See

CLEAN AND UNCLEAN, $ 1, 8,

CONTENTS
I. HISTORY OF SACRIFICE IN OT

Introductory ($ 1).
Sacrifices of nomads ($ 2).
Firstlings ($ 3).

Spring sacrifices (8 4/2).

WIld animals and spoils of war ($ 8)
Israel'in Canaan : sources (ἢ 9).
Agricultural civilisation (ὃ ro).
Zébah and ‘204% (Β 11 f).

Worship (f 16/7).

Founding of kingdom : effect (8 19).
Foreign influence ($ 20).

Seventh century laws; Ezek. (8 21).
Destruction of temple ($ 22).

Pecullar rite (8 6). Victims and oblations ($ 13/4).
Protection by blood ($ 7). Seasons and occasions of sacrifice ($ 15).

II. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPED JEWISH SYSTEM
Introductory (8 23). Thankoffering (8 294).

Offering in general : species (8 24)
. Sacra publica et privata ($ 25).
i privata: fiering 66/0
urnt and trespass offering (8 26/).
Sin offering @ 284). ©
Peculiar piacula ($ 282).
Peace offerings (8 294)

ii. Publica:

Shewbread ($ 34 a).
Peculiar oblations

Oblations and libations ($$ 30312).
Frankincense; salt ($ 314).

Daily holocausts and oblations ($ 33)
Sabbaths and festivals (8 33).

824).

Libations ($ 35).

Incense; salt ($ 36).

Public piacula ($ 37).

Scapegoat; red heifer ($ 38),
Installation of priests (ὃ 39 a).
Consecration οἱ altar (ἢ 396).

Peace offerings in sacra publica ($ 40).

HI. BELIEFS AND IDEAS

Asa gift to Cod (8 41).

Sacrificial feasts ($ 42).

Blood of victim ($ 43).

Propitiation and expiation (8 44).
Persian and Gree

Effect of sacrifice (8 45).
Theory of blood atonement
Efficacyofsacrifice : popular
‘The prophets ($ 48). —

K periods (8 49).

Sirach; Philo (δ so).

Schoolsofiaw : efficacy of sacrifice (8 51).

Moral and religious conditions of atone-
ment ($ 52)

How does sacrifice expiate? ($ 53).

(8 46)
Ci n.

IV, SACRIFICES IN NT

Jewish sacrifices : the Gospels (8 54)
88] (ὃ 55).
Hebrews (8 56}.

In Hebrews (ὃ 58).
In 1 Pet. ($ 59).

Death of Christ : Pauline Epistles (ἢ 57).

Johannine writings ($ 60).
. Genesis of idea ($ 61).

Bibliography (ἢ 65).

τ. HISTORY OF SACRIFICE IN OT

The term ‘ sacrifice' may with etymological propriety
be employed of all offerings to God; in common use
it denotes specifically that class of
offerings in which a victim is slain,
corresponding to the Heb, φόδαᾷ (lit. ‘slaughter ‘).3 In

1. Introductory.

1 Cp Schwally, Leben nack di Pode, 1xf For the early
Christian usages see Smith, Dick. Christ. Ant, sio,
2 See Rel δένει δὶ 4524, DRESS, $ 8, and cp generaliy Curan

AND UNcLEAN,
3 See WRS £20), 21132, Rel. Sewe.(d, 213/
4183

| the present article the word will be used in this more
restricted sense, whilst oferings of grain, meal, bread,
oil, and the like (Heb. περᾷ) are called ‘ oblations.'
The term ‘offering’ will be employed as the equivalent
of the comprehensive ζογδᾶη, as well as in such phrases
as ‘burnt offering’ (τά, holocaust), peace offering
(em), sin offering {4aX4t4), trespass offering (4561).
For convenience, certain species of offering are made

1 Cp Wi 40F229, where the Assyrian king tears off his
royal garments, and clothes his body in the ‘Zaféww, the dress
of the penitent. Wi. (σῤ cit. 44) points out that dad is
elsewhere glossed by ἐσξξν (=pi). -

4184

SACRIFICE

the subject of special articles : see FIRSTBORN, INCENSE,
‘TAxATION, TITHE, Vow, VOTIVE OFFERING. Cp also
ATONEMENT [DAY ΟΕ], FEASTS, PASSOVER, PENTE-
COST, TABERNACLES; and, for Babylonian parallels,
RITUAL. The present article deals in its first part (88
1-22} with the history of sacrifice in the OT; in its
second {$$ 23-40) with the developed Jewish system;
the third part (88. 41-53) discusses beliefs and ideas
connected with sacrifice, its intent, significance, efficacy,

and operation; the fourth part (88. 54-61) treats of |

sacrifice in the NT.

Before the invasion of Palestine the Israelite tribes
were nomads ; their living and their wealth were in their
flocks of smali cattle.! These also
furnished the material of their sacri-
fices. Offerings were doubtless made
also of the spoils of war, and perhaps of animals taken
in the chase (see below, 8. 8) Our knowledge of the
character of these sacrifices ìs derived not so much
from the stories of the patriarchs in JE as from sur.
vivals in later custom and law. The nature of these
survivals, together with the permanent conditions of
nomadic life in the deserts of Syria and Arabia, justify
us in supplementing or interpreting our scanty material
by what is known of Arab sacrifice in pre-Islamic times
and among the modern Bedouins.?

The occasions of sacrifice are many and various.
Among the modern Arabs sacrifices are offered on the
birth of a son, a circumcision, marriage, the coming of
a guest; for the recovery of the sick or for the health
of fiocks and herds; on the inception of an enterprise,
such as setting out for a foray, breaking ground for
tillage, opening or enlarging a well, laying the founda-
tion of a building ; on the conclusion of a compact or
covenant ; the return from a successful expedition ; on
the anniversary of a kinsman’s death, and the like.

The rites of sacrifice are of primitive simplicity. The
owner ordinarily slaughters his own victim. The blood
is poured upon the ground, smeared upon the sacred
stone, upon the tent ropes, the door-posts of houses, or
upon persons or animals. ‘The flesh makes a feast for
the owner, bis family, tribesmen, and guests.

A species of sacrifice which in all probability goes
back to the nomadic stage is the offering of firstlings
N 5, békoroth, sg. bekor) of animals, that is,

8. Finettinga? (ita offepring n
‘opens the womb” (peter réhem, Ex. 8419 132 ταῖς Nu.
1815; cp peter Higer béhémah, Ἐκ. 18 το). The shepherà
Abel makes his offering ‘of the firstlings of his flock
and of their fat portions' (Gen. 44J); the laws in-
sistently claxm all firstlings as God's right (Ex. 132 12-15
2229£. [28/] B419/ Lev. 2227 2726 Nu. 1815-17 Dt.
12617 1423 1519-23, cp Neh.1036). The animal was
primitively sacrificed shortly after its birth; the oldest
rule is: ‘Seven days it shall be with its dam; on the
eighth day thou shalt give it to me' (Ex. 2230 [29]).4
A similar custom existed among the heathen Arabs;
the first birth (called fara) of a she-camel, goat, or ewe
was sacrificed, frequently while still so young that its
flesh was gelatinous and stuck to the skin. This offer-
ing of firstlings was permitted in the earliest years of
Islam, Mohammed advising, however, that the sacrifice
should be deferred till the victim was a year or two old;
later he prohibited the /2ra' as well as the sacrifices in
Rajab ('afiraà, see below, 8 4).ὅ

1 See CATTLE, Goa, Sure. The nomadic Semites have no
neat cattle, and the ancestors of the Israelites do not appear to
bave been among the tribes that possessed camels (see CAMEL).

È See Wellh. Neste altarab. Heidentumes} Snouck-Hur.
gronje, Het mekkaansche Feest ; WRS Rel. Sem.; for modera
Arab customs, Burckhardt, Travels in Arabia, 1820, Bedowins
and Wahdbys, 1830: Burton, Pilgrimage to δὲ Medinak and
Meccak, 1855; Palmer, Desert 0/ the Exodus; Doughty,
Arabia Deserta ; Curtiss, Primitive Semitic Religion, etc.

ἮΝ See FIRSTBORN, PASSOVER, $8/; TAXATION AND TRIBUTE,
11:13.

‘#' On the later modification of this rule see below, $ zo.

È ba the two traditions in Lisan 10 στο τ; WRS ReZ. Sem.)
4625

2. Sacrifices
of nomada.

4185

SACRIFICE

The sacrifice of firstlings, like the offering of first-fruits, with
which it is sometimes associated (Neh. 1035./, cp Ex. 2229
[28/1]; note also the connection with tithes, etc., Dt, 12617
1423), was regarded in later times as a tribute τὸ God (Nu.
1815, Neh. 10 35.4), and as such it has been surmised that the
custom of devoting firstlings to God arose after the settlement
in Canaan by ‘a secondary extension of the practice of offering
the fruits of the field' (So Benzinger, PassoveR, $ 8 end.)
The existence of firstling sacrifices among the Arabs shows that
this inference is unwarranted. The sacrifice of firstlings, as the
widespread custom of offering firstborn children indicates (see
Frazer, Golden Bough 2,243), was not originally conceived.
as a tribute to the delty (see TirHe) That there is no mention
of these offerings before the invasion of Canaan is not a suffi-
cient reason for doubting their antiquity,

In the history of the exodus Moses asks the Egyptian
king to let the Israelites go into the desert to sacrifice
to their God Yahwè, ‘Test he fall upon us
with pestilence or with the sword” {Ex.
537, cp 818 5817; 51 E); the presence
of all the people, young and old, is requisite; and
they must take with them their flocks and herds to
furnish the victims (10925). From 53 it might seem
that the sacrifice in the wilderness was. something
unusual, demanded on this occasion by an oracle;
5: (E) and 109 (J), however, represent ît as an estab-
lished institution, ‘the #4g of Yahwè.'® The season
was the spring of the year, in the month called by the
Canaanites Abib (Ex. 134), corresponding to the Syrian-
Babylonian Nisan.

It is natural to connect this 4dg festival with the
spring festivals of other Semitic peoples. The first eight
days of the month Rajab, which in the old calendar fell
in the spring (see Wellh. /70/.9), vili. ; Meid.!), 94 7),
was a great sacrificial season among the heathen Arab:
‘The poets compare the carnage of battle to the multi-
tudes of victims lying around the sacred stones.® The
victim, commonly a sheep, was called 'a/zra4 (pl.
‘atà’îr); its blood was poured on the head of the sacred
stone (Nuwairi, quoted in Ramussen, Addiz 79), the
flesh consumed in a feast. Such sacrifices might be
offered at home ; but it was probably more common to
take them to some more famous holy place {see Wellh.
Heid. 74, 94). The sacrifice, like Arab sacrifices in
general, was often made in fulfilment of a vow. The
Rajab sacrifices were at first kept up by the Moslems ;
a tradition reports Mohammed to have said: ‘Every
Moslem is bound to offer each year an 'z44d% (the
sacrifice of the tenth of the month Dha-1-Hijjah) and an
‘atirah' (in Rajab [Liszn vi, 21114/]); subsequentiy,
however, he prohibited the ‘azzraà as well as the fara!
(see above, $ 3). In the time of Mohammed the month
Dhi-1-Hijjah, in which was held the great festival in
the vicinity of Mecca, fell at the beginning οἵ spring
{Wellh. Pro, ros), and a comparison with the
Passover naturally suggested itself ;4 but further studies
in the old Arab calendar have shown that this coin-
cidence in date is accidental.

Among the Syrians, the chief feast of the year at
Hierapolis was in the spring (Lucian, De Syria, 49}:
at HarrAn the first half of Nisan was a season of
special sacrifices (Fihrist, 322; Chwolsohn, Ssabier
225); evidence of the sacredness of Nisan appears in
the Nabataean inscriptions at Madain Salih ;9 and at
Palmyra ;8 the great festival of the modern Yezidis falls
at the same season.7

A closer connection between the Hebrew spring

4. Spring
sacrifices.!

1 See Passover, FEASTS.

? Hag is a religious gathering (Νδ. ZDMGA] 719), The
word îs used not only o? the Canaanite-Israelite agricultural
festivals, but also of Arab (and Sabazan) festivals, which brought
multitudes together. There is thus no ground for the assump-
tion that the use of the term here is due merely to the later
association of the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread
(hag ha-massith).

EP modern descriptions of the sacrifices at the Meccan
fenst.

4 See Snouck-Hurgronje, Het mekkaansche Feest, 65.

3 Berger, Comptes Rendus de l'Acad. des Inscr., 1884, 377.f

8 WRS EB8ì, 18199, n. 2.

7 Badger, Mestorzans, 1119. Verna! festivals are, of
course, not peculiarly Semitic.

4186

SACRIFICE

festival (‘ Passover') and the Arab Rajab sacrifices has
been thought to be established by

δ, Finstling® evidence that both were primitively
+ offerings of firstlings! In the Penta
teuch, laws prescribing the dedication of frstlings

stand in juxtaposition to ordinances for the Feast of
Unleavened Bread or the Passover {see Ex.3418 Καὶ
Dt. 1319-23 1617 Ex. 1243-50 1313-10 11-13 14-16); the
slaying of the firstborn of the Egyptiaris has been
interpreted as a reprisal upon them for withholding
from Yahwè, by their refusal to let Israel go, the first-
lings that were his due (see Ex.318 8120 1024;
Wellh. 86). It has been shown, however, under
PASSOVER ($ 8), that the passages cited, though com-
patible with such a theory of the original character of
the Passover, by no means require it; and opposing
considerations of much weight are to be drawn from the
peculiar ritual of the Passover (see below, $ 6), in
which—to name but a single point—one victim is re-
quired for each household, rich or poor, whereas the
number of firstlings must have varied with the owner's
possessions.

Nor is it satisfactorily established that the Arab Rajab
sacrifices were firstlings. It is true that the term
‘«tîrah, by which these victims are usually designated,
is by some lexicographers made equivalent to fera”,
firstling.® This is, however, nothing more than the
confusion which frequently occurs in their accounts of
the religious customs of ‘the times of ignorance,’ and
over against it must be put the fact that not only the
traditionists* but also the lexicons generally distinguish
the two clearly enough.

The Passover differed conspicuously from all other
Israelite sacrifices, and preserved to the last, essentially

inn Unaltered, its primitive peculiarities. In
δι Pecullar the carlicst times, the carcass of the
TBE. victim was probably roasted whole, either
over an open fire or in a pit in the earth (as by the
modern Samaritans), and the flesh sometimes eaten half
raw or merely softened by fire, Dt. 167 prescribes that
it shall be boiled, like other sacrifices. This, however,
did not prevail; P preserves the primitive custom white
guarding against abuse: the Passover is neither to be
eaten raw nor boiled in water, but roasted in the fire
(Ἐκ. 129), with head, legs, and inwards. The sacrificial
feast was held by night at full moon; the participants
were in their everyday garb, not în ceremonial apparel ;
everything was done with haste ; the whole victim was
devoured—including, doubtless, in ancient times the
exta which in later sacrificial ritual were offered to God
by fire, and therefore strictly forbidden as food; only
the bones must not be broken ;4 the flesh must all be
consumed before daybreak; if aught remained it was
to be burnt up at once; with the flesh was eaten—not
originally unleavened cakes, but—a salad of bitter herbs
{(Ex.129/, cp Nu. 9ur fi, also Dt. 18 46). ὅ

With this singular ritual has been compared the
description given by Nilus of the customs of the Arabs in
the desert S. of Palestine and in the Sinaitic peninsula
in his own time—the end of the fourth century A.D.
They sacrificed a white camel to Venus, the morning
star; after the chief or priest who presided at the
sacrifice had slain the animal, all rushed upon the
carcass with knives, hewed it to pieces, and devoured
it in wild haste, hide, inwards, bones, and all, that not
a scrap of it might be left for the rising sun to look
upon.8

1 WRS Rel. Sem.(2), 5, £ n. 464 £; Wellh. ProZtWt, 86;
Now. HA 2 147; Benz. “HA

2 Lisan, 6210. Note alto! ἘΠ ‘identical custom described in
the Lis4n under fara", in the 74; (8 300) under 'azirali.

3 See Bokhari, ed. Krehl, 8 514,7

4 Contrast the Arab sacrifice of Nilus, below. See WRS
Rel. δεν δ), 345.

See the description of the Passover of the modern Samari.
tans, Petermann, Reisex, 123

DA
8 Migne, Palr. Gr. 19.613, ὁ 6x2; WRS Rel, Sem), 281/15;
Well, Spesa. 0} 1197

4187

SACRIFICE

In Ex. 12zx-27 (ultimately from J) the elders are
bidden to take sheep or goats, one for each cian (»πὲῇ-
son 2643h), slaughter them, and, dipping
n È rotection a bunch of herbs (‘hyssop’) into the
δ "blood, to strike it upon the lintel and
door-posts; Yahwè will not suffer ‘the destroyer’ to
enter a house on which he sees these blood-marks.
This, an editor adds, is the historical origin and ex-
planation of a custom in use in later times; with it he
connects etymologically the name ‘Passover' (6524),
because Vahwè ‘passed over’ (p4s04) the marked
houses of the Israelites (Ex, 1224-27). ‘The object of
the rite is to protect the inmates of the house from ‘the
destroyer’ ; that is, in primitive conception, from the
demons of disease and death. Similar customs with
the same motive are found among many peoples.!
Whether this rite was originally connected with the
Hebrew spring feast is not clear. 7, who prescribes
the marking of the houses, says nothing about a feast,
and, indeed, repeatedìy insists that the festival of
Yahwè cannot be celebrated in Egypt (Ex. 53 825-27);
P orders that the blood of the lamb slain for the feast
be applied to the door of every house in which it is
caten (Ex. 127, cp 13), a direction which Jewish tradition
and practice regarded as applying only to the ‘ Egyptian
Passover';? Dt. makes no mention of this use of the
blood at the ῬΑΒΒΟΨΕᾺ (g.v., $ 13).* It is not unlikely
that a rite originally occasional, as in the outbreak of
an epidemic, came to be practised annually for the
protection of the household during the coming year,
and in connection with the old spring feast.4 The
name 652% probably belonged, notwithstanding }.5
etymology, to the feast rather than to the blood
marking.
Some Semitic peoples, both nomadic and settled,
offered in sacrifice animals taken in the chase. Gazelles
8. wila Vere offered by the Babylonians
simale. (Jastrow, Rel Bab.-Ass. 661) and
sp ber OE ear, Probably by the Pheenicians (Sacrificial
* ‘Tariffs, CIS 16559 1675; cp Isaac,
$ 4, n. 2). Among the heathen Arabs, also, gazelles
were sacrificed, but were regarded as an inferior offer-
ing; men who had vowed sheep or goats from their
flocks sometimes substituted gazelles.® The nomadic
forefathers of the Israelites may have made similar
offerings ; but there is no reminiscence of this in the
OT. The requirement that the blood of animals taken
in the chase be poured out and covered with earth (Lev.
1713, cp Dt. 1216 24} is not necessarily an attenuated
survival of a sacrificial rite ; the belief that the soul is
in the blood (Lev. 1714, on which see below, $ 46) is
reason enough.5
Sacrifice was doubtless offered also of the spoil of
war, as în’ later times (τ 5. 1515 ar cp 1434; see also
Gen. 1420). Similarly the Arabs on their return from
a foray sacrificed one beast of those they had taken and
feasted on it before dividing the booty.? The Arabs of
whom Nilus wrote took by preference a human victim,
a fair youth, from among their captives; in default of
such, they offered a white camel.8 The Carthaginians,
after a victory, sacrificed the fairest of their captives
by night as burnt offerings (Diodorus Siculus, 2065) ;

1 See, e.g., Zimmer, Zeitr, 2 πο. 26, col. 3, Δ 20; Palmer,
Des. Exod.90 118, εἴς, ; Doughty, Ar. Des. 1 499.452 ὃ τοῦ etc.;
Kingsley, 7ravels in West Africa, 444 4s1. A large collection
of material is found in Curtiss, Primitive Semitic Religion
To-day, chap. 1577

2 So also the modern Samaritans :

8 See below, $ 20.

4 A very similar ceremony at a great annual festival in Peru
is described by Garcilasso de la Vega, Comm. Reales, 76.

5 Harith, Mw‘allatah, 69, with the scholia; al-Laith in
Lisanvi.2119.

6 Cp the burying of blood drawn in blood-letting, or from a
nose-bleed, e.g., Doughey, Ar. Des. 1492; Kingsley, Travels
in West Africa, 447.

7 WRS, Rel. Semt.(2, 49, and the Arab authors there cited.

È Migne, Patr. Gr.196127. 641681; see WRS Rel Sem.,
362

Petermann, Reisen, 1237.

4188

SACRIFICE

similar instances have been adduced from the records |
of Assyrian kings (Shalmaneser, d/oro/it£, obv. 17).
The siaying of Agag, whom Samuel hewed în pieces
before Yahwè in Gilgal {1 S. 1533), has sometimes been
regarded as a sacrifice of this kind ;! but it is doubtful
whether this interpretation is correct (see below, $ 13 |
end).
The many accounts of sacrifices in the books of
Samuel and Kings are in large part taken from old
. and good sources, and give us com-
9. In CAMASN: paratively fult and trustworthy informa-
i tion for the period which they cover.
By their side we may place the similar descriptions in
Judges, and in the patriarchal story as narrated by J |
and E (eg, Gen. 157 22). The laws în the same |
sources (especially in Ex. 34 and 21-23) dealing with !
feasts and offerings, with the other—not inconsider-
able remains of early collections of law preserved
in Di. and H, represent the usage of Israelite and
Judzean sanctuaries in the time of the kings; the con-
demnation of many customs in the reform legislation
of the seventh century bears witness to the prevalence
of the practices so zealously prohibited. The prophets,
finally, paint vivid pictures of the religion of their con-
temporaries, with all its abuses.
The regions E. of the Jordan first occupied by
Israelite tribes are capable of supporting enormous
A flocks upon their rich and extensive
10. Agricutara] pastures.® Much of the land is very
*. fertile and abundantly rewards culti-
vation; but the conditions do not constrain nomadic
tribes taking possession of the country to become
tillers of the soil The case was different in Western
Palestine. In the S. indeed, in the Negeb and the
‘Wilderness of Judah, the new comers continued to be
chiefly shepherds even after they adopted fixed habita-
tions; but in the central highlands (Mt. Ephraim) and |
in the N. they were soon compelled to get most of their
living from the soil They learned from the older
population of the country to raise crops of grain and
pulse and to cultivate the fig, the olive, and the vine.
With the arts of agriculture they learned also the
religion of agriculture. To the sacrifices and festivals
of their nomadic forefathers were now added the proper
offerings for the bounty of the land and the season
feasts of the husbandman's year (see FEASTS, $ 4/).
Animal sacrifice is still the most important part of
worship, as we see clearly from the historical books ;
neat cattle, kept as plough-beasts, are added to the
victims from the flock.5 First-fruits or tithes of grain
and wine and oil must be consecrated in their season
according to an established ritual. The worship was
offered at the ‘high places,’ that is, in general, the old
Canaanite holy places (see HIGH PLACE, $$ 2-4). Î
The most general term for offering, whether of |
}
|
Î

animals or of other things, is miz448, num, ‘gift’
(6 δῶρον, more frequently θυσία), a word

ἂν, pecies not confined to religious uses.* In dis-
SRGTLECe : tinction from other offerings specifically

named —such as ‘0444, slak—minhak |
sometimes refers particularly to oblations of bread, |
meal, ciì, and the like {see $ 14).3 Animal sacrifices
fall into two main classes: ‘9244, EV ‘burnt offering,
in which the victim was all consumed by fire; and |
s&ak, EV ordinarily ‘sacrifice,’ in which, after the |
exta had been burnt upon the altar, the flesh was eaten,
These species are often enumerated together, as in Jer.
1726: ‘they shall come , . . bringing burnt offerings

|
I
1 WRS, Rel Sem.(2), 363, Nowack (7.4 2205) includes in |
the same Class the killing'of Zebah and Zalmunna, Judg. 821.
1 GASm. Mist. Geog. 523; cp Nu. 8214 2 K.84; eto, See
also CATTLE, $ 3.
3 On changes in the rites of sacrifice see below, $ 11.
4 In the technical language of the later ritual the compre-
hensive term is 4orhax ; see below, $ 24.

5 On the more restricted technical use of the word în the later
ritual see below, $ 24. !

4189

SACRIFICE

and sacrifices and oblations and frankincense .
the house of Yahwè.®

The Heb. ee4a4, n31, is ordinarily rendered in & by θυσία, the
corresponding verb by θύω, less frequently θυσιάξω, The verb
means properly ‘slaughter' and may be used of the killing of
domestic animals for food without religious rites (e.g., Dt.
1215 21); but since in earlier times animals were seldom if ever
Killed thus, it ordinarily imports sacrificia! slaying. The place
to which animals are brought to be killed is the 7724244, literally
‘slaughter place’; in Canaan this was generally the stone or
pile of stones on which the fat was burned, whence »εῤβόξα
comes to be equivalent to altar (see ALTAR, MASSERAN, $ 5).

The occasions of sacrifice were of different kinds {sce
above, $ 2, and below, $ 15). and distinctive names
for some of them were probably early in use ; peculiari.
ties of ritual, too, nò doubt belonged to certain varieties
of sacrifice, as to the Passover or the covenant sacrifice
(cp Gen. 159 7 Jer. 8418 £), but, however ancient
the custom itself may be, our knowledge of the details
of the sacrificial ritual comes chiefiy through later
sources. For this reason, as well as to avoid repetition,
the species of sacrifice and their characteristic rites will
be considered below in their place in the completed
system (8 23 71).

One term is, however, so certainly old and so frequent that it
cannot be passed over here; viz. ἤδέενη, Dbg (Am.5 22), gener-
ally pl. seZimim (EV ‘peace offerings') In many passages
S&lamim are coupled with ‘22544 (burnt offerings) in descrip-
tions of greater sacrificial occasions, precisely as ‘20944 and
sébakim elsewhere ; sec, e.g., Ex. 20.24 82625. 617 225 rK.
315925 Ezek. 4515 4327 462 12 etc, In other instances we
have the phrases DDIP MII, DOS ‘na1, ‘sacrifices of peace
offerings'—e.g., 1 5.108. Jos. 2223 Prov.714. The S0/4mim
appear to have been hy faî the most common kind of sacrifices,
so that when the word κόρα κῆσε was used without qualification it
would be understood to refer to ἤδιζρρεῖγε; on the other hand,
the name sé/&mizx is probably shortened from zibké ῥανεῖ,

The original significance of the word is not certain. (δ trans-
Tates, σωτήρια, (Buo(a1) τοῦ σωτηρίον, 50 also Philo, De victimis,
$ 4, 2245 Mangey; ὅδ in Samueland Kings (6vaiac) εἰρηνεκαί ot
τῶν εἰρηνικῶν, so Aq. Symm. Theodot, ; Vg. victimma facifica,
pacifcum (sc. sacrificium); hence EV, ‘peace offerings.'
These interpreters connect the Heb. word with the simple stem
of the verb pby, ‘be whole, sound, safe’ or the noun s4/27#,
Did, ‘peace.1 Josephus, who renders θυσίαι χαριστήριοι
(Ant.iîi.9 2), apparently associates it with the meaning of the
intensive stem, 5$7//as, ‘requite, repay, pay'; so that these
sacrifices would be a return to God for benefits received from
him, or the payment of an obligation to him; cp Prov. τᾷ: ‘I
had se/2mzm-sacrifices to make ; to-day I have paid ($iZ/an:t7)
my vows.' The word occurs also, as the name of a species of
sacrifice (0:85 πῦρ"), on an inscription from a Pheenician temple
at Marseilles (( 25 1665 22} It is perhaps a Canaanite term
adopted by the Israelites. {On Ass. su/mez see RiTvAL, $ 11, 12.)

The blood of the victims was poured or smeared upon
the sacrificial stone as had been done by their nomadie
forefathers. Besides this, pottions of the animal,
especially of the internal fat (τ 5, 215/.),? were now
burned upon a raised altar—monolith or heap of stones
or earth—as upon a hearth; and this part of the per-
formance was so essential that the verb 'burn,' with or
without an object (‘the fat'), becomes equivalent to
‘offer sacrifice.'

In older times the intensive stem #/7#2», “tp, ‘make smoke,
burn'—-rarely with the object (ΡΠ, 15.213 £)—is used; so
frequently in the prophets, of the heathenish sacrifices of their
contemporaries. In later texts the causative ἀξ εν, TURI,
prevails. See We. PyoZ.(4), 64 £, n. 1. The burning of the
offering is probably to be regarded as a means of conveying it
to God; the fragrant smoke was, at least in later times, thought
of as containing the ethereal substance of the sacrifice. (WRS,
Rel. Sem.®, 236; see also below, $ 41.)

The flesh of the victim was boiled (2 5, 215 α 1K.
1921), and furnished a feast for the offerer with his
family, friends, and guests (τ 5. 14 7 912 22/7, etc.).
In Canaan, bread, wine, and oil, the products of agri
culture, took their place in the feast beside the flesh of
animals from the βοοῖς or herd (see e.g., 1 8. 124);
these again were in part obligatory offerings—first-fruits,

. unto

1 See also the etymological explanations in Sis4r2 on Lev. 81
(fol. 134, ed. Weiss).

2 From Judg. δας ζῇ: ît has sometimes been inferred that in
early times boiled flesh was offered (cp also Nu. 619); but the
evidence is insufficient to sustain the conclusion.

4190

SACRIFICE

tithes, ete.—in part occasional and voluntary. ΟΥ̓
them also a part was given to God, probably upon the
altar by fire (see Am, 45), ‘The bread offered was that
which the participants in the feast themselves ate ; that
is, in ordinary cases leavened bread; * unleavened cakes
when, for religious reasons (as in the w2a5s0/# feast) or at
a meal hastily prepared for an unexpected guest, they
ate their own bread unleavened. The bread offered
was probably moistened with oil or dipped in it, as was
the bread eaten by the worshippers (cp the later rituals,
ὃ 30). Of the wine a libation was made to God (Hos.
94). See below, $$ 14, gra.
The peculiarity of the ‘0/44 (nb) is that no part of
the victim was used for food; the flesh as well as the
sacrificial portions of the inwards and

ofeiing olta. fat was burned.

Ù The term is derived from the common
‘alah (soy). ‘go up, ascend,' and signifies, ac-
cording to the prevailing interpretation, the sacrifice
which {all) ‘comes up’ upon the altar (Knob., Wellh.,
Nowack, etc.), or that which ‘ goes up’ in smoke to the
sky (Bahr, Del, Dillmann, etc.) In @ generally
ὁλοκαύτωμα, ὁλοκαύτωσις, Vg. holocaustum.

Another term for the sacrifice given as a ‘whole
offering' to God is ζα τὶ a (Dt. 3810 15.79 Ps.
5121; cp Dt. 1817 Judg. 2040), which appears as a
technical term in Phcenician also; see the sacrificial
tariffs of Marseilles and Carthage, 0751. 16535, ete.,
1675.

The whole burnt offering was naturaliy much less
frequent than the sacrifices which furnished a feast for
the worshippers; it is seldom mentioned alone, and
then in peculiar circumstances.? Ordinarily the burnt
offering occurs in conjunetion with other sacrifices
(30bahim or 3ldmim); eg, 28.617 f 345 1K.925
2 K.1024, ete. It was probably originally an extra-
ordinary offering made by great persons or on great
occasions (We. ῥκοὶ (3, 70). The daily burnt offering
in the temple at Jerusalem (2 K. 1615)—and doubtless
at other royal sanctuaries—was the king's daily sacrifice,
and was followed by many s/44im for the court and
by private persons.

The ritual of the burnt offering is not described in
any ancient account ; it may be assumed that the blood
was treated in the same way as that of the other
sacrifices ; it is supposed by both the narratives in JE
and by the laws that the flesh and fat of the holocaust
were consumed upon the altar.® The hide, according
t0 Lev. 78, fell to the priest, and this is not improbably
an ancient rule ; it was, in fact, the only toll he could
take for his services.*

It is possible that at an earlier time the burnt offering
was burned on the ground or ina pit, rather than ina
raised altar; this is said to have been done for a special
reason at the dedication of Solomon's temple (τ Καὶ.
864). The analogy of the human sacrifices at the
Tophet (see MoLECH, TOPHET; cp, however, Gen.
225), and the burning of the carcass of certain sin
offerings without the sanctuary, may also be noted. It
is probable, however, that the burning of the holocaust
upon the altar was the Canaanite custom, adopted by
the Israelites.5

Whether the burnt offering was accompanied by an
oblation of bread or by a libation is uncertain,7 When

verb

1 18,103 Am.45; leavened bread în certain δλζηεῖνε even
in Lev.7 13, cp 2317.

2 Gen.820 2213 Nu.2317 Judg. 626 (131623) 1 S.614
1 K.341838.

3 The carcass was previously cut up; 1 K. 182333.

4 So in the sacrificial tariff of Carthage (0751 167); în that
of Marseilles the priest has a fee în money, and a part of the
fiesh, whilst the hide belongs to the offerer.

5 So also at Hierapolis; Lucian, Dea Syria; WRS, Κεῖ,
δεν, δ), 378.

An argument may perhaps be drawn from the size of the
Canaanite rock-altars that have been discovered.
7 InrK. 864 the words ‘and the win/d4' are a gloss.

4191

SACRIFICE

it was part of a great sacrificial occasion these probably
went with the other sacrifices (s@444z22), The regular
daily burnt offering in the temple may have had such
an accompaniment ; but the earlier custom seems to
have been to offer the »πέκψαλ daily as an evening
oblation corresponding to the morning ‘5/44 (see below,
$$ 19, 32). In the passages which speak of the burnt
offering alone (cited above, col. 4191, n. 2), there is no
mention of a weird. Judg. 620/ 1319 7 cannot be
alleged ; in these places a meal prepared for a guest is
miraculously consumed by fire; this may be called an
‘Glah, but obviously no inference can be drawn as to the
ordinary ritual of bumnt offerings.

The animals sacrificed were neat cattle, sheep, and
goats ; also, at least in certain rites, turtle doves and

‘45 Pigeons, clean birds easily procured by
13. Victims. i welters in towns and cities. The choice
of victims for particular sacrifices, or occasions was
doubtless to some extent regulated by custom; in
ordinary cases it was left to the worshipper to determine
what his offering should be, in accordance with his
means, his disposition, and his motive, or his previous
intention or vow. It is very likely an ancient rule that
the burnt offering should be a male; though 1 S. 614
shows that it was not always so. Sometimes very
young animals were offered even as a bumt offering
{1 5. 79, sucking lamb); but ordinarily, no doubt, a
mature animal was chosen for this sacrifice.!

That the offering of a human victim as a holocaust
was not unknown in old Israel we learn from the story
of Jephthah, Judg. 1130 34-40. The narrator repre-
sents this sacrifice as extraordinary, but does not con-
demn it as abhorrent to the religion of Yahwè.?® The
statement in 1 K, 1634 to the effect that Hiel, who in
the days of Ahab rebuilt Jericho, ‘laid its foundations
with Abiram his firstborn, and set up its gates with
Segub his youngest son,' hardly admits any other inter-
pretation than that he offered them as foundation
sacrifices, in accordance with a widespread and persistent
custom.$

It does not appear, however, that human sacrifices were
frequent in the early centuries of the Israelite occupation of
Canaan. The offering by parents of their own sons and
daughters, especially the firstborn, about which there is so
much in che prophets and laws of the seventh century,é was not
the recrudescence of ancient custom, but a new and foreign cult
(see MotecH, 54 /°). The lesson of Gen. 22 îs that though
Vahwè might claim even an only son, he does not require such
sacrifice but accepts instead a victim from the flock; cp Mi. 67.

The expiation of Saul's massacre of the Gibeonites by the
execution of seven of his sons and grandsons ‘before Yahwè' at.
the famous sanctuary of Gibeon (9 5.91 d important as the
story is for the idea of expiation and thus for sacrificial concep-

not itself to be considered as a sacrifice, Nor is the
devotion of the inhabitants of a conquered city—or an Israelite
city that has fallen into the worship of other gods (Dt. 13 12/7
—to the deity by slaughter and burning (λένενε, see BAN:
properly regarded as a form of human sacrifice.

The offerings of bread, oil, and wine which formed
part of the sacrificial feast have been spoken of above
sati in that connection (8 11). ‘There were
14. Obiations. ἧς. independent Sa of the pro-
ducts of agriculture, The deity which gave the increase
to man's labour received from him portions of all; only
when these had been duly rendered could the rest be
used by the owner (see Frazer, Golden Zoxgh®, 2318 ΚῈ
4597}.

These offerings, which fall under the general head of
first-fruits, were called by various names: first-fruits
(bikhurim, Ex.3426 2319), tithes (mea'éstr0t4), prime
portions (r2%#4), portions set apart (2244), and
others. The original distinctions are not always clear;

1 Mi. 66 speaks of burnt offerings of yearling calves; the
daily burnt offering în P is a yearling lamb.

3 Ἰκρατκλῃ, $ 6 Compare Mesha's sacrifice of his sony
2 Κ' 8.7.

3 See Hier. On these sacrifices cp Tylor, Pri. σαί βδ,
110441: Liebrecht, Zur Vodksbunde, gua fi; copecialiy Sartori,
‘Das Bauopfer,' Zelfsckr. fi Ethnol.80 1 #7. (x898).

4 See Jer.7 31 Ezek. 20/26 28367 Lev. 18 21 202,7 Dt, 1810
ero.

4192

SACRIFICE

the definitions of P and the Mishna may sometimes be
suspected of making systematic discrimination between
terms once loosely equivalent. The tendency of the
ritual development was to reduce to rule and measure
what was once more free, and to convert into a tax, for
the support of the clergy, what formerly, as a gift to
the deity, had actually fallen in whole or in part to his
ministers, Aparchae were offered not only of things
that were eaten, but also of flax and wool (Η 5. 259 Dt,
184). Inasmuch as these offerings have a history of
their own it has seemed best to treat them separately ;
see TAXATION, TITHES. Religious dedications of a
different character are the ‘orZ&£ of fruit-trees in the
fiest three years of bearing, followed in the fourth by
the consecration of the crop as 4i//2/7w (Lev. 1923-25),
which corresponds to the sacrifice of the firstlings of
animals ; the Ad, or unreaped corner of the grain-
field ; the gleanings of the harvest-field, orchard, and
vineyard (Lev. 199}; and the spontaneous crops of
the fallow year (Ex, 2310) (See NATURE WORSHIP,

She form of presentation of first-fruits is described
only in part. In Lev. 23107 14 fold laws in H) the
first sheaf of barley (originaliy from each field, or from
each village) is brought and ‘waved' (λέπρα, ἡ, a
gesture of throwing) before Yahwé at the local sanctuary ;
until this is done the new crop must not be used in any
form (e. 14); unleavened cakes (massàzt) of the new
barley meal are eaten for seven days (see FRASTS,
PaSssovER). At the end of wheat harvest a correspond-
ing ceremony is the presentation in a similar way of two
loaves of leavened bread (originally from each house-
hold, Lev. 2315-17 200). Cp Frazer, Golden Bough!®,
2319. Dt.261/ prescribes that specimens of the
choicest of the fruits of the land shall be brought by
each landowner in a basket and set down before the
altar with a solemn liturgy of thanksgiving ; the pre-
sentation is followed by a feast (see below, $ 22).

Another kind of oblation, which, though of much less
primitive character than the kinds just mentioned, can
be traced back to an early period in the history of Israel
in Canaan, is the setting before the deity of a table
spread with food and drink (see, further, below, $ 34 @).
Such was the custom at Nob {1S.214-6[5-7)) as well as
at Jerusalem (1.748), and probably wherever God
had a house or temple. ©On this table stood bread,
which at certain intervals was exchanged for fresh loaves
hot from the oven ; the loaves that were removed were
eaten as “holy bread’ by the priests, and—under ex-
ceptional cireumstances—by laymen who had ‘ hallowed*
themselves (τ S.214-6). It îs natural to suppose that,
as among other peoples, wine too, in cups or chalices,
was placed upon the table ; but there is no mention of it
in the OT. (On P see below, $ 344.) In the Vecti-
sternia οἵ other religions flesh also was thus set before
the deity ; it is not probabile, however, that such was
ever Israelite custom. Like the flesh or fat of animal
sacrifices and the oblation of bread, wine, and oil with
them, the loaves of 'shew bread' were ‘the food of
God' (mb and).

Offerings of wine în the form of libations were made
at the sacrificial feasts (above, $ στὴ; a libation of
kr, properly any fermented drink other than wine, is
spoken of in a late law (Nu, 287; see below, $ 35),
but in no ancient source; there seems to be no reason
why such libations should not have been made. Honey
was excluded from the preparation of sacrificial cakes
{Lev.2r1), in which it was much used in other cults 1}
it was brought with the other choicest products of the
land in the ceremony described in Dt. 26: 7, but did
not come upon the altar. Milk, often offered by other
peoples in libations,? was not so used by the Hebrews.

1 Libations of honey in antiquity, i Ϊ
De αὐτὲ ὅποι τ τεῦζρηα ἴον το profitto ἐν Test ἄν!
Philo, De sacrificantibus, 8 6,2 255, Mangey,

2 In Arabia, We. “δία ιν, 1117 Milk in Abel's offering

(Jos. Ant. i. 2 1) is a mistranslation of the ambiguous caubn.
4193

SACRIFICE

That independent libations of oil were made is intrinsic-
ally not improbabie, though not conclusively established
by reference to Gen. 2818 Judg. 99 Mic. 67. {See Now.
HA2208; cp below, $ 31.)

Sacrifices were generally offered at home; every
village had its altar (mi056%4, slaughter place), where

the victims were slain and feasts held ;

15. Season8 shither the firstlings and other obli-

and occasione. gatory offerings were brought {see
HicH PLACE, $ 4). ‘There were more famous holy
places to which men resorted in numbers, especially
at the autumn festival (see FEASTS, 8 4. The
times of sacrifice were in part fixed by custom, in
part dependent on the occasion or on the will of the
worshipper. To the former class belong the Passover
at the vernal full moon (see above, $$ 47), and the
agricultural season feasts at the beginning and end of
the grain harvest, and at the close of the vintage (see
Frasts)1 At the last three custom required every man
to 'see the face of Yahwè,' with an offering (Ex,
2317). The new moon was a favourite time for feasts :
Saul expects all his court to be present on such an
occasion (15.204 Δ, cp 18247); the annual sacri.
fice of David's clan at Bethlehem is held on a new moon
(18.205 29). See NEW Moon. The Sabbath, appar-
ently in a lesser degree, enjoyed the same preference.
When a regular cultus became established at the greater
sanctuaries, more numerous victims were offered on
these days (see below, $ 33). The specific occasions
of sacrifice were manifold—the circumcision or wean-
ing of a son, marriage, the coming of a traveller, the
making of a compact, consultation of an oracle, the
mustering of a clan for war or the retum from a
campaign, the accession of a king, the dedication of
a temple, the staving of a plague. Many sacrifices
were offered in fulfilment of vows for the obtaining
of the most varied objects of human desire. Men
sacrificed alike when they rejoiced in the evidence of
Vahwé's favour, when they besought his bounty or
his help, and when they had need to propitiate the
offended God. Many Kinds of uncleanness required
purification by sacrifice.

The companies of worshippers for whom and by
whom sacrifices were brought originally corresponded

5 to the natural groupings of the
16. Worshippers. rcople, the family or clan for itself
{e.g., 15.206), the village community at its own high
place (e.g., 15.912). Even at the greater holy places,
which were frequented at the festival seasons by
multitudes from different tribes, these groups preserved
their identity. Deuteronomy assumes that this will be
the case at Jerusalem when all bring their sacrifices
thither ; and in the Passover the ‘household,’ even
when casually constituted, continued to the last, and,
indeed, stili continues, to be a distinet sacral grouj
the great mass of worshippers did not become one wor-
shipping community, but remained many companies.
The anly body of worshippers in ancient times in which
the natural groups are sunk îs the army in time of war.
How far the persistence of the family as a society of
worship în the national religion is to be attributed to
the survival of proper family cults, the worship of
ancestors, it does not fall within the province of this
article to discuss.?

The worshippers prepared themselves for participa-
tion în the sacrifice as ' holy” by ' hallowing themselves *
(4ithfadd% 18,165 Νὰ. 118, cp Ex.191014). An
obligatory part of this ‘hallowing' on solemn occasions
was abstinence for a time previous to the appearance
at the sacred place from sexual intercoutse (cp 1S.
2157 Ex.1915);® other preparatory ceremonies were
purifications, ablutions, the washing of garments. Men
put on festal attire, garments and ornaments not of

1 Sheep.shearing was also a time for feasting, τ 8. 257.
2 See Faminy, 82: Sta. G//13007
3 See WRS Rel δ, 4547.

4194

SACRIFICE

everyday wear (Ex.322 112% 1935} Hos.213[ss]
Ezek. 1612)!

For the ordinary sacrifice (s652#) the assistance of a

priest was unnecessary ; the rites were simple and known
A 4 to all The older historical books

17. Prieste." abound in instances of sacrifices by
laymen of alt ranks ; the father offered sacrifice for his
household, the ‘elders’ for the clan or the village com-
munity, the commander for the army, the king for the
people. The offerer slew and flayed his own victim —
as, indeed, continued to be the rule to the latest period ;
doubtless he also in early times poured the blood upon
the sacred stone or altar, afterwards a specifically
priestly act. At the holy places which had a resident
priesthood—often proprietary—the priests burnt the fat
upon the altar; for this service they took toll (15.
2137). The customary right of the priests may have
differed at different places, as it certainly changed in
course of time (cp 15.213 7 Dt. 183 Lev.7 34) The
priests participated also by guest-right in the sacrificial
feasts. The most important functions of the priesthood
were not, however, direction or assistance at sacrifices,
but the custody of the sanctuary, the consultation of the
oracle, and instruction concerning purifications, piacular
rites, and the like.

The sacrificial worship of ancient Israel had a pre-
vailingly joyous character ; to eat and drink and rejoice

before Yahwè (Dt.) is a description of
18. Character it which holds good to the end of the
IP. kingdom. The stated feasts in harvest-
time and vintage, the new moon and sabbath, were
all seasons of rejoicing; and the occasions of public
and private sacrifice at other times (see above, $ 15)
were, in general, of a joyful nature. The banquet
was accompanied by music and song (Am. 523, cp 65),
not always of what we should call a religious kind ;
dances, also, were customary {Ex.3219 15.186 Ex.
1520 Judg. 1134 21:19 7). The excesses to which such
festivities are exposed did not fail to occur (15.113
222 Is. 287 7. Am, 27 f. Hos. 414).

But while joyfulness was thus the predominant note
of worship, it must not be imagined that ancient religion
had no other note. In times of private distress or
public calamity men set themselves to expiate the
offence, known or unknown, that had provoked God's
anger, to propitiate him by gifts and recover his favour
(see 25.211 75 24:87 Dt.211/ ete.). Such scenes
as are described in 1 K.1826 7. (the priests of Baal on
Carmel) were probably not without parallel among the
Israelites on like occasions. Fasting before Yahwè,
wearing the garb of mourning, was an ancient and
common means of appealing to his mercy (see FASTING).
In ordinary cases propitiafory sacrifices differed from
common sacrifices, not in rite, but in the spirit and
mood of the worshippers, When God was manifestly
perilously incensed men would hardly venture to
‘approach him with sacrifice till they had reason to hope
that his wrath was somewhat appeased (see, e.g.,
28. 24).

Like other ancient monarchs, the kings of Judah and
Israel built temples at old holy places, such as Bethel,

and in their capitals, as at Jerusalem

18. Ἐβϑοὶ 9Î and Samaria. Worship at these royal

I sanetuaries was under the direction of
the sovereiga; on great occasions the king in person
offered sacrifice in them (1 K.8564; especially 9252 Κα.
16:27); the priests were appointed by him. It was
probably in these temples that the custom of offering a
daily holocaust grew up. ‘This sacrifice was made early
in the morning; in the late afternoon the oblation of

1 We. Prot. (4), γι. See Dress, 8 8.

2 See PRIEST, $ 4/2

3 To prevent controversy or extortion, tablets on which the
legal tariff for various species of sacrifice was inscribed were
sometimes set up before ancient temples see C/S1 165167 3 CZ

320).

ὦ See Fiasrs, 5.

4195

SACRIFICE

bread or dough, oil, wine (the μαύρ} was presented
{see 1 K. 182936, cp Dan. 92r Ezra 94/.).! The animals
required for food by the king's great household were, no
doubt, slaughtered at the temples with a sacrificial dedi-
cation ; the name 24544772, lit. ‘ butchers,’ applied to the
palace guard, has been thought to bear witness to this
custom {WRS Re/. Sem.1), 396). At the festivals and
on special occasions greater numbers of sacrifices were
offered by the king and his court, as well as by the
people who came together to celebrate the feast.
Foreign luxuries, such as incense, came into use at
these sanctuaries. The support of the regular cultus
came from the king's treasury, either from imposts
levied ἐπ natura (2 K.1615 Ezek. 4597), or by the
assignment to the temple of the revenues of a district.
(See TAXATION.)

A considerable number of priests must have been
attached to the greater temples, and the necessity of
order and authority was doubtless early felt. In
Jerusalem we read of a chief priest and a second priest.
The better organisation probably in part recognised, in
part created, a differentiation of functions. The same
conditions were favourable to the growth of the ritual
in elaborateness and splendour, and to a concomitant
estimate of its importance, In a word, the ritualistic
and sacerdotal tendencies in the religion of Israel had
their seats at the royal temples, especially at Jerusalem.
By degrees the worship at Jerusalem came to be a very
different thing from that at the country high places,
and thus things were preparing both for the deuiero-
nomic reforms and for the ritual law,

The greatest change, however, which followed the
establishment of the kingdom was the institution of a
regular public cultus maintained by the king for himself
and his people. Thus a national religion was created,

When Israel took its place among the nations,
political and commercial intercourse opened the way for

+ religious influence, Solomon’'s new
Ὁ δ OreIgn. temple was built by a Pheenician archi-
°. tect after Phoenician models; Ahaz
exchanged the altar for a copy of one he had seen in
Damascus, The more complete apparatus of worship
—the bronze reservoir and portable lavers, the many
utensils provided for the service of the altar, for example
— suppose corresponding elaboration in the ritual. ‘The
vestments and ceremonial ornaments of the priests also
were probably patterned after those in use in Phoenician
temples. The influence of foreign religions was much
deeper in the seventh century, during the long reign of
Manasseh. Not only were many new cults, especially of
Assyrian origin, introduced (see QUEEN or HEAVEN,
NATURE WORSHIP, $ 5/.), but the worship of Yahwè
was enriched by new rites and offerings ; the burning of
costly gums and spices, for example, is first heard of in
this period. The sacrifice of children as burnt offer.
ings, with peculiar rites, to Vahwè under the title
' king’ (4am-méleà), which also became prevalent în this
age, is probably a foreign —Phcenician or Syrian—cult
adopted by worshippers of Yahwè {see MOLECH),

The reforms of Josiah not only suppressed for a time
these foreign rites, but also made a radical change in

the whole sacrificial system by destroy-

208. Reform ing the high places, carrying away

and reaction. .heir priesthoods, and forbidding the

offering of sacrifice at any place in the kingdom except
the temple in Jerusalem.* A necessary corollary of
this restriction of sacrifice to one altar was the slaughter
of animals for food at home without sacrificial rites
(Dt. 1215 / 20-25), contrary to the ancient rule {see
Lev. 173/.).4

A large part of the occasional private and family

1 On the later custom, see below, $ 32.

2 See Incense, $ 3. Itis worthy of note that Ezekiel gives
it no place in his reformed cultus.

è See DeurERoNOMYy, ISRAEL, $ 37/1; Josian, $ 1.

4 Disregarding redactional changes; set LEVITICOS, $ 28.

4196

SACRIFICE

sacrifices thus drop out. The change is even greater
on the other side; the season feasts must now all be
kept at Jerusalem ; thither firstlings and tithes, first-
fruits—in a word, all obligatory offerings—must be
brought, there all vows must be paid, and freewill offer-
ings made, Various modifications of the ancient custom
became necessary ; the lustration of houses with blood
at the Passover must have ceased (see above, $ 7); the
age at which firstlings should be offered (eight days,
Ex. 2230 [29]} is now a minimum limit—they may be
brought at any time after they are a week old (Lev.
2227). The removal to Jerusalem of the feasts in which
the tithes were consumed, besides other changes {Dt.
14247), deprived the poor of the village of the partici-
pation in these feasts which they enjoyed by ancient
right of hospitality ; compensation is made by the con-
version of the tithes of one year in three to charity
(Dt, 14 28 fi; see TAXATION, 8 ro, TITHES). The
country priests who were transported to Jerusalem were
ποῖ allowed to offer sacrifice in the temple, though they
had their living from its revenues ; an inferior order of
ministry was thus, in fact, established,

By the centralisation of worship its natural connection
with the common life of men was much loosened. ‘The
Israelite could visit the holy place to offer his sacrifices
at most but thrice a year, more commonly, perhaps,
but once or twice. At other times he knows that stated
sacrifices are offered in the temple daily, and with
greater pomp at all the festivals. The possibility of a
cultus carried on for the benefit of those who are not
present, of a sacerdotal religion done for the people by
the priests, and operative, if correctly performed, îs
thus prepared. ‘These consequences were not per-
ceived, much less realised, în the few remaining years
of Josiah's reign, nor, in their full effect, for many
generations afterwards.

The spirit of the sacrificial laws in Deuteronomy is
that of the older time; ‘rejoice before Yahwè” is still
the common expression for worship. The increased
emphasis on the olden hospitality of the sacrificial feast
is in accord with the prominence of motives of charity
and humanity in the deuteronomic legislation, but is
doubtless due in part, as has been already suggested,
to the consciousness that the transfer of these feasts to
a distant sanctuary imperilled this feature of them,

In the disastrous times that followed the defeat at
Megiddo and death of Josiah, in the reaction from the
deuteronomic reforms which not unnaturally ensued
upon the disappointment of the high hopes based upon
them, every trace of these reforms was swept away.
Not only were the old altars at the high places rebuilt
and the foreign worship restored, but men sought more
efficacious means of expiating guilt and securing divine
protection in private cultst—in part, perhaps, revivals of
old Israelite practices, în part of foreign origin, such as
are described in Ezek,.8. These strange rites were
celebrated as mysteries by societies of initiates, Their
sacramental sacrifices were ‘unclean’ beasts, such as
swine, dogs, mice,1 The strong taboo of the flesh of
these animals made them peculiarly potent f2c2/2, the
highest grade of ‘uncleanness' being convertible with
exceptional ‘holiness.”

The laws in Dt. relative to sacrifice and offering
represent older custom adapted to the plan of reform
which made Jerusalem the sole place of worship (see
above, $ 20).

Species of offerings: Dt.126, cp r1 17, see also 276 8310}
prescribed offerings (firstlings, tithes, etc.) are 434477, ‘sacred’

(belonging to God by right), in distinction

21, Seventh from votive and free-will offerings, and from
cent. laws, animals slaughtered for food, 1226; victims
from the flock and herd (δά ζ ἄν, sén ; 337, 56);

human sacrifice prohibited, 1231, cp 1810; victims must be
perfect, 171, cp 1521; ritual of holocaust and sacrifice, 1227;

burning of fat, libations, cp 8238; offerings at the feasts and
rita), 16 75, cp 261; priests dues, 81/7; tithes, 1217

1 15. 65. 2 66317 (late post-exilic rites of the same kind); cp
Ezek. 89% See WRS, Rel. δέρην. (ἢ), 29075 343.

4197

SACRIFICE

1423, cp 126 11; in the third year, 14.98.4; liturgy, 2012
furstlings, 1519/77
The sacrificial laws in IH are of the same age.?
Species: ‘2/24 Lev. 2218, eto., ᾿σίαλ and 26bak 178, zibhé
2

delamim VI 5 19 3, τόδ 22297, néder and nédabah 221821)
tithes and firstlings are not named in che remains of H (nor in
Ezek, 40-48); sacrifices as #04451n 222 13f, cp 198; offerings
are ‘the food of God' (4em elokim), 21 6817 ar 2225, cp Ezek,
447; animals sacrificed, 54447 and’ sd», 507, kébes, ‘5; human
sacrifice forbidden, 182120 1 /. ;, victimsmust be perfect, 2218/Z,
less strict rules for freewilì offerings, 2223; must be broughi τῷ
the holy place, not slaughtered elsewhere, 173, cp 8} ;3
blood not to be eaten, 17 10, cp 17137. 1926; the ritual is not
described (17 6 probably secondary): the flesh of #2/4x%27% must
be eaten on the day they are offered or on the following day,
1957.; of the fadak on the day of sacrifice itself, 2229/;
feasts, offerings, and ritual, 28 (the parts of the chapter derived
from Η)

Contemporary with the laws in H, and from the
same or cognate sources, is a large part of Lev. 11-15,
on uneleanness and purification {see LEvITICUS, $ 24. 1};
cases requiring sacrifice are enumerated, 126/ 1514/

29f. 141-7 (49-53). "

In [μον.1-7, also, the older sacrificial /0rdt4, not
only in 1 and 3, but also in parts of 5 75, represent
pre-exilic usage and formulation in later redaction.5

Another source from which knowledge of the worship
in the temple at Jerusalem may be gained, is Ezekiel's

A programme for a restored and purified

314. Ezelciel. cuitus in 40-48. The prophet's pur-
pose was not to create a new system of sacrifices and
rites, but to introduce such safeguards as should prevent
those invasions of Yahwè's holiness which had provoked
him in anger to destroy his desecrated house and make
an end of the polluted worship, Knowing as we do
the characteristic motives of Ezekiel's reformatory zeal,
and having from other sources reasonably good informa-
tion about the temple worship in the last half-century
before the falì of Judah, we should not find it difficult to
distinguish the old from the new in Ezekiel's sketch,
and thus to use 40-48 for the history of the cultus.9
This testimony is the more valuable because Ezekiel
had a priest's intimate acquaintance with the ritual
and affection for it.

In comparing Ezek. 40-48 with the sources hitherto examined,
it is important to observe that Ezek. deals almost exclusively
with sacra Aublica,? the others with private sacrifices. As the
public ceremonies ‘had, doubtless, in all ages, a more solemn
rituai, the fuller liturgical details in Ezek., as compared, for
example, with De., signify much less than has sometimes been
made of them. Besides the species of sacrifice with which we
have already become acquainted (‘0/24, 2084, Slamim), Ezek.
repeated!y names two others, 4a/#4#4 and 2542 (EV sin offering
and trespass offering—RV guilt offering), 4039 4213 431977
4427/29 451777 4620 (see below, 88 275). The minkal is an
offering of four and oil in specified quantities (46571x, etc.);
a libation (r65e4) is also provided for (4517) The animals
sacrificed are the same as in the other sources (birds are not
named)

The public sacrifices are provided by the prince from the
proceeds of a tax levied in kind (/ériz:4% 45 13-17). A lamb is
offered every morning, the regular holocaust (‘00224 4754), with
an accompanying -oblation (24444 4613-15);8 the sabbath
burnt offering is six lambs and a ram, with their oblations
(8. 4.Ὶ);9 on the new moon, the victims are the same, with the
addition of a bullock (466). At the passover a bullock is
offered on the first day as a sin offering for the prince and
people; during the seven days of the feast, each day seven
bullocks and seven rams as burnt offerings, and a he goat as a
sinoffering (45 23) ; the feast of the seventh month has the same
sacrifices (4525); there is no summer festival (Pentecost), At
the great festivals, new moons and sabbaths, the prince also
provides sé/zmzim (45 17), doubtless as a feast for the people.

See LeviricUS, $$ 147

1 Setting aside the double redaction.

2 The &sdz4 in 19 21 is from RP.

3 The principle, no slaughter withont sacrificial rites, is re-
affirmed ; see LEVITICUS, $$ 15, 28.

A Passover is not named,
s See LeviriIcuS, $$ s/ and, on dit and Zaztatk, below,

272

6 The custom of the temple after the restoration, which fre-
quently followed the older usage rather than Ezekiel's innova.
tions, furnishes an additional criterion.

7 Even the $è/awzîm at the feasts, new moons, and sabbaths,
are to be provided by the state, 4517.

8 No evening #44; see below, $ 32.

_8 The general rule for the oblation to be offered with each
kind of victim, 46 11, cp 57; the quantity of wine for the liba-
tion is nowhere fixed.

4198

SACRIFICE

The number of these victims is necessarily left undetermined,
A table (or altar) for the shewbread stands in the temple (41 22);
but no rules are given for the presentation of oferings upon τ.
probably the old custom is to be followed without change! An
elaborate ritual is provided for the consecration of the altar
(43 18-27), and for the semi-annual ficxZa ton the first of the
first and seventh months: by which the temple and altar are
purified (45 18-20)? The rites of sacrifice are given in some
detail: the slaying and dressing of the victims (410 38-43, cp the
description of the court and altar, 40:28 7. 43 13/7); the dash-
ing of the blood upon the altar (48 18), or—of the sin offering in
consecration and purification ceremonies-—the application to the
altar and other parts of the tempie and court (48 2045 19), The
fat and blood of sacrifices are the food of God (447). ‘The flesh
of public sin offerings is burned (4321); that of private sin
offerings and of trespass offerings belongs to the priests (44 29);
there are kitchens in the inner court where they boil their meat
and bake their 721x444 bread (46 το £), and chambers in which
they eat this ‘ very holy” food (42 13).

Of private sacrifices the freewill offerings of the prince (‘9/24
or Plamim\ are sacrificed by the priests (40 2); the private
sacrifices of the people are slain for them by the Levites (de-
graded priests of the old high places), who wait upon the offerers
and serve them (4411); the flesh is boiled in kitchens in the
four corners of the outer court by temple servants (4621-24).
The priests are supported by offerings: the flesh of the (private)
sin offerings and of trespass offerings, the oblations of fiour and
cil, and everything that is devoted to Yahwè fall to them;
besides this they have a right to all kinds of first-fruits and
dedications (442877).

Ezckiel supposes that his readers are familiar with
the terms he uses and their significance; he does not
deem it necessary, for example, to define the nature or
occasion of the trespass offering (see below, $ 27).
The sacra publica, which before the fall of Judah had
been maintained at the king's charges, are to be pro-
vided for by the prince from the taxes® The rules
prescribing the kinds and numbers of victims to be
offered at the feasts, and the proportion of flour and
oil with each, may perhaps make new requirements;
but it may safely be assumed that there had been similar
rules fixed by the custom of the temple under the kings.
The periodical expiation of inadvertences or mistakes
by which the holiness of the temple might have been
sullied, appears to be an innovation; 4 but the rite is
simple and old, and had probably been practised in
earlier times when occasion required. In general, the
ritual of public sacrifice does not seem to be much
changed in Ezekiel's new model of temple worship.

The consequences of Ezekiel"s system would doubtless
have made greater changes in the sphere of private sacri-
fices, The tax to be paid to the prince and the assign-
ment of all first-fruits to the priests apparentiy are to take
the place of all the offerings (firstlings, first-fruits, tithes,
sacrifice for appearance at the holy place, and the like)
which in former times the Israelite had been bound to
bring to God. Even the sacrifica! feasts (3/2miîm) at
the great festivals were provided from the public treasury,
There would remain vows and freewill offerings, and
the sin and trespass offerings, in which, as it appears,
no change was intended. In the ritual of private sacri-
fice Ezekiel proposed a very radical departure from
immemorial custom: the owner was henceforth not to
offer his own victim, but to look on while one of the
inferior ministry of the temple (Levites) slaughtered it
for him. This innovation, however, did not prevail;
in the rituali law and in the practice of the Herodian
temple, the worshipper retained his old right (see
below, $ 26).

The destruction of the temple in Jerusalem did not
cause a long interruption in sacrificial worship in Judea.

Not only were there other holy places in

2a One the land (sce HIGH PIACES,$9; MIZPAH,

*. 1), but there can be no doubt that the

altar in Jerusalem was soon rebuilt and worship re-

1 There is no mention of incense or an altar of incense, of a
candelabrum, or of anointing oil.
3 Observe the use οἵ the terms 4:99er and #

4; see below,

L'on the question how far this is a change of system, see
Taxamon, $ 155

* Te did not establish itself in the restored temple, where în
Iater times a corresponding, but much more elaborate, rite was
celebrated annually. See ATONEMENT, Day OF.

4199

SACRIFICE

established (ISRAEL, $ 45), with survivors of the old
priesthood for its ministry. Probably, however, the
public sacrifices—the daily holocaust and the offerings
on Sabbaihs and feast days—which had been supported
by the king, ceased, and only private sacrifices were
offered, as at other high places. With the appoint-
ment of a native governor and the rebuilding of the
temple, the public services were doubtless resumed on
such a scale as the poverty of the community permitted,
The ritual, aiso, no doubt, conformed to the ancient
custom and tradition of the sanctuary as far as possible
under these conditions; and as the prosperity of the
Jews increased, and Persian kings and governors from
time to time made contributions to the support of the
temple, it recovered something of its ancient splendour,
The opinion that the cultus was first restored by priests
returning from the exile, and afterwards thoroughly
reformed by Ezra in accordance with the prescriptions
of a liturgical work (‘ Priest's Code’) which he brought
with him from Babylonia, rests in both parts on the
same late testimony, and greatly exaggerates the share
that the Babylonian Jews bore in the development of
Palestinian Judaism in the Persian period. Babylonian
influence upon the terminology of the later ritual, if not
upon the rites themselves, is indeed manifest; but, in
view of the evidences of the same influence in other
Syrian religions in the Persian and Greek period, it is
not clear that we must look to the exiled priests in
Babylonia for the explanation.

An important landmark in the history of the ritual is
the description of a typical series of dacrificest—sin
offering, burnt offering, peace offerings—at the inaugura-
tion οἱ Aaron in Lev, 9, a chapter which is universally
assigned to the original History of the Sacred Institu-
tions, and was wriften probably in the fifth century
B.c. (see HISTORICAL LITERATURE, ὃ 9). The rites
agree closely with the older sacrificial 7774; many
refinements of the later laws are still unknown to the
author, in particular such as are connected with the
inner altar, the s9r#r4/irg of blood in consecrations and
expiations, and the like,

It can hardiy be questioned that the philhellenic
priests of the Ptolemaic and Seleucid times introduced

various ceremonies in imitation of the
38. 8. Later. cilts of Syrian-Greek temples, some of
which were preserved till the destruction of Jerusalem.
The procession at the offering of first-fruits, headed by
an ox with gilded horns and crowned with an olive
garland, the fiute player making music before them,
ete., is an example in point! But such innovations
were probably in matters of vestments, processions,
and the like, rather than in the ancient rites of sacrifice
themselves,

The two features in which the sacrificial cultus of
later times differs most from the worship of old Israel
are the enhanced importance of the sacra publica and
the greater prominence of expiatory rites.. Both are
natural consequences of the conditions of the age,

The Jews were a widely scattered people; most of
them could visit Jerusalem only at long intervals—
perhaps but once or twice in a lifetime. But sacrifices
were regularly offered for them—the daily holocausts,
the burnt offerings and sin offerings on the sabbaths
and new moons and at the feasts. These sacrifices
were now maintained, not from the revenues of the
king or prince, but by a tax collected from Jews in all
parts of the world, who thus became participants în all
their benefits, ‘The cessation of the daily sacrifice was a
calamity that deeply affected the whole race (Dan. 8.11 /.
11 31121, cp Jos. 87 vi. 22).

Piacula of various kinds were doubtless common in
old Israel, as in other religions (see, e,7., Dt. 211-9);
many of the purifications—which fall under the same
head--are unquestionably ancient customs (e,g., Lev.

1M. Bikkirim,33; Philo, De Festo cophini.

See Spencer,
Legg. ritual. ΜΒ. 4, Cap. 10.

4200

SACRIFICE ᾿

1417, cp Dt.248 Νὰ. 19). Solemn public piece,
however, seem in earlier times to have been performed
onìy on occasions when some calamity warned the
people that they had offended God (e.g., 2 S.24187;
above, ξξ 18, 20). In the Persian period, they became
an established institution. We have seen that Ezekiel
provides for such ceremonies at the beginning of each
half year (above, 8 21); the oldest stratum of P in Lev.
16 scems to have had in mind a yearly expiation Ὁ] the
Day of Atonement was in later times the most solemn
of the year. All rites of consecration and inauguration
are begun by piacular sacrifices, Not infrequently, as
in Ezekiel, the whole cultus is regarded as expiatory.
The prevalence of such a conception of God's holiness
as we find in Fzekiel, inevitably led to the multiplication
of expiatory rites; the depressed and unhappy state of
the Jews in Palestine during a large part of these
centuries may be regarded as ἃ contributory cause.

The differences between the sacrificial worship of
old Israel and that, say, of NT times must not,
however, be exaggerated. The public cultus did not
supersede private sacrifices. ‘The Jews, even from the
remoter parts of Palestine, frequented Jerusalem at the
feasts in great numbers, bringing the prescribed offerings
and paying their vows; the population of the city itself
and of neighbouring Judaa alone was sufficient with
their sacrifices to give employment and support at
ordinary times to a great number of-priests, Nor must
it be thought that the worshippers were habitually
oppressed by a sense of sin, or that the expiatory side
of the cultus so dominated their conception of sacrifice
as to exclude all others. The contrast sometimes
drawn between Dt., with its rejoicing before Yahwé,
and P, with all its sin offerings and trespass offerings,
even if it fairly represented the spirit of two legislations,
cannot legitimately be taken as evidence of a corre-
sponding difference in the spirit of religion in two ages.?
From our other sources it is easy to show that no such
radical difference exists.

II. DEVELOPED JEWISH SYSTEM

It is proposed in the following paragraphs briefiy to
describe the Jewish sacrificial system in its final form,
as it was in practice in the last
23. Introductory. century before the destruction of
Jerusalem. In this system the rules and rites of sacrifice
în the Pentateuch, of whatever age and origin, were
combined, and their often conflicting requirements in
some fashion harmonised. ‘There was also a traditional
usage, not wholly dependent upon the written law, and
at all events much more detailed, without a knowledge
©f which we should often be hopelessly at a loss in cur
effort to reconstruct the ritual.* Our sources, therefore,
include, besides the Pentateuch, the descriptions of the
cultus in Jewish authors—Sirach, the Epistle of Aristeas,
Philo, the NT, Josephus, etc.—and the school tradition
embodied in the legal midrash (4feb://a, Siphra,
Siphré), the Mishna, and the Tosephta,*
‘The comprehensive name for offerings of all kinds,
including dotations to the sanctuary, is

Ti ICTINE hordan (7279), ‘ present gift’ (Nu. 7 τοῖα,
species. © etc.; cp also Neh. 1035 1351).

. This term, which is found only in technical
use, first appears in the sixth century (Ezele. 20 28 40 43, sacrificial
laws în Lev.1 3), and is probably a borrowed word, as is sug-
gested also by the unusual form of the noun; cp Assyr.
Furbénu (RituaL, 88 τ, ia), Aram.-Syr. 242%in. The
technical use of the verb 438728 (5 ΡΠ), ‘present’ an offering
to God, is of the same age. δ renders the noun by δῶρον, Vg.
variously and often freely Te. and Pesh. 4647.

1 See ATONEMENT, Dav oF, $ 2} Levimicus, 8 12.

2 Many critics appear to be misled by the word ‘sin offering.’
See below, $ 280.

8 It would be quite impossible, e.g., to understand the
ceremonies of the Day of Atonement from Lev. 16.

4 This tradition— carefully to be distinguished from the
scholastic exegesis and casuistry in the same writings— goes
back to priests who had served in the temple.

4201

SACRIFICE

The old Hebrew γειά, ‘gift.’ which in earlier
times was used more broadly (see above, $ 11), is in
the ritual laws specifically the oblation of flour and oil
or of cakes baked therefrom.

The species of sacrifice are the same as in Ezek, : burnt
offering (δ), trespass offering (4%), sin offering
(4aftàf), and peace offerings (#47) ; some of these
embrace several varieties.

‘The public sacrifices are either stated or occasional.

26. Sacra The stated public sacrifices art

. ὃ 1. The regular daily burnt offerings, every

publica Θὲ morning and evening (Ex, 20 38-42 Nu. 28 3-8).
privata) 2. The additional burnt offerings on the
sabbaths (Nu. 289 £) and the new moons (8.
11-14), and at the annual festivals, viz., Passover (16. 1629)
Pentecost (26-31), New Year (29 1-6), Day of Atonement (7-11,
Tabernacles (12-38).

3. Thesin offerings at the new moons and feasts (Nu. 2815 22 30
295 11.16 19 92 25 28 31 34 38).

4. The goat of the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16 15, etc.)

Occasional piacu/a are :

1. The sin offering of the congregation (Nu. 15227 Lev.
434)

È ἄς sin offering of the ‘anointed priest,' because his sin
brings guilt upon the people (Lev. 437.; cp Lev. 166.11 14).

In this class may be included also sacrifices of con.
secration for the temple and altar {Lev.814f; cp
Fx. 40x/.); and the sacrifices for the installation of
priests, especially the high priest (Ex. 29 Lev. 8).

Public sacrifices as a rule are either burnt offerings
or sin offerings ; the trespass offering is always a private
sacrifice, and the only public peace offerings are the
two lambs at Pentecost (Lev. 2319, see below, $ 40);
the consecration ceremonies also include 58/627,

Private sacrifices may be of any of the four chief
species, and frequently comprise more than one kind.
They are either prescribed or voluntary. The prescribed
sacrifices are :

1. Sin offerings, trespass offerings, and putifications of various
kinds according to the occasion.

2. The sacrifices obligatory upon those who appeared at the
teniple at a festival season; with which may be included the
Passover.

Voluntary private sacrifices were brought either in
fulfilment of a vow, as freewill offerings, or as expres-
sions of gratitude (n4der, néddbal, (640h).

It will be most convenient to begin with private
sacrifices, since these are more fully described in the
Pentateuch, and afterwards to treat of the public cultus
in the temple, for the details of which we are mainly
dependent upon Jewish tradition.

The victim might be from the fiock or the herd
(Lev, 12); a turtle-dove or a pigeon was also accepted.*

Burnt If a quadruped, it must be a male without

26, Buri biemish, a bullock, ram, or he goat. A

OMEring. list of twelve defects which rendered an
animal unfit for sacrifice îs given in Lev. 2222-25; much
more minute rules are found in the Talmud.8 If the
dissection of the victim disclosed abnormal or diseased
organs, this also caused its rejection. The age of the
victim is sometimes prescribed ; in general, animals that
had attained their full growth were preferred for burnt
offerings. ‘The offerer brought the victim to the
court of the temple, rested both hands heavily upon its
head, slaughtered and flayed it, and cut up the carcass.
The priest received the blood and carried it to the altar,
and afterwards burnt the flesh and fat.

That the offerer slew his own victim is the rule in Lev. 1511,

is universally assumed in Palestinian tradition (see, e.g.,
bahia, 315 Siphra, Par. 4; cp M. Kelim18, εἴς, so also
Jos. Ark. ii.91). 6, indeed, in Lev. ἐδ. has indefinite plurals

1 ‘Publica sacra, qua publico sumptu pro populo fiunt . . .
privata, que pro singulis hominibus, familiis, gentibus fiunt,”
Festus ἢ the distinction is made by Josephus(472. ili. 9.1), Philo
(eg, De pietiyis offer. ὃ 3), and inthe Mishna, — _

The installation sacrifices might from another point of view
he regarded as private sacrifices, and are in fact so regarded
by Jewish tradition, ᾿

3 The offering of birds as bumt offerings is permitted as the
only kind of sacrifice possible to the poor in cities.

# On the name see above, β 12.

5 See MM. Bekoro(h ἡ, Tos. Bokovoth 4, Bekoroth 3γα ff

4202

SACRIFICE

(σφάξουσι), and is naturally followed by Philo, De victimis,
2241 Mangey}; but their interpretation is not to be accepted.i
Ezekiel would have the sacrifices of laymen slain by Levites (sce
above, $ 21) ; but there is no evidence that this ever became the
actual practice? The place for the slaughter of the burnt
offering was în the Court of the Priests (see TEMPLE), on the
N. side of the great altar (Lev.111), where also the sin offer-
ing and the trespass offering were slain (peace offerings might
be slain in any part of the court; M. Zé6e4im 51 25) Here
were rings in the pavement for tying the victims, posts supporting
beams with hooks to hang them up on, and low marble tables
for dressing the large cattle (M. Mi443:4 8 5 52 M. Tamid 3.5
M. Shebalim6 4, etc.) The blood was caught by a priest in a
bason, and thrown from the vesse! against the altar in such a
way that some of the blood struck each of the four faces of the
altar. ‘The carcass was then cut up according to a certain
order; the inwards and shanks (with the feet) were washed ; and
all the parts of the animal, except the hide ὅ and the contents of
the intestines, were borne by priests to the sloping ascent of the
altar, where they were salted; finally they were carried up to
the top of the altar, fung on the great ἥτε, and burned. In
later times, at least, an oblation was offered with private holo-
causts (Nu, 1557

The offering of ἃ bird had necessarily a different ritual (Lev,
114-175 AM. Zébahim65). The dove or pigeon, which might
be of either sex, was taken by the priest to the altar; ascending
the ramp and standing at one corner, he pinched off the bird's
head with his thumb-nail, squeezed cut the blood so that it
flowed down the side of the altar, drew out the crop with the
entrails through an opening in the breast, and threw these, with
the feathers, on the ash heap E. of the altar. Then with his
hands he rent the fowl by its wings without actually pulling ît
in two, rubbed it with salt, and threw it upon the fire.

In the Pentateuch, especially in Lev. 5, there is some
confusion between trespass offerings and sin offerings
see LEVITICUS, $ 5); the original dis-
ὅτ I Tespase osi both in occasion and ritual is,
TIDE however, sufficiently clear, and is in
general justly observed by the Jewish tradition. In the
diam the victim is regularly a ram (dyil, bia Lev. ὅτο
18 66 [525], Nu. 58 Lev. 192: Δ, cp Ezra 1019; in two
late laws Adei, v39, Lev. 1412 21 Nu. 612). The
animal, according to the Jewish interpretation of Lev.
515, must be worth at least two shekels. The ritual in
Lev. Τα ff prescribes that the trespass offering shall be
slain, like the burnt offering, on the N. side of the great
altar;7 the blood is thrown against the altar precisely
as in the burnt offering ($ 26); when the animal is cut
up certain parts are taken to be burned upon the altar,
viz., the fat tail, the fat that covers the entrails
(omentum), the two Kidneys with the fat upon them,
and the excrescence on the liver.8 No oblation or
libation accompanies them. The flesh of the animal
falls to the priests (according to Lev. 77, to the officiat-
ing priest); it is ‘very holy" and may be eaten only
by males in a state of ceremonial purity and in a holy
place.

In the ceremonies for the purification of the leper prescribed
in Lev. 149, which have a striking—and surely not accidental
—resemblance to the consecration of priests (Lev. 8), the helamb
with whose blood the leper's right ear, thumb, and great toe
were anointed * is called an ἄξῆνε; but the ritual—-note the

‘waving* of the lamb, the accompaniment of oil, the anointing
with blood and oil, sprinkling of oil, etc.—has nothing in
common with that of Lev. 7 (see below, $ 284).

In the oldest laws about the 4%7# this species of
sacrifice seems to have been required only in expiation
of the unlawful appropriation of the property of another
(conversion), or of the tribute due to Yahwè (see Lev.

1 A man might have his sacrifice offered by another; but the
other was not necessarily a priest.

2 The slaying of the paschal lambs by the priests had a
particular reason in the urgent need of expedition.

3 The hide fell to the priest who conducted the sacrifice (Lev.
78); a different rule seems to have prevailed in the Herodian
temple; see Schirer, Ὁ) 2248,

4 Ep. ἀνέρες, ed. ‘Thackeray, 535/, admires the strength as
well as the skill with which this was done.

5 Heb, 452m (08), δδ τὸ περὶ τῆς πλημμελείας, ἦ πλημμέλεια,

ΜΕ. hostia pro delicto. ©n the technical meaning of the term
see col, 4204,

δ The feriale sicfim in Lev.56 is a sin offering. 80 are also
the doves and the offering of flour allowed to be substituted by
the poor, Lev. 57-13} see LeviTIcuS, $8.

7 There is no mention of the imposition of hands.

8 The same parts of the sheep are burned when ît îs a sin
offering or a peace offering, or an inauguration sacrifice.

4203

SACRIFICE

61-7 [520 7.], 5814-16; cp Lev. 2214-16 and Nu. 5 5-8).1
In such cases restitution of the property with the
addition of one-fifth its value must be made, and a ram
offered 35 a ‘trespass offering." The term dig prob-
ably originally signified the mulct by which such an
offence was punished ; the application to the sacrifice îs
secondary. An diam: in silver is named in 2 K. 1216
as one Of the sources of the priest’ income; as a
species of sacrifice df7m is mentioned first in Ezekicl,
but in a way which implies that it was well known.

Im the redaction of the laws the distinctive character of
the 434m is lost, and a 'trespass offering' is prescribed
in many cases in which the offence is of a different
nature and restitution is impossible (see, e.g., Lev.
517 177 19207); the confusion with the sin offering
remarked above thus arises.

‘The victims required by the laws differ in different
cases-—a bullock, he goat, she goat, ewe lamb or kid,

288. Sin TT? dove (see below) The animal is
benda 31 brought to the temple court, and after the
δ. imposition of hands, as in the burnt offering,
is slain by the offerer (Lev. 429) on the N. side of the
altar. The distinctive feature of the ritual is that the
priest, instead of dashing (pm) the blood against the
sides of the altar from the ground, ascends the altar,
and, dipping his finger înto the bason, smears ({m,
‘put ’) blood upon each of the four horns of the altar
in order; the rest of the blood is poured out at the
base of the altar. The parts offered upon the altar are
the same which are thus consumed in the peace offerings
(8 29) and the trespass offering ($ 27). The flesh
belongs to the priests; it is, like that of the diam,
‘ very holy," and must be caten under the same restric-
tions,

The holiness of the £4//4#4 is in other respects more
intense than that of the 4522; everything which comes
in contact with the flesh becomes ‘sacred’ (cp Hag.
212), that is, becomes the property of God—in effect,
of the temple; an earthen pot in which the flesh is
boiled must be broken, a metal one scoured and rinsed ;
a garment upon which the blood has accidentally spirted
must be washed in a ‘holy’ place (Lev. 627-29 [20-22]).
The piacular character of the sacrifice accounts for this
higher degree of holiness.

In offering a dove as a sin offering the priest kills it
with bis thumb-nail (as in the burnt offering), but does
not completely sever the head from the body ; sprinkles
some of the blood upon the side of the altar (not on the
horns), and squeezes out the rest of the blood at the
base; there are no altar portions to burn; the flesh
goes to the priest (Lev. 57-9 626 [19]).

In cases of extreme poverty a sin offering consisting
only of a tentà of an ephah of fine flour, without oil or
frankincense, was accepted ; the priest burned a handful
of it upon the altar and took the rest for himself as in
other oblations {Lev. 51-13).

A late law (Lev. 4; see LEVITICUS, $ 5) establishes
a sliding scale of sin offerings according to the station
of the offerer : the common man has to bring a female
goat or sheep (428 32), as was doubiless the older rule
{cp Lev. 56 Nu. 1527).4 If too poor for such a sacrifice,
he is allowed to substitute two doves or pigeons, one
as a sin offering and one as a bumnt offering; or, in
extremity, an oblation of fiour (see above) ;5 a prince
{μ"}3) in a similar case must offer a he goat (Lev. d23/,

cp Nu. 716, etc.); the ‘anointed priest’ a bullock (see
below, $ 376).
The name

‘sin offering’ suggests to the modern

1 Affinity to H has been noted în the primary stratum of
these 29724.

2 Heb. ζαῤῥανα (nua), © τὸ περὶ τῆς ἁμαρτίας, Vg. Hostia
UA peccato.

3 ‘For this reason a second bird is ordered as a burnt offering.

4 Female victims în Siacw/e, see, e.g., Schoemann, 2 226; cp
also Nu. 19 2 Dt. 213.

τ These mitigations are not understood to apply to those sin
offerings in which a certain victim is prescribed for all.

4204

SACRIFICE

reader a sacrifice for the expiation of sir in our sense
of the word, and it is often imagined that the Jewish
sacrificial system provides and requires such expiation
for every sin. Both these notions are erroneous. ‘The
cases in which a 44/424 is prescribed fall for our appre-
hension into two classes: first, the ignorant or in-
advertent transgression of certain prohibitions (‘ taboos*
-—including some in which we see a moral character),
or unintentional failure to observe the prescriptions of
the law (Nu, 15227; from the context it is clear that
religious observances are primarily meant); second, in
purifications of various kinds, as of a woman after
childbirth, a leper, ete., or of things, such as an altar
{see below, $ 45). For the former class the general
rule in the Mishna is that any transgression the penalty
of which, if wilful, would be that the offender be cut off,
requires, if comm.tted in .gnorance or through inad-
vertence, ἃ Rattath (M. &èrithoth 12); the catalogue of
these transgressions (ἐδ, 11) ranges from incest and
idolatry to eating the (internal) fat of animals and
imitating the composition of the sacred incense, but
does not include the commonest offences against morals.
In the second class (purifications) fall the 4a/f@z4 of a
woman after childbirth (Lev. 126); of a man who has
suffered from gonorrhoea (1514 £), or a woman from
menorrhagia (1529 4); of ἃ Nazirite accidentally
defiled by the proximity of a dead body (Nu, 610/.)-—in
all these cases the victim is a dove or pigeon; of a
leper (Lev. 14107; a ewe lamb, for the poor a dove or
pigeon) ; 1 of a Nazirite at the end of his term (Nu. 614;
ewe lamb); a man defiled by contact with the carcass
of an unclean animal, etc. (Lev. 527, ewe lamb or
she goat, 7. 6

in connection with the 44/74 brief reference may be

made to certain peculiar ceremonies of similar intent and
in Effect. The most characteristic of these
ira is the old rite for the purification of the
πος leper (Lev. 141-8); a clean bird is killed
over an earthen vessel containing fresh water în such a
manner that its blood mingies with the water ; the priest
dips cedar wood, wool dyed crimson, and ‘hyssop,’
together with the living bird, into the vessel, sprinkles
the water upon the leper, and lets the living bird fly
away. The expiration of the term of the Nazirite's
vow (Nu. 613-21) is celebrated by a complete series of
sacrifices, beginning with a ewe lamb as a sin offering,
a he lamb as a burnt offering, and a ram for a peace
offering; the oblation consists of a basket of different
kinds of cakes. ‘The boiled shoulder (only here) of the
ram with a specimen of each kind of cake is ‘ waved”
before Yahwé (see $ 29 4), and then belongs to the
priest.

The Ordeal of Jealousy has been described elsewhere
(see JEALOUSY, ORDEAL OF).

The best description of the peace offering ritual is in
Lev, 3, corresponding to that of the burnt offering in 1;
see also 7 rr 7 287 22217, Nu. 1517

pitti The victim may, as the owner pleases, be
"from the flock or the herd, either male or

female, and of any age; it is required only that ii be
without blemish (sce above, $ 26), a rule that is relaxed
in the freewill offering alone. The presentation and
imposition of hands occur precisely as in the burnt
offering; but whereas ‘0/44, Zeftztk, and ἄξάνε must be
killed on the N. side of the altar, the amm may be
slain in any part of the court— obviously because at
certain seasons they were brought in such numbers that
the space on the N. of the altar, with its apparatus, did
not suffice. ‘i’heslaughter of the victim and the dashing
of the blood upon the altar, again, differ in no respect
from the corresponding acts in the burnt offering or

1 The later law; cp the οἷά purification, Lev. 1£r-8; see
below, $ 28 ὁ, LEVITICUS, ὃ 10.

© See CLEAN AND UNCLEAN, $ 16.
410 252) see also above, $ 27.

3 On the term ἐδέσνεξ»ς and its meaning see above, $ 11.

4205

On the later ritual (Lev.

SACRIFICE

the trespass offering ; the sin offering alone requires a
peculiar application of the blood. ‘The portions con-
sumed upon the altar are the fat that covers the entrails
{great omentum) and all the fat upon the entrails, the
two kidneys with the mass of fat upon them, and the
excrescence upon the liver, which is to be separated
with the kidneys; if the victim was a sheep there was
‘added to these the whole fat tail, removed close to the
os SsACcrum.

The precise meaning of the phrase 7927 9 mini, or
“ann mn (Lev. 816919) is disputed. © è λοβὸς ὁ ἐπὶ τοῦ
ἥπατος, ὁ λοβὸς τοῦ ἥπατος, Vg. reticulum jecoris, etc., EV
“the caul upon the liver.'1 According to Jewish tradition it
was not fat (75. Z/wifin 914); in the Mishna it is called yoxt,
‘finger’ ΩΣ, Tamid43); Saad. translates, siyadat al-Fabid,
an Arabic anatomical term which etymologically corresponds to
Heb. non. The question cannot be discussed here ; the view
of the present writer is that the /o6ws cawdazus is meant,

which lies close against the right kidney.
Another phrase which has been variously rendered is

©ispy nepP, Lev.89. The nsW is not the ‘coccyx,' as many
modem writers absurdly say, nor the vertebra] column, but the

os sacrum,

These parts having been removed, the carcass was
cut up, and the owner proceeded to present his offering
to God by taking upon his two hands the altar portions
and the breast and ' waving' them before Yahwé (Lev.
7295) In conformity with the example in Ex. 2924,
the priest, in later times, put his hands beneath those
of the offerer and moved them backward and forward,
up and down; the right leg was also added to the
breast (cp Lev. 921 Ex. 2927), After this ceremony the
priest salted the altar portions and burned them ; the
breast and leg went to the priests ; the rest of the flesh
made a feast for the maker of the sacrifice; women as
well as men might partake of it, if only they were ina
state of ceremonial purity (Lev. 7 19-21). {See CLEAN
AND UNCLFAN.) It might be eaten anywhere in Jeru-
salem on the day on which it was offered or the following
day before sunset; whatever remained after that time
must be burned {Lev.716-18 19 5-8). One species of
Rlamim, however, the f44k, hand to be eaten on the
day of sacrifice (see $ 296 ; also $ 394).

The increase of the tariff in 7 32 appears în the very construc-

tion of the sentence. In Dt. tlie priest receives a foreleg, the
jowl, and the stomach (tripe) ; the older stratum of priestly laws

gives him the breast (MM, στηθύνιον, pectusculum) instead (see

Ex. 29 26 Lev.7 31); this is presented to God (‘the wave breast ’)
and ceded by him to his priest. Lev.732 adds the right leg as

a tax (101) paid by the Israelites to the priest (cp Nu. 620).
The rules of Dt. and P are harmonised in the Mishna by apply-
ing the former to &w/722, the latter to ἀδαϊαῦτε (M. Hulin 101,
Siphré on Lev. dc).

The priests” portions of the W/4mziz were not subject
to the severe restrictions of the 4e#4#% and the didm;
the flesh might be eaten by the priests and their families,
including siaves, anywhere in Jerusalem. ‘The same
rule of time applies to the priests' part of the flesh as to
the offerers

The ordinary 3/4mim described in the last section
were offered either in fulfilment of a specific vow to

sacrifice such and such victims as peace
290. Thank offerings (néder),? or as a ‘freewill
ID& offering’ (médabiti—that is to say, a
sacrifice not made obligatory by the law or by the
owner's engagement (νον). These two kinds only are
named in Dt. 1217 Lev. 2217 7. Nu. 1517 Lev.
711 ff (see also 22297.) joins with these a third species
of $/amim, the fodak (AV ‘sacrifice of thanksgiving,'
‘thank offering‘; on the name, see below, begin. of next
col.), to which in some respects different rules apply.

The #44 was accompanied by a prescribed oblation
of a peculiar kind, in which, besides various kinds of
sacrificial cakes, /eavezed bread is included (see $ 30).
The flesh of the victim must be eaten on the day of the
sacrifice, ‘none of it must be left until morning’ (715,

τι 9. the history of interpretation, see Dillmana:Ryssel on
αν. 8.4.
2 The votive offering might also be an ‘9224, $ 26.

4206

SACRIFICE

2230 [H]). The cakes and bread were naturally sub-
jected to the same restriction (Z@44Z577, 362). The
limit of time is the same which is fixed in Ex, 2818 3425
for the sacrifices of Yahwè's feast (an),! and in Ex. 1210
{P) for the Passover. Itis therefore evidently an old
rule for at least some sacrifices,

Accordîng to the T'almud(Z#2/2#, 36a)the limit applied also
to the dim: and /a/f2#% the flesh of which was eaten by the

priests, and to the peace offerings of the congregation (Lev.
23 19) and the peace offering of the Nazirite (Nu. 6x7).

The offering of leavened bread, also, [5 doubtless an
old custom (see above, $ 11); the cakes of unleavened
bread seem to be an accommodation to the ordinary
rule, Lev. 2x1. There seems, therefore, to be no suffi-
cient reason for regarding the #44% as a late develop-
ment,

The name TA signifies ‘praise, thankogiving” (cp Ὁ θυσία

αἰνέσεως, Lev.T5, χαρμοσύνης 22 29, Vg. Hostia pro gratiarum
actione); its use in connection with sacrifice is old (Am.45

"in pom ἼΩΡ [note the conjunction with nédasa4), cp Jer.
172633 11), and the law în Lev. 2229 was apparently contained
in H. It was perhaps, as Jewish scholars explain, a sacrifice of
gratitude for some signal manifestation of God's goodness, such
as deliverance from a great peri. The apparent conflict in the
laws may be explained by the fact that the 70424 was regarded
by some compilers as a distinct species of sacrifice, by others as
a variety of se/amim.

To the class of the $#/@#2772 belongs also the κά σζσαλ, to
which a bookof the Mishna is devoted—i. e,, the sacrifices
made by pilgrims at the feasts, especially in the spring.
The animals thus offered furnished the flesh for the
sacrificial feasts which are so often commended in Dt.
{eg 126, τὰ δι ete.); they might be purchased with
the proceeds of the sale of the (‘second’) tithe (Dt
14247), or be taken from the cattle tithe (Lev. 27 32).
Besides the 4dgigi£ JWlamim, which were obligatory,
the Rabbis distinguish &2/m simz£44, 'joyous sacrifices,'
at the feasts, which might be either votive or freewill
offerings ; the cattle tithe might be used for these also.

The oblation (mix444) consists of flour and oil either
merely kneaded in a mass or baked or fried in cakes of

song a Various kinds. Salt is required in all,
80. Oblations.* nd a portion of frankincense accom-
panies many of these oblations; leaven, and honey,
which in other countries was commonly used in sacrifi-
cial cakes, are prohibited (Lev. 211). The mein4er is
either an independent offering—voluntary or preseribed
—or the obligatory concomitant of certairi species of
sacrifices,

The rules for the 224444 as an offering by itself are
found in Lev. 2, which corresponds to 1 (burnt offering).
and 3 (peace offering), The following varieties are
recognised :

(4) The oblation of fine wheat flour {nbb, σεμίδαλις), 3
Lev. 21-3, as a votive or freewill offering. The quantity
is for the giver to determine ; tradition fixes the minimum
at one tenth of an ephah. For each tenth of an ephah
one lig of oil is required.4 The offerer put the flour
and part of the oil into a vessel and mixed them by
stirring, transferred the mass to a liturgical vessel,
poured the rest of the oil over it, and put frankincense
on top of it." The priest carries it to the altar, takes
a handful of the mass and puts it in another vessel
with all the frankincense, ascends the altar, puts salt
upon the oblation, and places it upon the fire. The
portion thus consumed is called the azzar4à (Lev. 22,
‘reminder,’ EV ‘memorial'); the rest of the dough
goes to the priests. [1 is ‘very holy," like the sin
offering and the trespass offering, being ceded to the
priesthood from the ' offerings of Yahwè made by fire’;
it may not be leavened (Lev. 616 / [9/.]), but is baked,

1 The words ‘the Passover' in the second passage are regarded
by many as a gloss.

2 See above, $ 14.
F 3 On the preparation of the wheat, see 27. Mnah0th 65; cp

‘000, 8 1.

4 Preparation of the oil, M. MEnd4o14 83/7. ; see Ort.

δ This, it is observed, corresponds to the slaying and dressing
of a victim by the owner,

4207

SACRIFICE

and eaten by the males of priestly families within the
temple precincts.

(5) The oblation of cakes baked in the oven (man), Lev.
24 (see BAKEMEATS, BREAD) Of these the law
describes two species—unleavened cakes (422/04) mixed
with oil, and unleavened wafers (ré£74777) smeared with
oil. Both were made of fine flour; the 42//0/4 were
thicker cakes shortened with oil, the γόξεξενε thin wafer
bread mixed with water only and after baking smeared
with oil {as we should butter it). These cakes were
baked in the temple ; the offerer broke them into pieces,
put them into a liturgical vessel with the quantum of
frankincense, and brought it to the priest, who pro-
ceeded as in the former case.

(c) Baked ona griddle or fried in a pan (Lev. 257. 7.25).
Mo ΠΠῚΌ respectively. The

utensils are , ad loc., and in M. Mènahotk

68: thema/ddatk is a griddle ; the markéteti a somewhat deep
ari with a cover, in which the dough fried in its own fat; see
‘00KING, $ 7.

The four and part of the oil were put in a vessel and
mixed by stirring, the mass was kneaded with lukewarm
water, baked on the griddle or fried in the pan as the
offerer chose (or as he had vowed to do); the cakes
were then broken into pieces, the rest of the oil poured
over them (Ley. 26), and frankincense placed upon
them. The priest proceeded as in the previous cases,

An independent oblation is prescribed by the
law as the sin offering of the very poor (Lev. 51-13);
it consisted of one tenth of an ephah of fine fiour {sd/e2X),
without oil or frankincense. The priest burned a hand-
ful of it on the altar as an @z4drzA, and took the rest
for himself. A similar offering of coarse barley
meal, without oil or frankincense, is required in the
peculiar ritual of the ordeal of jealousy, Nu, 5117 (see
JeALOUSY, ORDEAL OF). ‘The oblation at the installa-
tion of priests and the daily oblation of the high priest
will be treated below under sacra publica (8 390).

The general rule for the oblation accompanying
private sacrifices is laid down in Nu.151-16. Every
victim from the flock or the herd,! offered as ‘5/44 or
sébah, whether in fulfilment of a vow, as a freewill
offering, or at the feasts, must be accompanied by an
oblation proportioned to the value of the animal :? with
a lamb or kid, one tenth of an ephah of fine flour
mixed with one fourth of a hin of oîl; with a ram, two
tenths of fiour, one third of a hiîn of oil; with neat
cattle, three tenths of four and one half a hin of oil for
each animal. The preparation and offering of the
oblation are the same as in the independent oblation of
fine flour (above, a).

The following oblations are prescribed as the accom.

paniment of certain sacrifices of purification:
(a) In the (secondary) ritual for the purification of the
lepers (Lev. 1410 f 21 7), with the animals to be
offered, are required three tenths of an ephah of fine
fiour mixed with oil and one log of oil (νυ. 10) ;. in case of
poverty the ἥσει may be reduced to one tenth, but the
quantity of oil remains the same (τ, 21). (4) The
Nazirite, on the completion of his vow (Nu. 615), has to
bring, with his three victims, a basket of unleavened bread
of both kinds which are baked in the oven (viz. cakes
mixed with oil and wafers smeared with oil; above, 4;
according to the Mishna, ten of each variety), "and
their (the victims'} oblation and libation'—i.e., as
understood by Jewish tradition, in addition to the cakes,
the oblation of fine flour and oil that according to rule
should accompany every burnt offering and peace
offering.? The purification of a woman after
childbirth required a lamb as a burnt offering (Lev. 126);
an oblation is not named in the law, but the case was
brought under the general rule of Nu. 153-s.

1 Birds are not offered on the occasions specified, and there-
fore are not mentioned in the rule.

Sin offerings and trespass offerings have no oblations. The
Mishna makes an exception of the sin offering and trespass
offering of the leper, Lev. 14 το (47, Mend4otk 98.

3 "This is perhaps only an exegetical oblation.

4208

SACRIFICE

Nu.151-16 prescribes with the oblation, and in the
same cases, a libation of wine as the obligatory accom-
‘ihati. animent of private burnt offerings
g1a. Libatione.! fg sacrifices: with a lamb or Μὰ
one fourth of a hin; with a ram, one third; with a
victim from the herd, one half. No libation is made
with any oblation offered by itself without the sacrifice
of an animal {see Lev.2 619-23 [12-16] Nu. 515); nor
with sìn offerings or trespass offerings, for the same
reason that these sacrifices have no oblation;? nor
with birds. A libation accompanies the peace offering
at the release of the Nazirite's νον (Nu. 61517); it is
net named with the burnt offering and obiation of
the cleansed leper (Lev. 1410 20), nor with that of the
puerpera (Lev.126f). In these cases also Jewish
authorities apply the rule in Nu.153/ No ritual
directions for the libation are found in the OT; see
below, $ 35.

Nothing is said in the Pentateuch about an independent
libation ; but the Mishna recognises a votive offering or
freewill offering of wine (12 Mndhothk 125, cp 18 5),
and there is other evidence that such libations were
made (cp Jubilees 7 5); the quantity is fixed at three
logs, all of which was thrown upon the fire (Zez47z
gi, cp Jubilees, Lc A votive offering or
freewill offering of vil (without four) is also recognised
by the Rabbis, though R. ‘Akiba does not allow it
(4. Zèbékim 108}; the quantity should be not less
than one log; a handful was thrown upon the fire, the
rest went to the priests for fuod.

Frankincense (see INCENSE, $ τ 1) îs a necessary
accompaniment of every private oblation (Lev. 2xf

. _ 614/. [7/.]}, except of the pauper's sin
316. Framkin- cfering of fine fiour and in the ordeal
i 8255. of jealousy ; the offering of first-fruits of
grain—roast ears, crushed corn—also requires it (Lev.
2143). The quantity was fixed : one handful for every
minhak, whether great or small. The frankincense
was put on the dough of fine flour mixed with oil, or
the broken pieces of the sacrificial cakes, in a liturgica]
vessel, and, with a handful of the dough or the cakes,
was thrown upon the fire on the great altar and con-
sumed. Fravkincense might also be given by itself as
a votive or freewill offering. Salt was used
with all sacrifices and obiations (Lev. 213, cp Ezek.
4324 Mk. 949, Jos. Anz ii. 91, Mfendbith z0a). See
below, $ 36

The custom of offering a daily burnt offering and
obiation probably originated in the roval temples of
Judah and Israel. In the ninth cen-

35. Sacra tury the burnt offering seems to have
PI ἀμὴν been in the morning and the oblation
holocazste. in the evening (above, 8 19). Ezekiel

{46:3-15) provides for both holocaust
and oblation in the morning only. The rule in Nu.
281-8 Ex. 2938-42 requires holocaust and oblation both
morning and evening, and such was the practice of
leter times (Dan.811-14). Similar sacrifices once or
twice daily were frequent in antiquity; Nebuchad-
rezzar, e.g., îs said to have offered six lambs daily;
at Hierapolis there were regular sacrifices morning
and evening, εἴς.

The technical name in Hebrew is TERI (bi, nuo), &
ὁλοκαύτωμα ἐνδελεχισμοῦ, Vg, Molocanstwm sempiternum, holo-
CQUSturn JUge.

The victims were yearling lambs, perfect males ; the
accompanying oblation for each consisted of one tentà
of an ephah of fine fiour mixed with one fourth of a

hîn of fine vil; the libation was one fourth of a hin of |

wine, The morning sacrifice was offered between dawn
and sunrise (3. 7i&mid 32); the evening sacrifice,
‘between the two evenings' (Fx. 2939; see Dar, $ 2)
—i.e, perbaps originally between sunset and dark;

t Heb. 193, (5 σπονδή.
2 They are not meant to be falckra.

4209

SACRIFICE

in the Herodian temple, however, the offering was, on
ordinary days, between three and four o'clock in the
afternoon (1 Pefazim 5:) and on the fourteenth of
Nisan even earlier, in order to give time for the slaughter
of the paschal lambs after the Tamid. The
lambs for the daily holocaust, after having been duly
examined, were kept (never less than six at a time) in a
room in the temple, set apart for this purpose, in the
NW. corner of the priests' court (MM. Middoth 16);
they had to be in readiness four days before they were
offered; a second inspection preceded the slaughter.!
No peculiarities in the ritual of these sacrifices are in-
dicated in the laws; in the Mishna the chief difference
between them and private burnt offerings (above, $ 26)
is the participation of a greater number of priests.

In addition to the proper obiation for the holocaust,
there was offered at the same time the high priest's
daily oblation of cakes (Lev. 69-23 [12-16]), made of
one tenth of an ephah of fine flour baked on a griddle,
broken in pieces, and soaked in oil. These were made
fresh every morning în a special chamber in the temple ;
one half was offered in the morning, half in the evening.

In the Herodian temple the daily burnt offering formed pert
of a complex and minutely regulated service of which only a
brief outline can be given here.

The regular duties of the temple service were distributed daily
among the members of the course of priests on duty by a method
of counting out. Four such drawings were held in succession
in the early morning; the fixst designated the priest who should
have charge of the removal of the ashes from the great altar and
the rebuilding of two fires upon it—the tbird fire was kept burn-
ing night and day. By the second drawing thirteen priests were
chosen for different specified parts in the sacrifice of the lamb
and the offering of the obiations, and for the cleansing of the altar
of incense and the lamps; the third, to which only those were
admitted who had not previonsly enjoyed the honour, deter-
mined who should burn the incense in the temple; the fourth,
who should put the parts of the victim wpon the fire. As soon
as dawn lighted up the E., a lamb was taken from the pen,
inspected by torchlight, given a drink of water, and led to the
place of slaughter on the N. side af the altar. The two priests
whose duty called them into the temple, opened the great door
of the temple, gathered into a vessel the ashes frotm the altar of
incense, and trimmed and refilled the lamps, removing the old
wicks and oil. The lamb was laid on the pavement with its.
head toward the S., its face to the W. (.e., toward the temple),
and at the sound of the opening door the sacrificing priest slew
it; a second caught the blood in a vessel, carried it to the NE.
corner of the great altar, and standing on the ground threw
some of the blood against the angle so that it spread on both
faces, repeated the ceremony at the SW. corner, and poured
out the rest of the blood at the base of the altar on the 5. side,
where it was carried off by a drain. The carcass was then
hong up, skinned, and dissected by the sacrificing priest in a
particular manner and order, and the inwards cleansed and
washed, Six priests, standing in order before him, received the
several parts of the victim as they were separated ; three others
held respectively the oblation of the burnt offering, the high
priest's oblation of cakes, and the wine for the lihation. They
now carried all these to the ramp of the altar, laid them down
in order less than half way up the siope, salted them, and
descended to the marble hall (mam npy9) for the morning
prayers. The offering of incense ot the inner altar followed, 25
described under INCENSE, $ 7. After this the priests took their
stand on the steps of the prostyle, those who were for che day
the ministers of the temple at the S. end with the vessels in
their hands. The priest to whose lot this service had fallen
carried the parts of the victim one by one np to the top of the
altar and threw them upon the great fire ; the priests upon the
steps of the temple intoned the benediction; the altar priest
offered the oblation, the high priest's sacrificial cakes, and last
of all the wine. At the moment of the libation, upon a signal
from the master of ceremonies, the cymbals clashed, two priests
gave a biast upon their trumpéts, and the chorus of Levites set
up the song of the day ; when they paused, the trumpeters blew
another blast, and all who were in the court prostrated them-
selvest—nine times in all,

The same ceremonies were repeated in the evening by the
same priestst—no fresh drawings were held—except the removal
of the ashes from the great altar and the renewing of the fires,
which took place only in the morning.

As the daily bunt offering was made for the people,
the people was represented at it ench morning and
evening by a deputation appointed for the purpose (the
ansi ha-ma'dmad, called also anse k0/-/sra' δ). There

1 On the blemishes which made them unfit, see above, $ 26.

3 M. Ta'dnith 42, Tos. Ta'dntth 42/. A similar defegation

of twelve laymen appears at the Samaritan Passover as cele-
brated in our own time; sec Petermann, Reisex, 1236.

42το

SACRIFICE

was such a delegation of the laity for each of the twenty-
four weekly courses of priests. Any members of a
deputation who were not present with their fellows in
the temple held a special synagogue service at home.
‘The age of this institution is not known ; it long out-
lived the destruction of the temple.!

In addition to the daily burnt offerings more numerous
sacrifices were made on the sabbaths and new moons,

the first of the seventh month (civil new

88. Additional year), the three season feasts, and the

fotina? Day of Atonement. Nu. 28/1, which

τς χες. the kind and number of the

victims for these occasions, is late (see NUMBERS, $

19); but the multiplication of public as well as private

sacrifices at festivals is common, and doubtless ancient
among the Israelites as well as other peoples.?

On the Sabbath the additional (22225474) sacrifice was a burnt.
offering of two yearling he lambs, with their oblation and
libation according to rule (two tenths of an ephah of fine four
with one half a hin of oil, and half a hin of wine; cp Ex. 2940
Nu. 154 etc.) The sacrificelike all the additiona! sacrifices
—was made immediately after the morning holocaust, by the
same priests, and with the same rites. The priests of the out-
going course pronounced at the proper place an additional
Benediction on those of the incoming course (M. T'4nzd 51).
For the new moon are prescribed (Nu. 28 11-15) two bullocks, a
ram, and seven yearling he lambs as burnt offerings, with the
oblation and libation demanded for each by the rule in Nu.
151-12, with the regular ritual; further, a he goat as a sin
offering for the people (below, $ 37). At the Passover, from the
firse (fifteenth of Nisan) to the seventh day of the feast inclusive,
were offered daily the same additional victims as on the new
moon (Nu. 28 19-24) ; on the second day (sixteenth of Nisan),4
besides these, one he lamb as a burn offering in connection
with the wave sheaf(Lev. 23 10-13; see below, $34 5), At Pente-
cost, the same additional offerings as on the first of the month,
the oblation from the new four (‘ the two loaves,' Lev, 23 15-21}
see $ 344), and with this bread, one bullock, two rams, and
seven he lambs as burnt offerings and a he goat as a sin offer
ing;5 finally, two he lambs as peace offerings of the people (see
below, $ 40).

The first of the seventh month, the civil new year, was cele
brated by the so-called Feast of Trumpets. Its sacrifices are,
first, the daily holocaust ; second, the oferings for the new moon ;
and'third, the sacrifices proper to the season—viz., one bullock,
one ram, and seven yearling he lambs as burnt oferings, with
their oblations, and a he goat for a sin offering (Nu. 90 1-6).
If the day was also a sabbath, the additional otims for the
sabbath were offered directly after the daily sacrifice The
order of victims in each is—bullocks, rams, lambs, goats; which
is to be noted, because by genera! rule the sin offering should
precede burnt offerings. The additional offerings of the Day of
Atonement (roth of the seventh month) are the same as those
of the New Year's day (Nu. 297-1r); the piacular sacrifices of
Lev. 16 are distinct (see below, $ 37). At Tabernacles, the
greatest feast of the year, the additional sacrifices are multiplied
prodigiously (Nu. 29127). They begin on the first day (15th)
with thirteen bullocks. two rams, and fourteen lambs as burnt
offerings, with their respective oblations and libations severally,
Ind a he goat as a sin offering. On the succeeding days the
number of bullocks diminishes by one each day, so that on the
seventh day there are seven bullocks, the other victims remain-
ing throughout the same. On the eighth day the sacrifice con
sists of one bullock, one ram, and seven he lambs as a θύτης
offering with their oblations and libations, and a he goat as a
sin offering (Nu. 2935-38). At this feast all the twenty-four
courses of priests took part, in a fixed order (47. Su£Z4à 56).
A ceremony peculiar to Tabernacles was the libation of water}
see below, $ 35.

Ex. 2530 merely prescribes that bread shall always
stand on the table before Yahwè; more particular
directions are given in Lev. 245-9

ὃ
888. Shewbread. {see LEVITICUS, $ 21). The bread
was made of fine flour, two tenths of an ephah of which
was required for each loaf. Twelve such loaves were

1 See Hamburger, RZ 2887/

2 See above, $ 21 (Ezekiel).

3 See, δι, for the Egyptians, Erman, Acgyften, 37/7; for
the Greeks, Stengel, Aulusaltertimert), 97.

4 See Now. #742176/; PASSOVER, $ τό.

5 This duplication results from taking the laws în Nu. 28 and
Lev. 28 as independent of each other; see R. ‘Akiba in πα.
hath 455. Tt is possible that the practice was not so lavish as
this exegesis ; cp R. Tarphon, Ze.

6 See above, ὃ 14. Heb. avan DID (18. 2167] Ἐκ. 2530

md, from its

arrangement on the table (1 Ch. 93228 29 Neh. 1034); TDI

Nu. 47. (δ usually ἄρτοι τῆς προθέσεως (so in NT), Vg. Panes
propositionis.

35 13 39.36), cp Babylonian a#a/ ῥανεῖ; also N

42ττ

SACRIFICE

baked and set upon the table in two piles of six each;
frankincense in golden urns stood beside them. The
bread was changed every sabbath ; the loaves that were
removed were eaten by the priests within the precincts
{ἴῃ a holy place’).

Additional details are derived from Josephus and the Mishna,1
The loaves were unleavened ; the dough was mixed with water
only—not, like other oblations, with oil. They were, as we
should infer from the quantity of flour, of considerable size;
according to the Mishna, shaped like a brick, ten handbreadths
long, five wide, and seven fingers thick. In the Chronicler's time
the loaves were made by a family of Kohathite Levites (x Ch.
932); în the first century of our eta by a family of priests named
Garmo, with whom the art was a secret.2 They were moulded
in forms, and baked in a chamber on the N. side of the temple
court, ‘The loaves were piled on two salvers, six on each. On
the sabbath four priesis of the outgoing course entered the
temple to remove the old loaves and frankincense, followed by
four of the new course, two bearing the salvers with the new
bread, and two the urns of fresh frankincense, The change was
so effected that there was no moment when there was not bread
upon the table. The last week's oblation was carried out, the
frankincense burned on the great altar (at the close of the
additional sacrifices of the sabbath), and the loaves equally
divided between the incoming and the outgoing course of
priests ; each course gave some of its loaves to the high priest.

Ex. 25 29 provides vessels for wine to stand upon the table, as
well as for the bread and the frankincense ; according to 1 Mace.
122, Antiochus Epiphanes carried off with the table its flagons
and'chalices.# It is not likely that empty cups were set before
Yahwè ; but there is no reference in the OT to the presentation
of winé with the shewbread, and neither Josephus nor the
Mishna mentions ît.4 See $ 35.

Two interesting survivals of ancient agricultural rites
are the presentation of the sheaf of barley at the Pass-

ig, Over and of the two loaves at Pentecost
840. Peculiar (Lev. 239-14 15-20; see LEVITICUS, $
+ 20). The old ἐγ (incorporated in
H) required in the case of the Passover that at the be-
ginning of harvest a first-fruit sheaf of barley should be
brought to the priest (at the local holy place), who should
wave it before Yahwè ; until this has been done the new
crop may not be used in any way—in bread, parched
corn, or grits (see above, $ 14). When this rite was
made part of the public cultus of the temple in Jerusalem
its character was greatiy changed, The reaping of the
barley (on the night preceding the sixteenth of Nisan)
became a liturgical act ; the sheaf itself was not waved,
but the grain was threshed, winnowed, cleansed,
roasted, ground, sifted, etc., in the temple precincts,
mixed with oil, like the ordinary min4dék, ‘waved,' and
burnt. The accompanying sacrifice was a yearling
lamb as a burnt offering (Lev. 2312 £).

The two leavened loaves of new wheat flour at
Pentecost ($ 14) were also originally a local offering;
in later times they were presented in the temple for the
whole people. The preparation of the fine fiour, and
the leavening and baking of the loaves, are minutely
regulated. Two yearling lambs are presented with
the loaves, waved before Yahwè, and offered as peace
offerings ($ 40). The bread does not come upon the
altar, but is eaten by the priests. The additional burnt
offerings on this day have been enumerated above
(8. 33. ᾿ ᾿

A libation of wine and an oblation accompany every
public burnt offering : the daily holocaust (Nu. 287 f

“Ν Ex. 29 401}; the additional burnt

5 i

86. Libations.® cferings ‘on sabbaths, new moons,
and festivals (Lev. 231837 Nu, 28914 2918 etc. 3339);
the lamb offered with the first sheaf (Lev. 2313); and
the bullock of burnt offering sacrificed with the sin
offering of the congregation (Nu. 1524). The manner
of offering wine is referred to only in Nu. 287: 'in the
holy place (i ἐν τῷ ἁγίῳ) offer a libation of strong

drink (πε, σίκερα) to Yahwè.

} Ant. iii. 66, 107.
ἘΜ, Poma 311; 27. Ra
etc. On the special art of balking sacrificia] calkes sce Athenseus,
Buisa,
3 Bee also Z9. drist., ed, Thackeray, 532
4 Ex. 809 prohibits a %ibation on the inner altar.
$ Sec above, $$ 14 and 314.

4212

SACRIFICE

The passage is difficult; #244» is not elsewhere prescribed for
libations ; if ‘old wine' (Tg.) or ‘unmixed wine' 15 meant it is
hard to see why the unusual term should be used (cp Winx);
equally strange is a libation in the temple itself, yet 126 words
admit no other natural explanation.

The oblation, of which the libation is a standing
accessory, was offered on the great altar, and there,
undoubtedly, the libation accompanying the burnt offer-
ings also was made. Evidence that this was the custom
is given by Sirach (50 15 [τ7.]} : the high priest ' stretched
forth his hand to the chalice and made a libation of the
blood of the grape ; he poured it out at the base of the
altar, a fragrance well pleasing to the Most High the
universal king'; so also Jos. Axé.iii94 In the same
way the rite is described by Maimonides.1 1... ez
4éòth 86 names some places where the best wine for the
temple service was produced, and forbids wine grown
‘or prepared under certain conditions. It must be pure
natural wine, not sweetened, smoked, or boiled.

One of the most striking ceremonies of the Feast of
Tabernacles was the libation of water which was made
every morning during the seven days of the feast at the
same time as the libation of wine accompanying the
morning holocaust.® ‘The water was carried up from
Siloam through the water-gate, and poured into a basin
on the top of the altar at the SW. corner, the wine
being poured into another. The bringing of the water
into the precincts was accompanied by trumpet-blasts
and loud jubilation.?

The oblation in the sacra publica was not accom-
panied, as was that of individuals (8 31 δ), by a portion

, of frankincense burned on the great altar.
86. Incense; In place of this, a costly compound in-
824% cense was burned on the small altar in
the temple at the morning and the evening sacrifice {see
INCENSE, $ 6). Urns of frankincense stood on the
table of shewbread ; the contents were removed every
sabbath and burned on the outer altar (above, $ 340).
Salt was required with all public as well as all private
offerings; even the compound incense contained salt.
Large quantities of salt were consumed in the temple ;
Josephus (4x4 xii. 33} records that Antiochus the Great
ordered 375 medimni (annually) to be delivered to the
Jews for the maintenance of the worship,4 Rock salt
{' Sodom salt ᾽) is specified in the formula for the com-
pounding of incense, and was doubtless used for other
purposes (see SALT, $ 2).

(a) Stated sin offerings at new moons and feasts.
With the additional burnt offerings (Nu. 28 £ : above,

it is ordered si

37. Publio 533) 115 ordered thai one he goat ζυγῷ)

piacula. μὲ sacrificed as a sin offering on

the new moon, on each of the seven days
of Unleavened Bread, at Pentecost,5 on the first of the
seventh month, on the tenth of the same month, on the
seven days of Tabernacles, and on the closing (eighth)
day of that festival No special rules for these sin
offerings are given in the Pentateuch; the ritual is
doubtless the same as that described in Lev. 915, cp
8-21; that is, identical with that of the private sin
offering (8. 28 @), except that there is no imposition of
hands (17. Mena4otk 97); the flesh was eaten by the
priests under the same restrictions as that of the private
sin offering. ὃ
(δ) The sin offerings of the Day of Atonement.

Nu.

1 Ma'd50 hak-Rorbîndth, 21. R. Abraham b. David, on the
contrary, holds that the wine—as at the water libation at Taber-
nacles—was poured into a basin on the top of the altar, whence
it was carried off by a drain. This difference need not much

Bri Suhk
Jer. Sukkahssh; Ta Gnith sa; N
3 For an explanation of the rite see NATURE WORSHIP, $ 4

4 Cp Ezra 69 722, Jos. Ant. xii 23.

5 The sin offering of Lev. 23 19 is thought hy most critics to
be an interpolation from Nu. 2827 7% ; the Jews, however, de.
cide that it was distinct from that. “See M. Minahotl 42; Jos.
Ant. iii 106

9 Sce Jos, Ant. [ἢ 105. This is the rule for all sin offerings
whose biood is not brought into the holy place.

135 4213

5148, cp 428, 440, 48ab;
ἢ ha-Shandh 160, etc.

SACRIFICE

291 demands, with the additional burnt offerings, a he
gpoat as a sin offering, ‘ beside the goat of atonement'—
that is, the goat chosen by lot in the special rites of the
day as a Zaftath (Lev. 165915). It was offered after
the peculiar expiatory ceremonies of the day, with the
ordinary ritual ; its flesh was eaten,

‘The profria of the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16)!
begin with the sacrifice by the high priest of a bull as a
sin offering for himself and the priesthood in general ; 3
its blood was catried by him into the ‘most holy place’
and sprinkled there in a minutely prescribed manner.
‘The sin offering of the congregation, a he goat, was
next offered, and its blood in like manner sprinkled in
the adytum. The blood of both was then applied to
the horns of the altar and sprinkled with the finger
seven times upon the altar—that is, according to the
later practice if not to the original intention of the
law, the altar of incense {Fx. 3010}; cp Lev.4718; the
rest of the blood was poured out at the base of the
great altar. The usual parts of both victims were
burned on the altar of burnt offerings ; the rest of the
flesh (cut up as for an ‘0/44), with the head, legs, in-
wards, and hide, were carried out to the place where
the ashes from the altar were emptied, and there con-
sumed by fire. The general rule is that the flesh of sin
offerings whose blood is brought into the temple must
not be eaten (Lev. 630[23], cp 4711, etc. 1627) The
attendant who thus comes in contact with the holy flesh
is unclean, and must bathe before again coming into
the city (Lev. 1628, cp Nu.195-10).

(c) Occasional sin offerings. The sin offering of the
anointed priest {Lev. 43-12) must be regarded as public,
because the premiss is that his inadvertent transgression
has brought evil consequences upon the people (42 Δ}.
The victim is a bull; the blood is taken into the holy
place, sprinkled seven times before the veil, and applied
to the horns of the altar of incense; the subsequent
procedure is the same as in the case of the high priest's
bull on the Day of Atonement. The sin offering of the
whole congregation {Lev. 413-21) for an unknown trans-
gression, the consequence» of which they suffer, ìs a
bull; the imposition of hands is by the elders; the
minister is the high priest; the ritual is the same as in
his own sin offering above. An older parallel to Lev.
413-21 is Nu, 1522-26.* The sacrifices here required
are a bull as a burnt offering, with the regular oblation
and libation, and a he goat as a sin offering. It is
assumed that the ordinary ritual is followed ; the flesh
is eaten by the priests.

(4) Sin offerings in ceremonies of consecration.£ In
the consecration of priests, Ex. 291 f (cp Lev. 817), a
bull is offered as a sin offering, with the usual ritual;
the fiesh, hide, and offal are destroyed by fire. Similarly
in the inaugural sacrifices of Aaron, Lev. 9, he sacrifices
for himself a bull-calf as a sin offering with the same
rites. The disposition of the flesh is not mentioned;
from v. 15 it may be inferred that it was burned ; but a
late passage (10 16-20} maintains that it should have been
eaten, since it did not fall under the rule of 630. At the
dedication of the Levites (Nu. 88) a bull is sacrificed as
a sin offering without specification of the ritual.

In addition to the several sin offerings of the Day of
Atonement, a goat, on whose head the sins of the people

. had been solemniy laid by the high

38. Boape BORE} priest, was sent away into the wilder-
" ness ‘to Azazel' (sce ATONEMENT,

Day or; AZAZEL). This was the great expiation for
the sins of the year (see below, $ 51). Another

1 See ATONEMENT, Day OF.

2 Inasmuch as the purification of the priest is an indispensable
pretiminary to the grand ziacu/a of the day, this sin offering îs

jere classed with the secra publica.

3 Rabbinical exegesis harmonised them by interpreting Nu,
15 22 of the sin of idolatry as the violation of ail the command-
ments. Si9kr8 loc., Haraybth 8h.

4 The consecration sin offerings are not without significance
for the theory of such fiacw/a.

4214 ῃ

SACRIFICE

peculiar rite which, though widely differing from
erdinary sacrifice, must be mentioned here, is the
burning of the red heifer, with whose ashes is prepared
a holy water that purges the uncleanness arising from
contact with a dead body (Nu. 19). The rites, as de-
seribed in the Mishna (Zer4%), are plainly assimilated
to those of a burnt offering (see CLEAN AND UNCLEAN,
$ 17; NUMBERS, $ 20). Another noteworthy
piaculum ἰδ the slaying of a heifer to atone for ἃ
murder the perpetrator of which cannot be detected
(Dt, 21 1-9).

In the directions for the consecration of Aaron and his
sons (Ex. 29, cp Lev. 8), after the sacrifice of a bull as a
sin offering (above, $ 37) and a ram as

ΝῊ a burnt offering, another ram, called the
priests. ‘installation ram* (buso Sg, Ὁ, 22) is

offered. Its blood is rubbed on the tip
of the candidate’s right ear, on his right thumb, and
his right great toe; the blood is then dashed against
the altar as in other sacrifices. ΤῸ the parts usually
burned upon the altar in the sacrifice of a sheep asa
peace offering, is added in this case the right leg, which
in a layman's sacrifice would fall to the priest. From a
basket containing loaves of bread, cakes made with oil,
and wafers smeared with oil—-all of fine fiour (cp Lev.
7117, $ 30)—one of each kind is taken and placed,
with the altar portions and the leg, on Aaron's hands,
and ‘ waved' by Moses before Yahwè. They are then
burned upon the altar. The breast of the ram, which
Moses waves before Yahwè, is his portion ; the rest of
the flesh of the ram is boiled in a holy place and, with
the remainder of the contents of the basket, eaten by
the newly consecrated priests. Any that is left till
morning must be burned; it may not be eaten after
that time. It is implied in Ex.2929/ (secondary)
that the same ceremony is to be performed whenever a
high priest is to be inducted ; cp Lev. 8337
In Ex. 2936 7, the blood of the bull offered as the
sin offering of the priests also purifies the altar (‘re-
moves its sin,' ‘expiates for it'; see
390. Comsecra- below, $ 45); cp Ezek. 4318 Thus
* the altar becomes 'very holy’; what-
soever touches it is thereby made sacred (7.e., belongs
to God). Ina stili later supplement, Ex. 30267, the
holy anointing oil is applied to the tent and all its
furniture, as well as to the priests.
Peace offerings were ordinarily private sacrifices; the
feast of the worshippers was their characteristic feature,
It is, indeed, not improbable that at
Rat esco, the high festivals the kings furnished
saera publica, animals in great numbers (as their free-
* will offerings) for the assembled people,
and Ezekiel plainly contemplates the continuance of this
custom {4517): but in P there is no recognition of
offerings of this kind. In the completed sacrificial
system there are, however, certain public or quasi
public sacrifices which fall under this head, The instal-
lation ram of the priests (Ex. 29) is plainly a peace
offering with certain peculiar rites. The inaugural
sacrifices of Aaron in Lev. 9 include an animal from
the herd (5) and a ram as peace offerings for the
people ; whether the author means it to be understood
that their flesh was eaten by representatives of the
people or by the priests is not clear. The annual
sacrifice of the two lambs offered with the two loaves of
new wheat bread at Pentecost (Lev. 2319) are public
peace offerings ;2 the flesh fell to the priests and was
very holy. With this exception the rule holds that all
public sacrifices are either burnt offerings or sin
offerings.

1 The aspersion of blood and anointing oil on the vestments of
the priest is a later addition,

2 ‘This results from transferring a local rite in which the
lambs were real $è2Z4:2 τὸ the central sanciuary ; see $$ 14
and 346.

425

SACRIFICE

IIl BELIEFS AND IDEAS

The prevailing conception of sacrifice and offering in
the OT is that of a gift or present to God. The two
generic terms σελ and Zorbdn both

MRO * caprese this idea Jinza% applies
*. equally to Caiu's gift of the fruits of

the earth and to Abel's of animals from his flock (Gen.
43-5, J). The same word is used of a gift to a fellow-
man as a token of friendship (Is. 881), an act of
homage (1 5.10.) τ K.1025), tribute to a suzerain
(Judg.3 15177 25.826), to propitiate a powerful
person who has been wronged or offended (Gen. 3213 18
3310£.), orto procure favour and assistance (Gen. 48.117
Hos.106), etc. In the later technical language of the
ritual £orddx, ‘ present,'is the comprehensive name for
sacrifice and offering of every kind. The general rule
that no man should come into the presence of God
without a gift holds in all ages; see Ex. 2315 3420 Dt.
1616, Ecclus. 354 d. Adgigak l1. Gifts to God were
made with the same variety of motive as to man.
Theophrastus names three: homage, gratitude, and
need (ἢ γὰρ διὰ τιμὴν ἢ διὰ χάριν ἢ διὰ χρείαν τῶν
ἀγαθῶν, ap. Porphyry, De abstin.224). Philo distin-
guishes sacrifices in which men pay to God the
honour due to him with no self-regarding motive from
those brought for the benefit of the offerer, either that
he may obtain good things or be delivered from evils.?

The commonest gift to God is something to eat and
drink, the flesh of the domestic animals used for food
by the Israelites, grain, fruit, oil and wine? The
phrase ‘food of God' (pb and), which occurs re-
peatedly even in comparatively late contexts (see Lev.
21681721 2225 [H], Ezek. 447 cp 1619; also Lev. 81:
16 Nu, 282 24), shows to what end such offerings were
made; cp Dt.8238:; the gods whom the Israelites
worshipped ‘ eat the fat of their sacrifices and drink the
wine of their libations'; see also the protest of Ps. 5013.
Doubtless those who first used the phrase ‘food of
God' meant it quite literally (see the end of the third
tablet of the Babylonian Cosmogonic Epic), though
observation and reflection may have early led men to
draw the distinction which modern peoples in low
planes of culture often make between the visible things
offered and their subile essence or ‘soul’ which the
deity extracts for his enjoyment—a conception as
literal, though not so crass, as the other. ‘The mode
of presentation varies. The shewbread (originaliy ac-
companied, doubtless, by wine; see above, $ 340) was
kept standing continualiy on a table in the house of
Yahwè (1 S.216 Ex. 2530 Lev. 24 5.9}; in animal
sacrifices certain parts—in the holocaust all the fiesh—
of the victim were consumed by fire upou the altar, as
were also sacrificial cakes of various kinds and unbaked
dough ; other offerings, as the firstfruits, were set down
before the altar with a dedicatory formula (Dt. 264-10),
or ‘waved'; thatis, with one of those fictions so common
în ritual, in make-believe thrown upon the fire.

"The custom of burning the offerings to God upon
a sacrificial fire seems to have been adopted by the
Israelites after their settlement in Canaan, from the older
inhabitants (see above, $ 12), probably without much
inquiry or reflection about the significance of the new
mode or the reason for it. The verb which is commonly
used, however (4/77, see above, $ 11), implies that the
object was not so much to consume by fire as to make a
savoury smoke {see INcENSE, $ 1 and n. 1), In this
fragrant smoke, as it arises, the finer essence of the
gift, etherealised, is conveyed to the deity.£ This is

αἱ see above, $$ 11, 24. Cpalso in NT, Mt. 523/84 38:8.
por),
2 De wict. offer. 8 4,2240 Mangey. On the relation of
Philo's analysis to Theophrastus, see Bermays, 82,7 1037

8 Dotations and votive offerings to temples which do not fall
under the definition of sactifice are not considered in this article.
See Vorive OFFERINGS.

4 Cp 2 1317, εἰς, Porphyry explains the burning as an
ἀπαθανατίζειν (De abstin.2 5),

4216

SACRIFICE

manifestly an advance upon the setting before God of
food and drink just as the worshippers use them.

The offering by fire (54, nz/4) produces a ‘soothing—that is,
an agreeable — odour’ (224% nz44%%, ni ΠΡ, Gen. 82r, J;
often în che ritual laws). Yahwè ‘smells’ this odour, and is
appeased or gratified by it (Gen, 8215.2619); when he is
angry he will not enjoy the smell of ît, that îs, he rejects the
sactifice (Lev. 3631 Am.521), The burning of aromatic gums
and spices is a later refinement {see INCENSE, $ 3); the ideas
which prompt it are the same.ì

AIl common private sacrifices (26404, 2lamim, tW0d4k),
whether obligatory or voluntary, were accompanied by
a feast, in which the offerer participated
with his family, neighbours, and guests. ἢ
Since these feasts were held ‘before
Yahwé,' at the holy place, after God had received his
portion, it is a natural surmise that a meal in which
God and men join is an essential feature of ordinary
sacrifice, and that the hospitality of table communion is
a pledge and bond of friendship between God and his
worshippers as it is among men, a bond closer than
that which is established by the acceptance of a gift. It
must be admitied, however, that this conception of the
nature and efficacy of sacrifice is nowhere distinctly
expressed in the OT, and it is difficuit to say how
clearly it was present in the consciousness of Israelite
worshippers.® Much less do our sources throw any
light upon the origin of such a conception. The
scholars who contend that the sacrificial meal was
primitively not a mere hospitable fellowship but sacra»
mental communion in the divine life of a totem animal,
do not maintain that the Israelites in OT times regarded
their sacrifices in any such way; the most that would
be claimed is that certain survivals in the cultus and
superstitions without it point to this as the original
character and significance of the sacriticial feast.

It is clear, however, that whether the feast at the
sanetuary was conceived of as a table-companionship of
God and men or not, it must actually have strengthened
the bond of religion by the sense of God's presence and
friendliness.

Our investigation in the first part of this article of the
history of Israelite sacrifices and of the ritual has shown

that from first to last the utmost im-
43. Blood portance attaches to the disposition of
the victim’s blood. Indeed, it may be
said that this is the one universal and indispensable
constituent of sacrifice. When Saul's victorious followers
rushed upon the spoil of the Philistines and began to
slay cattle and eat them, the king had a great stone
rolled up, and commanded that they should slaughter
there, and not sin against Yahwè by eating ‘with the
blood,’ that is the flesh of animals whose blood had not
been poured out at a sacrificial stone or altar (1 S.
1432-34); cp Lev.1737 (see LEviriIcUS, 8 15) We
have seen that in Arab sacrifice also the pouring of the
blood upon the sacred stone or anointing of it with
blood was the essential rite. This use of sacrificial
blood is older than the offering of part of the victim by
fire, and is the necessary antecedent of the feast, its
religious consecration. ‘The offering or application of
the blood cannot very well be regarded asa gift to God,
or as a mere incident în the preparation for a com-
munion meal. It is, indeed, plain in the OT itself that
the ideas and beliefs that are connected with the use of
sacrificial blood belong to a different and a more primi-
tive circle of ideas.

In the application of blood to the doorposts and
lintels of a house to prevent ‘the DESTROYER” (g.v.)
from entering to slay the inmates (see above, $ 7) we have
an instance of the belief that the blood of a victim serves
as a protection against disease and death ; that is, in

42. Sacrificial
feasta.

1 Cp the Rabylonian Flood Tablet, £ 1607

2 See above, $ στ, The flesh of the trespass offering and of
all'ordinary sin offerings fumished a banquet for the priests.

3 The idea of communion in sacrifice with the deity is ex-
pounded by Paul, x Cor. 10 18-21.

4217

SACRIFICE

primitive apprehension, against the spirits which cause
these evils. ΤῸ the same end the modern Arab rubs
the blood of a sacrifice upon his tent-ropes, or smears
it upon his camels {(Doughty, Ar. Des. 1499). It is
said that in an outbreak of cholera at Hamath in 1875
Christians procured blood from the slaughter-house and
made with it a cross on the door of every room in their
houses (Curtiss, Primzitive Semitic Religion To-day,
197 f., cp 181, 189}. With the same motive sacri-
ficial blood is applied to sick persons or animals—the
same power which averts evil can expel it. The use of
blood in ‘purifications’ is similar. The leper whom
the priest's inspection proves to be free from the
disease is sprinkled with water mingled with the blood
of a bird,1 while another bird after being dipped in the
bloody water is allowed to fly away.? In the later rite
blood is applied to the man's ear, hand, and foot. It is
not improbable that in other purifications the blood was
primitively applied to the person to be cleansed, rather
than to the altar only, as în the actual ritual of the
‘sin offering.' ‘The efficacy of blood in removing un-
cleanness is exemplified also in ceremonies of dedication
for the temple or altar, and for their periodica! purifica-
tion from accidental and unknown defilement, as well
as in the consecration of priests;3 the removal of
‘uncleanness' and the establishment or restoration of
‘ holiness” are effected by the same means,

Different from these uses of blood as a means of
averting or removing disease and defilement is the dis-
position made of it in ordinary sacrifice, where it is
poured, splashed, or smeared upon the sacrificial stone
(z:assebah, altar).4 The significance of this rite seems
to be that by it the sacrifice is not only brought im-
mediately to the attention of the deity to whom it is
offered, but—at least in earlier conception—physically
conveyed to him; in Arab sacrifice nothing else is
made his, Covenant ceremonies like that in Ex. 244-8,
in which the blood is applied both to the altar and to
the people—that is, to the two contracting parties, as
in blood covenants between men—are also to be noted.
The profane use of blood is stringentiy prohibited ; to
taste blood, or flesh with blood in it, is one of the worst
and most dangerous things a man can do. Domestic
animals were in old times slaughtered at the sacrificial
stone and the blood poured out there; after the
abolition of the high places it must be allowed to drain
into the ground, as that of beasts killed in bunting had
previously been. The blood of some species of sacrifice
made taboo everything it touched.

‘The common root of these diverse uses and restric-
tions îs the almost universal belief that blood is a fluid
in which inheres mysterious potency, no less dangerous
when misused than efficacious when properly employed.
In the outpouring of the blood at the sacrificial stone
we may perhaps recognise the feeling that this is the
safest disposition of it, as well as the belief of a some-
what more developed theology that it belongs to the
deity of right. ‘What makes the blood so powerful for
goodor ill is that the lifeis in it; the theory of Lev. 171r
is based on a fact of the simplest observation.

Many of the practices that have been noted above
manifestly originated in an animistic nature religion, in
which alone they have meaning. In the national
religion of Israel they become part of the worship of
Yahwè or of the custom of the people under his
sanction. This connection logically involves a change
of apprehension : the rites are not efficacious by the
inherent potency of the blood or the virtue of the

1 Cp the ‘water of uncleanness’ contaîning the ashes of the
red heifer in purification from contact with death.

2 Cp the Arab custom of release from widowhood, 7747,
v. 70187; Wellh. Hei2.02, 171} WRS Red. δεν. 9), 422.

8 That this ceremony was felt to be a purification is shown by
the imitation of it in the late rite for the cleansing of the leper,
Lev. 1414/72

4 Curtiss, 07. cif. ch. 15, has collected many modern Înstances
in which the blood of a victim is smeared on the portal of a
shrine, which takes the place of the old sacred stone.

4218

SACRIFICE

operation, but as the means which God has appointed.!
‘The more positive the conception of religion becomes,
the less motive there is to seek any other explanation
of such practices than that God has commanded them.
If, finally, the irrationality of such ceremonies comes to
be felt, and their incongruity with spiritual religion,
allegory and symbolism will find some profound signifi-
cance in them. Yet the ignorant multitude will doubt-
less continue to have faith in the virtue of the ceremony
itself, and to understand better than their teachers its
true import, because the old animism is still a reality to
them,

A corresponding change is wrought în the conception
of ‘uncleanness.' Whereas originally it was a physical
thing whose evil was in itself, it becomes in the national
religion a pollution offensive to Yahwè; it is incom-
patible with his holiness and the holiness which he
demands of all that approach him ; its consequences
are not only natural but penal; it requires to be not
merely purged but expiated. Uncleanness is in this light
a moral wrong, and involves guilt. On the other hand,
a not inconsiderable class of what we regard as moral
offences were included in the category of taboos requir-
ing purifications. We have difficulty in realising that
guilt was believed to have the same physically con-
tagious quality as uncleanness—one man who had
touched ἀόγενε (n°n) could infect and bring defeat upon
a whole army {Josh. 7). Almost equally strange to us
is the notion that guilt, like uncleanness, can be con-
tracted without knowledge and intention; and that the
first intimation a man may have that he has offended
God is that he suffers the consequences {d}zw}, with
its converse, that misfortune is the evidence that
he has offended without knowing how. These are
things, however, which must be kept in mind if we
are to understand the piacular aspecis of Israelite
sacrifices.

A man who has offended God may seek to propitiate
him by a gift, as he might an earthly ruler; so David
44. Propitiation in the time of plague offers burat
‘and erpiation, Offerings in the threshing ficor οἱ

Araunah (2 5. 2418-25), More fre-
quently, perhaps, he made a vow that if God's anger
‘under which he was suffering were withdrawn, he would
make him a specified sacrifice, either holocaust or peace
‘offering, or both together, with such and such victims,
This was probably în all periods the most numerous
class of votive offerings. ‘The same means by which
man in prosperity sought the continuance and increase
of God's favour were employed to recover it when in
any way it had been lost.

The special giace called sin offerings have a very limited
range of employment (sce above, $ 282), They are prescribed
chiefiy for unintentional ceremonial faults or as purifications ;
the trespass offering îs even more narrowly restricted (above,
$ 27). The great expiation for the whole people, in later times
at least, was the scape-goat ; not any form of sactifice.

Sacrifices offered to propitiate the offended deity
require no peculiar rites ; the outpouring of the blood,
the burning of the fat or of the holocaust, are precisely
the same as when these species of sacrifice are made,
say, in gratitude for the signal goodness of God. The
blood of the sin offering is smeared upon the homns of
the altar instead of being splashed against its corners; but
whatever the origin of this difference may 6,3 we may,
in view of the whole character of the 4e#4f4, confidently
affirm that it is not a purposed heightening of th
application. .

In the discussion of Hebrew ideas concerning the

1 The constant tendency is to assimilate ceremonies of pro-
tection or purification to the ritual of sacrifice to God.

3 Neither sin offering nor trespass offering could be vowed.

3 If a conjecture may be allowed, we may surmise that the
presence of the polluted man requires a purification of the altar ;
or that the blood which in the primitive rite was applied to the
person of the man to be cleansed has in the cult been transferred
to the altar.

4319

SACRIFICE

effect and operation of sacrifice the meaning of the
erb ki; ith i

45. Effect of e per vii ns cognate piords and

Sacrifice: SYmonyms has filled a large place ; and,

terms * by a fault of method which has been

n fruitful of error in the study of the OT,

the investigation has frequently set out from etymological
assumptions instead of from the plain facts of usage.

Xépher, a word of jural associations, is the means—payment,
gift, bribe—by which a man buys himself off from the con-
sequences of his deed : see Ex. 21 30 (=a ransom for his life),
Nu. 3531-33 Prov. 635 138 Job 8324 Am.512 15.123 (bribe;
cp Is. 4711); Ex.8012 (head money). The verb ἄῤῥεν (de-
nominative use of the intensive stem) means to make satisfaction
by such means; see especially 2 5.213 Gen, 3220 [51]. Since
the object is to avert the consequences of misdoing, the verb
often gignifies to seek or procure remission, without regard to a
material satisfaction, to propitiate; thus Ex.3230 (Moses’ in:
tercession with God for forgiveness of the people's sin), cp 2 Ch.
5018. The passives regularly mean ‘be forgiven,' e.g*, 15. 2214
18.314 Dt.218; and conversely the active, frequently, ‘ for-
give,” e.g., Ezek. 1663 Jer.1823. With these senses and uses
în common life and religion the uses which we should call
specifically ritual connect themselves. Offences against God
are not confined to moral wrong-doing ; the infringement——even
unwitting—of ceremonial rules or of the many laws concern
ing ‘uncleanness’ may have dire consequences unless expiated.
‘The defilement may be contracted by things 23 well as by persons,
and these also require to be purged in a similar way; in che
consecration of a new altar it is necessary to * remove its sin," to
‘expiate’ (419967) the altar (Ezek. 48 20 26);1 the semi-annual
purification of the temple is a removal of the sin of the sanctuary,
an expiation of the house (Ezek. 45 20); cp Ex. 29367 Lev. 813
16 16 24. The sacrifices or rites, of whatever nature, by which
te consequences of unwitting or inadvertent invasion of the
sphere of ‘ holiness' are nullified areexpiatory, and the verb #/45e7
is the technical term for their effect. Other verbs are frequently
joined with it, especially £iffà, KEN (privative), ‘remove sin'
(of things), fifa», 195, ‘make pure or clean' (of things and
persons), £i442%, Wp, ‘ make holy, which is the positive counter
part of the preceding terms.

The word Ζέῤῥεν' is not so common in old ἐδγῦέᾷ as might be
expected, It occurs with especial frequency in the old laws for
the trespass offering în Lev. 5 and the supplements to them, the
usnal formula, standing after the directions for the sacrifice,
being, ‘and the priest shall make propitiation (255) în his behalf
(by), and he shall be forgiven' (see Lev. 5 ὁ τοῦ 13 16 18 87 [5 26]
#7 1922 Νὰ. 68); also in the purification of the leper (Lev. 14
16-20, cp 29 31 53), the Nazirite defiled by death (Nu. 6 ir),
purification after childbirth, gonorrhea, menorrhagia (Lev.
127 151530); further, in the sin offering of the congregation
or an individual for an inadvertent omission (Nu. 152528, cp
Lev. 4202631 35), and în the several strata of the ritual of the
Day of Atonement (Lev. 16). In most of these passages, where
the priest is subject, 479467 (ἐξιλάσκομαι), ‘ make propitiation,”
mighe equally well be translated, ‘make intercession,’ as in Vg.
(orare, rogare, derecari, etc.), by Saadia (istaghfara, ‘bescech
forgiveness), and others.

The propitiatory or expiatory effect of sacrifice is not
restricted to any particular species or class, though
specific offences have prescribed piccu/a, not only
trespass offerings and sin offerings, but also the private
burnt offering (Lev. 14), and even peace offerings and
oblations ‘atone’; the whole public cultus is a means
of propitiating God and obtaining remission for sin and
uncleanness {Ezek. 4515 17), Nor is the operation of
propitiatory sacrifice centred exclusively, as has often
been contended, in one part of the ritual, the shedding
and application of the victim's blood: it is only in
certain peculiar purifications that this is really the case ;
elsewhere the very formulation of the laws shows that
the whole ceremony has atoning value (see, e.g., Lev.
426 31 35 510 13, ete.), The sin offering of the pauper,
which is only a little meal, is-as effectual as the bloody
sacrifices of his more prosperous fellows.

The term #59e» is used in relation to other than
sacrificial expiations ; thus when a plague broke out,
Aaron went among the people with a censer of burning
incense, and made expiation for the people {pya 3y non),
and the plague was stayed (Nu. 1646} [171 £]); the
slaughter of a guilty man by Phinehas made expiation
for the Israelites (Nu. 2513) ; murder profanes the land,
no blood-wite (404e7) shall be taken for it, ‘the blood
which has been shed shall not be expiated save by the
blood of him that shed it' (Nu. 35327); an offering of

1 Cp capiandum forum Romanum, Cic. Phil.i12.30.
4220

SACRIFICE

jewelry from the spoils of war serves ‘to make expiation
for our lives' (Nu, 3150) ; cp also Nu. 819 Lev. 1016 7:
1418 7 1610.

Whether the primary meaning of the root «55 in
Hebrew was ‘cover up, as in Arabic, or ‘wipe, wipe
off,’ as in Syriac, we need not here inquire, inasmuch
as it is not used in the OT in a physical sense at all, or
with any reminiscent consciousness of such a sense. It
is of more moment that the same verb is used in Assyrian
of ritual purifications or expiations for persons and
things, performed by the a%z-priest.! Cp RITUAL,
88

On Zappdretà, see MERCY SEAT.

One passage only seems to contain a more explicit
theory of expiation by blood. Lev. 1711 (Rp) gives as
a motive for the oft-repeated prohibition

1, ΠΆΘΟΣ of eating blood : For the life of ihe body
atonement, is in the blood, and 1 have given it to

you to use upon the altar to make ex-
piation for yourselves ; for the blood makes expiation
by virtue of the life [in 113 cp v. 14. That the life or
soul of the animal is in the blood, or, shortly said, the
blood ἐς the soul (cp Gen. 94 Dt. 1223 Lev. 17 14), gives
it the mysterious potency which is the ground both of
the prohibition and of the piacular efficacy of blood (see
above, $ 43). The author of Lev. 171 merely says
explicitly what is implied in the use of blood in rites
of purification and expiation ; it is not as a fluid like
water or oil or wine that it is efficacious, but by virtue
of its inherent life. This beginning of refiection on
the operation of sacrifice is interesting because it is re-
fiection ; it also truly expresses the conception which
underlies the rites. We should err, however, if we
sought in it the profounder idea of the substitution of
the victim's life for the sinner's which is suggested by
the Greek translation, τὸ γὰρ αἷμα αὐτοῦ ἀντὶ τῆς ψυχῆς
ἐξιλάσεται, or perhaps even that the offering of ἃ ἐξ to
God is the essential thing in sacrifice.4
There is no doubt that the Israelites in all ages firmly
believed in the efficaciousness of sacrifice to preserve
and restore the favour of Yahwéè. In
#7. Eficney ΘΓ times of prosperity they acknowledged
lar belief. his goodness and besought its con-
popu * tinnance by sacrifice; in times of
distress they multiplied sacrifices to appease him and
make him again propitious. ‘The worship of God by
sacrifice and offering was, indeed, the centra! thing in
their religion, we might almost say τοῖς their religion.
Its rites, as they had been received from their fore-
fathers, they believed—long before the age of the written
law books—to have been ordained and sanctioned by
Yahwè himself; the experience of generations had
shown that he honoured the faithful observance of
them; how should they not have confidence in them?
That this confidence was often the sincere and earnest
faith of godfearing men is beyond question; but bad
men also confided in sacrifice as an effective means of
placating God, and persuading him to wink at their
unrighteous deeds, just as a gift might serve to turn
aside the anger of a king, or to corrupt a judge. Ti
confidence in the efficacy of sacrifice involved an im-
moral idea of God and of religion; it was, indeed, the
very stronghold of these false conceptions. Against it,
therefore, the prophets direct their attack.
The prophets of the eighth century not only denonnce
the abuses and corruptions of the worship at the temples
48, The ANd high placestthe drunken revelry, the
phets. consecrated prostitution, the greed of the
prop “ priests and their perversion of the toràh ;
they deny the efficacy of sacrifice altogether. What
1 See Zimmera, Beitr. 2292; Haupt, 722, 1961 do (1900).
3 So ya is probably to be taken, not ‘instead of’ (®
γέ: εἰς. A A
See above, $ 43. It may be recalled that in the temple pains
were taken, by stirring it, to keep the blood from, coagulating

before it vas brought to the altar. ᾿
4 No such theory appears in later Jewish thought.

4221

SACRIFICE

God requires of men is not gifts and offerings but faith.
fulness and obedience, not cult but conduet. This
was the necessary consequence of their idea of God and
of religion. Yahwè is a righteous God; that is to say,
his character is perfectly moral ; being such, by his very
nature he demands righteousness of his people, and can
accept nothing in lieu of it The sphere of righteous-
ness is not rituali and ceremonial but social and political ;
it means truth, integrity, justice, goodness to fellow-men,
in all the relations of life. The demand of righteous-
ness is not something aside from religion, is not a minor
part of religion ; it is its fundamental law, its sum and
substance. The sacrifices of unrighteous men are an
insult to God, because they imply that he is like them-
selves. They deceive themselves fatally when they
think that they can buy his favour or his forgiveness.
And where there is the character in which he delights,
there is the pure religion and undefiled which has no
need of sacrifice. The utterances of the prophets are
too familiar to need more than the briefest reference
here; see Am. 44 5er 7 Hos. 4813 56 8x1 7 143f.
15. 11 f 22x2f 287£ Jer. 620 71 75, ete.

The substance of the prophetic conception of religion is
summed up for all time în Mic. 66-8: Wherewith shall I approach
Yahwè; bow to the exalted God? Shali I approach him with
bumt dfferinge and vearling calvesì Will Vahwè accept
thousands of rams, myriad streams of oil? Shall I give my
firstborn for my transgression, the child of my body for my own
sin? He has told thee, Oman; what is good, and what doth
Yahwé seek of thee, save to practise justice and to love charity
and to walk in humility with thy God?

It is not probabile that the prophets distinctly enter-
tained the ideal of a religion without a cultus—a purely
spiritual worship; sacrifice may well have seemed τὸ
them the natural expression of homage and gratitude.
But they denied with all possible emphasis that it had
any value to God or any efficacy with him ; he had not
appointed it; his law was concerned with quite different
things (Jer. 722.5).

The deuteronomie reform attempted to cut off the
abuses of the worship at the high places against which
the prophets had inveighed by suppressing the high
places themselves ; and made by consequence consider.
able changes in the ol customs, the most serious of
which was that which permitted domestic animals to
be slaughtered for food without any sacrificial rites ;
but, so far from detracting from the religious im-
portance of sacrifice, Dt, greatly enhanced it by incor-
porating îts ordinances in a law book of professedly
Mosaie origin, divine sanction, and national authority.
Ezekiel lays out a detailed plan for the sacrificial cultus
of the restoration; Haggai and Zechariah zealously
urge the rebuilding of the temple, in the conviction that
the prosperity of the community depends upon it. The
collections of /òròtk made or edited in the sixth and
following centuries are largely occupied with ritual
prescriptions.

It is manifest that in the Persian and Greek periods
sacrifice held both in the actual worshìp and in the
estimation of the people the same place

49, dergian in religion that it bad had under the
βοήσει, kings; see, e.g., Mal 177 33/87

Joel1913 214 Dan. 811,
1211 Ecclus. 50117 1 Macc. 442 f, εἴς,

In the Psalms the religious spirit of sacrifice finds
frequent and pious expression ; e.g., 266 f 276 6613-15
10722. The teaching of the prophets was, however,
not forgotten: God has no delight în sacrifice and
offering; what he requires is to do his will with delight
and have his law în the heart, etc. (Ps. 4067}; the
fault God fincls with Israel is not about their sacrifices
and continual burnt offerings; how absurd to imagine
that he to whom belongs the world and all that is therein
needs their beasts, or that he eats the flesh of bulls and
drinks the blood of goats! (Ps. 507 7:); he desires not
sacrifice, nor is he pleased with burnt offering; the
sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, a broken and

4222

cp 113:

SACRIFICE

contrite heart God does not spurn—repentance, not
expiation (Ps. 51:6f,cp7/). ‘The Proverbs teach that
to practise uprightness and justice is preferred by God
to sacrifice {Prov.213; cp 15.1522); the sacrifice of
wicked men is the abomination of Yahwè, but the
prayer of the upright is well-pleasing to him (Prov. 158,
cp 2127; see also 166).

The teachings of the wise concerning sacrifice in the
second century B.C. are well illustrated by Jesus son of
50, Sirach; Sirach. die describes switch enthusiasm

Philo. ᾿ the splendour of the temple service when

the high: priest Simon offers sacrifice

(50:17), and evidently has much interest in priesthood

and cultus {cp 731 45147). But his religious estimate
of sacrifice is thoroughly ethical.

The long passage, 3412-35 [3121-32], is of high importance
throughout. The sacrifices of the wicked are a mockery of
God; he will not accept them, nor forgive men's sins for the
multitude of their sacrifices (8419); it îs vain to try to bribe
God by offerings (cp /udz/ees5 16), for he will not accept them,
or to τοῖν on an unrighteous sacrifice, for the Lord is an
impartial judge (85 12/4); offerings made of goods wrung by
extortion from the poor are like murder (34 20-22, cp 18), A
man who fasts for his sins and then repents them is as one who,
after performing his ablution to cleanse him from contact with a
dead body, goes and touches it again; who will hear his prayer,
or what profit is there in his humiliation? (34257). Obedience
to God and love to men take the place of sacrifice; he who
observes the law makes many offerings ; he who gives heed to
the commandments sacrifices a peace offering. He who shows
kindness offers fine flour ; and he that practises charity sacrifices
a thank-offering.1 The acceptance of God is secured by avoid-
ing wickedness, and forgiveness by abstaining from unrighteous-
ness (851 /.). Literal sacrifices are to be Brought when men
visit the temple, because they are enjoined by the command-
ment (τυ. 5), not because they have a moral or religious value in
themselves. But the character and disposition of the worshipper
is still the essential thing (8/7). The same lessons are
emphasised elsewhere in te book; see, e.g., 78,7

For a representative of Hellenistic Judaism we turn
to Philo. It must suffice to quote a single passage.

There are those who think that slaughtering bulls is religious:
ness, and who set apart for sacrifice—inexpiable sinners that
they are! portion of what they have got by theft or breach
of trust or robbery, in order to escape punishment for their
misdeeds. ‘fo such I would say : The tribuna! of God is incor-
ruptible ; chose who have a guilty conscience he turns away
from, even if they offer a hundred bulls every day; but the
blameless, even if they bring no sacrifice at all, he reccives,
For God delights in fireless altars surrounded by the chorus of
virtues, not in altars blazing with a great fire that the impious
sacrifices of unhallowed men (ἀνιέρων ἄθυτοι θυσίαι) have set
aflame, which do but remind him of che ignorance and deep
guilt of each who so offers (De A/antar. Noe, ii. $ 25, 1345
Mangey). See also Zi4 Mos. ili, $ 10, 2151; and on the
character of the worshipper, especially De mich. ἢ 5, 2241; De
sacrificantibus, 81; De merc. meretr. & τ, 2264 /, Frag.
34, εἴς.

The superiority of uprightness and goodness to sacri.
fice is not infrequently emphasised by Palestinian
51. Schools of rabbis ; Hos. 66 ( I desire merey and
law: efficacy not sacrifice,’ cp Mt. 913 127) Die

of sacrifice Mie. 68 Prov. 213 are quoted in proof.

" That God has regard, not to the
magnitude and costliness of the offering but to the spirit
of the worshipper, is authoritatively declared.

Without dwelling longer on this aspect of their teach-
ing, we pass directly to the inquiry, What was taught
in Palestinian schools of the first and second Christian
centuries, or defined by their authority concerning —
a, the efficacy of sacrifice or of particular sacrifices ; 5,
the religious and moral conditions of their efficacy ($
52); and <, the mode of their operation ($ 53)?

{«) The effect of sacrifice is expressed; as in the
Pentatench, by the verb 4zpper (see above, 8 45),
‘make propitiation, expiation' ; in translating passages
in which it occurs we shall render as consistently as
possible ‘atone.’ ‘The general principle is that all
private sacrifices atone, except peace offerings (including
thank offerings), with which no confession of sin is
made. Sin offerings and prescribed trespass offerings
‘atone in the specific cases for which they are appointed

1 Cp the saying of Simon the Just, σελ, 12. .

2 In the ‘world to come’ the thank offering (79444) will be
the only species of sacrifice; 7 σροληρε, Emor, 14.

4223

SACRIFICE

! in the law ; for what kinds of offence the burnt offering

atones {Lev.14) is discussed in Tos. 47224044 10r2.!
In the OT all secra peblica are sometimes regarded as
atoning (propitiatory) ; so Ezek. 451517 (above, $ 45).
Piacular value attached, however, especially to the sin
offerings—-goats—at the new moons and feasts, and
on the Day of Atonement (see above, $ 37). In AZ.
δαδδη δέλ.] 2:5 the things for which these sacrifices
respectively atoned are classified. It would be profitless
to enumerate them here ; it must suffice to say that they
are without exception cases of ignorant or unwitting
intrusion of the ‘unclean' into the sphere of ‘ holiness,'
as when a man ceremonially unclean, in ignorance of
the fact, enters the precincts of the temple, or eats
‘holy’ food without knowing that he was unclean or
that the food was holy, and the like (by 435 wa 155
renprenpo nano, 27. 54%. 14 end, cp 1 send) Even
the special sin offering of the Day of Atonement, whose
blood is brought into the adytum of the temple, atones
for the same kind of offences, but for such as were
committed presumptuously ; cp Lev. 1616. with ©. 19.
‘For the rest of the transgressions defined in the law,
venial or heinous, presumptuous or inadvertent, con-
scious or unconscious, of omission or commission,
including sins the penalty of which is excision from the
people [by God] or death by the sentence of a court,
the scapegoat atones' {5. 16, end). This is the
authoritative statement, based upon Lev. 162: Αὶ
Another authoritative formulation' of the doctrine of
sacrifice is found in 17. Yòmd88 f.: Sin offering and
prescribed trespass offering atone ;? death and the Day
of Atonement atone if accompanied by repentance;
repentance (by itself) atones for venial sins whether of
‘omission or of commission, and in the case of heinous
sins it suspends the punishment till the Day of Atone-
ment comes around and atones. (9) If a man says,
“I will sin and repent over and over again,’ no oppor-
tunity of effectual repentance is given him ; if he says,
*I will sin and the Day of Atonement will atone,’ the
Day of Atonement does not atone for him. Trans-
gressions which are between a man and God, the Day of
Atonement atones ; .transgressions that are between a
man and his fellows, the Day of Atonement does not
atone until he has propitiated the injured party (cp Jen.
Vama, 395, ed. Sitomir).

Somewhat fuller, and fortified by biblical proof texts, îs the
teaching of R. Ishmael concerning four kinds of sins and their
atonement, which, in slightly varying forms, is repeated in
many places, and may be tegarded ‘as containing the generally
accepted doctrine; see Tos. Vom Kipparim 56 [46]; Voma
864; Jer. Voma 4563 Jer. Shébatoth 336; Jer. Sankedrin
2765 Mekilta, Vithro, 8.7 δα, Weiss), εἰς. Ishmael recognises
the iastisements of God ss expiating sin în whole or in part;
see below, $ 52,

(δ) The Mishna and R. Ishmael include repentance
among the things which obtain the remission of sins,

and bring us naturally to the question

52 Mora] and Shethen, in general, repentance ie τος

Te lgl0us . quisite to the efficacy of piacular sacri-

conditione hai fices, or whether they expiate sin ex

atonement. ρον operato, without regarà to the
penitence of the subject.

The latter theory was held by some eminent authorities,
among them, if he be rightly understood, by R. Judah
the patriarch, who maintained that the great expiation
of the Day of Atonement {the scapegoat) atoned for
the sins of ail Israelites who had not deliberately put
themselves outside its effects by breaking with the
religion of their people,3 independently of anything în
the conduct or disposition of man himself, a view which
might find support in a literal interpretation of Lev.
1622. In/er. Voma87, where this utterance of Rabbi
is recorded, it is asked with surprise whether he can
have meant that repentance is not essential, and it is

1 See also Jer. Targ. on Ley. 69.

2 They expiate certain specified offences.

3 By atheism, the effacing οὐ circumcision, irreverent liberties
in the interpretation of the la

4224

SACRIFICE

explained that he held that in this respect the Day of
Atonement was like death, of which also he taught—
contrary to the general opinion—that it expiates sin
even without repentance.! The prevailing view, how.
ever, was that repentance is the conditio sine gua non
of expiation and the forgiveness οἵ sins, as is laid down
in the Mishna quoted above (.17. Yomd 88), and even
more sweepingly in 7os. Vom Aippurim 59 [49]: Sîn
offering and trespass offering and death and the Day of
Atonement none of them atone unless accompanied by
repentance ; for it is said, ‘Only’ (qa, Lev. 2327); if a
man repent, atonement is made for him (15 nponnt—i.e.,
he is forgiven), but if not no atonement is made for
him. R. Eleazar quoted, ‘And clearing’ (πρ», Ex.
347); he clears those who repent, but not those who do
not repent. R. Judah (ben ‘Ilai} taught: Death and
the Day of Atonement atone, with repentance; repent-
ance atones with death, and the day of death is like
repentance (another reading is, ‘by means of repent-
ance'). Seealso Vimd 854, and esp. 864. In accord-
ance with this doctrine the importance of repentance
and its effects are much dwelt upon : see especially Yomd
862 5, a collection of eulogiums on repentance from the
lips of various teachers.

A fine saying may be quoted from Je». Mz446th26 (also
Pesiktà, Shflbah, 1585): Men asked philosophy (man), What is
the consequence of sin? It answered: Evil pursueth sinners
(Prov, 1321). They asked prophecy. It answered: The soul
that sinneth it shall die (Ezek, 184). They asked the law. It
answered : Let him bring a trespass offering and it shall be
forgiven him (15 sbann), They asked God, and he answered ;
Let him repent (n2i&N n.9), and it shall be forgiven him,

The nature of repentance is well defined. Who isa
truly repentant man? it is asked. One, the reply is,
who, having sinned and repented, does not yield to the
same temptation again (Υυπεά 864). Genuine repent-
ance is a resolute turning from sin; a man who
commits a sin, and confesses it, but does not turn from
it, is like a man who holds some crawling vermin (pg)
in his hand ; though he were to bathe in all the waters
in the world it would avail him nothing; but if he
throw it away, a bath of forty sé4hs suffices to make
him clean, for it is said, He who confesses and for.
sakes his transgressions shall obtain mercy (Prov. 2813,
Ta'initt 160; cp Philo, De vict. $ 11, 2247 Mangey).
The ethical distinction is clearly made between the
repentance that springs from love to God and the
counterfeit of it which is only the expression of fear
inspired by chastisement ( Vàmd 860 δ].

For a wrong done to a fellow-man, we have seen
that neither repentance nor the great expiation of the Day
of Atonement avail to obtain of God remission, until
the offender has propitiated the injured party (If. γόνα,
89, above}. This propitiation includes the reparation of
the material injury, the confession of wrongdoing and
sorrow, and the obtaining of forgiveness (cp Mt. 523).
If forgiveness be not granted at the first seeking, the
penitent must return with other members of the com-
munity, and in their presence confess his fault and
beseech pardon (/er. Yoma88).?

An expiatory character is attributed to suffering,
regarded as the chastisement of God ; whence R. 'Akibî
taught that a man should praise God not merely ix
chastisement but /or it, since through it his sins are
atoned for (cp 1 Cor.113:}; and R. Eleazar ben Jacob
quoted: 'Whom the Lord loveth he correcteth, even
as a father the son in whom he delighteth' (Prov, 312,
cp Heb.126) Death in a state of penitence also
expiates sin (.M. γδρρα 88); or, in the more detailed
exposition of R. Ishmael, death finally wipes out (pp)
the remainder of guilt which, in certain great sins,
neither repentance nor the fiacz/a of the Day of Atone-
ment nor the chastisements of this life suffice wholly to
atone for. Hence, for example, a criminal sentenced to

1 An attempt to harmonise the opinion of Rabbi with the
Mishna is made in Ford 856.
2 Cp a corresponding procedure, Mt. 1815,

4225”

SACRIFICE

death was exhorted to make a penitent’s confession ; only
then will his death be an expiation for all his crimes.

The sufferings, and especially the death, of righteous
men atone for the sins of others. Is. 53 τῷ is interpreted
of Moses, who ‘poured out his soul unto death (Ex.
3232) and was numbered with the transgressors (the
generation that died in the wilderness) and bare the sin
of many” that he might atone for the sin of the golden
calf {S6/4% 142). Ezekiel suffered ‘that he might
wipe out the transgressions of Israel' (Sar4edrin 390).
The general formulation of the doctrine is, ‘the death
of the righteous makes atonement’ {Mo'zd Azzdr 282,
ete.); cp 4 Mace. 627-29 1722.

(ὦ The only explicit answer to the question how
sacrifice expiates in the Jewish authorities of our period
is that of Lev. 1711 (see above, $ 46); what atones in
sacrifice is the blood {.5ήράγά on Lev,

53. How does Ως cp Yomd sa, Ζεθαλένα 6a), The
expiate? question, How has the blood this

efficacy ? is not raised ; and the specu-
lations to which Lev.171r seems to invite by its
association of the blood with the life, and in which
Christian theology has been prolific, appear not to
have been started.ì ‘The theory that the victim's
life is put in place of the owner's is nowhere hinted
at, perhaps because the Jewish doctors understood
better than our theologians what sin offerings and
trespass offerings were, and what they were for. Nor
is there any discussion of the mode in which the blood
of sacrifice operates expiation. The verb 4ipper and its
derivatives are used, precisely as in the OT, in the
sense, ‘make propitiation, expiation, procure remission,*
without recourse to etymology and imagined * primary
meanings.’ Hence we hear nothing about the ‘cover-
ing’ of the sin or the sinner, or the 'wiping off'—or
‘out'—of guilt.? ‘The ancient etymological midrash
attaches itself not to the verb 4i9/er but to the noun
‘lamb.’ The daily morning and evening holocaust
was a lamb {£ees}; the school of Shammai said: It
*trampies down ' (£44x5) the sins of Israel (cp Mic. 69);
the school of Hillel replied: What is trampled down
comes up again ; sacrifice ‘ washes' (ὃς, #i4%es) Israel
free from sin (Pesiztà, ed. Buber, 618).

Outside the ritual sphere—in the ethical sphere of
religion, that is—it is repentance that atones; it is the
condition of God's forgiveness ; and the ultimate ground
of forgiveness is God's love; love covereth all trans-
gressions (Prov. 1015), for God loves Israel {Way
yikrà R. c. 7 begin). ΑΒ a motive, the merits of the
forefathers are often referred to. See also, on the
nature of repentance and its relation to God's forgive-
ness, the fine passage in Philo, De exsecraionibus, 88 7.

It does not fall within the scope of the present article
to describe or discuss later theories of the nature and
effect of sacrifice, such as the goena vicaria, or the
sacramental theory, further than to say, as the result of
the whole precedîng investigation, that they are not
derived from the OT but imported into it,

IV. SACRIFICE IN NT

It is assumed in the Gospels that Jesus throughout
his life observed in the matter of sacrifice, as in other
respects, the Jewish law as it was

δα Jewish commoniy practised în his time. Li.
the Gospels. relates that his mother offered in due

time the sacrifice of purification after
childbirth prescribed for the poor (Lk.222 7, cp 59,
Lev. 122468); at the age of twelve he first went with
his parents to Jerusalem to the Passover (Lk. 2417).
Hc kept the Passover with his disciples the night before

‘1 Philo, indeed, calls the blood ψυχῆς σπονδή, but pursues the
subject no farther.
2 These senses—unknown to the ancient translators or inter»
preters- were discovered in the Middle Ages. 1 either etymo-
logy had suggested itself to the Jewish scholars in the Talmudic
period it would doubtless have been the latter (‘ wiping off’).

4226

SACRIFICE

his death {Mk 14127 and Ils}. The Fourth Gospel
telìs of several other visits to Jerusalem at the annual
feasts (2137 ὅτ 727). Jesus bids the leper whom
he has healed offer the sacrifices appointed in the law
for his purification (Mk.144 and |ls, Lev.14) The
injunction to effect the reconciliation of an injured
fellow-Israelite before offering sacrifice (Mt 523/),!
supposes the continuance of sacrifice among those
who should be his disciples; cp also 2318 7 23.
There is in the Gospels no such denunciation of
the sacrificial worship of Jesus' contemporaries as we
find in the prophets (see above, $ 48); the forms
of Pharisaic piety which Jesus assails are of a different
kind—the ostentatious fasts, almsgiving, and prayers.
He quotes Hos. 66, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice'
(Mt. 913 127), as proof that goodness to our fellow-
men is of much higher value in the sight of God
than offerings to himself; the scribe who recognises
that love to God and man is worth more than all burnt
offerings and sacrifices is not far from the kingdom of
God (Mk. 1232-34). Such utterances are, however, not
infrequent in the words of the scribes themselves. It
cannot be said that the teaching of Jesus în this respect
differs from that of the Jewish masters of his time,
though it may be inferred from his whole attitude that
he set far less value on observances of any kind than
they did, Mt., indeed, represents him as declaring
emphatically that not the minutest particle of the law
should cease to be observed ‘till all things be accom-
plished'—s.e., so long as the present order of things
lasts (517) ; and as bidding his disciples do and observe
all the things that the scribes and Pharisees, as the
custodians of the law and successors of the legislator,
enjoined (231-3); but this is rather the evangelist's
attitude than the master's ; cp Mk.75 7 (=Mt.1517)
In the accounts of the last supper Jesus calls the wine
‘my covenant blood' (τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς dia@fxms).® in
obvious allusion to the blood by which the covenant at
Sinai was ratified (Ex. 246-8). The various additions,
‘which is poured out in behalf of many’ (Mk.), ‘unto
remission of sins' {(Mt.), bring out the accessory idea of
atonement through his blood; cp ΜΚ. 1045. Mt. 2028
(see below, $ 60). Scholars have often found in the
‘ new covenant' an implicit abrogation of the old, with
all its institutions ; it is certain, however, that the early
Christians in Palestine saw nothing of the kind in it;
they continued to worship in the temple like their
fellow-countrymen. The inference is first explicitly
drawn by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews
{chap. 10).
According to Acts Paul more than once plans a
journey so as to bring him to Jerusalem in season for a
55, Paul feast (1821 2016: in the former passage the
ὴ words are lacking in NAB, εἴο.}; he declares
in his defence before Felix that he came thither to
worship {2411}, to bring charitable gifts to his country-
men and make offerings (προσφοράς, 2417), and was
arrested in the temple în the midst of this pious occupa-
tion (τ. 18) To give the lie to reports that he per-
suaded Jews in the provinces to abandon the observance
of the law, he consented to assume the cost of sacrifices
for the release of four Jewish Christians from the
Nazirite's vow (Nu. 613,7), and, after the usual purifi-
cations, accompanied them into the temple (2120-26),
where offering was made for each of them, thus proving
that he himself lived in observance of the law (v. 24).
That Paul really made a profession so contrary to his
own precept and example it is difficult to believe (cp
Gal. 21r 7; also ACTS, $ 7).

1 Without this the sacrifice would be of no avaîl, as the
Rabbis taught. _ See above, $ 52.

2 See above, 88 ξὸ δ, and SUbAZA 494, To înfer from ME.
1220-34 that Jesus himself probably offered no sacrifices is
unwarranted,

3 Mk.1424 Mt.2628, cp Lk.2220 1Cor.1125,
covenanit in my blood' : cp 761. 81 31 Heb. 915 δὴ etc.
original form of the saying, see EUCHARIST, $$ 17

4227

"the new
On the

SACRIFICE

We have already referred (above, $ 42) to the
important passage, 1 Cor,10:8/7, in which Paul, in
warning his readers against heathen sacrificial feasts,
argues, as from something that would be understood
and conceded by all, that, as among Jews (cp also
Heb, 1810) so also among Gentiles, those who eat the
flesh of the sacrifices, sharing it with the altar, become
commensals of the God whose altar it is—the sacrificial
meal is a communion, just as the Christian eucharist is,
in which men partake of the table of the Lord,

Figures drawn from sacrifice—some of them more
ingenious than natural—are not infrequent in the
Pauline epistles. In Rom.15:6 Paul describes himself
as a priest (λειτουργός) of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles ;
the ministry of the Gospel is a sacerdotal function
{ἱερουργοῦντα τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ), which he performs
in order that the offering (προσῴφορά) of {consisting
of) the Gentiles, may be made acceptable to God, being
consecrated by the Holy Spirit. In anticipation of his
approaching death he speaks of his blood as a libation
poured out upon the sacrifice and priestly ministry of
his converts (Phil. 2x7, cp 2 Tim. 46); Christians are
exhorted to furnish their bodies as a sacrifice, living,
holy, well-pleasing to God, their rational worship
(Rom. 121, cp 1Pet,25}; the contributions of the
Philippians to the apostle are ‘a gratifyin& odour,' an
acceptable sacrifice, well-pleasing to God (Phil 4 18).
The references to the death of Christ as a sacrifice will
be discussed below ($ 57). It is to be noted here only
that Panl does not, like the author of the Epistle to
the Hebrews, explicitly declare that the sacrifices of the
law came to an end with the death of Christ. To
draw from his silence the inference that his Jewish-
Christian opponents themselves no longer regarded
sacrifice as binding is most unsafe.

The argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews is
developed in a running comparison between the sacri-

fices and priestly ministrations of the

56. HebreWS. cid covenant and the work of Christ,
to which we shall return in a later paragraph (see $ 58).
Here we shall touch only upon the author's view of the
intent and effect of the sacrifices of the law. Sacrifices
and offerings are made for sins (51, cp 83 99).

In the phrase ‘gifts and sacrifices’ (δῶρά τε καὶ θυσίαι) the
words, according to prevailing OT use, correspond to Heb.
4orban and minkak respectively, and, thus coupled, the δῶρα.
are by pre-eminence ‘sacrifices,' the θυσίαι, ‘oblations,’ not vice
versà, as NT commentators frequently take them (cp EV ‘“gifts
and sacrifices’),

They do not, however, really take away sin or purge
the conscience of the sinner; the blood of bulls and
goats cannot possibly do that (10411); they serve
rather, in their stated recurrence—the author is thinking
of the solemn pizez/a of the Day of Atonement—to
bring to mind the sin which they cannot expiate (103).
The system, indeed, contemplates only what we should
call ceremonial faults. The sin offering of the Day of
Atonement, whose blood is taken by the high priest
into the adytum of the temple, is offered for the un-
witting offences of the people (ἀγνοήματα, 97; cp
IGNORANCE). Sacrifices and offerings cannot restore
the worshipper to his integrity in the forum of con-
science; they have to do only with such matters as
foods and drinks and diverse ablutions !—prescriptions
of bodily purity imposed till the time comes for making
things right (997). The blood of goats and bulls, and
the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those that have con-
tracted defilement, make them (ceremonially) ‘holy,’ so
that their body is clean ; in contrast to the purging of
conscience (913). The application of blood is a rite of
lustration or purification; at the ratification of the
covenant Moses sprinkled the law book and the people
with the blood of young bulls and goats, ‘with water

1 That is, inadvertent transgression of the rules of clean and
unclean. This is, at least, the more probable interpretation of
the obscure connection.

4228

SACRIFICE

and scarlet wool and hyssop” (919);? in like manner he
sprinked with blood the tent and all the utensils of
worship {cp v. 23) ; according to the law nearly every-
thing is purified with blood, and without outpouring of
blood no remission (ἄφεσις) is effected (921 £.).?

The writer's conception of the expiatory rites of the
law thus agrees entirely with the teaching of the Jewish
authorities (see above, $ 51) For him, however, the
system was typical and prophetic of the one real and
all-sufficient sacrifice of Christ. When this had been
made there was no longer reason or room,for the
sacrifices of the law (1018). Henceforth the only
sacrifices are praise to God and goodness to men
(13:57, alluding to Ps. 10722 11617 Hos. 142 etc.}.3

‘That ‘Christ died for (ὑπέρ) our sins according to
the scriptures’ is an article of the common tradition of

57. Death of the Christian faith which Paul delivered
Christ. Pauline! BIS converis as he had received it

epi "itlee, from those who were before him
{1 Cor. 153). By his death men are
redeemed, justified, forgiven, reconciled to God; see
Rom. 425 58 7 832 2 Cor. 515 Gal, 14 1 Thess. ὅτο Col.
12: Eph.17 Tit. 214 ete. The death of Christ, that
is, was expiatory ; he suffered on the cross, not for his
own sins but for those of others, and by the expiation
which he thus made they were delivered from the conse-
quences of their transgressions (see further, below, $ 60).
The idea of expiation is, however, as we have seen,
closely associated with sacrifice; one great class of
sacrifices, among both Jews and Gentiles, was piacular
in motive and intention ; and in a looser sense the whole
sacrificial worship was often thought of as atoning (see
above, $ 45). It was natural, therefore, that the death
of Christ should be conceived as a sacrifice, or spoken
of in sacrificia! figures, In Paul, however, this con-
ception is not developed as it is in some of the other
NT writings.

In the much-vexed passage, Rom. 8 25, ‘whom God set forth as
a Aifasterion through faith in his blood' (ὃν προέθετο ὁ θεὸς
ἱλαστήριον διὰ πίστεως ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι), the interpretation
“atoning sacrifice’ (after the analogy of σωτήριον, peptonipio»,
πελεστήριον, etc.) ἰδ not entirely certain, though highly prob-
able ; the more general ‘means of expiation' satisfies the con-
text, and the addition of the words ‘in his blood’ does not

necessarily imply that this means is thought of as sacrificial.
Cp Mercy Skar, 8.

Even if we translate Rom. 825 outright ‘an expiatory
sacrifice' the expression would still be only a passing
metaphor in a context of a different tenor—Christ's
death the demonstration of the righteousness of God.
Christian theologians, indeed, have been so long
accustomed to regard the OT sacrifices from the jural
and governmental point of view—that is, in the light of
their construction of the atoning work of Christ ‘that
they hardly feel the reference to an expiatory sacrifice
here as even a change of figure; but Paul was not a
modern theologian.

No greater emphasis is laid on the idea of sacrifice in
1 Cor. 57 f., where, in an exhortation to put away evil,
its leaven-like working suggests the scrupulous care with
which a Jewish house was purged of leaven on the eve
of the Passover, and that, again, leads to the thought
* for indeed our Passover is sacrificed, Christ ; so let us
keep the feast not with the old leaven of malice and
wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity
and truth.”

Evidence of a more pervasive association of Christ's

1 The heightening of the rite described in Ex. 248 by traits
borrowed from Lev, 1457. (the leper) shows that the author
conceives it as a lustration.

® Cp the use of the verb ii in the ἀξᾶνε laws (see, Lev. 5 10 16 18,
also 4263134 etc.) : καὶ ἐξιλάσεται περὶ αὐτοῦ ὁ ἱερούς . . | καὶ
ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ (15 nbos). The remission is the consequence
of the propiriation made by the priest with the sacrifice,

3 The Rabbis ajso taught that the ‘praise offering” (21444)
was the only sacrifice that would remain in the “world to come*
(cp above, col. 4223 n. 2)

4 The assertion sometimes made that the Jewish conception
of sacrifice was similarly influenced by the idéa of divine justice
is unsupported.

4229

SACRIFICE

death with sacrifice has been sought in the references to
his blood as the ground of the benefits conferred by his
death (Rom, 325 59}; the thought of sacrifice is so
constantly associated with his death, it is said, that the
one word suffices to suggest it. But in view of the
infrequency, to say the least, of sacrificia! metaphors in
the greater epistles, it is doubtful whether αἦμα is not
used merely in allusion to Jesus' violent death. ΝΟΥ
is the case clearer in Col.Tzo Eph.17 213; the really
noteworthy thing is that the context contains no sug-
gestion of sacrifice either in thought or phrase. The
words ‘for sin’ (περὶ ἁμαρτίας) in Rom. 83, are often
mechanically translated ‘sin offering,’ because in
Leviticus this phrase is the common rendering of
hatftath ; even ἁμαρτίαν, 2 Cor. 521, has been understood
in the same way--the death of Christ specifically a sin
offering. The misconception of the nature of the sin
offering which underlies this strained interpretation has
been commented on above ($ 28 a).!

In conclusion, it may be noted as an indication that
the idea of expiatory sacri/ice was not prominent in
Paul's thought of Christ's death, that he nowhere uses
the characteristic terms inseparably associated in the
OT with these sacrifices, ἰλάσκομαι, ἐξιλάσκομαι, ard
their derivatives; ἱλαστήριον, Rom.325, is the only
word of the family in all the Pauline literature. This
group of words is, however, rare in all the NT; even
in Hebrews ἰλάσκεσθαι occurs but once; ἱλασμός but
twice in the NT (1Jn. 22 4r0).

For the author of Hebrews the priesthood and
saerificial institutions of the old dispensation are but

types and shadows of the heavenly
58. In Hebrews. reality that was to come (85 101, cp
99). The main thesis of the book is that the Son, the
mediator of the new and better covenant (86-13 915
ete.), is the true high priest. Now every high priest
must have something to offer; this is his constitutive
function (83); Christ, therefore, brings his sacrifice.
The nature and effect of this sacrifice is developed in
chaps. 8-10 18, in contrast to the sacrifices of the law,*
particularly to the sacrifice (Ex. 24 4-8) by which the old
covenant was ratified (915 7. 1029, cp 1224 1320),* and
to the specific fiacz/a of the Day of Atonement, in
which the Jewish system culminated.

The Jewish high priest, having human weaknesses
(728), had first of all to offer a sacrifice for his own sins
{727 97); Christ, the perfect priest, had no such need
(7 2628). In the Mosaic sacrifices was offered the blood
of bulls and goats, which could not possibly take away
sîn (10411), but effected only a purification of the
body (99 127); Christ entered the holy place of the
greater and more perfect sanctuary, that is, heaven itself
(924), through his own blood, having found an eternal
redemption(727 91215 10 10). Sacrifices could not relieve
men's conscience, but served rather to call sin to mind
{99 10:-3); the blood of Christ purges the conscience
from dead works to serve the living God (914, cp 1022).
They had, therefore, to be perpetually repeated, just
because they had no real efficacy cither objective or sub-
jective (96 1037); his sacrifice is made once for all, for-
ever perfecting them that are sanctified {727 91225 f. 28
1012 14). The sacrifices of the law, finally, did not open
to men a way of access to the holy presence of God
(98) ; by the blood of Jesus a new way is made by
which they may confidenily approach him (1019 7}.

The sacrifice of Christ thus not only expiates the sins
of the people (ἱλάσκεσθαι, 217), but also establishes the
new covenant foretold by Jeremiah (3131), under which
God lays his laws upon men's hearts and inscribes them

1 There are less excusable errors in the books. In Sanday-
Headlam, Aomans, 193, we are told that ‘the ritual of the
sin-offering is fully set forth in Lev. iv. | The most characteristic
feature în ît is che sprinkling with blood of the horns of the altar
of incense."

2 On the authors view of the lutter, see above, $ 56.

3 This parallel js suggested in the Gospel accounts of the
institution of the Lord's Supper.

4230

SACRIFICE

on their minds, and no longer remembers their sins and
iniquities (1016 7, cp 88 7:)—a real remission which
makes all other sacrifice useless. Two things are
especially noteworthy in the authors treatment of the
subject ; first, the importance attached to the subjective
effeet of Christ's blood in purging the conscience of man ;
and, second, the ultimate end, the creation of a new
way of access to God by which men may confidently
draw near to him. In these conceptions we see a
positive ethical and religious interpretation and valuation
of the death of Christ going far beyond the mere sacri-
ficial expiation of sins or forensic justification of the
sinner. How the blood of Christ has these effects the
writer does not reflect, any more than he or his con-
temporaries reflected on the mode of operation of the
blood of the OT sacrifices,

By the side of sacrificial ideas and terms, such as ῥαντύζειν
9131921 1022, καθαρίφειν 1391422, ἁγιάζειν 10 10 14 29, words
of different association sometimes occur : λύτρωσις 9 12, ἀπολύ-
πρωσις 915, ἀπαλλάσσειν 215; but the characteristic Pauline
‘justify’ (δικαιοῦν) and cognate words and phrases are absent.

The references to the death of Christ în 1 Pet. are
in the nature of allusions rather than of doctrinal state.
ment or argument; their phraseology
59. 1Pe& Citen suggests reminiscences of caller
NT writings. Christ died once for sins, a righteous
man for unrighteous men, that he might bring us to
God (318); he suffered for his followers, leaving them
an example (221, cp 41); persecuted Christians are
partakers of Christ's sufferings (413, cp 4:, ete.); he
carried their sins in his body on to the cross (224)--the
whole passage, vv. 21-25, is an application of Is. 53 to
Christ ; they are redeemed (ἐλυτρώθητε) from the foolish
way of life they learned from their fathers by costly
blood as of an unblemished unspotted lamb, Christ
(1:85); one of the ends of Christians' election is
sprinikling with the blood of Christ (12). ‘The latter
phrase suggests a passage in Heb. (1224, cp 1022
9131921), in which epistle alone the expression oceurs.
In 1:87 it is not improbable that the blameless lamb
of 1s.537 (cp 9) is in the mind of the writer, who
makes such large use of that chapter in 2217; for
the rest cp Eph. 17 (‘tedemption [ἀπολύτρωσι»] through
his blood, the remission of our trespasses') Rom. 3247
Heb. 912. A direct allusion to the paschal lamb (Ex.
125) would probably have been more distinet.
The references to the sacrificial aspect of the death of
Christ in the Fourth Gospel are few and of the slightest
τς Kind. The Baptist hails Jesus as the
80, πολι Lamb of God which takes away the
“sin of the world (129), with evident
allusion to Is. 537, cp 4} 11; in 1719 ‘in their behalf
I hallow myself,' ἁγιάζω is a word of sacrificial associa-
tions, whether we refer it to the consceration of the
victim or (with greater probability} to the preparation
of the priest for his functions. In r Jn. the allusions
are more frequent; we read not Only that Christ
laid down his life for us—wherefore we ought to lay
down our life for the brethren (8 16)—and that our sins
are remitted for his name's sake (212), but also that he
was manifested that he might take away sin (35), that
he is a propitiation (Magw6s) for our sins and for those
of the whole world (22 4 το), and that the blood of Jesus
cleanses us from every sin (179). But everywhere such
expressions appear as familiar Christian phrases, rather
than as part of the distinctive Johannine conception of
the salvation in Christ.
The lamb in the Apocalypse is probably, as in Jn.
1 29, derived from Is.53; asin τ Pet., the idea of purchase
(ἀγοράζειν, 1 Cor. 620 723) by the blood of Christ has
been combined with the older conception of the expiatory
suffering of the Servant of Yahwè ; see 56 7 138 143f
The other representation of purification by his blood
appears in 714; cp 2214, and note the variant in 15:
Moavri ... ἐκ, λούσαντι . . . ἀπό (τῶν ἁμαρτίων).
It does not fali within the scope of the present article

4231

SACRIFICE

to discuss the various theories which theologians have

τα from time to time set up concerning the

61 Genesis sacrificiat death of Christ, nor even the

constructions of biblical theology. Many

of these, even among the-most recent, rest upon pro-

found misunderstandings of the nature of the OT sacri.

fices, and entirely ignore Jewish conceptions of the effect

and operation of sacrifice. The task which remains to

us is only to explain briefiy the facts that have been set
in array in the foregoing paragraphs.

To begin with, it 15 necessary to say that in describing
the death of Christ as a sacrifice the NT writers are
using figurative language. Some modern theologians,
indeed, still affirm that ‘the apostles held it to be a
sacrifice in the most literal sense of the word ' (Paterson,
in Hastings, DZ5 4343 £); but such writers do not
expect us to take their ‘literal’ literally. The author
of the Epistle to the Hebrews, for example, regarded
the death of Christ as the true sacrifice, because by it
was really effected what the OT sacrifices only pre-
figured ; but he was too good an Alexandrian to identify
‘true’ with ‘literal.*

In the second place, it is essential to note what the
problem was which confronted these early Christian
thinkers, in the effort to solve which they came to con-
ceive of the death of Christ as a sacrifice. They did
not set out, as has frequently been supposed, to answer
the question how God without detriment to his justice
‘or to his moral government, could remit sin, and find
the solution in the sin offerings of the law, by whose
blood the sinner was ‘covered’ {so the common etymo-
logical metaphor) and protected from the righteous
wrath of God ; they had a far more urgent task, namely,
to account for the death of Jesus.

The death of Jesus was a severe shock to the faith of
his disciples ; and though the resurrection speedily re-
established this faith, they had need both for its con-
firmation and for its defence before their unbelieving
countrymen, to whom a crucified Messiah was an in-
superable stumbling block, of proof from the scriptures
that his sufferings were the fulfilment of prophecy.
That there were predictions they could not doubt ; and
as now with a new insight they searched the scriptures,
it was as if the Master himself opened their mind to
understand them (Lk. 2445 77}. and interpreted to them
the prophecies concerning himself (vv. 25-27).

Thus the cross, instead of being the refutation of his
claims, became their most conclusive demonstration.
Among the scriptures which they thus for the first time
understood, Is. 53 was, with good reason, the most
important. Not only did the picture of the suffering
Servant of Yahwè seem to foreshadow even in minute
details the experience of Jesus, but in fact the author of
the chapter had undertaken to solve the same problem,
viz., Why did the Servant (Israel), for no fault of his
own, suffer what seemed the extremities of God's dis-
pleasure? Hisanswer was, The sufferings of the Servant
of Yahwè are an expiation for others’ sins, ‘the Lord
laid on‘him the iniquity of us all and by his stripes we
are healed.'?

The idea that sins could thus be expiated by the
suffering of one who had not deserved it was not re-
pugnant to ancient minds, in which the sense of social
solidarity was stronger than that of individual rights;
it seemed, in fact, most natural. The sufferings of the
righteous were frequently represented as an atonement
for their people. Thus, of the Maccabwean martyrs it
is said: * Having become as it were a vicarious ex-
piation (ἀντέψυχον) for the sins of the nation, and
through the blood of those godly men and their atoning
death (λαστηρίου θανάτου), divine providence saved
Israel which had before been evil entreated' (4 Macc.
1722, cp 627-29); cp also Rom. 57 Col. 124.8

1 See Holtzmann, N7 7heo/.1 367/27

2 Lipsiusin Schenkel, ΞΖ 2493; Holtamann, NT Teo/.1369/
3 See above, $ 52, end.

4232

SACRIFICE

"The great influence of Is, 53 upon the early conception of the
death of Christ is manifest not only in Acts832-35 (Philip and
the Ethiopian eunuch ; cp also 3 13 26 427 7 30-- παῖς, ‘servani,'
Is. 5213, a standing title of Jesus), and the epistles (Heb. 928
1 Pet. 2231-25 1]n.35, ete.), but also in the fact that it has
worked back inîo the gospel tradition (Lk. 22 37 Jn. 129 36).

‘The first point established was, therefore, that the
death of Christ was not for his own sins, it was not a
triumph of the wicked over the good, an inexplicable
tragedy ; it was an expiation for the sins of others.
This is the tradition which Paul had received (above,
$ 57). This expiation was originally thought of in
relation to the punishment of sin; by virtue of it the
sins whose penalty would otherwise have been visited
upon the offender are remitted and he is cleared. From
this side Paul works out his theory of atonement. ‘The
association of expiation with sacrifice in the law and in
the common ideas of the time leads to the employment
of sacrificial figures and terms in speaking of the work
of Christ ;! but even in Hebrews, where the idea of the
death of Christ as a sacrifice is most elaborately de-
veloped, it is plain that the premise of the whole is that
Christ by his death made a real expiation for the sins
of men, by which they are redeemed. It was not, there-
fore, the conception of the death of Christ as a sacrifice
which brought in the idea of expiation and propitiation,
but the opposite. Hence the freedom and variety in
comparing his death to the different species of OT
sacrifices, as they suggest different aspects of his work—
the covenant sacrifice, the Passover, the expiations of the
Day of Atonement. Hence also the fact that there is no
Qoctrine of the sacrifice of Christ in the NT as there may
be said to be doctrines of redemption or of justification,

On the OT sacrifices see the commentaries on the Pentateuch
(see ExoDUS, 8 7, LEVITICUS, $ 33, NUMBERS, $ 23, DEUTERO-

non womy, $ 33) among which those of

62. Bibliography.? Knobel-Dil!mann may be specially men-
tioned ; also, for their Jewish leaming,

Kalisch on Exodus and Leviticus. — Spencer, De /egibus
ritualibus, 1675 (bk. 3); 1. D. Michaelis, Aosaisches Reckt,(2)
1775: Saalschitz, Mosaisches Recht, 1846, Arch. d. Heb., 18557
Wachner, Anz, Zbreorum, eto., 1743; Ew. Alt. Zsr.,1 1866,
ÈT 1876; Nowack, #4, 1894; Benz, 7A, 1894. On sacrifices
in particular; Outram, De sacri είς, 1677; Kurtz, Der Alttes
tamentliche Offerkuitus, 862, ET 1865; Bahr, Sysndoli£ des
mosaischen Cultus, 1837; also articles ‘Opfer” ' Sacrifice,”
etc., in the Bible dictionaries of Schenkel, Riehm, Smith,
Hastings, and in 2A£. On particular species of sacrifice : Thai-
hofer, Dig unblutigen Opfer des mosaischen Kultus, 1848;
Riehm, ‘Uber das Schuldopfer, Studiex und Kritiken, 1854,
R 93 fi Rinck, ‘Das Schuldopfer,' 16, 1855, p. 399 7.;
ichmoller, ‘Wesen der Siihne in der a,-test, Opferthora, Sf Ar.
1891, 205.7; Vatke, Religion des Alten Testaments, 18355
Wellhausen, Po/eg. (1878),(0) 1809, ET 1885; H. Schultz,

Alttestamentliche Theologie,8) 8967 Smend, Alt. Relgesch. it
1899; Dillmann, 4/ Z%eo2 18953 Marti, Gesch. der Israelit-
Riehm,

ischen Religion,8) 1897. Signification of sacrifice:
Beeriff der Sine im Alten Testament, 1877; H.
‘Significance of Sacrifice in the OT) Auzer. Journ. of Z'heol.
42577 (1900). Systematic works: Ritschl, Rec4y/ertigung
und Versohnung,) 1889; Cave, Scriptura! Doctrine of Sacri-
fice,® 1890. See also Hubert and Mauss, ‘Nature et fonction
du ‘Sacrifice’ L'année Sociologigue, 1897-1898, 29-138 (based
on comparative study of Jewish and Hindu sacrifice).

On the Jewish sacrificial system : Maimonides, 24 μάφα ξαλ,
in which the material from the Mishna and similar sources is
collected and methodically arranged, is indispensable, not only
as an exposition of the system but also as a key to the scattered
Modern works are: Duschak, Gesck. x. Darstellung
desjidischen Cultus; Edersheim, The Temple and its Ministry,
1874. For Jewish ideas concerning sacrifice Christian scholars
generally tum to Weber's Lelzen des 7 αὐρεμεῖς, a work not only
uncritical but dominated by a false theory; Bacher, Die Agada
der Tannaiten, 3 vols. (critical sifting of the material); see also
Kohler, ‘Atonement,’ /eswisk Encyclopedia, 2 2751"

Sacrifice in the NT: in addition 10 the commentaries on the
NT and the comprehensive works named above; Pfieiderer,
Uschristenthun, 1887, 0) 1902; Der Paulinismus, 1890;
Weizsicker, Das apostolische Zeitalter, (2 1892; H. Holtzmann,
NT Theol 1897; Sanday, Priesthood and Sacrifice, 1900%
W. H. Ward, ‘The NT doctrine of the relation ‘of Christ's
death to the GT sacrificial system,' 2/2/, Sac. 51 246 9: (1894).

G.F.M

1 In Is. 58 τὸ (@547:) the connection seems to be preforme
but & translates otherwise.
Of the immense literature on the various aspects of the
subject only a selection can be given here. The list is intended
to include works which either are of value to the modern student

or hold an important place in the history of discussion.
4233

SADDUCEES

SACRILEGE. in Rom, 222 the question: ‘‘Thou
that abhorrest idols, dost thou rob temples' (AV ‘commit
sacrilege'; ὁ βδελυσσόμενος τὰ εἴδωλα ἱεροσυλεῖς) is to
be interpreted in the light of Dt. Τὰς where not only is
it commanded to burn the graven images of the gods of
the nations with fire, but it is also forbidden to covet
the silver or gold that is on them or to ‘take it unto
thee ; forit is an abomination (n3yîn} to Yahwè thy God,

and thou shalt not bring an abomination into thy house
80 as to become an anathema like it ; thou shalt utterly
detest and abominate it, for it is anarthema’' (see AKONI.
NATION, 4; IpoL, 8 24). In Jos. Ar. iv. 810, $ 207,
this law is rendered ' Let no one blaspheme those gods
which other cities esteem such; nor may any one steal
the sacred things of strange temples (μηδὲ συλᾶν ἱερὰ
ξενικά) nor take any treasure that may be dedicated to
any god.' In accordance with this, in Acts 1937 we find
the town clerk of Ephesus urging in the case of Paul
and his Jewish companions that their offence has at
least not been of the most aggravated kind, they being
* neither robbers of tempiles (ἱεροσύλους) nor blasphemers
of our goddess.”

As regards sacrilege against the temple in Jerusalem, 2 Macc.
4 39-42 records the sacrileges (ἱεροσυλήματαλ committed in the
city by Lysimachus with the consent of Menelaus, the riot it led
to, and the death of the sacrilegious person (iepdovAos) beside
the sanctuary.. The alleged attempt of Antiochus Epiphanes to
τοῦ a temple (ἱεροσυλεῖν) in Persepolis is alluded to in 2 Macc.
9 2, and in 2 Macc. 18 3-8 the death of Menelaus by precipitation
from the tower for the punishment of ‘him that is guilty of
sacrilege (ispoovà(a) or has attained any pre-eminence în any
other evil deeds is related. In A4nf xvi. 62 Josephus records a
decree of Augustus in the course of which it îs enacted that the
sacred things [of the Jews] are not τὸ be touched {τά τε ἱερὰ εἶναι
ἐν ἀσυλίᾳ), and that ‘if any one be caught stealing their holy
books or their sacred money, whether from the synagogue (σαβ-
Bareiov) or from the public school (ἀνδρῶνος), he shall be deemed
a sacrilegious person (iepéovAov), and his goods shall be brought
into the public treasury of the Ko ὁ In νηΐ, 8 5, the ex-
pulsion of the Jews from Rome in Tiberius's time is sald to have
been due to the wickedness of four Jews who embezzied Fulvia's
gift of purple and gold for the temple at Jerusalem.

SADAMIAS (s4LAMmE), 4 Esd. 11 AV=SHALLUM, 6,

SADAS (actaa [A]), 1 Esd. 513 AV, RV ASTAD;
see AZGAD., The AV is derived from the Geneva
version.

SADDEUS, ΕΝ Loppeus (Aaadaioc [B]), 1 Esd.
845. See Ippo (i.).

SADDLE. The word 239, merZdb, is in Lev.159
rendered ‘saddle’ in EV, but AVME: has ‘carriage’ (cp
τ K.436 [56], The word literally means ‘place of
riding'—e., riding seat (cp CHARIOT, $ 1, begin.),
and in Cant. 8 το it clearly means the seat of Solomon's
palanquin {see RV and LIrTER). Not less evidently
this sense will not suit in Lev. {£c.). A suggested
emendation is 13%, ‘rug’ (see T'APESTRY).

It is to be remarked that though riding was the most common
mode of travelling in Bible days, saddles in the modern sense of
the word were not used but only ‘“horse-cloths,' or, failing that,
a garment (Mt.217), Furrer (22 5 r91) compares Ezck. 27 20
as showing that costly horse-cloths were brought to market at
Tyre bi, the Dedanites. But the text is corrupt (cp AV and
ἘΝ). For the most probable reading see CLOTH, n. 1} young
steeds, not cloths, are referred to. On the camels' “fumniture,*
see CAmeL, $ 2, end, The word for ‘to saddle’ (van, ψαδαξ),
Nu. 22 21 etc., literally means ‘to bind."

SADDUC, RV Sadduk {caAAoykoy [A]. caddoy-
Aovykoy [B]. ceAAovyK [L]}, 1 Esd. 82. See ZADOK.

SADDUCEES. The origin of the name Saddukim
{D'PTIS, so probably, rather than ΡΥ) has been
explained in two ways: i

1. As if from sad@ià (ps

), the specially righteoust—
a most imsatisfactory derivation, although favoured by
Jerome and other of the Fathers. The

1, ame: change from seddif (pre) to saddiz
explanationa, {pus) is warranted by no analogy, nor
δ is the name as explained at all appro-

priate. There is no evidence that the Sadducees ever

made any special claim to ‘righteousness,’ as under-
4234

SADDUCEES

stood by the Jews, and certainly they were not credited
with it by their opponents. Such a claim was far more
likely to be made by the Pharisees.

2. From the personal name Zadok (pis) This is

not much more satisfactory than the other, for it does
not account for the well-attested double αἱ în saddazine
(n’pis), and besides there is no direct proof of a con-
nection with Zadok. ‘Three persons of that name have
been suggested: (2) a certain Zadok, otherwise un-
known, who is said to have been with a certain
Boethos, a disciple of Antigonus of Socho; (6) an
unknown founder of the aristocratic party; (c) Zadok
the priest in the time of David and Solomon.

a. For the first {disciple of Antigonus) we have only
the authority of the Aboth di R. Nathan, a late com-
pilation, probably of the ninth century, which carries
no weight with regard to historical events earlier by 1000
years. It is likely that this represents a Talmudic
tradition, since the Boethusians are sometimes confused
with, and (even in the Tàsg/Z#) put for the Sadducees.
The story is, in the common Rabbinic manner, due
solely to a desire to account for the supposed origin of
Sadduceism from the well-known dictum of Antigonus
(Pirké Abòth, 13) that we should serve God without
expectation of reward, which is then said to have been
perverted by his disciples to mean that there will be no
retribution after death. Apart from the unhistorical
nature of the story, however, the saying refers quite as
much to rewards în this life as to the future, and, in
any case, accounts only for one side of Sadduceism.

è. The second Zadok (a person assumed to account
for the name), although supported by Kuenen, may be
dismissed as purely hypothetical.

€. The least unlikely is the third (Zadok the priest,
temp. David and Solomon). Ezekiel certainly insists
strongly on the ‘sons of Zadok' {pins 55) as the only
legitimate holders of the priestly office; but his pro-
Phecies were uttered in circumstances wholly different
from those in which the Sadducean and Pharisaic
parties became distinguished, In Fzekiel’s time Israel
appears to have been sunk in idolatry, and he depicis
an ideal state of things which for the most part was
never realised. A great gulf is fixed between his
time and that of Ezra. Modern Judaism, a system
quite distinct from anything pre-exilic, may be said
to have begun with Ezra, and the people never again
fell into idolatry. The breach of continuity is so
definite that what might be true or desirable in the sixth
century B.C. forms no argument for what was the fact
in the third century. It must be remembered too that
Ezekiel was himself a priest. A much stronger argu-
ment might be derived from the Hebrew text of Ecclus.
51 τα [9] (ed. Schechter), ‘Give thanks to him who
chose the sons of Zadok for priest,’ if the passage is
genuine, as it probably is._However, there is evidence
that this view did not prevail exclusively, for in 1 Ch. 24
the sons of Ithamar share in the priesthood, and in
later times the priests are designated by the wider term.
‘sons of Aaron.’ The form of the name is not the
only difficulty ; it does not appear that the Sadducees
ever claimed to be, or were regarded as, sons of Zadok.
Whilst they chiefly belonged to the priestly or aristocratic
caste, that party was in its essence political, and the
name, which denotes a certain set of doctrines, or rather
the negation of them, seems to have been applied to them
as a term of reproach by their opponents. That is to
say, it was used as a theological, not a political term,
referring not to the origin of a particular family, party,
or caste, but to the special form of supposed heterodoxy
which happened to be characteristic of that party, so
that a man #rigkf have been described as a Sadducee
on account of his views, although not necessarily being
a member of the party—a case which, however, was
unlikely to occur.

3. A third explanation of the name may perhaps be

4235

SADDUCEES

hazarded, though with great diffidence. In modern
Persian the word z7rd7£ is used in the

bela other sense of Manichean, or, in a general
"sense, for infidel, one who does not

believe in the resurrection or in the omnipotence of God,
It has been adopted în Arabic (séndi2%9, plur. sanddre»
and senadika”) with the meaning of infidel, and also
in Armenian (cp Eznik [sth cent.] against heresies,
chap. 2 on the errors of Zoroastrianism). Mas'ùdi (roth
cent.) says that the name arose in the time of Manes to
denote his teaching. and explains that it is derived from
the Zend, or explanation, of the Avesta, The original
Avesta was the truly sacred book, and a person who
followed only the commentary was called a Zindik, as
one who rejected the word of God to follow worldìy
tradition, irreligious. But the term cannot have
originated in the time of Manes (grd cent. A.p.), for
the Zend ‘commentary,' whatever view be taken of its
date, was by then alréady becoming unintelligible. It
must be much earlier and have acquired the general
sense of infidel very soon. Masiidi, indeed, himself

implies that GN ) } was used long before în this sense,

and makes Zoroaster the author not only of the Avesta,
but of the Zend and Pazend (super-commentary), parts
of which he says were destroyed by Alexander the
Great.1 Makrizi (15th cent.), who borrows largely from
Mas'di, confuses the Zanadikah with the Samaritans
and Sadducees, and says that they deny the existence
of angels, the resurrection, and the prophets after
Moses, whence it has been suggested that Zanàdikah
is a corruption of Zaddukim. The reverse may, how-
ever, be the case. It is quite possible that the Persian
word was used about 200 B.c. in the sense of ' Zoroas-
trian,'? and if so, it might well be applied by opponents
to a party în Judaea who sympathised with foreign
ideas, and rejected beliefs which were beginning to be
regarded as distinctively fewish. It would thus have
been used at first in a contemptuous sense, and later,
when the original meaning was forgotten, was, in the
well-known Jewish manner, transformed in such a way
as to bear the interpretation of ‘ sons of Zadok' {prs 3}
with a suggestion of ‘righteous’ (n°p"1s). This would
explain the daghesh (for suppressed 3) with pathah, and
the y for ». It may be mentioned, though perhaps as a
mere coincidence, that sanddita is used for Sadducees
in Arabic translations of the NT. That they did not
hold Zoroastrian views is no objection to this explana-
tion. In later Jewish literature Epikurus {urupox} is
used for a freethinker, without any idea of his holding
the views of Epicurus {see EPICUREANS), and is con-
nected, by a popular etymology, with the root npa. In
fact, after the real meaning of the name has been for-
gotten, Epikurus becomes in the Talmud dactrinaliy
almost the exact representative of the earlier term
Sadducee, the errors chiefiy condemned in the ‘sect'
being their denial of the resurrection and the rejection
of the oral law. It is very probable that Sadducee
never had any more definite sense than this.
The beginning of the party naturally can not be
traced, In its political aspect it must have existed
- actually or potentially ever since there
8. Bistory of Ss α Jewbh state, if the view taken
Baddueees. betow is correct. Doctrinally too, if
it is in essence the opposite of the Pharisaic develop-
ment, its origin goes back to the first beginnings of a
law which had to be interpreted, The uncertainty of
the evidence and its paucity prevent our assigning any
definite date for the first (Pharisaic) amplification of the
Torah. We may, however, feel sure that the Law-book
of Ezra enlarged the existing documents sufficiently to
meet all the requirements of the time. It must have

1 The question of the origîn of the Zoroastrian writings is
extremely difficult, and very little is certain except that the
Girhas are the earliest stratum, See ZORDASTRIANISM.

2 The meaning of ‘infidel’ would then be due to the later
influence of Christianity and Islam.

4236

SADDUCEEBS

been later that the progressive school began to develop
tradition. In the Mishna tractate 45544, after the
canonical authorities, the first link in the chain of
tradition (n>3p1 ποῦν) is the ‘Great Synagogue,' 1 and
the first personal name is that of Simon the Just (prob-
ably early in the 3rd cent. B.C.). No doubt the first
steps had been taken before his time ; but it seems that
historical record did not go farther back, We shall
perhaps not be far wrong in placing the actual be-
ginnings of the new teaching about 300 B.c., and this
agrees very well with the conclusion which has been
drawn from other evidence, that after the time of Alex-
ander the Great Judaism became powerfully affected by
that Persian infiuence to which may be traced the
increasing popularity of the doctrine of a future life with
rewards and punishments. ‘The rise of the liberal
party, or school of theological development, implies the
formation of a conservative opposition. It is not to be
supposed that the two parties were from the first sharply
divided, still less that they acquired distinctive names.
It is historically more probable that the divergence
increased gradually, and was intensified, and at last
definitely realised in the religious revival of Maccabean
times. As to the first use of the name to indicate
differences consciously felt, it does not occur in the OT
or in Ecclus., and, in fact, the earliest documents which
mention Sadducees are the Gospels (but not jn.). ‘There
is, however, no reason to reject the testimony of
Josephus that the name was used in the Maccabaean
period, and if it was then well-established, we may
assume that it was used, if not generally, at least
speradically, at an earlier time to denote opposition to
doctrines which are afterwards known as Pharisaic. In
Josephus they always appear as a definite political party,
an inexact, though convenient, view which is due to the
colouring of the historian. Under the earlier Macca-
baeans, as would be expected, they are not much în
evidence ; but with the Hasmonseans they again come
into prominence, John Hyrcanus definitely allied him-
self with them, Alexander Jannaus, as being himself
high priest, was supported by them {cp Su24c%, 488),
and his war may be regarded as a contest between the
Pharisaic and the Sadducean parties. In their political
relations they show a sympathy with foreign influences
which was strongly reprobated by the nationalistic
Pharisees. Thus we find them accused, perhaps justly,
of tolerating Greek religious practices, and even of
adopting them. ‘This is the less surprising if it be con-
sidered that the Judaism which they professed can have
had (to use a modern phrase) no religious hold on them.
ΤῈ was rather the machinery by which a certain political
system was worked, and when circumstances changed,
it could be adapted to the new conditions. In the
Roman period their influence diminished again. ὙΠῸ
party, always in a minority, was not likely to be largely
recruited, They apparently had no existence outside
Jerusalem with the temple and its ritual, the centre of
religious and political life, With the fall of Jerusalem
they disappear from history, and a century later the
Mishna knows of them only by tradition. (See, further,
PHARISEES, $$ 17-20).
It would seem that Sadduceeism is to be rightly
regarded as negative. Wherever reference is made to
A it, the suggestion is that certain views are
a rejected. This naturally follows from
" what has been said above. Phariseeism
represents the tendency which ultimately resulted in
modern Judaism. It was at once exclusive in that it
strenuousIy opposed all dealings with the foreigner, and
popular in that it provided for the spiritual needs of the
people. The doctrines which we find the Sadducees
rejecting are precisely those which had been deduced

1 The rabbinical accounts of the great synagogue are irrecon-
cilable with the received chronology. If Ezra's date could be
put a century later, as has been suggested, many difficulties
would be removed.

4237

᾿

SADDUCEES

from the law and the prophets to suit the requirements
of the time. If Judaism was to continue as a living
system, it became necessary to adapt it to altered con-
ditions not contemplated by the law of Moses, and
bence arose the whole body of oral-tradition {bya2 ann
πε). At a time, too, when theological speculation was
widely cultivated, it was equally natural that Judaism
should be affected by the striving after those spiritual
hopes which at all times have been, rightly or wrongly,
the most cherished source of comfort in human suffer-
ing. Hence arose the doctrines of a future life with
rewards and punishments compensating for the apparent
incompatibility between virtue and happiness in this
life. How keenly this problem appealed to the Jewish
mind is evident from the Psalms (e.g., Ps. 78). Per
haps to no people has it appealed, for various reasons,
more poignantly. Naturally, however, it was to the
poor, the weak, and their sympathisers, that the need
for a future rectification in the cause of justice was most
apparent. It is, therefore, only what would be expected
when we find that those who reject such comfortable
words are a relatively small party of the well-to-do {τοὺς
εὐπόρους μόνον ἐχόντων). Whilst, however, it appears
to have been generally the case that Sadducean views
were held by the aristocratic (i.e. primarily, the priestly)
party, we must beware, as suggested above, of regarding
aristocrat, priest, and Sadducee as convertible terms.
Many of the priests were Pharisees, as we see, e.g., from
the names of doctors quoted in the Mishna with the
title “ priest” (159), ete., and, moreover, the separation
between the higher and the lower classes of priests was
as great as between the aristocratic party and the common
people. Nor again was the difference between Pharisces
and Sadducees politically insuperable. They could sit
together on the Sanhedrin (Acts 236), and priests and
Pharisees could combine in a common cause (Jn.732
45). That the Sadducees were, however, in an oligar-
chical minority is evident from the fact that they seem
to have found it advisable to conform at times to the
more popular Pharisaic practice —eg., Yomd τοῦ,
‘although we are Sadducees we are afraid of the
Pharisees' (memi jb paro Da ppusz 5 Ὁ &), where
the whole passage shows a strong anti-Sadducean feel-
ing.1 Cp also Jos. 4x2 xviti. 14.

Taking then the view that Sadducean opinions were
held mainly by members of the dominant aristocratic

5. Data class, we have now to consider those opinions

i “ in detail ‘The data furnished by the NT,
though clear, are meagre. ‘The account in Josephus is
fuller (see especially 474 xviîi. 12-4, 2/ii.8:4). His
statements are, however, coloured partly by his own
strong Pharisaic prejudice, and still more by a desire to
express himself in terms of Greek philosophy. It must
be remembered that philosophical notions which appealed
to the Greek mind were entirely foreign to the methods
of thought underlying Sadducean belief or disbelief.
In this respect Jew and Greek start from different
premises, representing a racial distinction. —Roughly
speaking, the one founds his faith on the will of God
and the revelation bound up with it, the other deduces
his scheme of the universe from a metaphysical con-
ception of the necessary conditions of being.

The distinctive Sadducean views may be classed (as
by Schirer) under three heads: (1) they denied the
resurrection, personal immortality, and retribution ina
future life; (2) they denied angels, spirits, and demons ;
(3) they denied fate (εἱμαρμένη), and postulated freedom
of action for every man to choose good or evil, and
work out his own happiness or the reverse.

1. With regard to the first point, Sadduceeism un-
doubtedly represents the old Jewish standpoint. What-
ever doctrines may be inferred from the ‘Torah, it is

1 This seems possibly true to the circumstances, though
Talmudic references are not to be implicitly accepted. The
Gèmara is not to be trusted for distant historical μαθές, but may
represent a true traditional 2/#7fude,

4238

SADDUCEES

evident that the theory of a future life and future

4 retribution is not inculcated in it.
6. Resurrection. ‘rho object οἵ, at any rate, the carlier
parts of the Torah was not spiritual teaching, apart
from the edification to be derived from the historical
narrative, but to set forth the practical details of the
ritual of Vahwèism. Such words as *holiness’ and
* purity* had a technical religious meaning quite distinct
from the moral content which has been put into them
by later theology. From a law-book the postical, the
spiritual, the emotional were fittingly excluded., Into
the causes of the development which we find in the
other canonical books, in Phariseeism, and in later Jewish
thought, we need not enter here (see PHARISEES).
That development was necessary. Sadduceeism only
emphasised the carlier point of view by rejecting the
new doctrines with unvarying conservatism. When we
consider that the Sadducees had a certain sympathy with
Greek and foreign influences generally, this attitude
may be thought remarkable. It is not so if we rightly
understand the nature of the original Torah and the
Semitic mind which is deeply interested in the problems
of the present, but shows only a slight capacity or
inclination for dealing with the questions of modern
theology. The Jewish mind can indeed insist on the
oneness of God ; but how misplaced in a Midrash, nay,
how impossible, would be for instance a discussion of
the doctrine of homoousia, even if it could arise. Such
questions have, or had, an attraction for the western
mind. They have none for the Jew. Moreover, we
may well suppose that in the aristocratie party a certain
materialistic tendency would show itself, that practical
politics would absorb attention to the exclusion of more
contemplative pursuits, Whilst thus holding to primi-
tive, formal Judaism, the Sadducees would, so far as
they were disposed to be controversial, look with sus-
picion on Pharisaic developments, as tending, by a sort
of self-contradiction, to vitiate the observance of the
Law. The Pharisee was, indeed, exact in paying tithes
of the mint and the cummin ; but a later teacher could
say, ‘ Whoever gives a poor man a coin attains six
blessings ; but he who addresses to him soothing words
attains eleven blessings’ (n222 ManD 300 mono jnun ba
mi isa pani 04172 ἸΌ ΒΙΩΠῚ ΠῚ312). Besides the danger
of such teaching in undermining the foundations on
which the Sadducean position rested, there may also
have been a conscientious desire to arrest the breaking
up of that system by which alone the nation could
rightly serve God. They accordingly rejected entirely
the oral tradition (πὸ Syaw nun) by which the Pharisees
supplemented the written Law. According to Phari-
saic doctrine this was of equal authority with the
written Law, and in a sense even more binding, since
it provided for what was not to be found in the Law.
Later teachers claimed that the whole of tradition was
revealed to Moses, who transmitted it orally to Joshua
and the seventy elders. The difficulty of preserving it
intact through so many centuries was evaded by the
theory of a sort of apostolic succession (nbapa ποῦν), a
series of authoritative teachers, The whole of this

superstructure, and therewith the doctrines deduced by |

it, chief among which was that of the future life, were
ignored by the Sadducees.
2. With regard to the second specific point—the dis-
belief in angels, spirits, and demons—the Sadducean
position was probably in advance of the
7. Angel8: ‘Torah, where we still find traces of the belief,
common to all primitive peoples, în the existence and
power of demons. How they could abandon this, still
more how they could explain it (e.g., the rite connected
with Azazel) we do not know. It is, however, a natural
consequence of the materialistic tendency and of the
attitude described above, No doubt it was also
emphasised by opposition to the Pharisaic development
of angelology and demonology. Already in the Book
of Daniel angels have names; in the Midraàshim and

4239

| substantially correct.

SAFFRON

the Talmud the system is further extended, and later, in
the ‘ practical Kabbalah," it passes all bounds.
3. For the third point—the freedom of will and the
denial of fate—we have only the authority of Josephus.
“ἡ: Schiirer points out that this way of stating
8. Free-will. ;he case is entirely un-Jewish, although
the question of God's providence was undoubtedly dis-
cussed. In spite of its not being confirmed by other
evidence, it is very probable that Josephus' account is
“The doctrine is in agreement
with the worldly, materialistic character of Sadduceeism,
noted above, and with their tendency to keep to the
simplest elements of faith, rejecting all admixture of the
supernatural. It also probably represents the point of
view of the Pentateuch (e.g., Dt. 4 and 6). The Sad-
ducees would not have denied that good and bad actions
brought their respective consequences in this world, for
a moral sanction is necessary; but they would reject
any theory of predestination as well as that of future
retribution. Possibly Persian influence may bé traceable
here.
There remains yet a fourth point to be considered.
According to the church fathers (Origen, Jerome) the
Sadducees accepted only the Torah, reject-
9. Torab. ing all the other camonical books. This
seems to be a misconception based on Mt. 2231£
Why should Jesus have chosen an argument from the
Pentateuch, when others more obvious were to be found
in the other books, unless the Sadducees acknowledged
only the authority of the Pentateuch in such matters?
We have, however, no evidence for such a view, which
could hardly fail to be laid to their charge if there were
the least ground for ît. The argument from silence is
not conclusive ; but it is very strong here, for nothing
could have been better calculated to damage an opponent
than to show that he rejected any of the canonical
books. The truth is, however, that the Jews have
always regarded the Torah as on a wholly different
level of holiness and authority from the other books.
In the time of Ezra, which may be regarded as the
starting- point of Judaism, as we understand it, the
Torah must have been the only sacred writing. Other
documents won their way only gradually to a canonical
position. ‘The conservative Sadducees would, no doubt,
hold more rigidly than others to the supreme position of
the Torah, and would view with a certain suspicion any
enlargement of the canon as showing a Pharisaic
tendency. (Cp the attitude of the Protestant churches
towards the Apocrypha.} It must be admitted too that
the prophets and hagiographa generally lend more
countenance to Pharisaic views than the Torah, and
were, in fact, a result ofthe same development. Though
we need not suppose, therefore, that they rejected them,
the Sadducees may well have used them only ‘for
example of life and instruction of manners'; and the
argument in Mt. 2232 is probably chosen from the ‘Torah
in order to be above criticism. The statement of the
fathers is no doubt partly due to a very common con-
fusion with the SAMARITANS (g.v.), who did accept only
the Torah {for the same reasons which caused ihe
Sadducees to regard it with special veneration), and,
curiously enough, use the very passage quoted in Mt.
as an argument for the future life. AE. C.
For the literature see ScRIBES AND PHARISEES, $ 21.
SADOC. τ. (s4poc4) 4 Esd. 11. See ZADOK.
2. (σαδωκ [Ti. WHI), Mt.114 See GeNEALOCIES Îi.
SAFFRON (D939, ξαγάσηε; κρόκος, Cant.414t).
The Hebrew word is probably identicalwith Syr. &274272d,
Ar. £Zurkum, both of which denote the crocus or saffron.
The same word is found in Persian and Armenian (in
the îatter probably borrowed from Heb.; Lag. GA 58,
Arm. St. 161), and the common origin seems to be
Sans. Zunkuma. The source of saffron is Crocus sativus,
L., a plant of doubiful origin, which, though found in

1 See the discussion în Flick. and Hanb.f2) 664
4240

SAIL

Palestine (AZ? 422), is not apparently indigenous there.
D. H. Miller, on the other hand, separating 4arkòm
from the other words mentioned above, connects it with
Ar. famkdm (Sab. 0303) and Gk, xdyxauor,! and 50
takes it to be the resin of the dirze or mastic tree—i.c.,
guri, mg (Sab. Denkm. 82). But Miiller's identification
of κάγκαμον with the resin of the mastic tree is a
mistake : κάγκαμον is, according to Fraas (Syn. PI. ΕἸ.
class. 87), derived from Amyris [= BaZsamodendron]
Kataf and is in all probability therefore the fragrant
gum much esteemed in the east as ‘ Bissa bòl'—in fact,
an inferior kind of myrrh. Mordtmann does not
believe in the connection of pin9 with 4amkém and

κάγκαμον : and it seems best to follow ancient tradition
in identifying the Heb. word with saffron.
᾿ N, MW. T. T.-D.
SAIL. τ. YIDI, midhraZ; CTPWMNH, Ezek. 277,
‘Thy sail to serve as ensign' (011 δόξα).
2. DI, nds; σημεῖον or rà ἱστία @), Is.3323, ‘The many

coloured sails served în ancient times as distinguishing marks.”
See Sip.

SAINT. We have to deal, in this article, not with
the subject of Christian, or rather biblical, ‘ perfection,'
1. Use of but with the use of ‘saint’ and ‘holy’ in
‘terme. the EV. ‘The former word, as a rendering,
* either of £dd0f or of Adsid, has had the
unfortunate effect of obscuring characteristic biblical
ideas. Readers of the EV must therefore supply for
themselves the necessary mental correction or interpre-
tation. AV applies the term in OT:

1. To the angels (£440f%m, p'wnp), Job 5: 15:5 Ps.
8957 [68] Zech. 145. ΕΝ, however, calls the angels
‘holy ones.’ Whether even this phrase conveys the
right idea to a modern reader may be doubted {see
e), and we may well be graieful to Budde (note on Job
51) for his suggestion ‘ heavenly ones.‘

2. To persons who are ‘holy'—i.e., consecrated
(ῤδασέ, vivip, Faddit, sip) —e.g., Ps.106:6 (Aaron), 349
[10] Dan. 7 18 21 /. 2527 (faithful worshippers of Yahwè).
So, too, RV.

3. To Israelites who fulfil the duties of piety (44554,
mon; ὅσιος, sancés, see LOVINGKINDNESSÌ, τ 5. 29 (&
δίκαιος or om.) Ps. 1610 304[5] 505 529 [τ] 792 Prov.
28 (6, εὐλαβουμένων), ete.; so RV, except în 15. 29,
where it gives (not happily} ‘holy ones,’ and in mg.
*godly ones.’ ‘Loyal ones’ would give one side of
the meaning (cp Ps. 605?) In NT (see above) the EV
uses ‘saints’ often of Christians. It may be a con-
venient term ; but if ideas are to be translated, ‘ God's
people’ would perhaps be a better rendering, with a
marg. ‘holy ones—i.e., consecrated ones.'

Two passages in Rev. deserve attention, In 153, AV's ‘thou
king of saints '(5 βασιλεὺς τῶν ἁγίων, TR, Ti. Wiime. è ὅ β. τ.
ἐθνῶν) has become in RV ‘thou king of | the ages! (ὁ βασ. τῶν
αἰώνων, RV, WH); and in 1820 AV's ‘ye holy apostles and
prophets' has become ‘ye saints, and Ye apostles, and ye
prophets.' Textual criticism certainly has had its rights; but
the rendering ‘saints’ seems an unnecessary coneession to a
usage more honoured in the breach than în the observance.
“Ye holy ones’ would surely have been adequate.

“There are also great difficulties connected with EV's
use of the rendering ‘holy,’ especially when it is used

τ᾿ for Adsid (on which ep Dr. Par. Ps. 4430}

2 MeaniBE Kirkpatrick, Pra/ms, 544/; BDB, τ}.

QASId- 1. Ps.862, 'Preserve thou my soul,
for I am holy' (4ésà4); so AV, cp Vg. and Jer.; but
ἘΝ ‘godly.'’ AV is here even more misleading than in
505 (‘gather my saints {Ads#72y] together unto me’).
‘ Who can be the speaker of these words but the Sinless
One?' asks Augustine. This of course is theology, not
exegesis (cp O2s, 260), and even if we take Ps. 86 to be
a psalm of the pious community (Smend, ΒΆ., etc.), yet,
like Job, the community, while maintaining its conscious-
ness of righteousness, would abstain from calling itself

2 On this see Diosc. 123. Plin. 2/V124.

2 Sprengel (δέ. γέ Z/erd. 1172) calls this Amyris Nafal,
which is possibly the same thing.

4241

BAINT

subjectively ‘holy’ or‘ sinless.' ‘Itis not to the state of
holiness that the Psalmist lays claim, but to the over-
mastering affection of moral love, the same in kind as
that of which he is conscious towards his brother Israel.
ites, and in some degree towards his brother men. To
a good Israelite there is no bonstfulness implied in such
a claim as the Psalmist's. Whom should he love but
Yahwè, who has granted Israel a «‘covenant ordered
in all things and sure,“ a covenant based on the pre-
supposition that those who desire its benefits are bound
by practical love to each other, and, both as individuals
and as a community, by worshipping and obedient love
to Jehovah' (.4i45, 345)? Kirkpatrick (op. cit.), how-
ever, following Hupfeld, thinks the passive sense, ‘be-
loved ‘—-i.e., the object of thy lovingkindness, ‘far more
suitable.” “See LOVINGKINDNESS,

2. Ps. 1610, ‘Neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One'
{Adsid), εἴς, ἘΝ removes the capital letters; RVME
‘Or godly ; or beloved.” Any rendering would be better
than “holy one’ or ‘Holy One." Perhaps ‘thy loyal
one' gives the most important part of the sense best.
The phrase implies an argument; ‘thou wilt preserve
me because of the covenant-bond of lovingkindness.'

In Ps. 25 16, too, the same idea underlies the text, if Gratz is
tight in emending the very doubtful yard (vm) into Aastid

von), “have mercy upon me, for I am loyal (to the covei
in all'such assages pious Israel is the speaker, not an indi
(though a Ehriotian application can be reasonably defende,
In Ps. 16 the reading of the text (Kt,) is ‘thy holy ones.
however, in following the Hebrew margin (Kr.} has the authorit.
of the versions, and the best MSS and editions. The case witl
Ps. 89 19 {20] is somewhat similar.

3. Ps. 8919 [20], (δ υἱοῖς, AV ‘Thou spakest în vision
to thy Holy One’ (4ésid); RV * to thy saints," because
‘ Holy One' (4ddot) precedes in v. 18, and because the
text {Κι} and the versions have the plural, though
the singular is supported by the Heb. marg. {Kr.) and
by some MSS and early editions, Certainly the ‘ vision‘
οὗ 2.7 was to an individual (Nathan); though ulti-
mately it belonged to all the A4sîg7m:. ‘Godly ones (or
pne),' as Driver, or ‘t0 thy loyal ones (one),' would be
an improvement on AV°s rendering.

4. 15.29, ‘He will kcep the feet of his holy ones,'
RVmg. ‘of his godly ones' (4dsidaw, Kt.; but 445049,
Καὶ). EV is unfortunate.

3. and 6. 1 Tim. 28, EV ‘holy hands'; Tit. 18, ‘just,
holy, temperate.’ ὅσιος ἰξ never= ἅγιος ; it comes nearer
to δίκαιος, and denotes the righteousness of him who
regards not chiefly the law, but the lawgiver ; in short,
piety. So Philo, ὁσιότης μὲν πρὸς Θεόν, δικαιοσύνη δὲ
πρὸς ἀνθρώπους θεωρεῖται (09. Mangey, 230).

But there are difficulties of another order-—difficulties
inherent in the prevalent system of translation, Are

; only words to be translated, or ideas

3. A designa. 2}; > Μωρὲ not, in certani cases. ἃ
tion of God. concession be made to a wider theory
of translation than that which is possible in a mere re-
vision of an old version? The names of God, at any
rate, it would seem, need to be retranslated, at least in
the margin. ‘The Holy One of Israel' is a phrase
which, taken simply as it stands, scarcely conveys any
idea. αὐασξένε and È /6him being so nearly synonymous
terms, we might give as an aliernative rendering 'the
Majestic One whom Israel worships.' ‘The Devoted
One of Israel'—;e., ‘He who is devoted to Israel'
{Duff, 07° 7heology,1 190)
£ad35 implies one who dwells in unapproachable light,
and has no contact, save by acts of judgmeni or by
covenant favour, with earthly things; Ezekiel once has
the phrase ‘the Holy One in Israel’ (Ezek. 397; see
Davidson, ad /oc.). Israel is ‘holy (i.c., devoted, dedi-
cated} to Yahwè,' no doubt; but this phrase implies a
secondary sense of the word ‘holy.’ * ‘The rendering
‘Majestic One' (majesty and dazzling purity are con-
nected ideas} will suit also in Hos.119 (of which Duff
also gives an unusual exposition, 07° 7'4e0/4gy, 1108),
which contains the words, "I am God, and not man,

4242

SALA

the Majestic One in the midst of thee.” Hosea announces
the destruction of Ephraim or Israel (see Nowack},
because God is not, like an impressionable human
being, to be cajoled into forgiveness ; he is in the midst
of Israel in all his awful majesty, and must sweep out
of existence those who persistently reject his gracious
condescension. ‘ Holiness,” as early as the age of Hosea,
tends to become ethical, On the holiness of Israel and
of Israelites, cp Weber, γώ, Theol 52 75; Lazarus,

Die Ethik des Judenthums, 3x1ff (1898). T.K.C.
SALA (cara [Ti WH]), Lk.335; and SALAH
(mig), Gen. 1024); RV SHELAK.

SALAMIEL (cahamiHA [BA]), Judith 81 RV. See
SHELUMIEL.

SALAMIS (calamic, Acts 135). Salamis (repre-
sented by the modern town of Famagusta) was situated
on the eastern side of Cyprus, near the river Pedizeus
which traverses the fertile plain which runs inland to
Nicosia, the present capital of the island. It had the
advantage of a good harbour, which in history is famous
for the double victory of the Athenians over the
Phoenicians in 449 B:c., and the great sea-fight in
which Demetrius Poliorcetes defeated Ptolemy I. in
306 B.C. From prehistoric times Cyprus was famous
for its copper mines (copper in fact deriving its name
from that of the island ; see CYPRUS), and its valuable
timber supplies. From the ninth century B.c. iron also
was worked (cp Plin. 77 342). The forests, though
much reduced by the continual export of timber, had
not wholly disappeared even in imperial times (Strabo,
684). Corn, wine, and cil were also exported, and
salt was prepared at Salamis and at Kition (Plin.
ΗΝ 8184). In all these natural advantages Salamis
largely shared, and in fact became by far the
largest and most prosperous town in the island, to a
great extent owing to its favourable situation with
respect to the Syrian coast and also to that of Cilicia,
Even distant Lebanon is visible from the mountain
Stavroviini (2260 ft. high) above Zernake (anc. Kition)
on the SE. coast (cp 15. 231, ‘from the land of Chittim
it is revealed to them'—?.e., the smoke of burning Tyre). ἢ
Much more readily then is the opposite coast in the
neighbourhood of Seleucia and Antioch visible from
Salamis.

The natural result was that Cyprus displayed a long-
continued struggle between FPhcenician and Hellenic
civilisations. Greek tradition, however, consistently
claims Salamis as a very early Hellenic colony, along
with Curium ; and we now know that both were
centres of the civilisation called ‘Mycenzean,’ which is
certainly not Semitic. Nevertheless, in Salamis as else-
where, Phoenicians and Greeks were settled side by side,
and although Hellenic influences had a firm hold upon
the town, this affected little the general condition of the
island, where upon the whole the original basic popula-
tion was in affinity with the Phoenician element. After
the withdrawal of the Greeks from interference in
Cyprus upon the conclusion of the Peace of Cimon,
there took place a reaction against Hellenism, until
about 410 B.C., when Evagoras won back his ancestrai
throne of Salamis. Salamis was thus once more open
to Hellenic influences and was connected by close bonds
with Athens (Isocr. Evag. 47 f, CIA 2397). Subse-
quently it was to Egypt that Cyprus succumbed ; for in
295 B.C. Ptolemy reconquered the island, and under the
Ptolemaic regime large numbers of Jews settled in it
{cp 1 Mace. 1523). Their mumbers would be increased
under the early Empire owing to the fact that Herod

1 [One form ofte ordinary view is thus expressed by Delitesch
(saiah, ET, 1405), ‘Cyprus, the principal Pheenician emporium,
is the last piace of call. As soon as they put in here, what they
had heard as a rumour on the high sea is disclosed to these
crews (n5)—i2., it becomes clear, undoubted certainty.' But
this does not exhaust the possibilities of meaning. See, further,
Crit. Bib.]

4243

SALEM, THE VALLEY OF

the Great farmed the Cyprian copper mines (Jos. Arf
xvi. 45), Hence we find apparently more than one
synagogue at Salamis, whither of course the majority of
the Jews would congregate {Acts 135).

Various reasons account for the fact that Salamis was
the starting-point of the missionary work of Paul and
Barnabas. ° Not only was Barnabas himself a Cypriote
{Acts436, Κύπριος τῷ γένει), possibly, for aught we know
to the contrary, a native of Salamis ; but many natives
of the island were Christians and had set the example
of missionary enterprise (Acts 1119); and lastly, the
number of the Jews established there and in other parts
of the island was a guarantee of the existence of a pro-
portionate number of proselytes. If Cyprus was to be
visited at all, entry would be most naturally made from
Syria at Salamis, which besides was connected with
Paphos by two good roadst—one by way of Soli, the
other along the S. coast by way of Curium and Citium
(vid. Tab. Peut.).

As regards the later history of Salamis, mention should be
made of the great insurrection of the Jews in the time of
Tralan (517 4/5), in which a large parivof the city was de-
stroyed. Hadrian in consequence expelled all Jews from the
island and closed it to them under penalty of death (Milman,
Hist. of the Jews,8rx1f). In Constantine's time, having been
ruined by earthquakes, Salamis was rebuilt, and renamed Con-
stantia (cp Jer. Pile.) In the fourth century A.b., conse-
quent upon the discovery of the relics of Barnabas, with a copy
Sf the First. Gospel. at Salamis, Cyprus was made autonomous
and the patriarch has ever since enjoyed the right of signing his
name in red ink. WLW.

SALASADAI (caAacadai [A]), Judith 81. See
ZURISHADDAI,

SALATHIEL (DISPENÙ, 1Ch.317; calaGiHA
[Ti.WH], ΓΚ. 327), ΕΝ SHEALTIEL.

SALCAH, ΕΝ Salecah mobo; [ο]ελχὰ [BAFL]).!
an ancient city on the E. border of Bashan (Josh. 1311,
ἀχὸ, [Β7}, possibly also the name of a district (cp 125,
cekyai [B], aceAya [A]), which belonged to the b'ne
Manasseh (Dt. 310, AV Salchah) and later to Gad
(τ Ch.511). Salcah, the mod. Salbat or Sarhad, is
situated four or five hours E. of Bosra, on an eminence
{probably once a crater) in a very strong position on the
S. extremity of the Jebel Hauraàn. It seems to have
been hotly contended for by the Aramzzans and the
Israelites respectively, and may have played a prominent
part in the legends, legendary genealogies, and history
of the Israelites, though Cheyne thinks a geographical
confusion may well be suspected, see GILEAD, RAMOTH-
GILEAD, cp also ZELOPHERAD. It was well known to
early Arabian geographers. The Nabateans called it
anbs, and an inscription found there (of 66 A.D.) refers
to the fact that the goddess al-Lat (nbx) was especially
honoured by its inhabitants (C/S 2 182). For descrip-
tions of the modern place see Burckhardt, Reiser, 180;
de Vogié, Spr. Centr. 107-9; cp also Buhl, Pal. 252.

SALEM, or rather SHALEM (DYY, Gen. 1418

[ADL]; caAum, Ps. 7623], ἐν eipunH [BNXRT]).
See JERUSALEM, SHILOH, MELCHIZEDEK, SODOM.

SALEM, THE VALLEY OF (τὸν δυλωνὰ calHm

[BNAJ, Syr.Mbtr amnbie), one of the localities where
the Jewish inhabitants took defensive measures against
Holofernes (Judith 44). Some well-known place must
be meant—-not, therefore, the Salumias of OS 14918,
8 R. m. from Scythopolis (Reland}, or the Salim near
Nablus (Wolff), Probably the whole verse should run
thus, *. . . Samaria, and CYAMON [g..], and IBLEAM
{see BELMEN), and Jericho, and the circle of Jordan
(Syr.; see CHOBA), and to Esdraelon’ The words καὲ
αἰσωρα καὶ τὸν αὐλῶνα calnu seem to be made up of
three fragments of ἐσδρηήλων ἐσδρηλωμ. (Cp αὐλωνος
for nba in Dt. 1130, οἱ λοιποί in Hex.) Τ. Κ΄ Ὁ.

1 Owing τὸ the fact that in nearly every case the Gk. name
follows ἕως, the initial of the name has been often dropped,
and it appears under the form eAya.

4244

SALEMAS

SALEMAS (s4£425), 4 Esd.l1 ἘΝ.
LUM, 6.

SALIM (carerm (Ti ΜῊ], 2.2 carheim [AL
carHnm [V, Eus. Cyr. Theophylact)], a place, on the
W. of the Jordan, near which was /£non, where John
baptized, Jn.323t. ‘The reason given for the choice
of &non {--ἃ place of fountains) is, ‘because there
were many springs (ὕδατα) there,’ so that a multitude
could spread themselves out, and John could pass
from one spring to another baptizing them. Eus.
and Jer. (05 24591 13425) place Ainon 8 R. m.
S. of Scythopolis, ‘juxta Salim et Jordanem,' and it
is true that about seven miles from Beisàn there is
a large Christian ruin called Umm el'Amdan, near
which are several springs. But no name like Salem
or 4înon has been found there. Conder himself,
who points this out, identifies non with the springs
between the well-known Salim (near Nablus) and
a place called ‘Ainin, în the Wady Fai The
place is accessible from all quarters, especially from
Jerusalem and Galilee (see the attractive description in
Tent Work, 257 f.). But the distance of the springs
from Salim (about seven miles) is rather against this
identification. It should be noticed, too (τ) that Jesus,
as we are told, was at this time baptizing in the
country districts of Judea {v. 22), and was apparently
not very far from John, and (2) that “near Salem' is
really mentioned to explain the ready access of the
Jews to John (ὅτι ὕδατα πολλὰ ἣν ἐκεῖ has the appear-
ance of being a gloss}. Considermg the frequent
errors of the text connected with ‘Salem,' it is very
plausible to correct τοῦ calma (see above) into cepov-
cali, in which case it becomes natural to identify
Zenon with ‘Ain Karim, which boasts of its beautiful
St. Mary's Well, and to the W. of which is the ‘Ain
el-Habs (the Hermit's Fountain), connected by a very
late Christian tradition with John the Baptist. The
legendary connection should not prejudice us against
the view here proposed, which rests solely on exegetical
and geographical considerations. Cp BETH-HACCEREM,
and, for an analogous emendation, NAIN,

On the tradition connecting ‘Ain Karim with John the
Baptist, see Schick, ZDPI 22 [9] sr 2ὲ Tk. c.

SALIMOTH (caleimw@ [B]), 1Esd. 836 RV=
Ezra 810, SHELOMITH, 4.

SALLAI (9), τ. Neh.1220; in 127 SALLU (9.0.
11)

2. See GABRAI SALLAI

SALLAMUS (caMMoymoc [B*A]), 1 Esd. 925= Ezra
1024, SHALLUM, IT.

SALLU (N>D [Neh.], NîDD [Ch.j), a Judean
Benjamite (BENJAMIN, $ 9, ili. ), temp. Nehemiah (Neh.
117: cHAw [ΒΔΑ], cnAwm [N°] camaa [L];
τ Ch.97; cahwm [BL], carw [A]). Cp SALU.

SALLU (15D), a priest enumerated in one of the
post-exilic lists (Neh. 127 caloyai [N33 me sup.],
caroyia [L] om. BK*A). In Neh.1220 the name is
SALLAI (ὅδ; cala [Nea me in], gaiove: [L], om.
BN*A); and the head of Sallai's ‘ father's house' in the
time of Joiakim, Joshua's successor, is said to have
been KALLAI (*

SALMA (N92), the name of the clan which was
reckoned as the ‘father’ of Bethlehem, 1 Ch. 251 54,
and introduced into the genealogy of Jesse, τ. 11. Ac-
cording to Wellhausen (C/7358, cp De gent 29),
‘Salma is the father of Bethlehem affer ἐλ erile But
to the present writer there is good reason to suppose

See SHAL-

that the Bethlehem intended is not the Bethlehem in ;

Judah, but another Rethlehem—i.e., Beth-jerahmeel, in
the Negeb (RUTH, $ 4). It will be noticed that the

1 It is true that the Fourth Evangelist, accordine ἐσ fe
MSS, invariably uses ἱεροσολυμα. But he may now and then
have used sepovonàna, like other evangelists.

136 4245

SALMONE

‘sons’ of Salma include Netophah and Atroth-beth-
Joab. Now Netophah is most probably a modification
of Nephtoah or Naphtoah (cp NAPHTUHIM, SALMAH,
2), and Atroth of Ephrath. See JABEZ, SHORAL, and,
on the Arabian affinities of this clan, SALMAH (vv. 51 54,
σαλωμὼν [BA], capa, -αα [L]; v. 11, σαλμων BL], «ar
[A)). . τ. κι α.
SALMAR (MOSÈ; carmewn [AL], τὰν [BI).

1. Ruth 420. RVM8, according to MT's reading.
See SALMA, SALMON.

2. The name of an Arabian people mentioned în
Cant. 15 1 K.41r Nu. 2423 Ezra
255 48 (and || passages), Neh.113. (1) In Cant.]5 the
poet couples the 'tent-curtains of Salmah' {read
, not ΠΟ 9) with the ‘tents of Kedar' (see

CasticLES, $ 6, col. 687). Now the tribes of KEDAR
{g.v.] tenanted the region afterwards appropriated by
the Salmacans (55), and the Salmaans were followed
by the Nabateeans. The two latter peoples are men-
tioned together in a Nabateean inscription (CZS ii. 1979).
Pliny mentions the ‘Salmani et Masei Arabes' (ΛΖ
6 30), and Steph. Byz., quoted by Euting, refers to the
Σαλάμιοι as an Arab population in alliance with the
Nabataeans. ‘The emendation in Cant, Ze. is due to
Wellh. (Pro/.9 218, n. 1); cp Wi. 401196292. (2)
Most probably in 1 K. 411 mpserna should be pointed
npbirng. This suggestion assumes that two of Solomon’s

prefects, supposed to have had daughters of Solomon
as wives, really married Salamian or Salmeean women.
One of these is called Basemath (noiy5), a corruption of
‘Ishmaelith';1 the other TAPHATH, perhaps a corrup-
tion of Naphtuhith (cp 1 Ch.2s4, reading Naphtihi).
(3) The impossible words bg ibi în Nu. Ze, should be

emended into nobbn or ΕΝ The context relates

to the Kenites. ” Observe that in the Targums roby is
the equivalent of the Heb, ‘»’p. See, however, BALAAM,
86; Wi. ΟΕ 2423. (4) On the passages relating to
the ποῦ “may in Ezra-Neh., see SOLOMON'S SERVANTS,
Sons OF.

Winckler(4. OF 25457.) proposesto substitute the ‘Salamians*
for ‘Shalman' in Hos. 1014, as the barbarous captors of Beth-
arbel. In this he shows much acumen ; but it îs more probable
that ‘Shalman is the name of one of the N. Arabian kings who
invaded the Negeb. He was apparently a king of the N.
Arabian Cusham or Cush (see Crif. #70. on Hos. 1014 Am. 13).

This article illustrates the names SALMA, SAMLAH, SALMON,
SAMLAI, SHELUMIEL. T.K.C.

SALMAI ("95% {ord. text]), Neh.748 ΕΝ, AV
SHALMAIL

SALMANASAR (Sc/manassar), 4 Esd. 1840; in
Kings, SHALMANEZER.

SALMON (}imby), Ps. 6814 [15]} RV, AVZALMON, a.

SALMON qndi; calman [B]: -mon [AL]),
father of Boaz, Ruth 420 f. {a variant to ΜΤ᾽5 SALMAH
in 2.20, cp & Vg.), Mt.14 Lk.332 (EV cadmon
[NCADI:; but cada [N*B]). See Εὐτη, 84. Mi. (14)
makes him the husband of RAHAB, whom, however,
Talmudic tradition makes, as a proselyte, the wife of
Joshua. Cp Nestle, £x#.7 1091, and see GENE-
ALOGIES ii., $ 2,

SALMONE (caAmownH Ti. WH), a cape at the
eastern extremity of Crete, as appears from the passage
in Acts 277, where it is spoken of as the first land sighted
after leaving Cnidus.

The ship on which Paul sailed beat up with difficulty (2646,
2. 7) to the latitude of Cnidus from Myra. A true course W.

S. from Cnidus would have taken her by the N. side of Crete,
As she was unable to hold that course, but was yet able 10
fetch the eastern cupe of the island, which bears SW. by S. from
Cnidus, we may infer that the wind blew from between NNW.
and WNW. (essuming that the ship could make good a course
about seven points from the wind). The wind, therefore, in
common language would have been termed NW. (sce Smith,

1 This È ; explanation of Basemath accounts for the double name
of Esau's wife—Basemath and Mahalath—z.c., ‘Ishmaelite’ and
“Jerahmeelite.” The initial B (or M? see 6) is secondary.

4246

SALOAS

Voyage and Shipwreck of St, Paul, 74/). Such winds prevail
in the castern Mediterranean in the suromer, and are the Etesian
grinds of the ancients (Aristotle, De 4Mxn40,415; Pliny, HAV

Mis regards the identification of Salmone some doubt
is possible. The name appears in various forms.

Σαλμώνη, Acts277; Σαλμωνὸς ἄκρα, Apoll. Rbod. Argos.
41693;1 Ξαλμώνιον, Str. τοῦ ;2 the most frequently recucrin;
form is Σαμώνιον (Str. 472, eic,, Stadiasne. msm, $$ 318 and
355, Ptol. 8.17, Plin. 4/7 4 20 [Sammonium]).

‘The extreme NE, cape, now called Cape Sidhero
(the ‘Iron Cape') or €. Salozion, is generally supposed
to be the ancient Cape Salmone ; but it is perhaps more
probable that Cape Salmone should be identified with
the promontory called P/2£2, some 7 m. to the south-
ward (so it is in the map ἴῃ vol. i. of Spratt's Tyaveds
and Researches în Crete; see discussion of the point,
ibid, 189f.). ΤῈ is very possible also that the usage of
the name may have varied in ancient times in the case
of two conspicnous promontories lying so close together.

W.J.W.

SALOAS (cad@ac [B]), 1 Esd. 922 RV= Ezra 1022,

ELASAH, I.

SALOM (carwm [ANV]), 1 Mace. 226 AV, Ἐν
SALU.

SALOME (calwmH, see NAMES, $ 50, cp ‘She
lomi,” ‘Shelumiel' ; or, perhaps, ‘Salma,' see ISRAEL,
$ 79, ad fin. and cp SOLOMON, $ 1), one of the women
who witnessed the crucifixion and afterwards visited the
sepulchre of Jesus, Mk.1540161t. She is almost
certainly to be identified with the wife of Zebedee, the
mother of James and John; see Mt.2756, and cp
CLopas. $ 2.

The name Salome was borne also (1) by the daughter of
Herodias; see ξκοῦ, 8 10; (2) by the wife of Alexander
Jannaus; see ISRAEL, $ $0.

BALT (29; 6 aAc, also δλδο, δλδ) Indis-
pensable as the use of salt appears to us, it must have
D εἰ been quite unattainable to primitive

1 onesti” aman in many paris of the world,

“ Indeed where men live mainly on
milk and flesh, consuming the latter raw or roasted,
so that its salts are not lost, it is not necessary to add
sodium chloride, and thus we understand how the
Nuinidian nomads in the time of Sallust and the
Bedouins of Hadramaut at the present day never eat
salt with their food. On the other hand, cereal or
vegetable diet calls for a supplement of salt, and so
does boiled meat. The important part played by the
mineral in the history of commerce and religion depends
on this fact. At a very early stage of progress salt
became a necessary of life to most nations, and in many
cases they could procure it only from abroad, from the
sea-coast, or from districts like that of Palmyra, where
salty incrustations are found on the surface of the soil.
The Hebrews had ready access to an unlimited supply
of this necessity of life in the waters of the Dead Sea,
and in the range of rock-salt at its south-western ex-
tremity,

When the waters of the ‘Salt Sea” (see Dean SEA) subside
after the spring floods have caused them to rise several feet
beyond their normal level, the heavily impregnated water, left
in the marshes on its borders, rapid!y evaporates, leaving a
deposit of salt. The Dead Sea is said to yield by evaporation

24-57 lbs. of salt in 100 lbs. of water, as compared with 6 Ibs.
from the same quantity of water taken from the Atlantic Ocean

(Hull). ᾿

It has been adduced as evidence of the ‘ practical turn
of the prophet's mind' (Dr. /r27.19 294) that the
marshes found on the western shore of the Dead
Sea in Ezekiel's day are expressly exempted from the
sweetening and reviving influence of the river of the
prophetic vision {Ezek. 471). The second source of
supply, above referred to, was the famous ridge of Jcbel

1 Σαλμωνὶς καὶ Σαλμώνιον, ἀκρωτήριον Κρήτης, Schol. in loc.
Cp Dionys. Perieg. το

1 Cp ’Adavaia Σαλμωνία in CIG 2555, 2. 13.

3 Certain parts of this article which it has not been deemed
necessary to indicate specially are taken from Professor Robertson
Smith's contribution τὸ the article ‘Salt'in ἔρον, Brit.

4247

SALT

Usdum, whence probably came the wMlu& sédomiti
(momo nbp) or ‘salt of Sedom' of the Talmud. This
ridge, which geologists tell us must once have formed
the bottom of a larger lake, consists mainly of rock-salt,
the friable nature of which, under climatic influences,
causes portions of the range to assume fantastic shapes,
One of these, a pillar resembling în outline a gigantic
female form, gave rise in the prehistoric period to the
familiar legend of Gen. 1926 (cp Wisd. 107—where the
pillar of salt is characterised as ‘a monument of an un-
believing soul'—Jos. «ἀπό, i. 114 [8 203], and the illus-
tration in Stade, ΟἿ] 119). To one or other of these
sources of supply reference is made in the obscure
mikréh mélah (n>p 150) of Zeph. 29 (EV ‘saltpits’; &
ϑιμωνία dAwvos), it being uncertain whether the expres-
sion signifies salt-pans for evaporation (τὰς τοῦ ἁλὸς
λίμνας of 1 Macc. 1135), or salt-pits for the excavation
of salt,

As among ourselves, salt entered in countless ways
into the domestic and social economy of the Hebrews,
A morsel of bread and salt and ‘water by measure’ { Ezek.
411) are given by a late Jewish thinker as the irreducible
minimum of human sustenance (Pirz# 4400164).

Similarly, among the principal things for the whole
use of man's life, the son of Sirach assigns a prominent
place to salt (Ecclus. 8926, cp Job 66).

Bread (nîna np, Z4554 Lc.) and olives (Ma'd52r. 43) dipped
in salt were the poor man's fare ; or the salt might be dissolved
in water for this purpose (5λαδό. 142; cp 45.31) Ina
stronger form as brine (T9biae., ἅλμη), salt water (Mp3 "D)
was used for pickling vegetables and meat (Baruch, 6 [Ep. of
Jeremy] 28) and in the preparations of olives for che table
(FRUIT, $ 9).

The practice of rubbing the flesh of newly killed
animals with salt for the purpose of depleting it of every
particle of blood required a large supply of salt. So,
too, the process of pickling (ταριχεύω) and preserving
fish, which formed so important an article of commerce
(for methods adopted see FisH, $ 7}. Salt was also
employed for preserving hides (Mi445%, 53). In the
Messianic age, even the domestic animals are to share
in the material joys of the period by having their pro-
vender seasoned by the addition of saline herbs (Is. 3024
von RVme ‘salted’). Besides the natural sea- and
rock-salt, the Jews of later times were familiar with the
sal conditum or spiced salt of the Romans {mmpho 46.

Zàr.26—for other readings and explanations see
Jastrow, Dick. gf Targ. ete., s.v.). Salt was also used
medicinally. A grain of salt in a decayed tooth was
reckoned a cure for toothache (.5&a55. 65). Here, too,
may perhaps be classed the rubbing of new-born babes
with salt, attested by Ezekiel (164, see FAMILY, $ 9},
varied by washing in salted water (Van Lennep, 2i6/e
Lands, 569), although it probably had its origin in a
quite different circle of ideas as a safeguard against
demonie influence (cp 2244dr0%4 402, where salt at meals
is alleged to have this effect). or the medicinal
properties of the water of the ‘Salt Sea’ see DeAD
SkA (col. 1045). Many other illustrations of the cura-
tive properties of salt itself, as employed among semi-
civilised races, are given by Trumbull in his exhaustive
treatise The Covenant of Salt, 1899. The economic
importance of salt is further indicated by the almost
universal prevalence in ancient and medizeval times, and.
indeed in most countries down to the present day, of salt
taxes, or of Government monopolies,

An interesting and exhaustive study of the working of the salt
monopoly in Egypt under the Ptolemies is given by Ù. Wilcken
in his recent work Griechische Ostraka aus Agyften, etc.
{ται 2, ἡ ἀλική, salt-tax), In Palestine under the Seleucids,
che salt-pans on the shore of the Dead Sea were also a govern:
ment property, as we learn from the remission of the royalty
pon salt (ἡ τεμὴ τοῦ ἀλόφ}1 decreed by Demetrius in the hope
δὲ Eaiing the support οἵ the Jews ( Mac. 1029 1135) We

1 The identical expression ἀπὸ τιμῆς ἀλός ἴδ found upon an
Egyptian ostracon (Wilcken, 04. οἷδε 1 144).

4248

SALT

have no further information, unfortunately, as to the details of
the operation of this tax.

That a religious significance was attached to a
substance so highly prized, which was often obtained

,. with difticulty, is no more than natural.
2 Salt in ho But it must also be remembered that the
58. it Ù habitual use of sait is intimately connected
Tibual. with the advance from nomadic to agri-
cultural life, .e.—with precisely that step in civilisation
which had most influence on the cults of almost all
ancient nations. The gods were worshippcd as the
givers of the kindly fruits of the earth, and, as all over
the world ‘bread and salt’ go together in common use
and common phrase, salt was habitually connected with
offerings, at least with all offerings which consisted, in
whole or in part, of cereal elements. This practice is
found alike among the Greeks and Romans, and among
the Semitic peoples(Lev. 213); Homer calls salt ‘ divine,*
and Plato names it ‘a substance dear to the gods’
{Timeus, 60; cp Plutarch, ϑγπερος. ὅ το).

Bread and salt were the chief and inseparable con-
stituents of the Hebrews' daily food. It was, there-
fore, to be expected that every offering—was it not
the ‘ bread of God' (τα on° Lev. 21 52) ?_aid upon
the altar should also have the accompaniment of salt.
It is immaterial whether we regard the actual provision
of Lev. 213 e: ‘ With αὐ thine oblations thou shalt offer
salt’ as younger than the more special provision of 134
‘every oblation of thy mea/ afering (minkdh) shalt thou
season with salt (RV),' as Dillmann and some others
are inclined to do (but see Ezek, 4324), since both the
fundamental conception of primitive sacrifice and the
extant testimony to the actual practice in historical
times point to the constant practice of adding salt to
every species of offering, animal and vegetable alike.

Hence the statement of Mk.9498, ‘every sacrifice shall be
salted with sal?," though absent from the oldest authorities, is a
statementof fact (cp for the NT times Jos. A4#f, iii. 91, Mishna,
Zibak,63/), Evenincense was not excepted (see IncENSE, $ 6),
and the Greek text of Lev. 247 is doubtless right in adding salt to
the SHewBREAD (which see, and cp Philo, Vit. 7705. 8 τὸ [ed.
Mangey, 2 151] ‘loaves ands12/°), Grants of salt for the services
of the restored worship of the returning exiles were thus entirely
in place (Ezza69722; cp for a later period the decree of
Antiochus "345 medimni of salt," Jos. Ant. xii.33 [$ 140).

Whilst, however, the origin of the presence of salt in
the cultus is to be traced to a primitive conception of
sacrifice, it must be borne in mind that at the stage of
religious thought reflected in the priestly legislation, the
use of salt has already become symbolical (sce $ 3).

In the cults of Greece and Rome we find the same appreciation
of salt, as is shown by the frequent references in classical writers
(see Di.-Ryssel, sare exeget. Handb,, om Lev.213; also
Hehn, Das Sal, 6 9, Schleiden, Das Salz, 738 [1875}}. It
also appears în the lists of offerings in the older cultus system of
Babylonia (Zim. Beitrage sur Kenntnis der Babyl. Relizion
1901, 95). Cp RrruaL, $ το, col. 4123.

The absolute barrenness of the region bordering on
the Dead Sea, owing to the saline incrustations with
which the ground is covered, naturally

sSibol and suggested the employment, by various
metaphor. Hebrew writers, of salt as a figure for

barrenness and desolation (Dt. 2923 [22];
cp Job 396 Jer. 176). Such a barren waste, innocent of
every form of vegetation, formed a fitting contrast to
‘the fruitful land' (Ps.10734 render with RV ‘a salt
desert [anbo]" for ‘barrenness' of AV). This figurative
use of ‘salt’ and ‘saltness’ is not confined to Hebrew,
being found in several of the other Semitic dialects (Toy,
‘ Ezekiel,' 5.807, 74 ET). The same idea has usually
been regarded as underlying the expressive symbolical
act, once referred to in the OT, of sowing a city that
had been put under the ban {φόγεπε, see BAN) with salt
{Judg. 945). It is more probable, however, that this
practice is to be brought into connection with the use of
salt în sacrifice (Rel Sem.18 454 n.), the idea of the
complete dedication of the city to Yahwè, as symbolised
by the strewing of it with salt, being more in harmony

4249

SALT

with the fundamental conception of the ‘ ban,'1 This
practice is also attested for Cyprus (Rel Sem.) Lc.,
Sehleiden, Das δας, 95, who adduces as historical
parallels the tradition that Attila so treated Padua, and
Friedrich Barbarossa, Milan). [Cp also Zimmern'’s
correction (in Gunkel, ‘Gen.’ in #4 193) of the
translations of Assyrian inseriptions (Tiglath-pileser and
ASur-bani-pal) in 42137 2207, where ‘salt’ should be
read for ‘stones’ and ‘dry sand.']

As covenants were ordinarily made over a sacrificial
meal, in which salt was a necessary element, the ex-
pression “a covenant of salt’ (Nu. 18 19) is easily under
stood ; it is probable, however, that the preservative
qualities of salt were held to make it a peculiarly fitting
symbol of an enduring compact, and infiuenced the
choice of this particular element of the covenant meal as
that which was regarded as sealing an obligation to
fidelity, Among the ancients, as among orientals down
to the present day, every meal that included salt had a
certain sacred character, and created a bond of piety and
guest-friendship between the participants. Hence the
Greek phrase ἅλας καὶ τράπεζαν παραβαίνειν, ihe Arab
phrase ‘ there is salt between us,’ the expression ‘to eat
the salt of the palace' {(Ezra414 RV; not in (58Ά), the
modern Persian phrase παπαξ 4aram, ‘untrue to salt'
—i.e., disloyal or ungrateful—and many others. The
OT expression ‘ covenant of salt' (Lev. 213 Nu. 1819) is
therefore a significant figure of speech, denoting the
perpetual obligation under which the participants in the
covenant of God with Israel {having in the sacrifice and
sacrificial meal partaken of salt together) lay to observe
its conditions.® So also in 2 Ch.135 the expression
may legitimately be rendered withont a figure by ‘a
perpetual irrevocable covenant.’

Although salt, from one aspect of its effects in nature,
might be used, as we have seen, by Hebrew writers
as a figure of desolation and death, on the other
hand, in virtue of its giving piquancy and, so to say,
life τὸ otherwise insipid articles of diet (cp Plutarch,
Sympos., cited by Trumbull, Covenant of Salt, 53), or it
may be, as Trumbull suggests (/c.), from its being
associated with blood in the primitive mind, ‘ salt seems
to stand for life in many a form of primitive speech and
in the world's symbolism.' Itis as a symbol of life that
salt is employed by Elisha in healing the death-dealing
spring at Jericho (2 K.2197}.

Here, τοῦ, may be classed the familiar description of the true
followers of Jesus as ‘the salt of the earth' (Mt. 513), the living
embodiment of the highest ideals of life, a permanent and per:
vasive influence in the world making for righteousness. Paul's
exhortation to the Colossians (46) to have their ‘speech sensoned
with salt ’ is not to be understood of ‘ wit,’ the ‘ Attic salt’ of the
ancients, but rather of sober, good sense, as contrasted with
‘ profane and vain babblings' (1 Tim. 620 2 Tim. 216).

For the many interpretations of the crur inzer
pretum, Mk. 949 ἃ (‘salted with fire’), reference must
be made to the commentaries (cp also Trumbull, og. cià.
65/) Finally the much discussed reference to the im-
possibility of restoring to salt its lost savour (Mt. 513 and
parallels) is ingeniously connected by Robertson Smith
with the oppressive taxation of salt, referred to above,
one result of this being that the article is apt to reach
the consumer in a very impure state largely mixed with
earth. ‘The salt which has lost its savour’ is ‘simply
the earthly residuum of such an impure salt after the
sodium chioride has been washed out.'

The use of salt in various rites of the Christian church, as în
the baptism of catechumens, in holy water, etc., falls with.
aut the scope of this article (see Smith's Dict. 2/ Christ. Antig.,
σφισιν Trumbull, 06. cit.). W.R. STA. R. SK,

1 This view is also preferable to that suggested recently by
Schwally, Semitische Kriegsaltertimer (1901) 32, that the
‘strewing with salt denotes dedication to the demons of solitary
and barren places.’

,3 Fora slightly different explanation of the originof the expres-
sion see Kraetzschmar, Die Vundescorstellung im AT46 n. 207.
Cp Rel. Sem.(2) 479 (the Arab vath taken over salt strewn upon
a fire), For other examples of salt in covenants and oaths see
Well Heid.®) 124, 189, Landberg, Arabica, 5134 157 (Leyden
1898),

4250

SALT, THE CITY OF

SALT, THE CITY OF (NÒDI PP: δι πόλει
cadwm [B], ar πόλιο ἁλῶν [4] al TTOAEIC Τῶν
ὅλων [L]}, one of the six cities *in the wilderness,'
grouped with NIiBsHAN and EN-GEDI [g.v.] in Josh.
1562. Ifthe VALLEY OF SALT[g.v.] or rather ‘ Valley of
ham-melah,' is the Wady e/-Afi/4, the ‘Ir ham-melah
may be placed on the site now known as εἰς ἡζέδᾳ, a
little to the SE of &%. Sa'zve (the ancient SHEMA or
JESHUA?) on the great route from Hebron to the Red
Sea through the ‘Arabah {cp MOLADAH).

In this case, it is plain that, as, e.g., in 18. 2329 241, En-
gedi must have come from En-padi$, En-kadesh (Kadesh-
*barnea'), and the wilderness be that of Arad (Judg.116, if
we may read tp nato; see ΚΕΝΊΤΕΘ), the term ‘ir Aemnélaf
is a corruption of ἦν zerahmeel, “city of Jerahmeel.' A ‘city
of Jerahmeel' is referred to in 18.155; also probably in
Judg. 1 16 (crit. emend., see KENITES). See JERAHMEEL, $ 4.

. T.K,C.

SALT, THE VALLEY OF (N29 *3, in Chronicles
and Psalms {H]korAac [or faparz] των ὅλων ; in
Samuel and Kings reBeAem, pemeAe [B], rumara,
rarmeAa [A]. rarmeAay, -ey [1.]}. the scene of en-
counters between the Israelites and the Edomites (or
rather, perhaps, Aramites—i.e., Jerahmeelites), first
under David (25.813 [01], τ ἢ. 1812 [prix], Ps. 60
heading [both pa» and nmie]).t and then under Amaziah
(2 K.147 [bmx], 2Ch.25:r1 [see closing sentence]).
The ‘ Valley of ham-mélah' has been identified with the
great marshy plain (es-Sebkhah) at the S. end of the
Dead Sea (see DrAD SEA, $ 3), which is strongly
impregnated with salt. Itis true, it is described as at
the present day ‘too spongy to walk upon,’ nor can we
easily understand how it can ever in the historical period
have been otherwise than marshy. An examination of
the text of the passages referred to, however, makes
it seem in the highest degree superfluous to choose
this site for the famous battlefieid. It is plausible
(Buhl, PZ 88)? to identify the ‘ valley of 4@m-m0lak'
with tie Weady el-Milh, one of the two wadys into
which the I es-Seda' parts at Beersheba. This wady
and the Μὴ es-Seba' may be regarded as forming a
first frontier between Canaan and the steppe-country.

It is important to notice that 4272-2424 (in the Hebrew

name) is an easy corruption of JerAHMEEL (9.9, $ 4), and that
the Wady εἰς Δ’ ἐξ would naturally enter into the Negeb of the

Jeralmeelites, Most probably we should read DI8 (‘Aram'a
popular corruption of Jerahmeel) instead of O°8 in all the
passages quoted above, except the last (2Ch.2511), where
YHb-)3 should be emended into mas i.e., the Misrites,
Cp JoxrueeL; SALT, Citv or; Saut SEA. τι κι

SALT SEA (Mbibm DI; see DEAD SEA, 8 1), a
name of the Dead Sea, Gen. 143 Nu. 34312 Dt. 317
Josh. 316 123 1525 1819}. It is an expressive name,
no doubt (cp Hull, AZozr? Seir, 108), but need not on
that account be original. If the g2-4ammelal (see
SALT, VALLEY OF} has arisen, by a popular corruption
from gé-y2rakme'el (valley of Jerahmeel), the presump-
tion surély is that yam Zam-mélah (EV ' salt sea‘) has
arisen in the same way out of γάρ yérafue'el (' sea of
Jerahmeel'), which is most naturally. viewed as the
original Hebrew name of the Dead Sea. Winckler, how-
ever (G/236), thinks that the identification of the ‘Salt
Sea' with the ‘ vale of SibpIm ‘ [g.v.]is due to a mistake
on the part of the second editor or reviser of the original
narrative. His theory is that the first editor or reviser
meant Lake Hileh (cp MEROM), called by William of
‘Tyre Melcha, on the NW. side of which is a fountain
still called ‘Ain el-Mellaha. The water of Lake Hileh,
however, is not salt The same editor, it is added,
interpreted the phrase ‘the vale of Siddim(?)' as

1 The latter part of the heading is evidently a later addition,
which was made after the probable original text of the heading
had assumed its present form. That text may have been

“ts pae Sebm; ans pnbz (Psarws, Boox or, $ 45; cp$ 28,

ἦν.
è In Gesch. der Edomiter, 20 (1893), Buhl had accepted the
ordinary identification (es-Sebkhah). Cp also Epom, $ 6.

4251

SALUTATIONS

referring to a wady running towards Lake Hleh, the
same in which the ‘Ain el-Mellahah is situated.
Winckler (G/292£ 108) also offers a new explanation
of ‘salt sea.” He connects the phrase with the wide-
spread Oriental myth of sweet and bitter waters (cp
MARAH). It may be remarked, however, that place-
names compounded with γελᾷ, mdlik, and the like,
are at the present day of not infrequent occurrence in
Palestine. See SODOM AND GOMORRAH. T.K.C.

SALT-WORT (515), Job 304 ΕΝ, AV MALLOWS,

SALU bo, cp SALLU), a family of SIMEON (9.v.),
Nu. 2514 {caAmwn [B], caAe [A], -m [FL]). 1 Mace.
226 (caAcm [ANV], AV SALom). Jer. Targ. identifies
the name with Shaul of Gen. 46 το.

SALUM. 1. (caMoym [A]), τ Esd.528= Ezra 242
Neh. 7 45, SHaLLUM, 8.

2. RV SALEM, σαλήμον [BA], τ Esd. 8121 Ch. 612/1538 7],
Ezra? 2, SHALLUN, 6.

SALUTATIONS. To ‘salute’ is EV's equivalent
for Heb. Ὁ DIS Sgp, tit. «to ask after the welfare
of some one' (25.117 and elsewhere), and D2 ANY

DIbYB, “τὸ ask some one as to welfare' (15.104
and'elsewhere), and for Gk. ἀσπάζομαι (Mt. 547 Rom.
1637 and often) whence ἀσπασμός, ‘salutation’ (Mt.
237 and elsewhere).

The Hebrew phrase, however (ep Lat. salezatio, ‘wishing
health) means ‘to greet,' whereas the Greek includes both
greetings and embraces. In Rom.1616 1Cor. 16 20 2 Cor. 13 12
1 Thess. 5 26 1 Pet. 5.14 we huve the phrase ἀσπάσασθε ἐν φιλή-
ματι (ἁγίῳ or [1 Pet] ἀγάπης ; see $ 3).

We take salutation here in the widest sense, and
begin, not with formule of greeting, but with those
conventional gestures which are even more significant.

Of prostration as a sign of deep humility and respect,
not much need be said.! David bowed himself three

Μ times before his friend Jonathan
1. Prostration. (1 204); Jacob, seven times before
his offended brother Esau (Gen. 88 3. The lowly
prostrations exacted by sovereigns are too familiar
to require examples from the OT or illustrations from
other nations. The prostrations of women before men
(or, at least, men of rank) are more startling (Gen. 2464
1S.2523); K. Niebuhr found the same custom in
Arabia, Kneeling will be referred to later (see $ 5).

The custom of embracing and kissing calls for fuller
treatment. When Esau ran to meet Jacob, he

ΜΝ “embraced him, and fell on his neck, and

2. Kissing. rissed him' (Gen.334); and Joseph's
recognition of his brethren, and especially of Benjamin
(Gen. 454), and the meeting between ‘the prodigal
son’ and his father (Lk. 1520), are described in exactly
similar terms.? In the last two biblical passages
καταφιλέω is the word used in the Greek ; but in Gen.
334 φιλέω. ‘There is no strongly marked distinction
between them, nor is there more than a theoretical
difference between Heb. πάξαξ and 274564 (Piel indicating
a formal kiss).

Parting friends quite as naturally used these con-
ventional acts. Thus, after his father's death, Joseph
‘fell on Jacob's face, wept upon him, and kissed him *
(ἐφίλησεν Gen. 501}, and the disciples from Ephesus
‘wept sore, and fell on Paul's neck and kissed him”
{κατεφίλουν, Acts 2037), when he continued his journey
to Jerusalem.

Such is still the mode of exchanging salutations
between relatives and intimate friends practised in
Palestine. ‘Each in turn places his head, face down-
wards, upon the other's left shoulder and afterwards
kisses him upon the right cheek, and then reverses the
action, by placing his head similarly upon the other's

1 On Mordecaî's refusal to prostrate himself before Haman,
see ESTHER, $ 4.
2 Compare the recognition scene in Hom. 04. 21 223.

4252

SALUTATIONS

right shoulder, and kissing him upon the left cheek‘;1
‘or, again, a man will place his right hand on his
friend's left shoulder, and kiss his right cheek, and then
lay his left hand on his right shoulder, and kiss his left
cheek.’. A third mode of salutation may be mentioned.
The person who gives the kiss lays the right hand under
the head of his friend and supports it while it receives
the kiss. This custom is referred to in the account of
Joab's assassination of Amasa (2 5. 209). One or the
other of the two former customs may explain the account
of the entertainment of Jesus by Simon the Pharisee, in
which none of the usual courtesies were granted to the
wandering teacher—‘ thou gavest me no kiss’ {Lk. 7 45).
Absalom's self-seeking geniality to the common people
(25.155) may best be brought into connection with the
second form (the hand on the shoulder).

The cheek, the forehead, the beard, the hands, the

feet may be kissed, but not {in Palestine) the lips.

Two passages of AV seem to contradict this. In the MT of
Gen, 4140 (literally rendered) the Pharaoh is made to say to his
Hebrew vizier, ‘Upon thy mouth shall alì my people kiss.”
Dillmann and Delitzsch render ‘ According to thy mouth (= com-
mand) shall all my people order themselves’ (so too RVmg. i
is, at any rate, not against the social customs of the East; but
no Hebrew writer would have expressed his meaning thus.

It is better to read ‘shall obey thee” (ap: abi ; see Cit.

Bib.). The other passage is Prov. 24 26 ‘(Every man) shall kiss
(his) lips that giveth a right answer' EVmg. gives a less
objectionable rendering, ‘He kisseth with the lips that giveth a
right answer. But y:5$2# should be yaéf5#, and the passage
(sce Crit. Bib.) should be renderedt—

26 Even the simple will listen
To him who gives a right sentence,
25 And those that rebuke will they trust,
‘And upon such a blessing will come.

Kissing the hands or even the feet, or the hem of the
garment, is at present the respectful salutation given to
a superior. Kissing the feet of Jesus was the grateful
tribute of the sinful but reclaimed woman at Simon's
feast (Lk. 745, καταφιλοῦσα). A kiss on the hand is
nowhere expressly mentioned in OT or NT. Stili, such
a kiss may be meant in the narrative of the betrayal of
Jesus (Mt. 2649 Mk. 1445). If Delitzsch is right in sup-
posing the kiss of 18.101 to be the kiss of homage, we
may further conjecture that Samuel raised the hand
of Saul respectfiully to his lips. More probably, the
narrator means that Samuel greeted the new king asa
friend, on the cheek. In the Assyrian inscriptions the
vassals of the great king are said to signify their sub-
mission by kissing his feet {see BABYLONIA, $ 69). No
Hebrew phrase of this sort occurs, though the phrase
‘to lick the dust' în Is.4923 Ps. 729 may be suggested
by the custom of kissing the ground on which a superior
has trodden (‘to smell'the dust’ is a parallel Egyptian
phrase). The Assyrian kiss of vassalage may also
perhaps have been less humiliating than it seems;
primitive usages early began to lose their original crude-
ness. In modern Syria, when a man seeks to propitiate
one placed over him, he will just touch the feet of his
superior with his right hand, and then kiss the hand and
place it on his forehead.? This, or some other modifi
cation of the complete ceremony, may be meant by
Ziba's "I do obeisance' in 28.164 (see OBEISANCE).

There is only one OT passage in which, if the text is
correct, the kiss of homage {whether given to hands or
feet) must be referred to,—viz., ‘kiss the Son’ (32pw3)
in Ps.2:2 Acting on the principle that a text
which contradicts the social usages of Palestine cannot
be correct, we are bound to try all available means of
emending the text.* Such a cautious critic as Baethgen
admits ‘kiss the Son’ into his version only with a
parenthetic note of interrogation,

1 Neil, Hissing : its curious Bible mentions, 37 (1885).

2 Neil, of. cit., p. 7.

8 & renders δράξασθε παιδείας; Tg. ns5bie 702, perhaps
reading “pui. See Lag. and Baethgen, 24 Zc., and, fora new
solution [since proposed independently by Marti and J. D.

Prince], Che, Jew. Rel. Life, 112. Hupfeld's suggestion 32 3pW),
though often referred to, is inadmissible, because unidiomatic.

4253

! worship,

: church authorities.

SALUTATIONS

It hardly needs to be remarked that freedom of inter-
course between the sexes was unknown to the Jews in
3, The the period of the rise of Christianity.
“Holy Kia Ecclus. 4212 (cp In. 427) is proof enough
* that the exchange of a kiss between men
and women, as a sign of their common membership in
a religious society, must have shocked Jewish sentiment.
It appears to be the received view that such a shock to
Jewish sentiment was really given in early Christian
and whenever recognition of a common
Christian standing was called for. In the article ‘ Kiss'
in Wace and Cheetham's Diet. gf Christian Antiquifies,
it is stated that ‘the primitive usage was for the ‘‘ holy
kiss” to be given promiscuously, without any restrietion
as to sexes or ranks, among those who were ‘‘all one in
Christ Jesus,” 'and that only when this indiscriminate
use had given rise to scandals was it restricted by the
The evidence, however, is not so
distinct and certain as to justify so positive a statement.!
Paul (reff. above) does not expressly direct this startling
mode of applying the truth that ‘ye all are one man in
Christ Jesus." We know, however, that he does enjoin
that women should have their heads veiled in the Christian
assemblies (1 Cor. 116), which implies that he was on his
guard against the occurrence of scandals. ‘We also know
that the Apostolica! Constitutions (257 811) direct that the
men of the laity should salute the men, and the women
the women separately, and that the Didascalia (early
in grd cent.}, on which Book 11. of the Corsfifeéions is
based, distinctly refers to the separate places of men and
women, though the ‘kiss of peace’ is not referred to
at all.

It seems very possible that the Corsfifazions do, în fact,
represent the mind of the original founders of the churches on
this subject, and that we are not compelled by a somewhat
obscure passage in Tertullian (44 U.zoreza, ii. 4), who can only
speak for Africa, to suppose a violation of /ezvisk sentiment
in any of the earliest Chtistian assemblies. ‘There may, how-

ever, of course, have been a deviation in some places from the
earliest church practice.

We have still to refer briefly to the kiss of adoration.
εἶς was dim night.’ writes Doughty, ‘and the drooping
n clouds broke over us with lightning and
A Bian οὗ rain. 1 said το Thaifullah, “God sends
"his blessing again upon the earth.” ‘‘Ay,
verily,” he answered devoutly, and kissed his pious hand
toward the flashing tempest' (Ar. Des. 267). Βαϊ there
was a time when this religious hand-kiss was a sign of
idolatry. Job denies having practised it, for it would
have proved him a worshipper of sun and moon, and
not of him who created both {Job 3126-28). In Fariher
Asia as well as in Greece the rising sun was greeted by
his worshippers with a hand-kiss (Lucian, De Salfaz
17). This was, in fact, a substitute for the kiss
which would be offered to an idol—such a kiss as is
referred to in Hos. 132, ‘’fhe men that sacrifice kiss
calves'? {see CALVES, GOLDEN), and in 1K.19:8,
«Every mouth which has not kissed (Baal).”
The ordinary salutations of worship were two
prostration, and spreading forth the hands (see the Pss.
A assim, Ex. 205 2 K. 518 for the former,
δ. Eneeling: ἔα τ κ 8228 10.125 for the lotte)
A substitute for prostration was kneeling, which Hebrew
custom set apart as an act of homage to the Deity
(1 K.854 a Ch. 613 Is. 4523 Dan. 610 Lk. 2241 Acts 760
and elsewhere), though from ΜΚ. 140 10171519 Mt. 1714
2729 we may infer that, when haste was required,
kneeling might take the place of prostration as a sign
of respect to a man of rank.
Formula of greeting are either inquiries as to the

1 Cp Neil, op. cit, 277% 787 Ou the ‘holy kiss,’ εἰς,
Conybeare (Z.xgos. 18944, 461) points out two passages in
Philo's Questiones in É2., preserved în Armenian, which seem
to imply that the ‘kiss of peace' or ‘of concord' was a formal
institution of the synagogue.

There is some difficulty in this passage. But at any rate the
phrase ‘kiss calves’ is possible. Cp Crif. Bi4.

4254

SAMAEL

welfare of the friend, or prayers for his continued pros-
è perity. The treacherous Joab addresses
6. Greetings. ‘A masa, ‘Artthouin peace, my brother '
(E εἰ ὑγιαίνεις [σὺ] ἀδελφέ ; 2 5. 209). Jesus bids his
disciples say, on entering a house, ‘Peace be to this
house' (Lk.105). Boaz, when he meets his reapers,
says, ‘ Yahwè be with you,’ and the friendly answer is,
‘Yahwè bless thee' (Ruth 24; cp Ps.1298) Saul
piously addresses Samuel with the words, ‘Blessed be
thou of Yahwè' (15.1513). Ὑὸ ἃ king the loyal saluta-
tion was, ‘ Let the king live" (τ 5, 1054 2.5. 1616 1K,
139 2K. 1112), or ‘ Let the king live for ever' (rK.131;
cp Dan. 24 39 ὅτο 662 Neh. 23), possibly with an
allusion to legendary tales of highly favoured mortals
who had escaped Shé6l. In the NT we find the Greek
expression χαῖρε, as a substitute for ‘ Peace be to thee”
(Mt. 2649 Mk. 1518 Lk. 128, and elsewhere). For epis-
tolary greetings, see Ezra 417 712 Acts 2326 30, and the
close of Pauline Epistles.

‘Peace be on you’ is still the commonest form of
salutation among Moslems. The coriventional reply is,
‘ And on you be the peace (of God),' to which it is usual
to add, ‘and the mercy of God, and his blessings.'
This salutation may not be used by or to an “infidel’;
a Moslem who finds that he has addressed it by mistake
to a wrong person generally revokes his salutation. He
may also do so if a Moslem refuses to return his greet-
ing, saying, ‘Peace be on τῷ and on (all) the right
worshippers of God!' This seems to Kitto (2i5.
Cyclap., s.v. ‘Salutation') a striking illustration of
Lk.105/ 2Jn. ir. The sali, however, is only the
beginning of a string of conventional formule which
take up much time, and are evaded by persons in haste.
Specimens of these are given by Lane (Mod. Egyptians,
1253). No doubt Jewish politeness had also its optional
formule, which would be evaded in circumstances such
as are described in 2 K. 429 Lk. 104. τ. Κι ο.

SAMAEL (calaminàA [BA]), Judith 8: AV, RV
SALAMIEL ; the same as SHELUMIEL,

SAMAIAS (camarac) 1. 1Esd.19=2Ch. 359
SHEMAIAH, 15,

2. 1Esd.839=Ezra8 13, SHEMAIAN, 16.

3. 1Esd.844=Ezra810, SHEMAIAH, 17,

ἃ, Tobit5.13, see SHEMAIAH, 23.

SAMANASSAR (canamaccapo [B]. 1 Esd. 212
RV®8-), see SHESHBAZZAR,

BAMARIA (}192 ; the Aram. j"YW, whence the
Gk. camaplella. has become assimilated to names like
Mahanaim, Ramathaim {cp NAMES, $ 107];
Ass. Samerina)! The city so called is
said in 1 K.1624 (cp Jos. Ar2 viîi. 125) to derive its
name from “pg (SHEMER), the owner of the hill on
which it was built.? Shemer may in fact quite well be an
ancient clan-name, though it is plausible enough to
derive the name of such a loftily-placed city from pg
in the sense of ‘outlook’ (so GASm., AG, 346).
Shom*ron may denote (x) the hill, (2) the city built on
it, (3) the whole district of which the city came to be the
capital. In the last sense Shom*ron, EV ‘Samaria,’ is
equivalent to the Northern or Israelitish kingdom
{Hos.7: 86, etc. [Wellh.]}, and hence jin ‘my means
Israelitish cities (2 K. 1724 26 2319).

The city is situated close to the borders of Ephraim

1. Name.

1 On the question whether Samerina always means Samaria,
see MENAHEM.

2 According to Stade (Ζ. ΤΉ, 5 x71), the punctuation with
Holem implies an erroneous explanation of the Aramaic forms
with a. The lateness of this pronunciation may be inferred
from @°s representation of }msw in 1 K.1624, which is (1)
σεμερων [BI], ἐμερων [A], σοβορων [L], (2) σαεμηρων {B], coi v
Pappe EI saspor DA), apftoper TE} (A) resunpar FB): σορηραν
2 Ch, 13 4, and note in /X on 1 K.1624.

3 (On the possibility of frequent confusion between nubz;
Samaria, and rpg, Shimron in the Negeb, see PropHET, $$
8, 35, Stimron.]

4255

SAMARITANS

and Manasseh, in Mt, Ephraim, about 6 m. NW. of
τ the earlier capital Shechem. Of its
2. History. foundation we have a definite account in
1 K.1624, where it is stated that Omri purchased the
hill from Shemer for two talents, and built on it the
city which he called after the name of the former owner.
Kittel confirms the accuracy of this notice by a reference
to the case of David in 2 5. 94 οι 7 From Omri's time
(about 925 B.c.) it became the capital of the northern
kingdom, although it never attained to the religious
prestige of the older Shechem. Ahab adorned it with
a temple of Baal, and Baal-worship soon became
recognised there as on a level with the original Israelitish
calf-worship. The city was in a naturally strong
position (cp Jos. Ar xiîì. 102), standing on an oblong
isolated hill which is precipitous on the one side, and
easily fortified on the other. In the reign of Ahab it
was besieged (901 R.c.) unsuccessfully by the Aramaeans
under Ben-hadad (τ K. 20), and again in the ceign of
Joram (892 B.C.), when it was relieved by a panic among
the Aramaans(2K.624). Itwas captured by the Assyrian
army in 721 after a siege of three years, many of the
inhabitants were deported and the kingdom of Israel
was finally brought to an end. For its colonisation
and the litile that can be gathered as to the history of the
district down to the time of Nehemiah, see SAMARITANS.
It was again taken by Alexander the Great who de-
ported many of its inhabitants to Shechem, and
substituted Syro- Macedonian settlers. The district,
Σαμαρεῖτις χώρα, was then given over to the Jews.
‘The city seems to have remained in the occupation of
Alexander's setilers until the time of John Hyrceanus,
who completely destroyed it {109 B.C.) and seized the
whole district (105. 424 xii. 103) It was partially
restored under Gabinius (Jos. 4x4 xiv. 53), and shortly
afterwards (in 25 B.c.) entirely rebuilt on a large scale
by Herod the Great (ib. xv. 8 5), who named it Sebaste[ia]
(Σεβαστή or Σεβάστεια; Rabb. "ΟΞ or "ΒΘῚΞΟ) in honour
of the Emperor. After Herod's death in B.C. 4 the king-
dom of Samaria together with that of Judaea went to his
son Archelaus, In the NT the city is not mentioned ;
the name Samaria denotes the district. As Samaria lay
between Galilee and Judea, Jesus passed through it
on his way S. to Jerusalem (Lk.17u Jn.4) although
the Jews ordinarily avoided doing so, Later, Christianity
was preached there (eis τὴν πόλιν τῆς Σαμαρείας)
by Philip the evangelist (Acts8s 7). The subsequent
history of the city is obscure, and there is no record of
its final destruction, According to Jerome Sebaste was
believed in his time to be the burial-piace of John the
Baptist, as well as of the prophets Elisha and Obadiah.
It apparently was a place of some importance in the
early centuries of the Christian era, since we find a
Bishop of Sebaste at the Council of Nicza (325) and
again at that of Jerusalem (536). It was occupied by
the Crusaders, and a bishopric re-established there in
1155. The site is now represented by a village named
Sebustiyeh, where is the interesting half-ruined church
of John the Baptist, with other Christian remains,
Not far off, at about the same level, run the streets of
columns with which Herod adorned the city.

A,E.C.
SAMARITANS
Qrigi x Belicf -ὧν
ΠΟ ΡΝ matto.
Literature (88 42 Language (ἢ 54).

39

Silliography (8 6).
The Samaritans are, called once in the OT (2 K.
1729) Someronim (D*9NP), a name which becomes
common later. It is a gentilic form from

1. Name. “In Rabbinical literature they are
called £4%4#m (n'ma), a term intended to be con-
temptuous, referring to the colonists from Cuthah.
The Greek Σαμαρεῖται properly means inhabitants of
the district of Σαμάρεια. They call themselves basi» va

4256

SAMARITANS

or specifically pipi from «ngi, properly keepers, sc. of
the Law. On the name of the place, sec SAMARIA,
The history of the Samaritans, as such, begins where
that of the northern kingdom ceases. We read in
ΜΗ 2 K.1737 that Shalmaneser went up
2. Colonisation, to Samaria, and that in the ninth year
of Hoshea, the king of Assyria took Samaria, and carried
israel away into Assyria and brought men from Babylon,
and from Cuthah, and from Avva, and from Hamath
and Sepharvaim and placed them in the cities of
Samaria. In Ezra4z it is ‘Esar-haddon, king of
Assyria, who brought us up hither.' Lastly in Ezra
ἀπο they are ‘the nations whom the great and noble
Osnappar brought over.'! ὙΠῸ importation of foreign
colonists is thus attributed apparently to three several
kings, the last of whom bears a name not otherwise
known. To these names yet a fourth must be added,
It is noticeable that in 2 K.189/ it is stated that
Shalmaneser besieged Samaria, ‘and at the end of
three years 4%ey (not Ze) took it. It is now known that
SHALMANESER [g.v.], who began the siege, died in
723 B.C., and that it was his successor, Sargon II., who
actually took the city in 721. Perhaps the death of
Shalmaneser may account for the length of the siege.
It is natural therefore to infer from the accoùnts in 2 Κα.
that Sargon introduced the (first) settlement of colonists,
and this is definitely stated to be the case in the annals
of Sargon.®? With regard to the other names, most
recent critics rightly identify Osnappar with Aòur-bani.
pal. The accounts are further simplified if Esar-haddon
be taken as a corruption of the same name, due to the
similarity of the first element in cach (see ASNAPPER).
We shall thus have two colonisations, the first by
Sargon, the second by ASur-bani-pal. As to the list of
cities from which the colonists were drawn, Sepharvaim
should no doubt be the Babylonian Sippar. The
cuneiform account expressly states that Babylon, Cuthah,
and Sippar opposed Afur-bani-pal, and it would be
consistent with Assyrian policy to deport the inhabitants
of those cities to the distant province of Samaria. On
the other hand, it would be altogether an unusual step
to transfer the inhabitants of Hamath or of Αννα (in
Syria; but cp AvvAH) to a neighbouring district. See
HAmatH. Sargon "παν indeed have brought colonists
from Hamath, which he reduced in 720, and the
combination of the two sets of malcontents may have
led to the necessity of his reducing Samaria for the
second time in 720 ; but there are no grounds for such a
conjecture. It is far more consistent with the facts to
suppose (with Winckler) that just as the Deuteronomic
redactor has combined into one the two Assyrian
kings, and inserted a long passage to point the moral
of the story, and imparted to the whole a tone hostile to
the Samaritans, so he has combined the two colonisa-
tions into one, and amplified his account from a K.
1834 which he took to refer to the same events. But
this last passage has not necessarily anything to da with
the colonisation of Samaria. The Rabshakeh is there
citing instances of towns which have fallen before
Assyria, so that Hamath, Sepharvaim, and Ivvah (see
AVVAH) are quite in place as being comparatively close
at hand and therefore the more likely to appeal to the
inhabitants of Jerusalem. ‘The redactor’s view was
doubtless based'on a confusion of Sippar (in Babylonia)
with Sepharvaim (in Syria): see SEPHARVAIM. From
the biblical and the Assyrian accounts together we thus
restore the history as follows; Shalmaneser besieged
Samaria but died during the siege: Sargon took the
city in 721, deported 27,290 of its inhabitants, and
introduced in their place (? in 715) colonists from other
conquered cities : în 720 the country had to be subdued
again : later ASur-bani-pal further colonised the country.

ἢ 1 Cp Winckler, αἰ λεέσοί, Unt. 97,2 ; also Ezra-NEHEMIAH,
È Winckler, Keilinschrift-tezte Sargons, 15721.
4257

SAMARITANS

‘The resulting population was called by the general
name Samaritan. How far must it be considered
È foreign (ἀλλογενής, Lk. 17:18)? The
Sa. Population. (TOSI (Ae Pe μα ant
very strongly to be Sym 2, regarding Joseph especi-
ally as their ancestor (cp Μόγτα τη Aabbd, $ 94, on
Gen. 4633), On the other hand, the Jews deny
them any right to the name of Israel, representing
them as merely descendants of the Assyrian (Cuthasan)
colonists. ‘The truth lies midway. "It is now gen-
erally admitted that the deportation under Sargon
was not complete. A district so important as
Samaria would not have been entirely depopulated by
losing 27,290 of its inhabitants. (When a similar fate
befel Judah, upwards of 200,000 went into captivity.}
The number undoubtedly represents the persons of
importance (including the priests), who alone were
likely to be dangerous, whilst the poorer class were left
as before and the inhabitants of the outlying towns and
villages were probably hardly affected. ‘This seems
indeed to be definitely stated by Sargon, though the
passage is not very clear. The account in 2 K.17 is
written from the Jewish point of view ; but the real state
of the case comes out in the later history —e.g., when
Josiah, a century afterwards, put down idolatry ‘in the
cities of Samaria' (2 K. 231519) obviously among
Israelites {cp 2 Ch. 3465), and collected money for the
repair of the temple from 'Manasseh and Ephraim, and
of all the remnant of Israel’ (i. v. 9). There can
hardly be a doubt that in Nehemiah's time, for example,
the population of the district of Samaria consisted of
the ‘ remnant οἱ Israel" with an admixture of foreigners.
What was the proportion of the two elements to one
another cannot now be determined. Nor have we any
means of knowing how far they were intermixed, and
how far the colonists really adopted the religion of the
‘God of the Land.’ So long as the name ‘ Samaritan*
meant only the inhabitant of Samaria and the surround-
ing country, it no doubt included all the mixed popula-»
tion; but when the name of the city was changed the
term acquired a purely religious significance, and then
probably denoted the descendants of the ‘remnaut'
together with such of the colonists as had become
proselytes and intermarried with Israel. But it was
just this (perhaps slight) admixture which gave colour
to the Jewish taunt implied by the term Cuthzan.

As to the early history of the Samaritan people, we
have little information. ‘We are indeed told in 2 K.
τ 17 25 that the country was infested by lions

Sb. History. (103 Ant.ix 1459, 8.289, says ἃ pestilence)
and that the inhabitants in consequence made request
to ‘the king of Assyria” for a priest who was accordingly
sent to ‘teach them the manner of the god of the land.”
Josephus says, ‘some of the priests,' and it is probable
that this was the original reading of 2 K. 1727, since
the text still preserves the strange plurals ‘let Z#erz go
and dwell' (3g 195»). The idea is quite in keeping
with the common view of a tutelary deity whose
protection was necessary in his own land and whose
Power was connected with and restricted to it Cp a
similar incident in the story of Naaman, 2 K. 517. It
is generaliy thought that this request could only
have been made by the foreign colonists; but since
the ‘remnant’ consisted of ‘the poorer sort," the
people of the land (px cy) who in Rabbinical litera-

ture are proverbially ignorant of the law, it is only
natural that all alike should require a teacher who
understood the technicalities of Yahwéè-worship. So
‘they feared Vahwè, and served their own gods
{a K.1733) However, the high-piaces which Josiah
suppressed need not have been idolatrous: they may
have been merely unauthorised Yahwè-shrines. That
‘the remnant’ joined with Judah in the use of the
temple at Jerusalem at this period, may be inferred from
2 Ch. 849 and also from Jer. 415 where it is mentioned

4258

SAMARITANS

that eighty men came ‘from Shechem, from Shiloh, and
from Samaria" to make theirofferings there (cp SHECHEM,
$ 2, SHILOH, $ 2). It is unlikely that these were apostate
Jews: they can only have been Samaritans,

After another period of nearly a century, during
which we have no information about the Samaritans,
they are mentioned in the account of a return of Jews
from Babylonia under Cyrus, when they ask to be
allowed a share in the building of the new temple—
a request which was refused (Ezra4s), It is usually
considered that this refusal was the cause of a mutual
estrangement and an implacable hatred between the two
peoples. ‘There can be little doubt, however, that the
real cause was something deeper and went back farther
than this mere incident. If we admit the presence of a
strong Israelitish element in the Samaritan people, we
shall not be far wrong in seeing here the old spirit of
opposition between Israel and Judah, always ready to
break out, which definitely asserted itself under Jero-
boam, —the refusal to recognise Judah's claim to a
hegemony, the revolt against centralisation. It was
based on a difference of race, an incompatibility between
N. and S., and was more political than religious. No
reason is assigned for the refusal : the Jews do not charge
their ‘adversaries’ with idolatry, nor even with heresy.?
Indeed it would seem that Israel continued to be willing,
and were allowed, even after this, to join in Jewish
worship in Jerusalem, if Ezra6z1 is to be so understood,

On the other hand the Jewish policy, while purety
patriotic, was rigidly exclusive. It aimed at fixing the
worship of Yahwè as the religion of Judah, purifying
it from all foreign elements, and making Jerusalem its
headquarters. Hence it was out of the question that
they should allow the participation of a race whose
devotion to Jewish ideals was open to suspicion and
whose origin was perhaps mixed. The Jew could not
risk contamination by having any dealings with the
Samaritan ; but, as we see from Ezra621 and Jer. 414,
there was no barrier of the kind on the Samaritan side.
Only when Judah, by refusing their help, proclaimed an
exclusive policy, did a political separation become
inevitable, and it then became necessary for the
Samaritans to pursue something of the same policy.
No doubt, in their condition of social and religious
disorganisation, the restoration of a Jewish state at
Jerusalem appearedan imminent danger, and accordingly
we find them endeavouring by truly Oriental intrigues
to prevent first the building of the temple and afterwards
the erection of the walls (Ezra44 75. Neh.477); cp
EZRA-NEHEMIAH, $ ro, In this they were unsuccessful,
and matters must have continued in much the same
state of political separation, with a good deal of
individual intercourse, until the building of the tempie
on Mt. Gerizim, which made Shechem the religious centre
of Samaria and finally rendered re-union impossible, ?
A sanctuary once established on their own sacred
mountain, it became a point of honour to refuse to
recognise the temple at Jerusalem. Of the Samaritan
temple we have no mention in the OT, and the occasion
and date of its erection are alike difficult to ascertain.
According to Josephus (Ar4 xi 72, xi. 82) the satrap
of Samaria under Darius Codomannus (336-330) was
Sanballat, who gave his daughter in marriage to
Manasseh, the brother of Jaddus the Jewish high
priest. Manasseh was ordered by the elders and
Jaddus either to give up his foreign wife or to renounce
the priesthood, and thereby the possible succession to
the office of high priest. He thereupon complained to
Sanballat, who urged him to migrate to Samaria,
promising to get him established there as high priest
under state protection, and to build a temple. He

t In Ezra 412 "to us’ suggests that Samaritans had been
accustomed to use Jerusalem as a sacred place before the return.

2 [On the constitution of the Samaritan community see further
Duhm's commertary on Isaiah (chaps. 56-66); Che. /utr0d,
Ls. 316/, 322, 364-374 383; Zew. Rel, Life, 25-68.)

4259

SAMARITANS

was joined by other Jews who had foreign wives or were
discontented with the reforms at Jerusalem, and the
rival temple was ultimately built in 332 under the
sanction of Alexander the Great. This account must
however be received with caution.

Where Josephus differs from Nehemiah we so often find him
to be in τῆς wrong that his narrative is open to suspicion where
we have no such check. In this instance, from whatever cause,
he seems to be confused, and to place his account (which may
very likely represent the facts) a century too late. After the
enactments mentioned in Ezra9 105 Neh.1031 132328, it is
improbable that foreign marriages would still'be occurring in
Jerusalem in 333-

©n the other hand the story fits on very well to the
events mentioned in Neh.1328, so that it would seem
that Josephus confounds Darius Nothus with Codomannus
and fills out his story accordingly. It is possible that
he is following a trustworthy tradition in ascribing the
foundation of the temple to the time of Alexander, and
that he intentionaliy connects with it the story of
Manasseh in order to cast discredit on the Samaritan
religion as being founded by a renegade priest. Cp
SANBALLAT. We may therefore put the secession
of Manasseh soon after 432, and perhaps accept
Josephus' account that the temple was built about 332.

‘The Temple continued to exist till 128 B.c. when it
was destroyed by John Hyrcanus, in pursuance of the
same exclusive policy noticed above. From the time of
Alexander, Samaria shared the varying fortunes of its
neighbours, gradually losing any political importance
it ever possessed. A few events only need be mentioned.
The city of Samaria was embellished by Herod the
Great and renamed Sebaste in honour of Augustus.
The temple on Mt. Gerizim was rebuilt by the Romans
as a reward for Samaritan help in the suppression of
Bar Kokhba's revolt. But such favourable treatment
was not often received or deserved by them, After
the national existence of Judah had been destroyed
under Titus and Hadrian the animosity of the Samaritans
turned towards the growing power and claims of the
Christians. Their excesses were repressed by Justinian
with a severity from which they never recovered.

During the middle ages only scattered notices of the Samaritans
‘occur, and the native records are little more than lists of names,
Colonies are mentioned by Benjamin of Tudela (died 1173) as
living in several cities besides Nablus (Shechem), and Obadiah
of Bartinoro (circa 1487) speaks of them in Cairo, There
certainly was a community in Damascus, and probably also in
Cairo, as late as the seventeenth century. In more modern
times communications were opened with them by Scaliger and
continued by Huntington, Ludolf and others. ΑἹ the present
day the only remnant of them is at Nablus (Shechem). They
number about 120 persons, and ‘the forty’ (families) have
become locally proverbial. According to a recent traveller
attempts are being now made to save the tribe from extinction
by encouraging intermarriages with the neighbouring Jewish

families, but bitherto with little success, although no dificulty
seems t0 be felt on religious grounds.

i. Sacred Books. —The Samaritans are by no means a

Jewish sect. ‘Though they started from the same point
ino. the development of their respective
48, pootrine è systems has proceeded on independent,

though naturally parallel, lines. Their
only sacred book is the Pentateuch, of which they
possess a recension agreeing essentially with the Jewish
(Massoretic) text. {See TEXT AND VERSIONS, $ 45.)

At what time they first received the Pentateuch cannot now
be determined : but it is most natural to suppose that a copy
(or copies) of the law would be carried by Manasseh to Samaria
at the time of his migration thither. lt is not probable that
any but the priestly caste would ss, or would be allowed
to. possess, a copy of it at that time. If then Manasseh took
with him a book of the law as part of his priestly equipment
about 430, this would explain the fact that the Samaritans
accepted it in its final form, which, according to modern criti.
cism, had probably been attained about that date.

The reason why the Pentateuch alone of Jewish books
was taken over is obvious. ‘The Torah is of the highest
importance, not for its historical contents, but as con-
taining practical rules for the ritual ‘ of the God of the
land," and the Ad/4%44k or regulations by which the
daily *walk' of Jew and Samaritan alike must be

4260

SAMARITANS

governed, These things alone are of vital importance ;
matters of faith and theoretical doctrine are secondary.
Moreover, even among the Jews, the other books had
not yet acquired the authority which they possessed at
a later time. Having once accepted the Tordh, the
Samaritans followed its injunctions with a rigidity recog-
nised even by the Jews. For example, in ]n 48 the
disciples went into a Samaritan city to buy food,
apparently as a matter of course, whilst the question
in v.9 probably refers to the asking of a favor”, and
the following comment is a later gloss. At a later time
Jewish opinion became more hostile, and various
charges were laid against them, mostly, it would seem,
without foundation. ‘He that eateth bread of a
Cuthecan is as one that eateth swine's flesh. They
were accused of worshipping a dove and a god Ashima.
For the former there is no evidence, nor is it even
probable from what we know of them otherwise; the
latter is due to a malicious misunderstanding of the
Samaritan pronunciation of now (estma, ‘the name')
‘which they everywhere substitute for mm, just as the
Jews read *ma (and earlier pen), from motives of rever-
ence, But while holding closely to the Levitical law as
the one thing needful, the Samaritans did develop
theoretical doctrine, based upon the Torah, if not
derived from it. The earliest evidence for anything of
the kind is contained in Jo. 4.
ii. Zschafology.-—The belief in a Messiah is already
established, in Jn. 4, and from later
4b. Eschatology. Samaritan sources we now know
its character.

The Messiah is called nonn, the Tahéb, a term variously ex-
plained to mean ‘he who retums' or (more probably) ‘he who
restores,’ and the belief is founded on Dt. 1815. He will bring
to an end the period of Fanîita (1m5), which has lasted since
the schism of Eli who removed the tabernacle to Shiloh, and,
as the name probabiy implies, he will restore the period of
grace (ridwàn, nparm) with the tabernacle and the worship of
the Lord'on Mt. Gerizim, as well as the temporal prosperity of
the nation, after which he will die.

The chief external information on such points is in
the writings of the Christian fathers, who assert that the
Samaritans did not believe in angels, the resurrection,
or a future life. These statements are due partly to a
confusion, and partiy to a disregard of the development
cf theological speculation, since we know from native
sources that all these doctrines were held at least
from the fourth century onward, —Nevertheless che
patristic account very probably rests on a basis of
genuine tradition,

If the Samaritans acquired their law and their priestly system
about 430 H.c., they no doubt took over with them the set of
beliefs current at the time in Jerusalem. But in the fifth century
sc. Jewish theology was hot concerned with eschatological
doctrines, or at any rate had never formulated them, and the
Samaritans, being essentially conservative, probably developed
doctrine more slowly than the progressive Pharisaic party în
Judxa. (Cp EscHatoLOGY, $ 45.)

The native literature, from which alone we can safely
judge of the beliefs of the Samaritans, begins only in
the fourth century A.D., and we then find them in full
possession of those doctrines which the Christian fathers
denied to them. It would therefore seem that the
patristic account perpetuates a tradition which had once
been correct but had ceased to be so. In the liturgies
frequent references are made to the Taheb. Closely
connected with that belief is the doctrine of the final
judgment, which shalì be after the death of the Tahéb,
when the righteous shall go into the garden of Eden,
and the wicked be burned with fire.

The full expression is ph ppypr (sometimes na) mi Dr)
derived from Dt. 32 35, where the Samaritan text reads p15 for
the Massoretic ‘>. The character of the future life τὸ be enjoyed
by the righteous is not further described. It would seem that
the condition of the dead in the interval between the present

time and the final judgment is capable of alteration, since prayers
are offered on their behalf.

With regard to the belief in angels the case is quite
4261

I
]
Ì

SAMARITANS

as clear. It has often been said that angels were con-

sidered merely as aspecis of the divine
40. Angela. cnergy, virfufes dei, and this view was
supported with much ingenuity by Reland. Itis indeed
true that such apparent abstractions as mmnz3 and som
are often mentioned; but there can be no reasonable
doubt that these were considered as the names of real
persons, nor have we any ground for supposing the
Samaritan mind capable of any more abstract concep-
tion. In their Targum an angel is regularly introduced
instead of the name of God wherever it is possible so
to avoid anthropomorphism. Man is formed in the
image of the angels, and it is an angel who spoke with
Moses from the bush. This is only one instance, out
of many, of their spiritual conception of God. He is
eternal, without beginning, without a companion. He
uttered a word without a mouth and the world was
created from nothing. He rested on the seventh day,
but not from weariness. Possibly owing to the un-
approachable attributes of God we find prayers offered
through the mediation of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,
of Joseph, the seventy elders, the holy angels, and more
especially of Moses. "Thus the development of Samaritan
theology corresponds in the main with the development
of Jewish belief, by which, no doubt, it was in some
respects influenced.

ili, Aff Gerizim.——The essential points of difference
were with regard to Moses and Mt. Gerizim. Moses is

ποῖ the only prophet and apostle of God,
4d. Gerizim. cf miraculous birth, destined from the
creation to reveal the law to Israel, In Dt. 8410 the
Samaritans read mp Ὁ for pp νῦν and on this ground
admit no later prophets, From the Jewish point of
view the most insurmountable difference was the
Samaritan reverence for Mt. Gerizim. It is called the
‘ blessed mountain,' ‘the house of God,’ and is re-
garded as the place which Yahwè chose to place his
name there.

On Gerizim are still shown the sites of the altars built by
Adam and Seth, the altar built by Noah after the flood, and the
altar on which Abraham was about to sacrifice Isaac. A few
yards off was the thicket in which theram was caught, and on
this spot afterwards stood the Holy of Holies of the Samaritan
temple. On Gerizim, too, are the stones brought up from the
Jordan whereon Joshua wrote the words of the law (Dt. 27 4,

Gerizim being read for Ebal), and there are still celebrated the
most sacred rites of the community.

iv. Priesthood and festivals. —The priestly family of
the house of Aaron died out in 1624 A.D., and the office
siti is now held by Levites of a younger
40. Institutions. pra nch, who do not bear the title of
‘high priest’ (39 mino). The festivals observed are
the same as those of the Jews in so far as they are
authorised by the Pentateuch. They do not therefore
keep Purim, nor any of the later and more specially
Jewish ceremonies, such as Hinukkah or the gth of
Ab. Half-yearly, sixty days before Passover and
‘Tabernacles respectively, they keep the assembiy {mpy,
also an astronomical term, ' conjunction ᾽) of those feasts,
when every man pays to the priest a half shekel, and a
calendar for the ensuing six months is fixed, The Pass-
over is still celebrated by the offering of sacrifice on Mt.
Gerizim. ‘The whole ‘congregation assembles before
dawn ai the door of the synagogue, and then proceeds
in pilgrimage (the meaning they attach to the term sn,
hajj) up the mountain, where specially selected lambs
are sacrificed, baked entire for some hours in a hole
in the ground, and then, at sunset (c‘inpa ja), eaten
in haste. Then follow the seven days of unleavened
bread, on the last of which they again make the
pilgrimage. The day of Pentecost is kept as the anni-
versary of the giving of the law. For these, as well as
for New Year, the day of Atonement, the feast of
Tabernacles, and many minor occasions, there aru
special services, besides the ordinary prayers for Sabbath.
‘There are also services for circumeision (which must be
performed on the eighth day, even though it be a
Sabbath), for marriage, and for burial.

4262

SAMARITANS

‘With regard to the sects alleged to have existed among
the Samaritans, it is impossible to arrive at any certain
facts. The accounts are confused, and there seems to
be no mention of them in the native literature.

‘The native literature naturally centres in the one
sacred book, tie Pentateuch, which has been preserved,

F . as mentioned above, in a recension
δα. Liberaturo! agreeing in all essentials with tho
T MT. 1 first became known in
ἄγρια, —Rurope from a copy brought, to-
gether with the Targum, from Damascus by the great
traveller Pietro della Valle in 1616, and now preserved
in the Vatican library. The text was published in the
Paris Polyglott from which it was afterwards copied
by Walton, and its variations from the MT gave rise
to the keenest controversy. The question is by no
means settled yet, nor can it be so until we have a
thoroughly critical edition of the text. The many
passages in which the Samaritan agrees with the Septua-
gint against the Massoretic, show that a study of it is
important. The MSS are many, mostly dated, but not
of great age.

The copy in the synagogue at Nablus is regarded with great
veneration as having been written by Abisha the great-grandson
of Aaron, thirteen years after the entry into Canaan. No schotar
has ever had the opportunity of examining it with a view to
determining its date; but there are no reasons for supposing that

it is much older than the twelfth or thirteenth century, about
which time its ‘invention' is chronicled by Abulfath,

Several translations of the Pentateuch were made.

1. Perhaps it was translated into Greek. τὸ Zaua-
ρειτικὸν is quoted by the early fathers; but we have
no certain information about ît, and cannot even say
whether it was a distinet version or whether the citations
of it are only a loose way of citing the Sam.-Hebrew
text.

2. It was translated into Samaritan proper, or
Aramaic. ‘The most noticeable feature of this Targum
is its frequentiy close resemblance to Onkelos. Until
this fact has been thoroughly investigated the most
reasonable explanation of it seems to be that both
Targums go back to an oral tradition current in
Palestine at the time when Aramaic was the common
language of the people, and that they were subsequentiy
reduced to writing independently, and with local varia-
tions, in Samaria (probably in the 4th cent. A.D.} and in
Babylon. It was brought to Europe, as mentioned
above, in 1616, and first printed in the Paris Polyglott.
MSS of it are very scarce, since the language died out
before the eleventh century, and copies were no longer
multiplied.

For the same reason the text has suffered much corruption and
is by no means yet definitely settled even in the best edition.
In character the Aramaic translation is very literal; it very
carefully avoids anthropomorphisms. It seems to be by several
hands, and to have received interpolations at a later period.
These and the corruprions of copyists are, according to the latest
researches, responsible for most of the enigmatical words
formerly supposed to be specially Samaritan.

3. The origin of the translation into Arabic is
obscure. It was perhaps made by Abulhasan of Tyre
in the eleventh century, and revised early în the thir-
teenth century by Abu Said. ‘There are many good
MSS of it. The translator apparently made use of the
Jewish Arabic version by Saadiah Gaon.

The Chronicles which have come down to us are:
(1) A Book of Joshua, in Arabic, giving the history of

A Israel (i.e., the Samaritans) from the
δ. Chronicles. .ime οἵ Joshua to the fourth century
A4.D. Itis a compilation, dating perhaps from the thir-
teenth century. As history its value is very small, since
it consists mostly of fabulous stories of the deeds of
Joshua, whilst its later chronology is of the wildest.
(2) EI-Tolideh. in Samaritan-Hebrew with an Arabic
translation. It contains the history (or rather annals)
from Adam to the present time. The original part
of it is ascribed to Eleazar Ὁ, Amram in the middle
of the twelfth century, and it has been carried on by
various writers from time to time, The history, if used

4263

BSAMARITANS

with caution, is generally trustworthy, especially for the
period just preceding the date of each several author.
(3) ‘The chronicle of Abulfath written, in Arabic, in 1355
A.D., is a compilation from earlier works. By a com-
parison of these two {Fl-tòlideh and Abulfath) it is
possible to arrive at a tolerably trustworthy account of
the Samaritan families in the Middle Ages. Of com-
mentaries and theological works there is a considerable
number in MS; but very littie has been published.

One of the most interesting îs a fragment on Genesis by an
unknown author, în Arabic, remarkable as quoting from many
books of the OT and from the Mishna. Ἁ commentary by
Markah on the Pentateuch survives in a late but apparently
unique MS in Berlin, and is linguistically important as being
composed in the Samaritan dialect of which there are few
specimens outside the Targum. Others are, a book of legends
of Moses in Arabic, and a commentary by Ibrahim ‘of the sons
of Jacob,' from which extracts have been given by Geiger.

The liturgies form a very large and important branch
of the literature. The earliest pieces which can be

x dated with any certainty, are those

de. Liturgies, of Marlah and Amram, composed in

i Aramaic in the fourth century A.D. at

the instance of Baba Rabba, a sheikh of some eminence

in his time, who, according to El-Tolideh, restored the

services of the synagogue, These are called gar ex-

cellence the Defter or ‘book.’ The later portions are in

Samaritan-Hebrew mostly of the fourteenth and subse-.

quent centuries down to {he present time. MSS of the
later liturgies are very numerous.

Finally, there are several letters in existence, written
by Samaritans to scholars in Europe. ‘The first of
these, in 1589, was an answer to one from Jos. Scaliger ;
others were addressed to Huntington, Ludolf, De Sacy,
Kautzsch (in 1884), and recently to the present writer.

The Samaritan language proper is a dialect of Western
Aramaic as commonly spoken in Palestine, and is found

in the Targum and in the earlier
δα. Language. liturgie. It may best be compared
with the Aramaic of the Jerusalem Talmud, and with
Palestinian Syria. The ‘Cuthasan' words formerly
supposed to be found in it, have been shown by Kohn
to be mostly corruptions of good Aramaic forms.
The native dialect probably began to be supplemented
by Arabic soon after the Mohammedan conquest of
Syria, and was no longer commonly understood in
the tenth century, although used for ritual purposes.
From that time onward Arabic has been the language
used both in ordinary life and for literary purposes.
The later liturgies, however (and the letters), are written
in a corrupt Hebrew.

In the following bibliography early works which have been
superseded, and most articles in periodicals have been excluded.

᾿ i. Pentatench.—In the Paris Polyglott, 1645,
6. Biblio- and the London Polygiott, 1657; Blayney, Penta-

graphy. teuchus Sam. 1790 (in square” character); Ges,

De Pent. Sam. origine, 1815; Bargès, Notice sur
deux fragments . . ., 1865; Kohn, De Pent. Same, 1865.

ii. Targum.—Besides the Polyglotts, Brill, Das Sam. Tarn
gum, 1874, etc. (a reprint of the Polyglott text, in square char
acter); Petermann-Vollers, Penza/enchus Sanr, 1872, etc.
(Targum text with apparatus criticus); Nutt, Pragments of a
Sam. Targum, 1874 (see also appendix to Brill 9. cit); Winer,
De versionis Sam. indole, 811; Kahle, Texibritische . . +
Bemerkungen, 1898; Kohn, Samaritanische Studien, 1868, and
‘Zur Sprache... d. Sam.,’ pt. li. (in A34. £ d. Kunde d.
Morgentandes, δ 4), 1876. _

ii. Arabic Version —Hwiid, Sfecimen ined. vers. Arab»
Sam, 980; Kue, Specimen, , erhibens Librum Geneseos -
1851 (Gen.-Lev.); Bloch, Die Sam-arad, Pent-Uebers. DE
Pi, 1901.

iv. Conimentaries.—Neubauer in Jowr. 4s., 1873; Drabkin,

of the same; to pe used
Vegeslied, pe. ἵν, 1897 (part οἱ
Buch di under,

v. Theologica!—Ges. De Sam. theologia, 1822; Kirchheim,
Hebrew): Leitner, Die

4264

SAMATUS

Gesetzes, 3888; Wureschner, Sam. Traditionen, 1888; Cohn,
Die Zarsath-Gesetze, 1899; Morgenstern, Die Verieumdungen
τος d, Juden gegen αἱ Sam, (Berio, n.d).

vi, Liturgical—Ges. Carmina Sam. (Anecdota Orientalia,
fasc: i.), 1824, re-edited by Kirchheim, δῇ. cif.; Heidenheim's
Vierteljahrsschrifi, passim, and Die Sam. Liturgie, 1885, etc.
(în borh the text is often faulty; cp the criticisms of Geiger in
ZDMG 16-22); Rappoport, La Liturgie Sam., 1900.

vii. Historical and General-—Juynboll, Commentarii in
bist, gentis Sam., 1846, and Chronicon Sam. . . . lib. Josue,
1848; Petermann, esser, 1860; Vilmar, Abulfathi Annales
Saw, 1865. Payne Smith, ‘The Sam. Chron. of Abu'l Fatah®
(with trans.) in Heidenheim's Viertelzahrsschrift, 2304 3. and
432 / (incomplete) Neub. ‘Chronique Sam.” ῥᾷ /ournal
Asiatigue, 869. The letters in Notices et Extraits, vol. xii.,
1831 (collected by De Sacy). Hamaker, ‘ Aanmerkingen over de
Sam, en hunne briefwisseling' (extr. from Archie voor Kerk.
Geschiedenis, 5). Kawtzsch, ‘Ein Brief des Hohenpriesters .
Ja'kub' (in ZDPV 8), Almkvist, ‘Ein sam. Brief an Kénig
Oscar’ (Skrifter utgifna af K. Humanistiska Vetenskapssame
Sundet i Upsala, ba), Knobel, Zur Geschichte d. Sam. (extract,
1847); Bargès, Les Sam. de Naplonse, x855; Mills, Three
Months Residence at Nablus, 1864; Appel, Questiones de
rebus sam., 1874; Nutt, A Sketch of Sam. History, 1874 (an
Excellent genersi account). Freudenthal, Z/elenistische Stade,
i., 1873; Brilli, Zu» Geschichte u, Literatur αἰ, Sant., 18763

Spiro, ԃtude sur le peuple Sam.' (from the Reowe CAȎfienne,

vili. Lingwistic: Castellus, Lexicon Heptaglotton, 1669;
Ublemann, /nstituziones. ling. Sar. 1837; Nicholls, A
Grammar of the Sam. language, n.d. [1858]. "Néldeke, Leder
einige Sam-arab. Schriffen (in GGN nos. 17 and 20), 1962;
Petermann, ‘Versuch einer hebr. Formenlehre,” 1868 (ASkand:
lungen f. d. Kunde ὦ. Morgenlandes, 51), and Brevis ling.
Sam. Cramm. (Porta Lingg. Or. 8), 1873 (containing a biblio.
graphy of earlier works); Kobn, Save. Studien, 1868, and Zur
Sprache, etc., see above.

ix. Catalogues of Manuscripts: for the Bodleian Library see
in the Oriental Catalogue of Uri, with the corrections in pt. il.
by Nicoli and Pusey, and in Neubauers Cafalogue of #AC
Hebvew MSS, 1886. For the British Museum, G. Margolicuth's
Descriptive List of the Hebrew and Sam. MSS, 1893 (the full
catalogue is in progress) For Paris [Zotenberg's] Catalogue
des MSS Heb, et Sam. [Paris, 18661. For St. Petersburg,
Harkavy's Usisanie samarityanshibk rukopisei, 1875 (vol. il,
pt. 1. of the Cafalog d. hebr. u. sam. Handschriften, dealing
with the Pentatench MSS, text and targum. In Russian).

A.E.C.
SAMATUS (camatoc [BA]) 1 Esd. 934= Ezra 1042

SHALLUM, 12.

SAMEIUS, ΕΝ Sameus (camaloc [A]) 1 Esd. 927
=Fzra 102: SHEMAIAH, 18.

BAMELLIUS {cameAMoc [B]) τ Esd. 216 RV=
Ezra 48 SHIMSHAI.

SAMGAR-NEBO (1227395 with Ba, Gins., not
12975; camarw@ [BN]. -ra@ [A], -A [0], -p [O#:]),
apparently a Babylonian name (fer. 393). According
to Schrader the words are Hebraised from ἔμ νερέγ-παδῆ,
‘be gracious, Nebo' (AU4 713, 416); but Giesebrecht con-
jectures a corruption of an sir» far-mag, equivalent to
am an, 7a6-mag, which implies virtual dittography. (δ
connects ρα βου the following name (see SARSECHIM).

The truth, however, probably is, that the editor had a corrupt
text before him, and tried in vain to make Babylonian names

out of the false readings. 12) might come from ali, Nopag
(τ; “ino from papifol. ΒΑΚΒΈΘΗΙΜ (g.2.) was therefore
written twice over, and once it has taken the place of “È (before
15), Read therefore ‘and the prince of Nodab' (one of the
lerahmeclite princes in the army of king Nebuchadrezzar, at
lea, if some other name—not Babylonian—does not underlie
‘Nebuchadrezzar "). See NERGAL-SHAREZER, τι Κι C.
SAMI, RV Sabi (caei [A]. om. B) 1 Esd.528=
Ezra 242 SHOBAI.

SAMIS (comeeic [BA]) 1 Esd. 934 = Ezra 1038,
SHIMPI, 16.

SAMLAH (ab , în Gen. cahama TA], camara
[2], adama, caAma [E]). camAa [1711 in Ch. camaa
{A; Bin. si], caBaa [L]}; the fifih Edomite king,
Gen. 3636 £ 1 Ch.1477 See MASREKAH. The evi-
dence offered by Prof. Sayce (758%. Leci, 54, n.) for
a connection between Samlah and Semele is unsound
{cp_Tiele, ΤΆ. 7, 1890, p. 96}. Beyond reasonabie
doubt we should read Salmah {see SALMAH, and
SoLoMON, 8 1). Was this king of the Salmaean race?

T.K.C.

4265

SAMOS

BAMMUS (cammovye [A] -oy [Β]} 1 Esd. 943=
Neh. 84, SHEMA.

BAMOS (camoc. 1 Mace. 1523 Acts 2015). The
third in size of the four large islands (Lesbos, Chios,
Samos, and Cos) which lie off the
1. GEeOSTAPLY western coast of ΗΝ Minor, all appear-
and history. ;ng in the narrative of Paul's jonrneys.
Samos lies at tbe mouth of the bay of Ephesus, into
which the Cayster flows, and so midway between
Ephesus and Miletus by the sea route. It gained its
name from the line of ‘lofty broken summits' {so
described by Tozer, Zslands of the Aîgean, 157 7.)
running from E. to W. through the island ; for the
name Samos means ‘ height ' (Str. 346, σάμους ἐκάλουν
tà ὕψη. Cp id. 457, and see SAMOTHRACE). The
highest point, Mt. Xerzi (anc. Kerketeus) îs 4725 ft.
high, a conspicuous feature from all the surrounding
islands, Between the eastern extremity of the island
{Cape Colonza, ance. Poseidium) and the long well-
wooded ridge of Mycale on the mainland (Herod.
1148) there isa narrow ‘marine pass' about one mile
in width; this strait was the scene of the Greek victory
over the Persian fieet and army in 479 B.C. (Herod.
roof).

The Samians at an early period were distinguished
for their maritime enterprise (cp Paus. vi. 29) ; it was a
Samian who first ventured through the pillars of
Herakles into the western ocean (Herod. 4152; cp Thuc.
113; Plin #X757). Samian power and splendour
reached their highest pitch under the so-called tyrant
Polycrates {c. 533-522 B.C.} who made the island for a
short time the mistress of the eastern Aigean, At this
period Samos had extensive commercial relations with
Egypt (Herod. 2178). She produced oil in abundance ;
but her wine was not of the best quality (Str. 637).
Her trade was largely in pottery {cp Plin. 43546,
Samia in esculentis taudantur) > Many Jews resided in
the island {1 Macc. 1523); and they, and the Samians
generally, enjoyed the liberality of Herad the Great, who
with Agrippa was in the'island in 14 A.D. (Jos. Ang
xvi, 22; B/ i. 211, τὰς εἰς Αὐκίους ἢ Σαμίους Swpeds).
In Paul's time Samos was a 4bera civitas (Plin AN
337; Dio Cass, 549) in the Province of Asia by the
favour of Augustus; Vespasian deprived it of this privi-
lege (Suet. Vesp. 8).

The island and its chief town bore the same name.
The town {now 7igar:) lay on the SE. shore, whereas

2, ΝῚ the modern capital, Vahy, is on the N. of
reference, ÎD® iSland. The question of the meaning

" of the word in the account of Paul’s voyage
is difficult (cp the case of Chios, Acts 2025). In neither
case apparently did the ship stopatthe town or its harbour
itself, nor did Paul land. ‘The ship evidently stopped
every evening. "The reason liesin the wind, which in the
ZEgéan during the summer generaliy blows from the N.,
beginning at a very early hour in the morning ; in the
late afternoon it dies away ; at sunset there is a dead
calm, and thereafter a gentle S. wind arises and blows
during the night’ (Ramsay, S& Pax! fe Traveller,
293). It stopped at a point opposite Chios (κατηντή-
σᾶμεν ἄντικρυς Χίου, ‘came . . . over against," EV),
i.e., probably in the strait between Chios the capital of
the island, and Cape Argennum on the opposite main-
land. Next morning they struck across to Samos
making a course either E. of S., to the western extremity
of that island, by the Great Boghaz (so Ramsay, L.c.),
or more easterly across the Caystrian Bay to the eastern
extremity of the island, so as to pass through the Ziff/e
Boghaz or strait of Mycale. In either case, the failure
of the breeze from the N. found them at Trogyllium
(the reference to which should undoubtedly be retained
from DHLP: see TROGYLLIUM), and there is no need
to understand Samos to be the few, and not rather the
island merely ; for the Greek word translated ‘arrived

1 Cp Vulg. in 15.450, testa de Samiis terre.
4266

SAMOTHRACE

at' (παρεβάλομεν, so AV; ‘touched at,” RV) does not
necessarily imply stoppage or landing at the harbour of
Samos, Probably it was this erroneous idea that was
largely responsible for the omission of the reference to
Trogyllium ; for the distance between the town of Samos
and the anchorage of ‘Trogyllium (5 m., according to
Strabo 636) is too small to make a distinet stage of the
voyage. It ought, however, to be noticed that μείναντες,
need not be restricted to spending the night at anchor,
but might indicate a short stop occurring during the
final run between Samos and Miletus ; but the order of
the words seems to be opposed to that interpretation.
W.]. W.

SAMOTHRACE ΕΝ, AV Samothracia {camo-
@pakH, Acts161r}, The two conspicuous features of
the ‘Thracian sea are Mt. Athos and the island of
Samothrace, The island is described as a ‘huge
boulder planted in the sea,’ towering above Imbros
and conspicuous from the ‘Thracian and the Asiatic
shore.

Homer, who calls the island the ‘Thracian Samos,’ describes the
seat of Poseidon on its topmost peak overlooking ‘all ida, with the
city of Priam and the ships of the Achazans' (76 13.12, ὑψοῦ dr”
ἀκροτάτης κορυφῆς Σάμον ὑληέσσης Θρηϊκίης x.7.A. cp _Verg.

7208, l'Arciciamque Samum, qua nunc Samothracia
Sertur: Strabo, 331, ftg. 50, ἐκαλεῖτο δὲ ἡ Σαμοθράκη Σάμος mpiv).1

So excellent a sailing-mark, piaced also at a convenient
distance in the passage from the Asiatic to the Thracian
and Macedonian shores was certain to arrest attention.
The ship in which Paul sailed from Troas (Acts16:r)
‘ran before the wind” (εὐθυδρομήσαμεν, ‘came with
[RV ‘made’]a straight course') to the island, passing
probably to the E. of Imbros, in order to avoid the
Mythonaés reef which lies off the coast of Lemnos.
Although the island possesses several good anchorages,
it has no good harbour {vel importuosissima omnium,
is its description by Plin. A 423) The safest
landing-place is near the promontory Acroferi at the
western end of the island, and there was probably the
ancient anchorage Demetrion, in which Paul's vessel
may have spent the night at anchor, The old capital
{now Pa/zopoli) is on the nòrthern side, The voyage
το Macedonia thus occupied two days (v. 1), whereas
the reverse journey on a subsequent occasion took five
days (Acts206).

In history Samothrace is chiefly famous as the main
seat of the worship of the Cabiri and the religious
mysteries connected therewith. The Cabiri were
known to the Greeks as ‘the Great Gods,’ and were
probably pre-Hellenic and in the main of Semitic
origin. Their worship was of great celebrity and lasted
to a very late time. Both Philip of Macedon and
his wife Olympias were initiated into the Cabiri mysteries
(Plut. A/ex. 2). After Delos, Samothrace numbered
more votaries than any other spot in the /Fgean (see
Herod. 251; Aristoph. Par, 277; Tac. Ann. 254).
The cult was in full vigour in Paul's time. It was
owing to its celebrity that Samothrace, which belonged to
the Thracian kingdom, became a free state when Thrace
was reduced to a province in 46 A.D. by Claudius (cp
Tac. Mist. ln)

Literature.--Conze, Hauser, and Niemann, ArcAdologische
Untersuchungen auf Samothvake (Vienna, 1875 XX); Conze,

Reise auf den Inseln des Thrakischen Meeres (1860). Popular
account in Tozer, [sands of the Egean, 360f W.].W.

SAMPSAMES (camwakH [AI camwame [NV]
Jampsaco [whence EV®z- LaMPsAcUSs], sarzsame [Vg. ])
a locality mentioned first in a list of peoples and coun-
tries in 1 Macc. 1523. According to Grimm, identical
with Samsun, which is described by Abulfeda as lying
on the Black Sea between Trebizond and Sinope.

1 Samos=height : cp Strabo, 346, σάμους ἐκάλουν τὰ ὕψη. The
word is of Semitic origin. ‘The Samothracian coins are all
subsequent to the time of Alexander. On an imperial coin of
Hadrian occurs the remarkable inscription Σαμίων ἐν Θράκῃ.
On some the fore-part of a ram, or ἃ ram's head, occurs, a
symbol of the cult of lower-world divinities of a pre-Hellenic
type. Sce Head, Mist Nimem. 226,

4267

. SAMSON

But some better known people or place is surely meant.
The reading σαμψακη (cp Vet. Lat.) is almost certainiy
an intentional corruption arising from the difficulty
felt in identifying Sampsame (so, rather than Samp-
sames).

SAMSON (fitti, δέρεῦση, de, ‘solar’; the MT
pronunciation is not so old as that of 5, camywn

1. Story of [BAL]; cp Sam&îne [Hilprecht]}, The
“Samson. great enemy of the Philistines is reckoned
as one of the judges of Israel in two
editorial notes which belong to the chronological scheme
of the book of Judges (1520 [see Budde's note], 1631};
but this view is not that of the story of Samson itself.
The story of Samson is a self-contained narrative by a
single hand (Judg.132-16314; see, however, $ 3) and
represents Samson not as a judge but as a popular hero
of vast strength and sarcastic humour, who has indeed
been consecrated from his birth as the deliverer of
Israel, and is not unaware of his vocation, but still
is inspired by no serious religious or patriotic purpose,
and becomes the enemy of the Philistines only from
personal motives of revenge, the one passion which is
stronger in him than the love of women. 1ῃ his life,
and still more în his death, he inflicts great injury on
the oppressors of Israel; but he is never the head of a
national uprising against them, nor do the Israelites
receive any real deliverance at his hands, The story of
his exploits is plainly taken from the months of the
people, and one is tempted to conjecture that originally
his Nazirite vow was conceived simply as a νὸν of
revenge, which is the meaning it would have in an Arab
story. Our narrator, however, conceives Samson's life
as a sort of prelude to the work of Saul (135), and brings
out its religious and national significance in this respect
in the opening scene (chap. 18), which is closely parallel
to the story of Gideon, and in the tragic close (chap. 16);
whilst yet the character of Samson, who generally is quite
forgetful of his mission, remains much as it had been
shaped in rude popular tale in a circle which, like
Samson himself, was but dimly conscious of the national
and religious vocation of Israel,

Though the name means ‘ solar,’ ! neither name nor
story lends any solid support to Steinthal's idea that
the hero is nothing but a solar myth (cp Wellh. CA
229 f. [and GASm. #/G 222/.; Wellhausen, whilst he
rejects Steinthal's myth theory, also denies Samson's
historical character]. He is a member of an un-
doubtedly historical family of those Danites who had
their standing camp near ZoRAH, not far from the
Philistine border, before they moved north and seized
Laish (cp 1325 with 188 1x7). The family of ΜΑΝΟΛῊ
(g.v.) had a hereditary sepulchre at Zorah, where Samson
was said to 118 (1631), and their name continued to be
associated with Zorah even after the exile, when it
appears that the MANAHETHITES of Zorah were reckoned
as Calebites. The name had remained though the
race changed (1 Ch. 252 54). The narrative of Samson's
marriage and ridale is of peculiar interest as a record of
manners ; specially noteworthy is the custom of the wife
remaining with her parents after marriage (cp Gen. 224).
See KINSHIP, $ 8, and DAN, $ 3.

After all has been said, the probability of mythic
elements remains. When we consider the great sus-

in Ceptibility of the Jews in later times for a

2: Mythio folklore containing features of mythic

elements. origin, it is intrinsically probable that the
beliefs of the early Israelites were also affected by
mythology. That this is so in the case of the Samson-
story seems likely, if the present text is on the whole
correct (cp $ 4). If the hero's name was really
Samson, and if in the neighbourhood commonly con-

1 It is worth noting that Samson's tribe or clan hears a name

(Dan, ie.. judge) which belongs specially to the Assyrian sun.

god, and that there is Egyptian evidence for the existence of a

glace called Samzan in the neighbourhood of the southem Dan.
ee BETH-SHEMESH, IL

4268

SAMSON

nected with Samson there was really a Canaanitish
sanetuary called Beth-shemesh (but known perhaps, as
Budde conjectures, in earlier times as Bit-Ninib; see
HERES, MOUNT}, we may venture to infer the existence
of a primitive solar myth. In short, we may in this
case surmise that there may have been a solar hero
analogous to Gilgames,! who bore the name or title
SamSan, which ultimately attached itself to some real
or imagined champion of the Danites, or even of the
people of Israel against Philistine oppression. Some
of the exploits of the legendary Samson may also have
affinities with nature myths; but nature myths had
become no more than ‘fairy tales' by the time they
supplied details to the plastic imagination of the people. |

See Steinthal's essay on Samson (1862), translated in Gold-
zihers Mebrew Mythology (by R. Martmeau), 392-446, also
Goldziher's remarks, pp. 217, Stucken, Astralmyihen, 146
72-75 (3898), and references in Moore's commentary, and cp |
Budde, Das Buck der Rickfer, 109, Van Doominck, 74.7, |
1894, pp. 14-32; 1896, pp. 162-167. For mythic elements, see’
also Heres [Mount], JawsoNE, CUTTINGS or THE FLESH
($ 3), Hatx ($ 2), and cp Bee, Fox, En-HAKKORE, LENI,
SHARUHEN. ;

Robertson Smith's view that the Samson-story forms !
a single narrative would perhaps have been modified by

4, him, had he been abie to take his part
si i national in current debates, It is very possible
PI that the narrative is of composite origin,
and that in one of its forms it represented the hero as a
national champion. It is true, Moore (/udges, 313)
contrasts the ‘solitary hero' Samson who ‘in his own
quarrel, single-handed, makes havoc among the Philis-
tines' with Ehud, Deborah and Barak, Gideon, and
Jephthah, ‘who, at the head of their tribesmen, ‘‘ turned
to flight the armies of the aliens,"” and delivered their
countrymen.’ Βαϊ according to Budde (Richter, 92
[1897]), each of the two great sources or strata of early
tradition had a national champion: the S. Israelitish
source (7) Samson the Danite; the N. Israelitish source
(E) Samuel the Ephraimite. Samuel in 1 (x S.9/.) is
only Yahwéè's messenger to Saul; in the war of libera-
tion he plays no part. In a similar case (Judg.4;
Jabin and Sisera) the redactor effected a fusion of
kindred narratives; in the case of the two Samson
stories he preserved the individuality of each. Budde
also thinks that there were two forms of the Yahwistic
story of Samson (7) and 72) which a redactor harmonised,
See further, JUDGES [B00K], and Van Doorninck, Ze. ;
also SHAMMAH, SHAMGAR (the legends of Samson
present points of contact with the legends of these
heroes).

Whilst granting that the Samson-legends as we now have

them seem to present ‘motives’ derived from a solar myth, the
present writer cannot any longer admit that
4. New there were such mythic elements'in the origina!
hypothesis. legend of the Danite deliverer.

Tp That, the scene of the legends has been
shifted, and that ἃς a consequence the xa22e of the hero has
undergone modification, seems for several reasons highly
probable. A close examination of the text may convince
us that this has occurred in other stories in the Book of |
Judges; indeed warning is already given in Judg. 93, if the
Rations by which Israel was to be ‘proved’ are catalogued,
according to a very probable restoration of the text, as ‘the five
princes (read 315) of the Zarephathites, and all the Keniz.
zites, and the Misrites, and the Horites that dwell in the
mountains of Jerahmeel unto the entrance of Maacath." The
first heroic impulses, we are told in 1325, came to Samson ‘in
Mahaneh-dan, between Zorah and Eshtaol.’ Bat the original
text may have said, ‘between Missur and Eshtaol,' while for
MAKANEH-DAN (9.9,), we should read ‘Manahath-dan’; see
1 Ch. 252-54, where the Chronicler, like modern critics, is
puzzieà at the combination of Manahath-dan both with Zorah
and Eshtaol and (see Judg. 18 τι 4) with Kirjath-jearim} the
present writer believes that Kirjath-jearim is simply a corruption
of Kirjath-jerahmeel, and that all the places referred to lay near
together ih the Negeb. Accordi ig to his theory the Negeb
was always a ‘bone of contention’ between the Zarephathites
(Philistines) or Jerahmeelites (Arammites or Amorites) and the
istaelites. ΤῊΣ Israelite champion known to us as Samson was
known to the earliest narrator only as a Cushamite. There was
in fact another place in the Negeb of even more importance

1 See Cancites, and cp Jastrow, RB4, 471.
4269

SAMUEL

than either Missur or Eshtaol—viz., Cusham. Often its irue
name îs (through a faulîy geographical theory) disguised as
ΒΜΈΘΗΕΝ (g.7., 2); but sometimes (e.g., 15.69.) as ‘Beth
shemesh® (itom Beth-cusham 1). A similar corruption or dis:
tortion has occurred in the personal name Shimshai, which
comes from ‘Cusham.' See, further, SHIMSHAI.

2. To the question, Did the early legend of the Cushamite
deliverer present mythic motives? we reply în the negative for
two reasons. (2) ‘The mythic ‘ motives” discovered by Winckler
in the legends of the other judges rest, according to our theory,
upon a precarious textual basis; and (2), not only the name
Shmson but also the stery of the fexes, and that of the jawbone,
explained by Steinthal and Stucken as mythological, are, we
suspect, really based on corruptions of the text of the written
story Which lay before the narrator.2 966 Crif. Z74

w. R. 5. (8. 1}; T.K.C. ($$ 2-4).

SAMUEL (DIMISE, 85 er, 39, camorWà
[BNAQRTL]). I. A prophet, or rather seer, who
1. Name. attained distinction in the period of Israel's
" ° transition to regal government. Narratives
respecting Samuel are contained in 1 S.11-1613
1918-242851. Η is also mentioned in Jer. 15: (not 654)
Ps. 996 1 Ch. 1013 (& not MT) 628 [13] 33 [18] 922113
2628 2920 2 Ch. 3518,
On the etymology, see Sat, $ τ SnemueL; Suem (NAMES
WITH). The two etymologies ‘asked of God” (1 8. 120) and
*lent το God' (Ὁ. 24) come from the narrators and have only the

value of popular etymologies. This is too clear for any trained
biblical scholar to deny (see Dr. 785 13/).

τ $.11-1613 has the appearance of forming a con-
nected account of Samuel. A closer examination, how-
2. Oldest EYE” shows that this section contains very
ti aditiong, ÎNconsistent elements. The narratives have
been put together from different sources,
two ofswhich (the parallel reports fused together in 1 5.
4:6-71) make no mention of Samuel, and they have re-
cgived their present form by a complicated process of
redaction. The inconsistencies which they present are
to be explained by the transformation which the tradi-
tional picture of Samuel experienced in connection with
the development of religious ideas in Israel and in the
Jewish community. This transformation is no isolated
phenomenon. In many another people a variation in
the national and religious ideals has produced a cor-
responding change in the picture of the old national
heroes. Since life means continual change, the great
men of a people can live on only through a constant
modification of the forms which they wear in memory.
The oldest notices of Samuel occur in the section 1 S.
9 101-186 131 y@ 16-18 23 141-46 {see SAMUEL {B00KS],
$ 3). Samuel is there represented as a seer (ng3), who
at the same time officiates as a priest on the Sdmdk
{' high place') of a small country-town in the ‘land of
Zuph' (95)—d.e., the district inhabited by the clan so
called. [Cp ProPHET, $ 5.]
The name of the town is not given, from which Budde (ZA TW
8 225) infers that it was certainìy not Ramah, which is the name
given in the later narratives. But what can ‘have induced later
writers to place Samuel’s dwelling în Ramah, unless this were

the view of the older tradition? For we find other places (Gilgal,
Mizpah, Bethel) mentioned as the scenes of his official activity.

At any rate Samuel is a much respected seer, whose
predictions are thoroughly trustworthy ; but his reputa-
tion is only local, for Saul, who dwells at Gibeah in
Benjamin, is unacquainted with him, and has his
attention called to him for the first time by his servant.
The story of the meeting of Samuel and Saul is well
known. Saul was in quest of the lost she-asses of his
father, and his servant wished him to fee the man of
God to tell them where to go. Samuel on his side was
already expecting the visitor. He knew by revelation that
the destined ruler of Israel would be sent to him, and after
announcing to Saul his high destiny, he specified three

1 Cp Shaalabbim or SHaALBIM (near “Zorab’) from Beth-
Ishmaelim.
2 InJudg.154 Opi ΓΑΙ 1501 should be bi

the continuation is given in v. sa, which chould run oma Ὁ}
[Storm #13]; € Cush' and ‘Jerahmeel' are glosses. On ‘Leht

Ramath-lehi," and “En-hakkore' in 22. 9 19, see Leni.
Similar corruptions abound ; see, exg., SoDON, 86, ἢ. (correction
of Gen. 1414).

ἦν τὴ ἡ
n;

4270

SAMUEL

striking experiences which he would have as he returned
home. These were to be the sign of the truth of the
‘announcement, Not long after, the first exploit of Saul
marked him out to the people as their king (1 5, 11}.
‘The narrative contains two mentions of Samuel; but the
words ‘and after Samuel' in v. 7 and the whole of vr.
12-14 are later insertions. Saul and the people are the
two parties in the great ceremony whereby Saul is made
king ‘before Yahwè® at Gilgal.

The later strata in the Book of Samuel are dis-
tinguished from this old tradition by the increased

3. Later importance which they attribute to Samuel.
tradiziong, They represent him, ‘not as a seer of merely

"local reputation, but as an authority for the
whole of Israel; and, so far as they have not a deutero-
nomic colouring, they regard him as a prophet (en).
We turn first to the two narratives in (a) 1 S.1r-28
211-26 8r-20 (transpose τ, 20 and v. ar; see 685), and (2)
chap. 15. ’The former describes the youth of Samuel,
bringing him into connection with the old sanctuary at
Shiloh. He was the son of the Ephraimite (or, more
precisely, the Zuphite})! Elkanah and of his favourite
wife Hannah, who had long been childless, and had
vowed to give the son who might be born to her to
Yahwè (1 S.11r).? He grew up at Shiloh, where he
acted as ἘΠῚ 5 minister, antà became the true heir of
Eli's spirit, the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas,
being worldly and degenerate. While still young he
learned by revelation the impending fall of the house of
Eli, and afterwards he became known as a prophet
whose words came true, ‘from Dan even to Beersheba.'

‘The narratives in (4) regard Samuel as a prophet
whose home was in Ramah. The command to ex-
terminate the Amalekites was transmitted by him to
Saul, who obeyed, but, in violation of the ban {#4rem;
see BAN), spared the Amalekite king (see AGAG) and
the best of the animals taken, A revelation then came
to Samuel to the effect that Yahwè repented that he
had made Saul king. ‘The prophet announced this to
the disobedient king at the Judaean Carmel, and then
hewed Agag in pieces before Vahwè's altar (1 5. 18).
‘The chapter presupposes the tradition in 1 5, 9 101-16,
since Samuel expressly refers (Ὁ. 1; cp ®. 17) to his
having anointed Saul The author must have lived in
the time of the first literary prophets, or at any rate
have shared their circle of ideas. Samuel confronts
Saul very much as Isaiah confronts Ahaz (Is. 7), and the
saying in τ 8. 1ὅσα f is entirely in the prophetic
manner.8 Much as we sympathise with this fine utter-
ance, the following verses place Samuel in an extremely
unpleasing light from our modern point of view. Vatke
does not mince matters when he says (Die Religion des
AT, 1835, p. 300), ‘Samuel appears here as a stern
and obstinate zealot'; but his words are true. The
passage in question is largely responsible for unfavour-
‘able judgments on Samuel's character.

The deuteronomistic narratives (τ S.72-822 1017 27
121-25) show a further tendency to glorify Samuel.
A This hero of tradition now becomes
4 Dt. Narratives. ine last of the Judges of all Israel in
succession to Eli. Like Eli, he is also a priest of
Yahwè, and it is he who brings the Israelites back to
the worship of Israel's God. It is Samuel too who
delivers Israel from the yoke of the Philistines, gaining
a brilliant victory as the reward of a national repentance
and reformation 4 (see EBEN-EZER, BETH-CAR).* In his

11S.1r should run thus, ‘There was a certain man of
Ramathaim, a Zuphite of the ‘hill-country of Ephraim See
Dr. (7851£), We., Klo., Ki., Bu. [but cp RamatHAI-
zorsim, Ζυρηΐ. On the genealogy, cp ELKANAH, JEROHAM.

2 That is, Samuel was to be a priest (not a Nazirite),

3 [Cp Che., ‘A Study of 15.15 22 23," Biblical World,
April 1894, pp. 281-200. ΜΝ

4 [Kittel is of opinion (Z7is?, 2 108) that, though ἃ 5. ἴω its
present form is ‘decidedly unbistorical,’ there is an element of
«early tradition in it (similarly Budde). He therefore accepts the
assembly at Mizpah under the presidency of Samuel issuing in a
religious reform as historical Τὸ Stade such a distinction

4271

| receives the admiring homage of the people.

SAMUEL

old age he appoints his sons to be judges. Their gross
misconduct is given as the reason why the chief men of
Israel desire a king. It is, however, a foolish and
wicked desire, and in obedience to a divine command
Samuel warns the Israelites of the hardships to which
the subjects of a king are liable. Their request, never-
theless, is granted, At Mizpah a religious assembly of the
people is held. ‘The sacred lot falls upon Saul, who
Before
transferring the reins of power to Saul's hands, how.
ever, Samuel makes a solemn ' apologia' to the people,
coupling this with a farewell charge. How the writer
of chap. 12 harmonised his representations with 715,
indeed whether he himself noticed the inconsistency
(Josephus, «ἀπὲ vi. 135, certainly did not) we have not
the means of judging.

Subsequently to the time when the historical books
underwent the deuteronomistic redaction, three narra-

tives arose as the result of reflection
5 Post-Dent. on the traditional narrative. Their
embeMisnments. 1 te origin is shown both by the
nature of the contents and by their very loose connection
with the surrounding narratives. (αὐ One is the story
of the early anointing of David by Samuel in accordance
with a divine command (1 S.161-13), which is incon-
sistent with the traditional account in 2 S.24 To
remove this contradiction, or at any rate to justify the
statement in 2 S.24, the Chronicler assumes that the
anointing at Hebron was in obedience to the word of
Yahwè by Samuel(1Ch. 113). (5) Another is the account
ofthe very early rejection of Saul {1 S. 134-152), inserted
in the account of Saul's war against the Philistines.
This passage is merely an anticipation of chap. 15.
(Ὁ) A τρίτα ἰδ an anecdote in which Samuel appears,
like an Elijah or an Elisha, as the head of the prophetic
community in Ramah, with which David seeks refuge
(1 S.1918-24). See DAVID, $ 1 (end).

In one of those passages of the Book of Jeremiah which betray
the hand of an editor(Jer.151; not @A4)1 we find Samuel placed
beside Moses as an intercessor for his people and a hero of prayer,
The same view of him, which is clearly due to exegetical study
of the Book of Samuel (see, e.g., 1 5.19 861210), is given in Ps.
996 (post-exilic), The Chronicler even makes Samuel a member
of the tribe of Levi because, according to the Book of Samuel,
he offers sacrifices ; in 1 Ch, 6 22-28 [7.13] and 33-38 [18-23] he
gives us two genealogies which trace Samuel’ descent back to

Kohath.3 Some very singular statements respecting Samuel
‘the seer’ will be found in 1 Ch.922 26.28.

To assign an equal weight to all these documents is
of course impossible. ‘The oldest are the most trust-

Ss 4 worthy, and wherever the later notices
8. Summing UD. are inconsistent with the earlier and
can be understood by that inevitable modification of
traditional pictures of which we have spoken, they must
be rejected. This at once compels us to set aside those
narratives which represent Samuel as a leading prophet
for all Israel, or as a zealous advocate of the exclusive
worship of Vahwè, or as a judge and a deliverer of
Israel from the Philistine yoke. They contradict the
surest facts of the beginning of the regal period, Take
the deuteronomistic narratives.® The transformation of
facts is here radical. The presuppositions are those
of an age which had no kings, and regarded kingship as
opposed to the will of God, and as the means by which
Israel was turned away from its true mission. 115 own
ideals were once, it believed, those of Israel; but by
desiring a king Israel fell to the low level of the other
peoples. To this we may add that if these narra-
tives were based on an old tradition, the rise of another
tradition which made Samuel a seer of merely local
celebrity would be inconceivable, whereas, granted the

appears unsafe. See his GVZ1206, and cp bis review of
Budde's disposition of the text of Samtel in SE07) Theo. LZ,
a
See Stade, G/ 1447 end of note.
2 See the proof in Bertheau, C4ram4@, 60
3 [On the suggestive but unhistorical idyli of Samuel's youth
in 15, 1-3 sce We, Pro4 ET 270, and cp his CHI) 238 n.]

4272

SAMUEL (BOOKS)

priority of the simpler story, the growth of the deuterono-
mistic account is perfectly natural.

Really trustworthy material for a picture of Samuel
we must seek first of all in chaps. 9 101-16. The tragedy
in the fate both of peoples and of individuals springs
from uncomprehended circumstances and neglected
opportunities. ‘The greatness of leading personalities
consists in this—that they comprehend the national
aspirations and turn to account favouring circumstances.
Only thus can impending ruin be averted and the
road to progress and prosperity be opened. Others
besides Samuel may have conceived the idea that the
deliverance of Israel from the Philistines was possible
only for a king; but it is his inalienable merit to have
found in Saul the man who appeared equal to the task,
and to have awakened in him the consciousness of his
divine mission. ‘The people itself, too, comprehended
the situation, and gave this a legal expression by a
solemn choice of Saul at Gilgal (1 S. 1115).

‘This view of the historical significance of Samuel is in
perfect harmony with the statement that his course of
action was determined by Yahwè, who pointed out to ;
him Seul as the future king of Israel. Ideas which |
burst upon a man suddenly and seem to have no links |
with his other thoughts belong to modern as well as i
ancient experience; to the ancients it was natural to |
regard them as given by inspiration. When Saul's !
imposing form came before the seer, revealing doubtless :
already something of that impetuous energy which
marked Saul as king, the idea may have flashed through
his mind that here was Israel's king. There is no
reason to doubt that Samuel became accidentally ac- |
quainted with Saul, and then anointed him king over
Israel (cp SAUL, $ 1).

On the other hand it is not so certain whether the account of
the details of the first meeting of Samuel and Saul în chap, 9
10 1-16 Îs based on an exact knowledge of facts. They spoke
together without witnesses, and upon Saul’s accession his grown-
up son Jonathan was already his best support, ἴτ is therefore
very improbable that at this important moment he was but like
a superior servant who could be sent out t0 seek for runaway
asses, and that such a person should find, not indeed the asses,

but a kingdom. Surely this representation is but part of the
literary vehicle of the tradition.

Besides the kernel of chap. 9 10r-16 we may regard |
as historical the central facts of chap. 151-23 32-35 [see
SAUL, $ 3]. The expedition against Amalek would of
course not be undertaken without an oracle, and Saul’s
earlier relations to Samuel make it intelligible that the
oracle would come from that seer, The violation of the
ban corresponds to the egoistic character of the Israelites
of that time, and the slaying of Agag before the altar
is consistent with their religious usages. Nor need we
doubt that Samuel himself hewed Agag in pieces.
Probably enough, too, difficulties may have arisen
between Samuel and Saul in consequence of the viola-
tion of the ban [cp SAUL, $ 3]. The influences of the
later period when the narrative was written will be con-
fined to the description of the attitude of Saul on his
meeting Samuel, to the statement that Samuel on this |
cceasion made known to Saul his rejection by Yahwè,
and to the fine prophetic saying ascribed to Samuel,

According to 1 S. 283, Samuel died and was buried at Ramah,
to which 25r adds that his grave was in his own house, which
corresponds to the early custom (cp 1 K.234). This of itself
shows that the late tradition which placed ἧς dwelling-place
and sepulchre at Neby Samwil is wrong. See Mizrat.
Nothing is said of Samuel's age at the time cf his death. The
number 20 in x S.72 is obtained by artificial means. This is
also true of the statements in Josephus (Ax. vi.135 149) and în
the Midrash. They depend on exegetical inferences which,
from the nature of the sources, are destitute of any sure
foundation. Β. 8.

SAMUEL (BOOKS)

I
Name (ἢ 1). Later additions Li d |
Literary history (8 2).
Samuel Saul: 15.118 @3) = Sommary @7 I

David: τ 9.18. 9.8 (ἢ λ' Literaturs Ὁ,
That the two books of Samuel, like the two books of

4273

28.9-1K.2(8 δ).

SAMUEL (BOOKS)

Kings, originally formed one book, is explained else-
1. Name. where (CANON, $ 10). ‘The idea of dividing

. the respective books of Samuel and Kings
comes from (5,1 where, however, the divided books are
recombined as the four Books of Kingdoms (βίβλοι
βασιλειῶν), It is true that the greater part of the Book
of Samuel refers to the regal period, and that the
gap between 2 S. 24 and 1 K. 1 is less prominent în
the ©" arrangement {cp Kings, $ 1). But the older
Palestinian- Hebrew arrangement has the advantage
of reflecting the fact that Samuel and Kings arose
by editorial redaction out of two different older
works, the limits of which were only effaced when two
chapters which originally belonged to Samuel were
attached to the Book of Kings (1 K. 1 f.). The Book
of Samuel derives its name from the fact that it opens
with the story of Samuel’s birth {cp the names Genesis,
Exodus, ete., which correspond to the Jewish custom of
naming books with reference to their commencement).
In reality it describes the origin of the Israelitish
kingdom, and the fortunes of Saul, Ishbaal, and David.

A book, in the modern sense, Samnel can no more be
said to be than any other of the historical writings of

2. Lite: the OT. It is a compilation from older
RISI works which has passed through repeated
ΤΥ. redactions, and the final redaction of all

can have occurred only after the close of the Penta-
teuch, in connection with the formation of the prophetic
canon. Like the Torah, however, and like the other
books of the ‘former prophets," the Books of Samuel
attained in essentials their present form as a result of
the great ‘Deuteronomistic’ literary movement (see
HISTORICAL LITERATURE, $ 7). In the book which
immediately precedes Samuel this movement has left only
too many traces of its influence. In Samuel, however,
we are happily in a position to indicate a series of vivid
and ancient narratives which is only at certain points
interrupted by later insertions and additions. We must
infer from this that the deuteronomistic editor or editors
found this connection already in existence; in other
words, the basis of our Samuel was formed by a pre-
deuteronomie redaction of older works.

The insertions and additions, however, are to a great extent
derived neither from the deuteronomistic nor from the final
redaction. Not only do some relate to the time between both
redactions, but in certain cases it seems possible that they may
have been brought into their present connection before the
deuteronomistic redaction occurred. The history, therefore, of
the origin of the Books of Samuel, in spite of the great pre.
dominance of the ancient sources, is very complicated, It is,
however, only what might have been expected, when we
consider the manner in which the OT writings have come down
to us; the processes of copying and of exegetical study were, in
the case of Samuel, combined with redactional alteration of
various kinds, and, more particularly, with additions of new
materials and insertion of explanatory matter.

The Books of Samuel fall into three main divisions.
(1) The history of Samuel and of Saul down to the
rejection of the latter, 1 S. 1-15 ($ 3); (2) the history
of David during the reigns of Saul and Ishbaal, and his
own reign at Hebron, 1 S. 16-2 S. 8 ($ 42) (3) the
history of David at Jerusalem, 2 S, 9-24 (8 δ

Part 1. has for its nucleus two sections : È τ 8. 4r
Ἴτ, a fragment—-the original beginning and end are now
wanting—recounting the subjugation of

μ᾿ Semel Israel by the Philistines and the captivity
nd San: Of the ark of Yahwè; (5) τ 8. 9.107

109-16 111-114 £ 1832-70 17,5. 23 141-46,
which describes the anointing of Saul by Samuel, Saul's
victory over Ammon, his election as king, and his first
encounters with the Philistines.

‘The first-mentioned section (a)—a torso (for it intro-
duces the reader abruptly into the midst of the Philistine
wars, and does not complete the account of the fortunes
of the sanctuary at Shiloh and of the ark)—gives
the necessary premises for the section which follows,

2 There is a trace of 1, 2 5. and 1, 2 K. having been each one
book in @2 where the first words of 2 S. and 2 K, are also made
the last words of 1 S. and 1 K.

4274

SAMUEL (BOOKS)

according to which the kingship is Yahwè's way of inter-
posing to save Israel from the Philistines. The two
sections, however, are from different pens. The former
is made up of two parallel accounts, one Yahwistic, the
other Elohistic.! But, first of all, to satisfy the reader's
curiosity respecting the central figure of chap.9, a
description of Samuel's childhood has been inserted
(11-28 211-26 31-21), which bears throughout the stamp
of a later age than the two parallel narratives, but may
quite well be pre-exilic. ‘The substance of the narrative
thus produced has undergone much drastic revision at
the hands of the deuteronomist.

A specimen of this is met with în 1S.227-3—where an un-
named man of God foretelis the doom of Eli and his house and
his supersession by a ‘faithful priest’—z.e., collectively, Zadok
and his house (cp 1 K.2 26, see ΖΑΡΟΚ), According to Kuenen,
Yahwè's revelation to Samuel în the night ( 8. 8 το 19) was also
worked over by D ; but it sufficiently meets the case if we regard
312 as a redactional back-reference to 227 # On the notice of
418ò, added by the last deuteronomistic redactor, see below, $ 7.

The second narrative (6) has been much more pro-
foundiy modified by inserted deuteronomistic passages
(1 S.72-822 1017-27 121-25). In faci, the account of
the rise of the monarchy contained in these sections
directly contradicts the original story at every point.
Samuel is Israel's last judge. Under his leadership
repentant and converted Israel throws off the Philistine
yoke (7), and in order to be like other nations requests
Samuel to give it a king. This Samuel does at the
command of God (8). At Mizpah the sacred lot falls
on Saul (10 17.25}. Samuel then reproaches the people
with ingratitude towards Yahwè (12). The links which
connect this narrative with the older account are 1025-27
1li2f

Critics are not agreed as to whether we have before us here a
narrative written with full knowledge of the older account in 9
10 1.16 iL but with the deliberate intention of altering its sco
(We., Kue.)—in which case the links just mentioned may
derived from the writer himself—or whether we have an in
dependent source which has been brought into connection with
the older narrative by means of these same links, which on this
hypothesis must be attributed to the hand of a redactor (Co.,
Bu.). The first of these assumptions is in harmony with the
known habits of deuteronomistic writers, and not less so is the
wording of 850 1212, which plainly suggests that we have
before us a deuteronomistic narrative, dependent on the older
account. Cornill and Budde fail to percelve the character and
age of these deuteronomistic pieces, holding them to be pre-
deuteronomic and assigning them to an Elohistic source.

The old version of the story of Saul has, however,
undergone other expansions. The oldest of these (it
is perhaps pre-exilic) occurs in 15 1-23 32-35 (Saul's war
against the Amalekites and his rejection by Samuel),
Verses 24-31, which describe Saul's self-abasement before
Samuel, are a later embellisnment to this narrative. To
another late writer, however, it seemed that Saul's re-
jection did not occur early enough, and he has therefore
in τ S.138-1s carried back this occurrence, which is
most awkwardly accounted for, to the beginning of
Saul’s reign, preparing the way for it by means of 108.
‘These additions are later than the deuteronomistie
portions, for they regard Samuel as an authority
superior to Saul. A later interpolation also is 1319-21,
with its incredible statement that the smith’s craft was
suppressed by the Philistine overlords throughout the
land of Israel. The Song of Hannah {x S.2x-10} was
interpolated at a still later period,? and probably owed
‘ts introduction here to a mistaken interpretation of the
figure (v. s) of the barren woman. Itis a post-exilic
psalm, which gives expression to the belief of the Jewish
Church in the compensating Messianic judgment of
Yahwé.

In Part II. (τ S.16r-2 8, 818) the pre-exilic sources

1 CpSt. GP 1 202; Mez, Die Bibel des Jos., 62 ff. (1895).

2 [So Cheyne, Οἷς. 57, who points out that the fortunes of
Sarah and Hannah were regarded as types of those of Israel.
Budde, however, finds in 21-10 the tifnkegiving song cf a
rictorious king, which must therefore be pre-exilic (RZ Sa.
197,

4275

SAMUEL (BOOKS)

are present in almost a larger proportion. The passage ‘
;q. contained in 1 S. 1614-23 is old. Saul
PE DETid: is soired with melancholy; David is
“ δὴ brought to the court to cheer him with
his harp. The narrative is brought by 1452 into con-
nection with that of Saul's election and his struggles with
the Philistines. The continuation of 1 S. 1623 is to be
sought, not in 171 (WRS 077C 433)—for what is
there related is irreconcilable with 16r18-—but in
186-82 (Saul's jealousy of David's growing popularity).
Between these two sections is interpolated a narrative,
compounded from two independent but both much later
sources, describing David's victory over Goliath and his
friendship with Jonathan (171-185). Chaps. 17-18
rank among the most interesting of all the sections
in the Book of Samuel, for here we have alongside of
MT a shorter text in (55 where 17 12-31 4150 (in 2. 51,
‘and he drew it out of its sheath') 55-185 84-11 126 17-19
are wanting—a statement that is unaffected by the
presence of 189 in B. The critics are not at one on the
question whether it is the original that has come down
to us in the Greek recension, or whether we have to
do with an abridgment made in harmonistic interests.1
The main argument that makes for the abridgment view
is that 208 seems to take account of the bond of brother-
hood between David and Jonathan spoken of in 183
(Kuenen). But this, doubtless, was one of the constant
themes of the older history, and we can all the more
readily imagine 208 to have referred to some passage
which has not come down to us, inasmuch as between
1623 and 186 it is probable that a piece of ancient
narrative has dropped out. But, further, the question
as to the character of the text of € does not quite
dispose of the question as to its composition, inasmuch
as abridgment with a view to obviating contradictions
is an operation that might very well have been per-
formed precisely upon the later portions in chap. 17 f.
The view that the shorter recension (458), 17 1-11 32-4042-49 SI
(in part) 52-54, constitutes a narrative, complete in ‘itselt, which
has been broken up in MT by fragments of a parallel account
(συ. 12-31 41 50,/ [în part] 55:58), is supported by the fact that
2, 54 marks the conclusion of a narrative, and that 2. 32 admits
of being joined on to 7. 11, whilst v, 12 is plainly the beginning
οἵα new story. The same ‘phenomena show that 77, 55-58 also,
and 18 1-5, which form the immediate continuation of the frag-
mentary narrative, proceed from another source than the main
narrative. At the same time it must be allowed that the close
of the fragmentary narrative was perhaps griginally 182, and
3-5 an addition ; for 2. 2 separates ©, 1 from e. 3.

The connecting link by which the two parallel narra-

tives are held together is constituted by 17145-16. ΟΥ̓
the two accounts, the main narrative relates the events
in the form of a history of the kingdom, whilst the
fragmentary narrative has the character of a biography.
If we assume that v. 36 has not been worked over, and
that 2, 47 is a later addition, both narratives can only be
exilic, at the earliest (cp GOLIATH).

The continuation of 1882 is found in vv. 12-16.
David is removed from the court with honour. His
own popularity, and, with ît, Saul's fear, go on in-
creasing. The story of Saul and his javelin in v. 84-11,
viewed by itself, can very well have come from an old
source; but it is here out of place.

Verses 17-19 are likewise foreign to the ancient source, as is
shown by what comes after : Saul promises his daughter Merab

to David, but does not keep his word. This story has grown
out of the fragmentary narrative of MT contained în 1712-32

41 50 35,7, if indeed it does not actually form part of it. Itcan
very well have come in after 182.
Chap. 1816 has its continuation in 1820-30. Michal

falls in love with David, who marries her in spite of
Saul's malignant plot against him. (Verse 218 is
wanting in (585 and isa later addition). We again come
upon old material in chap. 20—one of the accounts of
the outbreak of enmity between Saul and David.

1 On the one side (expansion) are Co., St., WRS; on the
other (abridgment) We., Kue., Bu., and others (for references
see gna) We, formerly held an opposite view (785
104 f).

2" For the proof see WRS Ο 770 δ), 433.

4276

SAMUEL (BOOKS)

Jonathan helps David in ascertaining what Saul's true
disposition towards him is; vv. 417 and 4o-42 are
disturbing insertions of a later hand. As it now stands,
this account is without its natural premises ; if it comes
from the same source as 1614-23 186-84 r2-16 20-30,
something has dropped out from between them. The
continuation is given in 1S.21r-7 (David’s fight to
Nob), 22:-46-23 (David's sojourn in Adullam, and
Saul's vengeance on the priests of Nob), 2381-14 (David
takes refuge in Keilah, but in fear of Saul quits it for
the wilderness); 25 (David's life in the wilderness, and
the Nabal-episode), 271-121 (David takes refuge with
Achish and receives Ziklag), 281 £ 29 τοῦτ (David takes
the field with the Philistines against Saul, but is mis-
trusted and sent back), 30r-31 {David finds Ziklag
plundered and burnt by the Amalekites, but pursues
them and recovers the spoil), 8111-13 (Saul and his sons
fall in battle).

In 25. the same source is continued: 2 $S. 21-32
{David is made king of Judah at Hebron, Ishbaal king
of Israel at Mahanaim; there is war between them),
8164-39 (Abner's betrayal of Ishbaal; Joab's vendetta
on Abner), 4122 5-12 (Ishbaal's assassination — where
vv. sf., on the one hand, and 7. 7 on the other, show
that the section contains remnants of a second parallel
account of this occurrence), 51-3 17-25 (David becomes
king over all Israel and is victorious over the Philistines),
8 (David's wars against external enemies ; his officers).
Chap. 8, however, in its present form has been much
revised and corrected throughout (see DaviD), which
opens our eyes to the fact that what comes after is
derived from another source. If we have already
found, in chap. 4, traces of an ancient parallel narrative,
we are able to point out other elements also which
interrupt the thread of the narrative, 2 S.118-q 11,
is old; an Israelite warrior escaped from the battle
brings David the news of Saul’s death. That the
source here is not the same as before is shown by the
joining in τ. ra, and by a comparison of τ. 4 with
15.812. Verses s-10 13-16, according to which the
messenger is a chance Amalekite who happened to be
on the battlefield, are a later interpolation, of the
nature of Midrash, based upon 2 S.4ro not rightly
understood. 2 S.56-12 is also old, but from another
source than the adjacent portion. David conquers
Jebus and enters into relations with Hiram of Tyre;
and in chap. 6 David brings the ark to Jerusalem.
Both these passages perhaps come from the same
source as that which we afterwards come upon again
in chap. 9.

Part II. has undergone excessive expansions. Prob-
ably we ought to assign to a later date (1) both the

δ. Later paralleì accounts of David's adventure

Saitican, in the wilderness of Ziph: (4) 1 5. 98 το-

li - 2423 [22], (3) chap. 26. ‘The Ziphites
betray David to Saul. He escapes Saul's pursuit,
however, and spares him when chance has brought
him into his power. Both passages are brought
into connection with one another and with the
subsequent interpolation, 2315-18, describing a visit of
Jonathan to David, by means of 23 194. The expres-
sions ‘in the strongholds’ and ‘in the wilderness of
Ziph' bring them into relation with the older section.
(2) 284-25 (Saul's visit to the witch of Endor).

1 S. 17 and the later portions of chap. 18 have already been
considered. 19-16, one of the variants on the outbreak of
enmity between Saul and David, takes account of these
(see 2, 5). Jonathan, we hear, attempts the part of mediator,
but in vain. Then a victory of David's brings Saul's hatred to
a crisis ; he throws his javelin at his rival, who with Michal’
help succeeds în making his escape. Co, and Bu, mark τ. 2f
as ἃ later addition, but with doubtful justification; for this

would involve the deletion of the whole of Ὁ, 7, which, however,
is necessary for the connection.

The following are the sections in this part which are
1 5. 278-12 was rejected 35 St. GVI0) 252 (after Wellh., in

Bleek, ὐπὸ (ἢ 220=C2 253) as a later addition. But in
Gesch.) Stade withdrew this view. Cp Bu. Ri. Sa. 232.

187 4277

i Jashar' {see JASHER, BooK ΟΕ, 8 2).

SAMUEL (BOOKS)

of later origin : (1) 161-12 (Samuel, after the rejection
of Saul, anoints the youthful David at Bethlehem as
king). This was written specially for the place where it
now occurs, for it stands in immediate connection with
chap. 15 (cp v. 1), aims at correcting the narrative of
x S. 1614-23, and în 7. 12 takes account of 17 42. Itis
probable that the parenthesis in v. 19 {‘ which is with
the sheep’) comes from the same hand. (2) 1918-24
{David flees from the presence of Saul to the school of
the prophets at Ramah), This is a probably post-
exilic development, in the nature of Midrash, from the
proverbial saying ‘Is Saul also among the prophets?'
(3) Apart from the passage, already referred to, in
1 S. 23 :5-28, the old theme of the friendship of David
and Jonathan occurs in another variant in 1 S. 2040-42.
(4) 2111-16 [10-15] (David fees from Nob to Achish of
Gath, and, to save his life, feigns madness). Kuenen
conjectures this to have been intended to take the place
of 1 5. 27, where David's real relations to Achish are
set forth. (5) Particulars about David's family: (a)
2 S. 32-5 (his children born in Hebron); (8) 2 $/513-16
(the wives he married in Jerusalem and the children born
to him there). Late interpolations in any case are also
the following poems: (1) David's lament (2 $. 1 17-27) over
Saul and Jonathan, the genuineness of which is doubtful.
It has come into 115 present position from the ‘ Book of
(2) David's
lament over Abner (2 5, 8.33 Δ}; 346 in particular, which
is rendered superfluous by v, 325, betrays the interpola-
tion (cp DAVID, $ 13, col. 1035).

28.7 is also an instance of deuteronomistic ex-
pansion in Pt. II.

David ξανὰ ὃ to build a house for Yahwè, and is encouraged
in his purpose by Nathan. Afterwards Nathan is commanded
by, Yahoe to probibit David from doin; David is not to
build a house for Yahwè, but Yahwè for avid—the stability of
his dynasty being meant. Verse 13, which conflicts with 7. 16

and destroys this point (Wellh.) by making the prophecy of
Nathan refer to the building of Solomon's temple, is a gloss.

Chap. 7 is certainly a later addition, for it connects
the accounts of David's building of a house (2 S. 5 11)
and of the removal of the ark to the city of David
(4 8.61), and is occasioned by these. [1 is rightly
held by Wellhausen and Kuenen to be deuteronomistic ;
cp the reference to the appointment of judges and the
dark days of the period of the judges, also ve. 1 and rr
with Dt. 129 τ K. 54{18] 8 56.

It is impossible, however, to agree with Wellhausen in holdin
the passage to have been written while the kingdom of fudah Stili
subsisted, perhaps under Josiah, or with Kuenen in holding it to
be manifesily pre.exilic. ‘The promise of the perpetua] kingship
of the house of David had also, as Ps. 89 shows, a meaning for
the Messianic faith of the post-exilic period, and v. ro betrays
acquaintance with the exile.

It is no longer possible to determine how this
deuteronomistic interpolation is related in point of age
to the latest interpolations previously referred to, or how
many of thesè are of later date. So far as the poetical
pieces and the Midrash narratives are concerned, it may
be assumed with some degree of confidence that they
did not find their way into the book until after the
deuteronomistic interpolation had occurred.

It is in Pt, III that the greatest amount of old
material has been preserved, and here also, accordingly,

sa. tbe impression of literary unity îs

5, David: 2 5. greatest. The narrative in 9-20 is
μα continuous, exhibits the same peculiar-

ities of style throughout, and must therefore be attri-
buted to one and the same writer ; it is but rarely that
the original thread is interrupted by glosses and expan-
sions. It describes Meribaal's succession to the heritage
of Saul (9), David's Ammonite wars and his sin with
Bathsheba (10-12), the story of Amnon and Tamar
(13), Absalom's revenge and banishment, and the
revolts of Absalom and Sheba (14-20). To it also
belongs 1K.1f, containing Adonijah's proclamation
as king, the death of David and Adonijah's downfall
The narrator, one of the best în the OT, apparently
wishes to show how it was precisely that Solomon should

4278

SAMUEL (BOOKS)

have come to be David's successor. He dwells by

preference on the more intimate affairs of the court, and |

depicts the different characters with admirable skill.
Later insertions, however, are not altogether wanting.
Among these are certainly the notes upon the dress of
kings' daughters (13182) and upon Absalom’s beauty
(14257), and the reference to the Levites in 1524.
This reference, which is post-exilic, needs no explana-
tion; the other two notes owe their origin to the
antiquarian interests of some reader, and are, at the
earliest, exilic; cp 1426 (‘the [Babylonian] king's
weight '). The account of David's war against Hadar-
ezer (Hadadezer) in 105-194 is also liable to suspicion
(see Davin, $ 8[4]); and Schwally (Ζ4. 7 7 1215: 5)
even regards the whole of 121-152, including the parable
of Nathan, as an addition {see JEDIDIAH, NATHAN).
Whether we accept the latter view or not, it is beyond
doubt that 12758, the first clause of 2. 9, and 22. 10-12
were inserted at a later date. This is especially clear
in the case of ww, ro-12, for these verses disagree with
the tenor of the denunciation by which they are
followed, and are a valicinium ex eventu.

This section also, as is shown by 1K.1/, hss
undergone deuteronomistic revision. In 2S.14-20,
indeed, it is impossible to establish traces of such
redaction; but the gradual amplification of the old
sources can here be demonstrated with exceptional
clearness. The connection between 25.20 and 1K.1
is, in the first instance, broken by the interpolation of
those old sections, 2S.211-14 (the vengeance of the
Gibeonites on the house of Saul) and 25.24 (the
numbering of the people, the pestilence, the establish-
ment of the sanctuary on Ornan's threshing floor).
Both are from the same pen and may have been intro-
duced here even by a pre-deuteronomic editor. The
connection thus constituted (2 S.9-20 211-14 24 1K.
1/.) is again broken up by the introduction of the
anecdotes of the encounters of David and his worthies
with the Philistines (2 S. 21 15-22), and the list of these
worthies (2838-39). These portions were probably first
introduced into the book after it had been deutero-
nomistically edited. It is also advisable to assume
this for 22r-sr (a psalm expressive of the Messianic
faith of the post-exilic community, here introduced asa
song of David's), and for 231-7 {David's last words,
which were not introduced here till after the narrative
had been expanded by the addition of 21 15-22 23 8-39,
and, in point of fact, themselves înterrupt this addition).

Thus four strata are observable in the narrative of
Samuel as it now stands. At the foundation lies a

series of pre-exilic narratives relating

if of to the origin of the kingship, and its
"earlier history. It is possible that in

its oldest form this series may have contained pieces
which disappeared in later revisions. In particular
there is some reason to conjecture that after 15.71
there at one time stood an account of the downfall of
the sanctuary at Shiloh. We have no means of deter-
mining the date at which the narratives embodied in the
succeeding record became incorporated with the pre-
exilic part of the book. Equally in the dark are we as
to whether the process of redaction involved in this led
to excisions of old material This was certainly the
case when the deuteronomistic revision was made ;
cp what has been said above on 1 S. 41-71. By means
of this last revision Samuel was brought into line with
the series of historical books which, in continuation of
the Pentateuch, describe the history of Israel from the
conquest of Canaan onwards. It is probable that more
than one hand had a share in this deuteronomistic
redaction. The deuteronomistic portions are partly
edifying amplifications {1 S.227-36 25.7), partly con-
texts and substituted passages intended to correct the
course of the history (15.781017 7 12). At the same
time the narrative was conformed to the chronological
system of the deuteronomistic recension of the Book of

4279

SAMUEL (BOOKS)

Judges. The traces of this process are to be found în
1S.4188 277 2S.210af. 54f., and its connection with
the work of the deuteronomist appears impr 5.72. lf
4 (cp 6%) has preserved the more original form of the
narrative in omitting x S.13x, this kind of work must
have continued much later. Regarding the additions
made to the text in the further course of its transmis-
sion, we cannot always be sure whether they were
inserted directly by some redactor or made their way in
from the margin. Some of these have been already
indicated. To the same class belong 15. 617182 99
241314] 80598 25.330 4253 11 «τῷ and perhaps other
passages.

It has been already remarked that the exact date of
these additions often eludes us. At the same time there
is good ground for the belief that the poems (τ S. 21-10
2S.117-27 333. 22 231-7) and those additions which
have the characteristics of Midrash were: the latest
passages to be inserted. Since 2 S. 2118-22 is repeated
in xCh. 2047 and 25. 288-30, and 24 in 1 Ch. ll10 7
21, the Chronicler (about 300 B.C.) must have used cur
book in a form agreeing in all important points with
the recension that has reached us in the Hebrew text
(see CHRONICLES}. From the fact that Chronicles does
not contain the psalm or the last words of David (2 8.
22 28 1-7) Budde concludes that these were not inserted
into Samuel till after the Chronicler's time. That is no
doubt possible ; but it is not to be proved by such an
argumentum e silentio. We cannot argue from the
presence of the psalm in 1 Ch. 168 7. that the Chronicler
would not have passed over a Davidic psalm found in
his old source, for 1 Ch. 168 7 is a later interpolation
into the Book of Chronicles. ‘That the Chronicler was
acquainted with the present division into Samuel and
Kings may be conjectured. Still, the fact that many
passages occur with a better text in Chronicles shows
that the text of Samuel was not yet in the Chronicler's
time quite identical with ours! That the text found
now in all Hebrew MSS has not arisen without con-
siderable distortion of the manuseript tradition appears
on comparing it with the text of (δ; and in many cases
it is only when this is done that the Hebrew text becomes
intelligible. ‘This undesigned distortion of the text is

explained by the fact that the Books of Samuel were
never used în the regular service of the synagogue.
Thenius, Die Sacher Sam. erkiirt0), 1864, 8) by Léhr,
1898; Kiostermann, Die Biicker Sane τς Kon., 1887; Well-
hausen, 7.85, 1871; Driver, 7.8.5, 1890;
8. Literature, Budde, Heb, Text, crit, ed. with notes,
SBOT, 28
οἱ

Ewald, ΟΡ ΠΒ) ἢ 576 δ᾽ (1865);
Letob. der δὲδί, Gesch. AT ἢ 1 122 ff

H. P, Smith, Sax.
(1902).2 On analysis
of text, also Wellhausen in Bleek,(4) 206 /7. (1878), and CA,

1 That it was worked at even after his time is shown by 2 5.
106, where the Chronicler did not read 2N ΣΝ after N3yD

as the MT of 28. does.

2 [H. P. Smith divides most of the contents of Samuel between
two main sources, each of which gives an account of Saul and
David, one of them including 25. 9-20 (the court history of
David, relating the story of Uriah, Bathsheba, Amnon, Tamar,
and Absalom). There are also two accounts of the denunciation
of Eli; the appointment and rejection of Saul; the coming of
David to Saul's court, the negotiations for his marriage, his
flight, his generosity to Saul, his fight to Achish, and the death
of Saul. ‘This constant duplication of incidents is the chief

round for holding the existence of the second source, which is
less primitive than the other, and presents ‘indications of a com-
paratively late date—perhaps in or after the exile.’ But ît
should be noticed that, according to H. P. Smith, these two
sources are themselves of composite origin. The date suggested
for the second main source involves the transference of much
material usually regarded as pre-deuteronomic to the period of
the deuteronomistic writers.]

4280

SANAAS

ZWT (1873), 117; A. Mez, Die Bib. des Jos., 1895; Méritan,
La version grecque des livres de Sam., précédée d'une introd.
Sur la critique textuelle (x898, not important); N. Peters,
Beitr. zur Text. Literaturkritik sowie zur Erklarung der
BB. Samuel (1899). B. 5.

SANAAS (canaac [A]), τ Esd. 523 RV= Ezra 2.35,
SENAAH.

SANABASSAR (canaBaccapwò [A]), 1 Esd. 212,
SANARBASSARUS, ἐδ. 61820 (canaBaccapoc [A ; and B
in ©. 20]). See SHESHBAZZAR.

SANASIB (canaBerc [B], anaceiB [A]), a priestly
name, 1 Esd.524, wanting in || Ezra236 Neh.730
Possibly a corrupt repetition of Senaah in the preceding
verse.

SANBALLAT (0529-10, Sansbhallat = Sin-
uballitfanni], ‘Sin [the moon-god] caused [me] to live’ ;
τος cp Nab@t-{u]ballitanni; canaBAMAat
ἀμξσμος IBNA], anaB. [twice Β, once N], οδλδβ.
* [once N], canaBaAat [L, twice N]), one

of the chief opponents of Nehemiah (Neh. 210 61f.}.
He is called a ‘ Horonite' (Neh, 2r0o)—i.e., according
to most scholars, a native of Beth-horon or Horon (see
BeTH-HORON, $ 4, and cp ISRAEL, $ 55); Winekler
(A0F22:8 7) pleads very earnestly for the view that
Sanballat was a Moabite of Horonaim. This view, how-
ever, is out of the question if Guthe has rightly emended
the text of Neh. 42 (334), ‘And he said in the presence
of his brethren (= fellow Samaritans), “" 15 this (mn) the
mighi of Samaria that these Jews are building’ their

city?" (following &P84, cp 651). It is also generally
held that Sanballat's daughter would not have been
taken to wife by a grandson of the Jewish high priest
(Neh. 1328), if he had not been, at any rate, of a N.
Israelitish stock. Josephus, certainly, calls him a

Cuthaean (cp 2 K. 1724), and states that he was sent by ‘

the last Darius as governor to Samaria, and that he
married his daughter Nicaso to Manasseh, brother of
Jaddua the high priest (47 xi. 72).

If the geography of MT is correct these arguments are very
strong. Îf, however, as can be made probable with regard to

many other narratives, the received text has
2. New theory. been produced by editorial manipulation,
‘and if the opponents of the Jews come from

the N. Arabian region where (on the present writer's theory) the
Jews had languished in captivity, the question of Sanballat's
ethnic connection (and, indeed, that of his name as well) passes
into a new phase. «n will then naturally be read Harani, ‘the
Haranite' (there being, according to the theory in question, a
southern as well as a northern Haran). Certainly the passage
quoted above in Guthe's text may be more plausibly read thus,
*And he said before the Jerahmeelites in Shimron, What do the
Jews?'1 Now, too, there is considerable reason for questioning
the name ‘Sanballat.” Very possibly it is the coinage of the
redactor ; the original name may have been Nebaiothi (man of
NegasorH). Corresponding emendations of the names of San-
ballat's companions must also be made. For ‘Sanballat the
Horonite, Tobiah the Ammonite, Geshem (or Gashmu) the
Arabian,” we should possibly read, ‘The Nebaiothite, tlie
Haraunite, che Tubalite, the Jerahmeelite, the Cushamite, the
Arabian” Τῆς true opponents of the Jews were not merely
individuals but masses of men representing the N. Arabian
borderland—.c., the story of Nehemiah has very possibly been
rewritten on the basis of a very imperfect text. Josephus's
phrase, ‘a Cutheean as to race (An. xi.7 2) is not so far wron
as it may seem, for ‘Cuth’ in 2 K. 17 30 is doubtless an editorial
manipulation of ‘Cush’ (.e., the N. Arabian Cush), See
TosraH, and cp SHESHBAZZAR.

On the chronological questions involved in the earlier

theories, see CANON, $ 25; ISRAEL, $ 65, and SAMARI-

TANS. T.K.C.
SANCTIFICATION (ariacmoc). See SAINT.
SANCTUARY, See, generally, ΤΈΜΡΙΕ, The

words are :—

1. ST), #4des, usually rendered ‘holy place’ ; used (4) of the

tabernacle or temple generally; (4) of the ‘holy place’ in the
technical sense ; (c) of the ‘holy of holies’ (Lev.162 £ etc.)
® has τὸ ἄγιον (cp Heb. 925 1311, τὰ ἅγια).

1 bem vena and prio gres come from mbxpny (Jerah-
meelites). ]iapa is the Shimron mentioned in Amos (see Pro-
PHET, $ 8).

4281

SAPHIR

2. WIP, »εἰξαίαξ, often; in Am.713, AV ‘chapel’; see
BerWel, ἢ 3, with n. 2.

3. ἁγίασμα, 1 Macc. 137845 ete.—ie., the νεώς or ναός.

4 νεώς, 2 Macc. 62 916 1035 1323 1433, AV ‘temple’ ΕΥ̓͂
‘sancivary’ throughout.

5 and 6. ναός in Mt. 28 35 27 5, and οἶκος in Lk.1151, where
AV has ‘temple,’ but RV ‘sanctuary.’. The Holy, and the
Holy of Holies are meant, the ‘house οἱ God* (Mt. 174). ‘How
vividly does it set forth the despair and defiance of Judas
that he presses even into the ναός itself’ (Trench, NT
Synonyms, 14)! But, as B. Weiss points out, the form of the
narrative is suggested by Zech. 11 13; “in the house of Yahwè.*

SANDALS. τ. SD), 247, Cant.7: [2], RV, and

2. σανδάλια, Mk. 69 Acts126, See SHors.

SANDAL WOOD (o'ato5n), 1K.1011 RVme, EV
ALMUG.

SAND FLY (335), Ex. 816 ΕΝ πε. EV LIcE.

SAND-LIZARD (Lev.1130 ΕΝ). See LizarD, 5.

SANHEDRIN (1112). See GOVERNMENT, $ 31,
and SYNEDRIUM,

SANSANNAH (MIDO; cegennax [Β], can
canna [A], ceennak [L]), a remote city of Judah
{Josh. 15 31t), corresponding to HAzAR-SUSAH in Josh.
195. The name seems to mean ‘palm-branch'; but
there are parallels enough for the view that it is really a
corruption of neene = peo (Cusham), cp Hazar-susah =
Hazar-cusham, another name of the same place, and
see MARCABOTH. τ΄ Κι Ὁ.

SAPH (90), 3 3. 2118; in 1 Ch. 204 SiPPAI.
BAPBAT (capar [A]). 1. 1Esd.59=Ezra24,

SHEPHATIAN, 7.
2. 1Esd.5 34 RV, AV SABAT, 1.

SAPHATIAS (copotioy [B]) τ Esd.834= Ezra
88, SHEPHATIAH, 7.

SAPHETH (capy0i[A]), 1 Esd.533 AV=Ezra257,
SHEPHATIAH [g.v., 8]. .

SAPHIR, or, rather, as ΕΝ, SHAPHIR (RV ὙΦ,
* glittering, beautiful’; kaAwc [BAQ]), a place men-
tioned in Micah's elegy on towns of Judah (Mic. 111).
Generaliy identified with Shamir or Shaphir in the
mountains of fudah (Josh. 15.48). See SHAMIR.

Eusebius, however, places σαφειρ between Eleuthero-
polis and Ascalon (05 29337 15127); he says that ît isin
the mountain district, but this is because he supposes it to
be the σαφειρ (cp 21) of Josh. 15.48, which is reckoned
among the cities of the mountains. ‘The cage of
Eusebius may possibly be one of the three villages
called Sawéfir in the Philistine plain, SE. of Ashdod.
But it is not likely (Gath being—see Crit. 2.—very
probably a misreading in Mic. 110) that Micah troubled
himself about Philistine cities. ‘There were doubtless
several places called Sbaphir; es-Safiriyeh, near Bet
Dejan (BETH-DAGON), may be one of them. The latter
place is too far from Mareshah to be meant ; but there is
one spot which has a good claim to be called Shaphir,
‘ the glittering," and may be the place meant by Micah,
even if it be also the Mizpeh (nsybn) of Josh, 1538, and
that is that tall white cliff which commands the entrance
to the Wady es-Sant from the Philistine plain, known
to the Crusaders as Blanche Garde, and to Arabic
speakers of to-day as Tell es-Safiyeh, ‘the shining hill.”
See MizPEH, 1. ‘The prophet perhaps foresees that the
‘ brilliance' (‘nipgi) of the far-shining fortress will * pass
into captivity' (3/2 n0y) At the same time, another
view (see below) is more probable, if the criticism
summed up in MIcaH (ΒΟΟΚ), 88 3/, PROPHET, $ 38,
be in the main correct.

On the text see Che. /0X, July 1898, and Crif. Bi. Nowack
admits that what MT gives must be incorrect. On the root
nor, ‘to glitter’ see G. Hoffm. ΖΑ͂ ΤῊ 3 68 (1882). τς

It will be noticed that both Mizpeh in Joshua and Shaphir in
Micah stand near Zenan or Zaanan and Lachish. It is not im.
probable, however, that the lists in Josh. 1533 (in part?) and
also the elegy Mic.l1o 7 referred originally to the Negeb.
This affects the situation of Shaphir. See ZAANAN.

T.K.C

4282

SAPHUTHI

SAPHUTHI (capy0i [A]), 1 Esd. 533 RV=Ezra
257, SHEPHATIAH, 8.

SAPPHIRA (catt@peip4u=Syr. Japozrà, ‘beautiful, '
cp the frequent male name “*5Y and the Sin. ND
{Dalm. 130, n. 1]), Acts51, the wife of ANANIAS, gv,
(10).

SAPPHIRE (80; camperpoc [BAL]?}, men-
tioned as a much-prized stone in Ex. 2410 2818 3921
Job 28616 Cant. 514 Lam.47 15. δάτι Ezek.126 101
2813 Tobit1316; to which we can now add, from the
self-evidently correct Hebrew text, Ecclus. 43 19 [of the

hoar-frost], ‘he makes it to bloom with flowers like,

sapphire,' and in NT Rev.21:9, where RV®£ has
*lapis lazuli' ‘The marg. rendering just cited is
correct; wherever ‘sapphire’ occurs in the above
passages we should mentalìy interpret ‘lapis lazuli.'
That lapis lazuti was the sapphire of the ancients is
plain from Theophrastus (p. 692) and Pliny (#77
3738 f.). Theophrastus states that it is ὥσπερ χρυσό-
παστος (as it were sprinkled with gold dust), and
Pliny says, Inest ei (cyano) aliquando et aureus pulvis
qualis in sapphiris, in iis enim aurum punctis conlucet
(cp xxxiîi. 81 aurum în sapphiro scintillat). Such a
«description would be quite inappropriate to any variety
of the modern sapphire, but applies very well to the
lapis lazuli, which frequently contains disseminated
particles of iron pyrites, easily mistaken by their colour
and lustre for particles of gold.

Lapis lazuli was so much prized by the Assyrians,
Babylonians, and Egyptians (see LAPIS LAzuLi) that
we should expect to find it sometimes, or even often,
referred to in the old Hebrew writings. We must,
however, omit from the list of occurrences Job286 (see
below), Cant. 514, and Lam. 47. The identification of
sappir with this stone throws light on the description of
the appearance of the Most High in Ex, 24ro (J) and
Ezek. 126. According to 1, where the divine form
stood, it was ‘as the very heaven for clearness, like a
paved work of sapphire stone’ (see PAVEMENT);
according to Ezekiel, the base of the throne of God
was something like a firmament {see &), above which
was a sapphire-coloured pavement (see Toy, ‘ Fzekiel,”
SBOT). In fact, the ‘gold dust’ on the deep blue
of the lapis lazuli made this stone a most appropriate
symbol of "this brave o'er-hanging firmament, this
majestical roof fretted with golden fire.”

This, however, is merely a plausible interpretation ; the text
does not expressìy refer to the star-like, gold-like” particles
which add lustre to the deep blue of the lapis lazuli. It has
been thought by some (Hitz., Bu., Du.) that such a reference is
to be found in a section where, if anywhere, we should certainly
cxpect to find ît, viz., in Job28. This is how Duhm renders
v. 6°

His stones are the place of the sapphire,

Which has grains of dust of gold,
If this is right, we need not have hesitated elsewhere (see
OPHIR) to connect “Ophir” with Ass. <4ru=Heb. 325p. But the
truth is that “spy properly means, not dust, but a lump of earth ;
nùBY is not the word which a Hebrew poet would have chosen
for the ‘aureus pulvis' of which Pliny speaks. The passage
needs very careful treatment. ὙΠΟ, ‘sapphire, should be mod,
‘silver.’ See Gol», $ 1, col. 1750, foot.

The name by which our modern sapphire was known
to the ancients is ἑάκενθος or Ayacinthus, the stone
which forms the eleventh foundation of the wall of the
New Jerusalem {Rev. 2120). See JACINTH. The
colourless sapphire may perhaps be intended by the
hafma! (halmis ?) or farfii See TARSHISH {STONE
OF), STONES (PRECIOUS), $$ 4c, (2), 11. T. K. C.

SARA, RV SARAH. 1. On Heb. 11 τὰ see SARAH,
81, end.

1 Y29 in Tg. is 81127,

See Pott in ΖΑ 4275.

2 In Caat. 514 an intolerable hyperbole is removed hy read»
ing 8, ‘red coral’; in Lam. 47, we should read, ‘Their
skin glitters like coral, (even) the bright colour of their fiesh"
(MS for 120; cp LaMENTATIONS, ὃ 5).

4283

SARAH

2. Σαρρα [BRA], the daughter of Raguel and the heroine of
the book of Tosi {g.2.](Tob. 37/5). Sevenof her bridegrooms
were killed by the evil spirit AssonEUS [g.2.], and she finally
became the wife of Tobit.

BARABIAB (capaBiac [BA']}, 1 Esd. 948, in Ezra
818 SHEREBIAH,

SARAH (MP, $ 44; cappa; sara), and SARAI
(MM? ; capa; serzi), wife of Abraham.
There is but one reference to Sarah în the OT outside
the Pentateuch, viz. in Is.512, which is hardly of
tes, earlier date than the age of Ezra.
1. Traditions. (There is a play on 43dzim ‘stones’
and darim ‘sons’; cp Mt.39) The three most
conspicnous features of her story are: (1) her twofold
relation to Abraham as his wife and his sister (1212/
[J]. 2012 [E]), on which see $ 2; {2) her long barren-
ness (1130, 161), a feature paralleled in the story of
Rebekah and of Rachel, of Samson’s mother and of
Samuel's, and, in Babylonian legend, of the wife of the
hero Etana (cp ETHAN); and (3) her extraordinary
beauty, which is mentioned to account for the danger from
which the destined mother of Isaac so narrowly escaped
(12107: 20). The change of her name from Sarai to
Sarah îs related (by P), together with that of Abram to
Abraham, in connection with the announcement of the
birih of Isaac (17157). The Priestly Writer avoids
attributing unbelief to so favoured a woman ; but the
Yahwist, with perfect simplicity and with true insight
into the heart of woman, reports that Sarah ‘laughed
within herself' (18127 ; cp ISAAC). According to P,
she died at Hebron (232), an event which led to the
purchase by Abraham of the cave of Machpelah (cp
23, 2510, 493:). According to 1, if 2467 is correct,
Isaac brought his bride Rebekah ‘into his mother
Sarah's tent,” and ‘was comforted after his mother's
death.' But the text is plainly incorrect, and must
originally have run thus, ‘And Isaac brought her into
the tent . . . and Isaac was comforted after his father's
death.'1
Reference is made to Sarah in Heb.1lu1, in x Pet.86 (cp
Gen. 18 12), and in Gal. 421-31, where she becomes a type of the
heavenly Jerusalem (cp HaGAR, $ 3), just as in Is.512 Sarah
appears as the mother of jhe true Israel. One could almost
venture to believe that the writer of the passage in Gal. used a
book of extracts from the prophets, in which chap. 51 (with its
pointed reference to Sarah) and chap. 54 (with it anconzaging

‘address to childless Zion, scon to become the antitype of Sarah)
were brought into close proximity.

Various opinions have been held as to the meaning
of Sarai, which, according to P {Gen. 1715), was the
earlier name of Abraham's wife (see Di.
on Gen. Ze). It is plausible to hold
that Sarai is an old form of Sarah? (+ πο,
as in Arabic; cp Nòld. ZDIfG 40183 42484; Lag.
Uebers. ga fi), and that Sarah means ‘princess,’ or
rather (through Assyrian), ‘queen’ W. R. Smith,
however, thought that Sarah and Israel had the same
origin (Aizs4if, 30), and to those who question the
myihological origin of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob this
view will commend itself most. Since some conjeciure
must be offered, we may venture to suppose that just as
Jacob's marriage with Leah symbolises the union of the
Jacob clan and the Levi clan (see JACOR, $ 3), so
Abraham's marriage with Sarah expresses the union of
a Jerahmeelite clan (pimar for prman ; see JERAHMEEL,
$ 4 [y]) with a clan calling itself by the name which
underlies Israel ; thus Sarah would correspond to Israel
as LEAH [g.v.] probably corresponds to Levi. The
explanation of ‘ Sarah ' as ‘princess’ or (Ass.} ‘ queen,
is usually thought to be paralleled by Milcah=Malcah,
‘queen,’ and the mythological interpretation of ‘queen’
as ‘queen of heaven' by Assyrian and Babylonian
titles of goddesses, especially of the consort of Sin,
the moon-god of Harran, who Îs called %rrvatu (Sumerian

2. Origin of
legend.

1 See We. CH 29/1 Kautzsch-Socin, Genesis, 53; Bacon,
Gen. 150, 246.
2 Jensen, ZA, 1896, p. 299.

4284

SARAH

nin-gal).1 "The present writer's objection to this other»
wise piausible view is that he regards “ Milcah' in Gen.
1129, etc., as certainly corrupt, and that (if we feel
compelled to hold that there is only one Harant—viz. in
the north) the correctness of ‘ Haran' seems to him to be
in the stories of the patriarchs also open to suspicion
(see HARAN ii., MILCAH).
opinion 3 that the twofold relation of Abraham to Sarah
as husband and brother is undoubtedly of mythological
origin. Following Stucken, he regards the réle of
Abraham as analogous to that of Tammuz-Adonis in
relation to Istar (see the legend of the Descent of Istar,
and cp Tammuz}ì; Sarah in fact is the Hebrew IStar.
Their father is Terah, or, more probably, Jerah, ‘the
moon'; he comes from one centre of noon-worship,
Uru, and dies in another, Haran (see TERAH).
But the textual basis of this hypothesis is not less
doubtful, or rather, being broader, even more doubtful
than that of Jensen already mentioned. Baethgen,
without criticising the text, is equally opposed to mytho-
logical theories of this sort. He thinks (Beilr. 157)
that, as applied to the wife of Abraham, the name
Sarah is simply an appellative. Both Abu-ramu and
Sarai or Saraia® (Sa-ra-a-a) occur as names of individuals
on Babylonian tablets. But, piausible as Baethgen's
view may at first appear, it is not really probable. Τὸ
hold that Abraham and Sarah are historical characters,
is a perfectly unnecessary concession to apologetic
arguments, which, if permitted to have consequences,
would destroy historical criticism and carry us back to
the unsympathetic attacks and the uncomprehending
defences of the theologians and rationalists of the pre-
critical period (cp ARRAHAM), We are therefore
driven back to the theory first mentioned. The
marriage of Abraham and Sarah symbolises a union
of tribes. Sarah represents the Israel clan which joins
a Jerahmeelite clan, whose centre is, according to our
text, at Hebron, but, according to a corrected text, at
ReHOBOTH [g.v.] The variation of tradition as to
Abraham's relation to Sarah is exactly parallel to the
variation as to Nahor's relation to Abraham in Gen.
1124 and 27.

Von Gall's attempt (A/tisrael. Aultstitten, 57 £) t0 combine
two opposite theories, representing Sarai as the amen of

Machpelah, and Sarah as the consort of the divinity Abram,
implies that the arguments for the two theories are equally

inced, which is hardly the case. τικα

SARAH (ΠῚ, pausal form for ΠῚ), Num. 2646
AV, ΕΝ SERAH.

SARAIAS. (caparoy [BAL]}, 1 Esd 55=

SERAIAH, 7.
2. (capasov [AL]), 1 Esd.81= Ezra 7 1, SERAIAH, 7.

SARAMEL (τ Macc. 1428), RV ASARAMEL.

SARAPH me, a kind of serpent; see SERPENT,

$ 19]; cara[B], capad [AL]), a name in an obscure
Judahite genealogy, 1 Ch. 4 22.

SARCHEDONUS (cayepAonoc [BN], Aan [A]),
Tob.ler EV, ΑΥ̓ΤῸ. ESAR-HADDON; see ACHIA-
CHARUS, I.

SARDEUS, 1 Esd. 928= Ezra 1027, ΑΖΙΖΑ.

SARDINE STONE (capàioc) Rev. 43 AV, ΕΝ
SARDIUS.
SARDIS (capàeic). The oldest

Rev. lir 814

1 Jensen, ZA, 1896, p. 299. Hence Winckler (ΟἹ 5 72)
regards both Abraham and Sarah as originally lunar deities.
This is methodical ; only the mythological interpretation seems
to the present writer to be in this case forbidden by the results
of a careful examination of the text.

2 GL 223; cp Stucken, Astra/mythen, Lis.

8 Sa-ra-a is given as the name of a /ewisk woman on a
Babylonian tablet (K. 1274), of the Sargonide period, translated
by Johnston, Assyrian Éfistolary Literature, Baltimore, 1858,
ΡΒ. 174.

4285

It is true, Winckler is of |

SARDIS

form of the name in Greek is Σάρδεες (Ionic), accusat. Σάρδις;
the Attic form is Σάρδεις ; hence the Latin
1. Geography Scrdes or Sardis; the later Greek form is

and history, Σάρδις as in Dio and on coins, eg, Σάρδις
Ασίας Αυδίας Ἑλλάδος μητρόπολις (see Hend,
Hist. Numm. 553).

Sardis lay at the foot of Mt. “Tmolus (mod. Box-dagk),
on a spur of which its citadel was placed (Herod. 1 84).
It was an old city, perhaps the last western outpost of
that early non-Aryan empire (of the Hittites?) which
extended to Carchemish on the Euphrates. The valley
of the Hermus was the centre of a monarchy which for
a long time owed allegiance perhaps to the Phrygian
kingdom farther inland, when that arose through the
incoming of the Aryan Phryges from Europe, according
to Greek tradition (Herod. 773). The Cimmerian inva-

! sion which broke the Phrygian power (about 720 B.C.)

enabled the Lydian kingdom on the Hermus to play an
independent part under the dynasty of the Mermnade,
beginning with Gyges (see Lypia). Sardis was the
capital of the Lydian kingdom.! Lying as it did ona
strong Rill about 4 m. S. of the river Hermus, command-
ing the fertile plain {Strabo, 626), and the commence-
ment of the old Hittite route through northern Asia
Minor (later the royal road of the Persian empire),
the city was marked out for a great career. In addition
to its other advantages, the gold-bearing stream of the
Pactolus fiowed through its agora past the temple of
Cybele on its way to the Hermus, and was for long a
source of revenue (Herod. 5ror 193; Strabo, Lc.) Yet
the Greek cities on the coast constituted an obstacle to its
progress, and held the chief share of the wealth derived
from the trade with inner Asia. Hence the first task
οὗ the monarchs of Sardis was the subjugation of these
cities, and especially the utter destruction of Smyrna,
the nearest and most formidable rival of their capital.
Under Croesus (about 560 Β, C.) Sardis was at the height
of her prosperity. From her mint were issued rudely
executed electrum? staters as early as the reign of
Gyges— the first European coinage ({Herod. 194;
Xenoph, af. Jul, Poll. 983)--and later, in the time of
Croesus, pure gold and silver coins bearing figures of the
lion and the bull, symbolical perhaps of the worship of
the sun and the moon (see Head, Αὐτό, Numm. 545/.).

The trade of the city must have been largely concerned with
the manufacture of woollen goods, The art of dyeing wool is
said to have been invented at Sardis, and the city was the centre
for the distribution of the woollen goods, the raw material of
which was furnished by the vast flocks of Phrygia (Herod, 5 49).
We have frequent allusion to the excellence of the dyed stuffs of
Sardis(ep Aristoph. Pax, 1174; Sappho, /sg- 19, Bergk; Athen.

0)

After its conquest by Cyrus, Sardis became the
residence of the Persian satrap (Paus. iii. 95; cp A4r4#0/.
Pal. 945"). During the three centuries following the
death of Alexander the Great its history is obscure ; but
under the Romans it became again important. It was
the centre of a corventus juridicus, which embraced
Philadelphia. Its position made ita natural knot in the
Roman road-system ; from it a road ran NW, through
Thyatira (36 R. m.) to Pergamos; another W. to
Smyrna fs} R. m.); a third E. through Phrygia; a
fourth SE. through Philadelphia (28 R. m.) to the im-
portant towns of the Maeander valley ; a fifth SW. to
Ephesus, crossing Mt. Tmolus and the valley of the
Cayster (about 63 R. m.).* We have in this fact the
explanation of the position of Sardis as one of the Seven
Churches of Asia. (Note that the order of names in
Rev. follows the line of the Roman road, N. from
Ephesus through Smyrna to Pergamos, where it turns
and runs down S, along the great road going through
Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia to Laodicea, taking the
towns in their true geographical order. )

1 Sardis is an old Lydian word meaning ‘year' (Joh. Lyd. 39
[Rams. Mist. Geogr. of AM 12%). The modern name is
Sart.

2 Cp Soph. Arnfig 1037, τἀπὸ Σάρδεων ἥλεκτρον. Cp Herod.

30.
3 For the Roman roads, see Ramsay, Zist. Geogr. ef AM
1675

4286

SARDITE

In 17 λον, Sardis suffered fearfully from the great earthquake
that ravaged Asia Minor în that year (cp An/Ao/. P2/. 9 423).1
She received a subsidy from the emperor's privy purse, together
with remission of taxation for a period of five years (Str. 627;
Tac. 477.247). BY 26 A.D. the town is again in a flourishing
condition (Str. 625, calls it a ‘great city”), and vies with Smyma
for the honour of erecting, as representative of the Asiatic cities,
a temple to Tiberius (Tac, Azz. 455).

As regards the reference t0 Sardis in the NT, there is !

tittle allusion to the special circumstances of the town.
The thrice-repeated mention of garments may have
been suggested by the staple industry. In 2, 1 the
words ‘thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead '
throw a light upon the decay of spiritual life in Sardis
about 100 A.D. {cp v, 2)—-perhaps as a result of un-
disturbed mercantile prosperity leading to luxury and
apathy (v. 3). In 34 the phrase ' which have not defiled
their garments,” may well remind us of what we hear from
other sources of the voluptuous habits of the Lydians
(cp Herod. 155 179; /Esch. Pers. 41; Athen. 1257).
W.j. Wi

SARDITE (15), Nu. 2626 AV, ἘΝ SEREDITE.

SARDIUS. τ. A precious stone ‘fer: (DIR) occurs
in P as one of the gems of the high-priestly Dreastplate
{Ex. 2817 3910), whence, among others, it is assigned
by an interpolator for the adornment of the king of
Tyre (or Missur?) in Ezek. 28 r3t. The EV rendering
‘sardius’ follows @ (σάρδιον) ; Josephus also, in de-
scribing the sacred breastplate, has σάρδιον in 8/ v. 57,
but in “γε, iii. 76, σαρδόννξ, ‘sardonyx.’ RVME gives
‘ruby,’ but with doubtful justification (see Rusy, CAR-
BUNCLE). σάρδιον also occurs in Rev. 2120, and {so
Ti. WH and ἘΝ} in Rev. 43. The Hebrew gem-name
‘idem îs usually derived from par, ‘to be red’; if so,
the carnelian may be plausibly identified with the "der
of the OT. Probably the ancients meant this identifica-
tion, though the sardius in modern parlance means the
brown chalcedony, the red being our carnelian. ‘The
meaning of the word carnelian is obvious. The vivid-
ness of the red, fiesh-like hue ? determines the estimation
in which it is held. In ancient times, as in our own
day, this stone is more frequently engraved than any
other. Pliny {7 877) speaks of the sardius of Babylon
as of greater value than that of Sardis. The Hebrews
would naturally obtain the carnelian from Arabia. In
Yemen there is found a very fine dark-red kind, which
is called e/a2454 (Niebuhr, Beschreib. 142). The Arabs
wear it on the finger, on the arm above the elbow, and
in front of the belt. Cp STONES (PRECIOUS), $$
4, ὁ (1), 7.

This, as we have said, is the current identification When,
however, we refer to Ezek. 2716 where among the articiez
supplied to Tyre (or Missur?) by Edom (so Cormnill, Toy, etc.,
read, following ©) we find, close together ΠΙΟΝῚ and 429 (or
perhaps [see RuBy] 2305), the suspicion grows upon us that (asin
Joh 28 18, according to TARSHISH [STONE] $ 3) mons springs from
281, and this from 9", ‘Edomite stone, and 203 from

«nem, se, Jerahmeelite stone (for a parallel, see Rusv), so
that we are entirely ignorant of more than the name of the
regions from which the people of Palestine derived these stones.
1f 30, all renderings must be purely conventiona],

2. DIE, ῥόδα», is in 45 of Ex.256(7] 359 σάρδιον,

Onyx; Stones (PRECIOUS), 58 4, 2(3), 18.

3. σάρδιον occurs also in (8 in Prov. 25117, where it repre-
sents apparently both apo and ὨΠ5, but really perhaps only
pn3 (see col. 499, n. 1). T.K.C

SARDONYX (Dm. Ex.28:8 RV®®) in modern
mineralogy, is a name applied to those varieties of onyx,
or stratifed chalcedony, which exhibit white layers
alternating with others of red or brown colour. "The
brown chalcedony is known to modern mineralogists as
sard and the red as carnelion (see CHALCEDONY,

See

1 This earthquake destroyed twelve cities of Asia, Plin. H/V
284; Tac, Amn., λοι, where see note in Furneaux ed.

È The Gk. σάρδιον too has been thought to derive its name ;

from its colour (cp Pers. sered, ‘yellowish red ἢ), though the
Greeks themselves supposed the name to be derived from Sardîs,
the place where they first became acquainted with it. See
SARDONYX.

4287

SARGON

SARDIUS). The simplest and commonest type of
sardonyx contains two strata—-a thin layer of white
chalcedony resting upon a ground of either carnelian or
sard; but the sardonyx of ancient writers generally
presented three layerst—a superficial stratum of red, an
intermediate band of white, and a base of dark brown
chalcedony. The sardonyx has always been a favourite
stone with the cameo-engraver, and the finest works
have usually been executed on stones of five strata.
Such, for instance, is the famous Carpegna cameo, in
the Vatican, representing the triumph of Bacchus and
Ceres, and reputed to be the largest work of its kind
ever executed (16 inches by 12). When the component
layers of a sardonyx are of fine colour and sharply
defined, the stone is known in modern parlance as an
‘Oriental sardonyx'—a term which is used without
reference to the geographical source whence the stone
is obtained. A famous ancient locality for sard was in
Babylonia, and the name of the stone may be of
Persian origin (see preceding col. n. 2). ‘The sardonyx
is frequently stained, or at least its colour heightened,
by chemical processes. Imitations are fabricated by
cementing two or three layers of chalcedony together,
and so building up a sardonyx; baser counterfeits
are formed simply of paste. See ONYX.

σαρδόνυξ (Rev. 2120t) does not occur in 5, But RVmg.
unaccountably has sardonyx for yahilom (pbm) in Ex. 2818

(EV ‘diamond ’), though it passes over Ex.89r1 and Ezek.
2813 without remark.

SAREA (s4rz44, -I4M), 4 Esd. 1424, a scribe.
The name is doubtless the same as SERAIAH [Φ.Ὁ.].

SAREPTA (capenta [Ti. WH]), Lk.426t AV,
RV ZAREPHATH.

SARGON

The North again (88 11-14).
The Northwest ($ 15/4).
Ashdod (ἢ 17),

Babylon (8 18).

Closing years ($ 19).

Isaiah ($ 20).

Claim to throne ($ 1).
Policy (8 2).

Early troubles (8 3).
In the West (8/47)
ἴῃ the North (8$ 6-8).
The West again (8 9

Sargon (MD; apna [BNAOT], capart [Aq
Theod.], ἀργῶν [Symm. in Q®®]; Assyrian, Sarre
, ukîn, ' He [the god] has established the
1. Descent: Ling') was the successor of Shalmaneser
throne. IV. as king of Assyria, B.C. 722-705. He
"is often called SarrdZin arkà, ‘Sargon
the later,’ to distinguish him from Sargon of Akkad, one
of the earliest and grandest rulers of Babylonia, in the
third millennium B.C. Sargon IL had apparently little
difficulty in seizing the reins of power, for according to
the Babylonian Chronicle (&8 2276 4. 29/7.) Shal-
maneser died in the- month of Tebètu B.C. 722, and
Sargon sat on the throne in Assyria on the 22nd of
the same month, By what claim he succeeded he no-
where tells us, nor does he ever mention his father or
ancestry. His son Sennacherib usually claims descent
from him, but on bis entry into Babylon seems to have
put forward a claim to descent from Gilgameò and the
mythical heroes of the past, through a long line of
Assyrian and Babylonian kings. Sargon's grandson
Esarhaddon put forward a claim to be the remote
descendant of Bél-banî son of Adasi, an ancient king of
Assyria not otherwise known to us. ‘The sons of
Esarhaddon, A3ur-bàni-pal and Samas-Sum-ukîn, adopt
his claim to royal descent. ‘We need not contemptu-
ously reject their claim, since it may have come to them
through Esarhaddon's mother. On the other hand we
are bound to admit his right to be called mix 2547
mdti, ‘founder of a dynasty.’ Further, his evident
partiality for the old capital Aò$ur, which he invariably
styles ‘ my city,’ and the epithet fi 43%», ‘ offspring
of A&ur,' so often applied to him by his descendants,
point to his having come from that city.
Sargon II. certainiy represents the return to power

4288

SARGON

in Assyria of the old aristocracy, as the restorer of the
ancient burgher rights and privileges
in the old capitals Aòsur and Harràn,
and later the consolidator of his empire by the extension
of like freedom to the cities of Babyionia. His serupu-
lous regard for the claims of ancient titles to land,
whether temple endowments or ancestral domains, and
his careful restoration of rights taken away by fraud
or violence, tyranny or conquest, both in Assyria and
(later) in Babylonia, were repeatedly set forth by him as
justifications for a turn which he wished to give to his
own name Sarrukinu, ‘the true king." The fact that
the achievements, which later writers ascribe to Sargon
of Akkad, bear such close resemblance to the historical
events of Sargon II.'s reign, has tempted some to doubt
the historical worth of the earlier parallels. It is not un-
likely that Sargon Il., who may have taken the name
Sarrùkin on coming to the throne, deliberately set to
work to revive the glories of the ancient Sargon.

Sargon 11. did not immediately enter into full posses- |
sion of the empire which Tiglath-pileser ΠῚ,

2. His policy.

SARGON

by the intrigues of Pîir'u, king of the N. Arabian land
of Musri, the whole West seems to have
δ. Hamath struck for independence. Ilu-bi'di (or
and GAZA 1 u-bi'di), an upstart, probably a creature
of Piru, had made himself king of Hamath. Such
old dependencies of Assyria as Arpad and Simirra joined
him. Damascus and Samaria, only lately captured,
and partiy no doubt peopled by exiles from other lands,
who had nothing to lose and hoped for revenge, joined
the conspîiracy. Hanun of Gaza, once expelled by
Tiglath-pileser ILI., now supported by Sib'e, the Tartan
{see So) of Musur, had got back his kingdom.
But though Ilu-bî'di was able to collect a vast army at
Karkar, Sargon seems to have swept them away with
ease. Sargon followed up Hanun to Rapihu, where he
and Sib'e were defeated, Hanno was captured and
taken to A&ur, Sib'e fled, Rapihu was plundered. Syria
and the West remained quiet for some ten years, 720-
711 B.C.
Sargon's most powerful enemies now lay in the N.

3. Earl had conquered and Shalmaneser
Coubie,, IV. seems to have retained. "The
TOUbIe8. change of dynasty was the signal
for a general rebellion of the outlying tributary
states. There could not have been much of
the year R.C. 722 left when he was acknow-
ledged successor in Assyria; but before the
end of his accession year, Merodach-baladan
II., a Chaldzean king of Bit Yakin, who had
submitted and paid tribute to Tiglath-pileser
TIL, had moved his hordes of nomad sup-
porters into Babylonia, and in Nisan B.C. 721
sat on the throne of Babylon. The army of
Humbaniga*, king of Flam, invaded N.
Babylonia, and Sargon had to meet both.
Fortunately Samaria, after a ‘three’ years'
siege, had just fallen, and so probably released
an army. Sargon fought with Humbaniga$
in the γέῤέξε of Drilu, and both sides claimed
the victory. Merodach-baladan seems to
have arrived too late to engage in battle,
Humbanigal, either incensed at this lack of
support, or too shattered to renew the strife
even with such reinforcement, returned to
Elam. Sargon did not pursue him, or
venture to attack Merodach-baladan; but

Dorilu and all N. Babylonia remained in
Sargon’s hands. Merodach-baladan indeed
reigned twelve years in Babylon and the S, of
Babylonia, in spite of Sargon, and ‘ contrary
to the will of the gods’; but never did ‘he venture
to fall upon Sargon's rear whilst he waged his wars
incessantly in every other direction. On the whole
the advantage lay with Sargon,'who was able to deal
with his enemies one by one and crush them in detail,
and finally to turn the whole force of his mighty empire
on Babylon.

From some of Sargon’s own earlier inseriptions there
is reason to believe that he did not reckon his own
reign from R.C. 722 but from B.C. 720.
The historians of Babylon and his own
later inscriptions, however, reckoned his regnal years
from his acknowledgment in ASSur itself Left un-
disturbed by his most formidable enemies in the S. he
turned his attention to the reconquest of the W. In
the account of the capture of Samaria, and the deporta-
tion of 27,290 men, the flower of the nation, Sargon's
annals record the settlement there of captives from
other lands. In this the scribe surely anticipates what
occurred later, for Sargon had won no victories at that
time. Certainly Samaria was in a position to join the
cities allied with Ilu-bi'di in R.C. 720.

Doubtless encouraged by the indecisive appearance
of Sargon’s battle at Drilu, relieved evidently of the
Assyrian army then withdrawn to the S., and urged on

4289

4. Samaria.

Sargon and his principal officers.

and NE. Already Tiglath-pileser IIL had subdued
sn; Man and placed there a vassal king, Iranzà.

6. Minni. Beyond that buffer state, however, lay
Zikirtu (Sagartia), probably pressed by the already
encroaching Cimmerians, if not themselves an advance
guard of that horde of nomad barbarians. Their king
Mitatti incited two of Iranzù's subject cities to rebel,
and Iranzà appealed to his overlord for assistance. In
719 8.C., accordingly, Sargon captured and destroyed
these cities (Suandahuì and Durdukku) Three of the
τῷ Cities which had been fortified against

7. Armeni8. fmenia, but had gone over τὸ Mus,
king of Armenia, the instigator of most of the trouble
here, were captured and their people deported to Syria.
8. Taba], IM the next year Kiakki, prince of Sinubtu,
" " one of the districts in Tabal, had omitted
to send tribute. He was captured and taken with most
of his people to A%ur, His land was added to that of
Matti of Atun (Tun, Tyana), which was subjected to
sab 2 proportionate increase in tribute.

9. Carchemish. Wet Year, Carchemish was dealt with,
It had retained a shadow of independence, whilst its
neighbours had lost theirs, from policy on the part of
Assyria. The Assyrian monarch was content with
loyalty and a rich tribute, and Pistris of Carchemish

4290

SARGON

had been loyal to Tigiath-pileser III. Now, doubtless
©wing to fear, he had allied himself with Mità of
Muîki, and omitted to send tribute. He was deported
to Assyria and Carchemish was peopled with Assyrians.
In this year, Umma-niga3, king of Elam, died and was
succeeded by Sutruk-nabunta. ‘The death of Iranzà,
king of Man, reopened the north-eastern question,

Azà, the son of Iranzà, who succeeded his father, was murdered
by Bagdatti of Umildig, Mitatti of Zikirtu and a ruler of Misianda
‘being concerned in the conspiracy, and Rus4 of Armenia being a
supporter. Sargon promptly marched into the district, captured
Roggani and flayed him alive on the spot where he had murdered

Ullusuna, brother of Azà, succeeded him on the throne _

of Man with Sargon's consent. But he clearly distrusted the
power of Assyria to protect him against Armenia, and gave up
twenty.two of his cities to Rusà, as a ‘present.’ Beyond Man,
towards Media, lay Karalla and Allabra, two small buffer states,
whose kings ASurHì' and Itti had been subject to Assyria, if
they were not actually Assyrians. Ullusunu fled to the hills
and left his capital Izirtu to be captured and burned. Two
gther cities, Zibia and Arma'id, which resisted were taken. But
Sargon had no intention to hold permanently, with Assyrian
garrisons, such a remote dependency. He accepted Ullusanu's
submission, reinstated him as king, and caused him to resume
possession of the cities ‘presented,’ doubtless în fear, to Rus.
The allies were severely treated, AXur-li' of Karalla was slain,
his people deported to Hamath, and his land turned into an
Assyrian province. Itti of Allabra, with his family, was de-
ported to Hamath, and a new vassal king set in his place,

Sargon now advanced farther E.

Surgadia, whose governo SépàXarri had rebelled, was
captured and, with Nîksamma, added to the Assyrian province
of Parsîa. Bèl-tar-usur, governor of Kisésim in

10. The w, Media, was captured, his city made an Assyrian
Median colony and called Kar-Nabà. Then a number of
cities, Median cities, Bit Sagbat, Bit Hirmani, Bit Umargi,
KilambAte, Armangu, were taken and constituted a

new province. Harhar, whose governor Kibaba had been ex-
pelled by the inhabitants, was captured, repeopled with captives

from other lands, renamed K&r-Sarràkin, and made the capital
of a new province. While settling the affairs of this new district
Sargon received the tribute οἱ twenty-eight Median city
governors.

These events are related under 716 B.c.; but the
scribe seems to have chosen to finish the story of the
Median conquests at once, rather than return to it under
715 B.C., when some of the events clearly occurred.

AIl this while Rus4 of Armenia had continued to
instigate rebellions, which he does not seem to have

.. openly supported, and would not take
11. Armenia. \varning by the fate. of his allies. As
Ullusunu had deserted his cause, he fell upon the
twenty-two cities which had once been presented him,
took them by force from Man, and set up Daiukku, a
subject of Ullusunu, as a rival king. In 715 BG,
Sargon put down this new kingdom, deported Daiukku
to Hamath, took again the twenty-two cities, and put
them under Assyrian garrisons. ἴπ Hupu$kia, Sargon
now received the homage of Ianzà οἵ Na'iri. Tilusina
of Andia, to whom Rusà had given the twenty-two
cities, was now captured, So at last Ullusunu was left
in undisturbed possession of his land as a vassal of
Sargon's. Harbar, just made into a province, had
already rebelled ; soit was again reduced, augmented by
Assyrianised territory, and strongly fortified as a garrison
against the Medes, on whom a yearly tribute in horses
was imposed.

In the NW., Mità of Muski {see TUBAL AND

MesHECK} had annexed some cities from the land of

a, Ku (cp Horse, $ 3) In 715 BC.
10, Mute; Sargon's troops recaptured them. At
Arabia. this time, probably, Sargon made his

influence supreme over Tyre and extended
it to the ‘Ionian Sea,’ perhaps to Cyprus.

In Arabia the tribes of HaiapA (cp EPHAH, and see
KAT 146 f., 613), IbAdidi, Marsimanni, and Tamud
had been tributaries of Tiglath-pileser III, They had
neglected to send tribute to Sargon ; for how long does
not appear. He now sent an expedition against them.
They were easily reduced to order and many deported
to Samaria. Pir’u of Musur, Samsi queen of Arabia,
Itamra of Saba, and some of the kings on the sea

4291

SARGON

coast and in the desert sent rich tribute of gold, precious
stones, ivory, incense, spices, horses, and caméls.

In 714 B.c., Sargon went back to Man, Ullusunu
received him loyally. Dalta of Ellipi sent presents

inn from the S. border of Media. Zikirtu
18, Reduction xo; then attacked. Three fortresses
“ and twenty-four cities were taken and
plundered. The capital Parda was burnt, and then
Mitatti with his people disappeared. Whether they
migrated to the N. of Armenia and joined the advancing
Gimirri (see GOMER), or were swallowed up by them,
or returned to their old home S. of the Black Sea, does
not appear. Now Sargon turned on Rusà of Armenia
and defeated him with great slaughter and carried off
260 of the royal family. Rusà fled to the hills. Sargon
then went through the regions which had owned Rusà's
sway, burnt and pillaged cities, to the number of 140,
augmented the dominions of Ullusunu with Zihardussu
and Umildi, and reduced Armenia to helplessness.
One city deserved special vengeance, Musasir (Mushitzar),
whose prince Urzana had submitted long ago to Shal-
maneser IV., taking an vath of fealty to Asur, but had
turned traitor, and gone over to Rusà.

Musasir was approached by difficult mountain paths. Urzana
fled to the hills, but his city was soon taken. Sargon makes
much of this capture, representing it on his sculptures at
Khorsabad. Urzana's wife and family, 6oco of the inhabitants,
and an immense beoty of mules, asses, cartle, gold, silver, bronze,
precious stones, magnificent garments, were carried Away to
Assyria, The city was extraordinarily wealthy. Sargon placed
large portions of Armenia, probably all the S. and È, and che
districts accessible from Lake Van, under his own rule, garrison-
ing the towns and appointing Assyrian governors. Rusà, in
despair at the irretrievable ruin of his land, committed suicide,
“like a pig.”

In 713 B.G., Sargon was recalled to Ellipi, Bit
Daiukku, and Karalli. The inbabitants of Karaili had

expelled his delegate and set up Amitazsi,

14, Further brother of ASur.iî, as king. Sargon put

conquesta down this rebellion and further extended

"his conquests in Media, The regions

named are of the highest importance for the early history

of the Medes. The Aribi (named by Ptolemy as later

in the 5, of Gedrosia), the mighty Mandai, were all

subdued, and Sargon received the tribute of Ullusuma

of Man, Daltà of Ellipi and Ninib-aplu-iddina of
Allabria.

In the time of Tiglath-pileser the land of Tabal had
been conquered and its king deposed. Tiglath-pileser

inîo hadset Hullé, a man of humble birth, on

15, Cilicia the throne, who seems to have been a

and 18921. saitbful vassal till his death. Sargon had

added the people of Bît Buruta$ to his dominions.
‘When his son Ambaris succeeded, Sargon sent him
presents and gave him his daughter to wife and added
the city of Hilakku to his territory. But Ambaris was
a traitor, and was involved în the plots of Mità of
Muîké and Rusà of Armenia. Sargon now deprived
him of his throne, made his country into an Assyrian
province, and deported Ambaris to Assyria with his
family and chief nobles.

In 712 B.c. Sargon punished the intrigues of Tar-
hu-nàzi of Meliddu. He had attacked Gunzinanu of

. Kamman, one of Sargon's faithful
16. Commegene i vassals. City after city was cap-
Li tured, Meliddu the capital fell, Tar-
hunazi was besieged in Tulgarimme, captured, and
taken in chains to Assyria, The district was made an
Assyrian province, a number of fortresses erected against
Armenia, and against MuSki, whilst Meliddu was
annexed to Kummuh. Next year, seemingly, Gurgum
had to be pacified, Here Mutallu had stain his own
father, Tarbulara, and set himself on his throne. The
parricide was soon put down and carried captive to
Assyria, and his land made an Assyrian province.

Once more trouble arose in Philistia. Azuri, king of
Ashdod, had planned to refuse his tribute, and had
begun to negotiate alliances with the neighbouring

4292

SARGON

states of anti-Assyrian tendencies, when Sargon deposed
him, and placed his brother Abimiti

17. Ashdod, on the throne (see AsHpoD) The
inhabitants, however, rebelled under the leadership of
one Yamini, a common soldier, perhaps an Ionian
Greek, or a man from Yemen, and Abimiti was expelled
(see $ 20). ‘Then Philistia, Edom, Moab, and Judah,
relying on Pir'u of Musri, joined the rebellion.

Sargon swiftly sent his army to the scene, captured Ashdod,
Gath, Asdudimmu, and carried off their inhabitants, their

rods, the palace treasures, and Vamadni's wife and children.

Tamiani estaped to Musuri he was, however, apparently cap:
tured by the king of Melubba, and sent in chainsto Afur. The
cities were rebuilt and repeopled with captives from other
quarters. Again, for the time, the W. country as quiet,
having received a warning that no help could be had from
Musur.

‘Those states which, though hoping for Musur's
assistance, had avoided hostile acts, seem to have been
unmolested by Sargon. It îs true, this king does once
call himself ρεεξακρὲς métu lauda Fa afarfu riku, ‘the
subjugator of the land of Judah, whose situation is far
οὔτ᾽ (£8236/.). This has been thought either to arise
out of a confusion between Israel and Judah, or to refer
to the Syrian land of Yaudi, but may possibly point to
an otherwise unrecorded submission of Judah, con-
sequent on the fall of Ashdod, in 720 B.C. {See
ASHDOD. )

Now came the crowning achievement of Sargon's
reign. He had humbled his enemies on every side,
18. The relief secured his. rear, accumulated vast

Ὁ Babylon. treasure, trained a veteran army, and

o now had at his command the services
of countless slave warriors who had proved their valour
against him and were now at his disposal. He turned
his resistless forces against MERODACH-BALADAN, in
Babylon, who had not been able to conciliate the
Babylonians. His nomad supporters had been allowed
to possess themselves of the lands and property of
the old inhabitants, doubtless as a reward for their
support. Merodach-baladan was unable, if he wished,
to win the affections of his subjects. They looked to
Sargon to follow the examples of Tiglath-pileser III. and
Shalmaneser IV., and so to restore the old privileges and
rights. Sargon first attacked the allies, Aramaic
peoples on the borders of Elam. Such tribes as the
Gambuli, Ru'a, Hindaru, Iatburu, and Pukudu were
subdued and formed into a new Assyrian province with
Dr-Nabî for its capital, Holding this region, Sargon
was safe from any movement on the part of Elam, if
Sutruknabunta had cared to move. When Merodach-
baladan sent to Elam to ask for his help, that astute
monarch accepted the presents, but gave no help.
Merodach-baladan could not depend upon his small
band of Chaldean retainers to face Sargon, and fied
when the Assyrians commenced operations in Babyionia
by the capture of ΒΓ: Dakkuri,

Merodach-baladan seems to have spent the winter in
the S., at Ikbi-Bél, which he fortified with the greatest
care. Sargon made no haste to follow him. Sargon's
objective was Babylon. The inhabitants of Babylon
welcomed him as a deliverer. They went out în a
great procession to Dîr-Ladinna, the capital of Bît
Dakkuri, and brought Sargon in triumph into the city
of Babylon. There he took possession of the palace of
Merodach-baladan, offered the regular offerings to the
gods, and received the tribute of the subjugated Baby-
lonian states. Then he set himself to restore order.
He cleaned out and rebuilt the ruined canal, from
Borsippa, which served as the procession street for
Nabà at the Nisan feast. Then in the beginning of the
year 709 B.C., he ‘took the hands of Bél' and was
legitimate monarch of Babylon.

Next month, Aaru of 709 B.c., Sargon resumed his
campaign against Merodach-baladan, The latter had
seen all his allies in turn surrender, so he withdrew to
his ancestral domain Dîr Iakin on the Euphrates.
There he assembled the scattered remnants of his forces,

4293

SARGON

He had carried off in chains some of the notables
of the 5, Babylonian cities, Now he set out his camp
under the walls of the city and protected it by a wide
moat filled by a canal from the Fuphrates, broke down
all the bridges, and ‘in the midst of the waters like a
swamp hawk" awaited Sargon's attack. Sargon made
his veterans ‘ fly over the waters like eagles.' Merodach-
baladan's army was again defeated, under the walls of
the city; wounded himself, he managed to escape ; but
his camp with all its treasures fell into Sargon's hands.
The city was soon after taken and destroyed. ‘he
captive notables were released and reinstated in their
old possessions. Τῆς old temple endowments were
restored, the worships renewed, the deported gods
brought back. The captured districts of Bit Iakin on
the Elamite frontier were resettled with captives from
Kummub, and their inhabitants transferred there,
Fortresses were garrisoned against Elam, and the old
kingdom of Bit Yakin became an Assyrian province,
attached to the governor of Babylon and Gambuli.
These successes secured Sargon further bloodless

triumphs. Upiri, king of Dilmun, in the Persian Gulf,
19. Closii sent presents and an embassy of con-
"venne gratulation. Μηὰ of MuSki, who had

been such a trouble in past years, and
was now hard pressed by the governor of Kué, sent in
his submission, while Sargon was still engaged in

latburi The kings of seven Cyprian cities” sent
presents. ‘Tyre also seems to have desired friendly
relations.

Sargon's absence in the S. affected other states some-
what differently. In 708 R.c., Mutallu of Kummub,
în collusion with Argistis of Armenia, Rusà's son and
successor, threw off his allegiance. An army was sent
against him; he dared not meet it, and fled. His
family and possessions fell into the hands of the
conqueror. Kummub became an Assyrian province.
In the same year arose troubles in Fllipi. Daltà had
proved a faithful vassal; but on his death his sons
Nibé and Ispabara quarrelled over the succession,
Nibé obtained assistance from Elam, ISpabara applied
to Assyria. An Assyrian army soon besieged Nibéè and
his Elamite supporters, captured the capital Marubiîti,
and brought Nibè captive to Assyria. JSpabara was
duly set on the throne as an Assyrian vassal.

The inscriptions of Sargon extend no further, and
his last tliree years are somewhat obscure. He died in
705 B.C., some think by the hand of an assassin.

Sargon was a great builder. For the greater part of
his reign he lived at Kalah, but he was all the while
building the magnificent city of Dr Sarràkîn, on the
site of the old city of Maganuba, in the r/4#/ (see REKHO-
BOTH-IR) of Nineveh. The vast ruins of Dùr Sarrikin
with its palaces, now the village of Khorsabad, were
excavated by the French under Botta, Place, Oppert,
and others. They form the most perfect type of an
Assyrian city yet known. There were found the chief
inscriptions which give so full an account of Sargon's
reign. For a full description of the wondrous halls
with their long series of sculpture and endless detail of
battle scenes, we must refer to Botta and Flandin,
Monument de Nineve. Sargon's inscriptions are full of
descriptions of the preparations for the building of this
city. He ransacked the quarries and forests of Lebanon,
Amanus, and the Syrian hills for wood and valuable
stones to beautify his palace. He expended the vast
treasures which his conquests gave him in its construc-
tion, though for the greater part of the time his swarms
of captives were employed there in forced labour. As
the #/k2 or corufe seems to have ceased in Marheswan,
709 R.C., the actual building was probably finished then.
In 707 B.c. Sargon returned from Babylon; on the
22nd of Tesrit in that year the gods of Dr-Sarràkîin
entered their temples.

Sargon also built and restored largely at Kalah and
other cities in his kingdom, Nineveh was then com-

4294

SARGON

paratively insignificant ; but he restored the temple of
Nabù there. C.H.W.].

15. 201 is the only OT passage which mentions the
great usurper by name, The view that ovs and

e3 often stand for the N. Arabian regions

20. SATBOR. Cf Misrim and Cush (see MIZRAIM, CUSH,
and Isaiah. 2), and the theory that nmba, | Ephraim,”
is sometimes a corruption, or, at any rate, a synonym
of δκῶπο, ‘Jerahmeel' (e.g., in Judg. 17: 1911811;
cp RAMATHAIM-ZOPHIM, MICAH, 2}, oblige the present
writer to modify or even reject some of the current
views on what are called the ‘ Assyrian prophecies’ of
Isaiah. According to his theory it becomes in the
highest degree probable that the danger which beset the
state from N. Arabia was as much in the mind of
Hebrew prophets and statesmen as the danger from
Assyria, and that some prophecies which have been
thought to refer to Assyrian invaders may refer after all
to N. Arabians.

1. We will look first at Is. 1057, and specially at
vv. 8-10. These verses are usually supposed to refer to
the fall of Carchemish, Calno (?), Arpad, Hamath,
Damascus, and Samaria, and are thought to indicate as
the date of the prophecy some period in the reign of
Sargon after 717 (fall of Carchemish). This appears
to be a mistake. The places referred to in v. 9 are prob-
ably not to the N. but to the S. of Judah: Kir-cusham,
Jerahmeel, Ephrath, Maacath, Cusham, and Shimron
places on the N. Arabian border, of the two latter of
which Isaiah had predicted the conquest in a much mis-
understood earlier prophecy (see 84, where probably
‘“Dammesck® [EV Damascus] should be ‘ Cusham,' and
‘Shomron' [EV ‘Samaria'] should be ‘Shimron').
This critical conclusion, however, does not force us to
give up referring Is. 105 # to the reign of Sargon. The
prediction of Isaiah in 84 (as we can now understand
it) was fulfilled, at least to a moderate extent, not by
Tiglath-pileser, but by Sargon, who was perhaps starting
on his Arabian campaign (see above, $ 13) when the
prophet put dramatically into the mouth of ‘ Assyria”
the boastful exaggerations of Is. 10-10.

2. In passing on to Is. 20, it is almost enough to
refer here to ISATAR [PROPHET], $ 5, [BooK], ὃ 9, and
for monumental evidence to the well-known passage in
Sargon's cylinder text (A°72264 ; /n2r./s. 120), relativeto
the treasonable designs of Philistia, Judah, Edom, and
Moab, and the inability of Pir'u, king of Musri (so
Winckler),! to help them.

Something may, however, be said about the names of Azuri,
king of Ashdod, his brother Ahimiti, and the popular nominee
Vatiàni which the present writei regardsas probably N. Arabian
ethnics; for Azuri cp Azariah and Azareel, where the final 24 and
«(δεῖ are separate additions, and for Abimiti cp Abittb, which is
commonly misunderstood, and springs from an ethnic, most

probably Rehobochi,2 while Yamani (hardly ‘Ionian’) may
perhaps be grouped with such popular Hebrew corruptions of

the ethnic ‘ Jerahmeel' as } 125, ‘°D! (Yamin, Yémini), Winckler

(KAT) 70, n. 1) compares Vamini to Omri. Now, in the
present writer's opinion, OmRI (7.2.) was of Jerahmeelite origin,
and from Joab's time onwards (cp ZERDIAM) adventurers from
the Negeb made their way to power through their ability in
warfare.

3. Now, too, we can understand better Is. 28 τ- 4,
which describes the fall of the ‘ proud crown' of certain
“drunkards'—surely not the unfortunate brethren of
Isaiah in Samaria, but the tyrannical princes of the
southern Ephraim—.e., Jerahmeel ; the place intended
is probably the capital of the land of Jerahmeel, by
which so much harm had been done to Israel and
Judah. The Jerahmeclites, however, must have sent
tribute in time to avert the dreaded punishment of
captivity ; the prophecy of woe was unfulfilled,

4. The attempt of Sayce to explain several passages
of Isaiah (eg., chaps. 1 1057 22x-14 and partly
36 f) with reference to the supposed invasion of

1 Musri, etc. (MVC, 1898, 1281 and 25; KAT@) 70; cp
Mizkatn, ἢ αὖ,

2 The Hebrew name AHIMOTH (9.Ὁ.} most probably has the
same grigin,

4295

SATAN

Judah by Sargon lacks adequate exegetical and monu-
mental basis. On these passages, see 7527. /s. especi
ally 3 (with the references). Even if ‘subjugator’
{musabni$, see $ 17) pointed to a submission of Hezekiah
to Sargon in 720 B.C., this would not serve as an
explanation of the strong language of Isaiah, who
speaks {in so far as the language is really his) of
invasion and devastation. τ. Κι GC.

In his Acilschrifttexte Sargons (2 vols. 1889) Winckler
rearranges the material published by Botta, Place, Oppert, and

others, and gives a full bibliography. His
21. Literature. own articles A and his mono.
raph, Musri, Melukha, Ma'tn ΡΟ, 1898,
τ and 4) are the chief Additional sources. Sargon® Annals arc
chronologically arranged. The Babylonian Last gives a
brief imperfecely preserved summary, and the Canon lists supply
a few more particulars, The letters sent to Sargon, or his son
Sennacherib, by the governors or generals will, when completely
published by Prof. Ε΄ F. Harper, add greatly to cur knowledge
of events, but are not yet available. On the whole, we are
better informed about Sargon's reign than about any other
portion of Assyrian history.

The chief inscriptions of Sargon are given by Winckler, Die
Keilschrifttexte Sargons, Leipzig, 1889. For the literature sce
there Ὁ. 1-3, also A8255, Winckler has added several texts in
his Samerilung von Keilsckhrifttexten, 2, οἷν which see his 407,
passim. For a fullertext of K. 1989 see Johns, Assyrian Deeds
‘and Documents, no. 809. For the History see now Rogers,
History af Babylonia and Assyria 2148-82, 25 well as the
Histories in Assvyria. For a view of events in Armenia in
Sargon's reign, of uncertain date, probably during his stay in
Babylon, see article by R. C. Thompson, in 4/5, July τοῖν

6. Ἡ, w.J. 88 r-19, 21; T. KE. C., $ 20.

BARID (‘1’), a place on the S. border of Zebulun,

Josh. 19 τὸ 12 (εἸσελεκίγωλδ] cedAoyk [B] [ewc],
caperà. capià [A], caperd. [clap[elA [L]: Pesh.
Ashdoa). Reading mv, we may place the site at Zel/
Skaded, on the N. edge of the plain of Esdraelon, 12
m. S. of /efat (Conder, ΡῈ ΔἸ 270).

SARON (capwn), Acts 935, ΕΝ SHARON.

SAROTBIE (capw@ei [B], -θιε [A], om. L), a
group of children of ‘Solomon's servants' (see below)
in the great post-exilic list (see EZRA ii., 89, 8 80), one
of eight inserted in 1 Esd. 534 after Pochereth-hazzebaim
of || Ezra 237= Neh. 7 so.

According to the ordinary view, an explanation would be
hazardous (for the two views, see NETHINIM and SoLomon's
Servants). 1, however, be is ‘Salmah’ and pom is a

corruption of pymr, then we have a right to Jook to the N.
Arabian borderland, and ‘Sarothei’ (688), like ‘Sophereth*

and ‘Shephatiah,' may be a corruption of ‘nos, Saréphathi (see
ZAREPHATH). T.K.C.

SARBECHIM (3 and DID" —the Western
and the Eastern readings respectively), apparently the
name of a Babylonian prince (Jer. 393 NaBoycayap
[BRA], -capay [0], capcayxerm [Q"8]) Schrader
(KAT? 416) offers no explanation. Giesebrecht thinks
that the preceding ‘ Nebo' {in MT) should form part of
the name (cp 65), and that the name thus produced is a
corruption of NEBUSHASBAN (g.v.). The hypothesis,
however, that Jerahmeelites and Edomites took part (το
say the least) in the capture of Jerusalem suggests our
reading π᾿ ab, ‘the prince of the Cushites (of N.
Arabia).' For the context see NERGAL-SHAREZER.

T.K.C.

‘BABUCH (cepoyx [Ti. WH]), Lk.335 AV, RV

SERUG.

SASH (ὈΣΉΨΡ), 15. 8νο RV. 866 GIRDLE, 4.

SATAN,. Satan appears in the OT, as a distinct
superhuman personality, only in three passages (Zech.
3 Job 1 2 1 Ch. 211), all of which are
1. Occurrence rost_exilic, the earliest dating from

‘in OT. sto, the last from about 300 B.C.
In Ps. 1096 (see Cheyne), as also probably in Ecclus.
2127 (see ECCLESIASTICUS, 8 19), the term is used of
a human adversary or opposer. So far as the OT is
concetned, three points require discussion ; the meaning
and usage of the term (8 2), the origin of the belief
(8 3). and its development ($ 4).

4296

SATAN

The root (i), which belongs to the old Semitic stock
{cp Ar. 5), signifies ‘to oppose another (by putting
τος Oneself in his way). The noun ny idtar
2. Meaning occurs în the early Hebrew Literature ;
- ina passage like Nu, 2222 35, the original
sense is still clear—‘The angel . set himself
in the way to be a i4/2 to him (Balaam}"; else-
where the original sense is less prominent {see 1 5.294
2 5. 1922 [23] x K.54[18] 11242325, cp Sitnah, Gen.
2621). In Ps.1096 the word is used of an opponent at
law, an accuser. It is with this last shade of meaning
that 4ai-Sdfen, ‘the Satan,’ is used in Zech. 31 £., where
for the first time the word becomes the official title of
a distinct personality ; in Job, where the word is also
used with the article, the usage is similar; but in Ch.
the article disappears, the word virtually becomes a
proper nanie and the original sense probably loses
prominence, although here, as generally elsewhere, GRA
translates the term by διάβολος ; in NT both the trans-
lation and the transliteration (Σατανᾶς) are common;
the transliteration occurs in the LXX (of the person;
sometimes as Zardy, see Redpath) only in &4 at Job
23, in Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion in Zech. 31;
in Aquila also in Job 16. The word used as a common
noun is transliterated in 1 K.11x4 23 25 (with variants)
and also in two or three places by one or more of the
later Greek versions.
It has often been suggested that Persian influences
have, if not produced, yet affected the development of
3. Origin me Jewish belief in Satan. That the name
οἵ belief, Satan is borrowed, cannot of course be
maintained. It is, as we have seen, a pure
Semitic word in early use among the Israelites. Nor
can it be asserted that the position of the Satan at all
closely resembles that of Angromainyu {Ahriman}!
Angromainyu is an independent power sharply opposed
to Ahura Mazda, the good power; and, like him,
concerned in the work of creation. The Satan in the
earlier Hebrew passages is completely subordinate to
Vahwè. Still, if the Book of Job (including the
Prologue) is post-exilic, and later than Zech. 1-8, it is
not inconceivable that the Persian belief in Angromainyu
may have influenced the further development of the
belief in Satan as we find it in Job—a view which would
be in perfect accordance with historical analog. The
matter, as here stated, needs a more thorough investiga-
tion in the light of biblicai and Avesta criticism {cp
ZOROASTRIANISM, $ 8). But at any rate, the ultimate
roots of belief in Satan, as well as of the belief in angels,
Iie in the early popular Israelitish religion, which, how-
ever, of course, cannot be dissociated from the religions of
the other Semitic peoples, ΤῸ that religion the ‘sons of
the ElGhîm' (ANGELS, $ 2)—in post-exilic psalms a term
for angels—were apparently native, and it is in the
closest connection with these that ‘the Satan' quite clearly
appears in Job, though it should be added that, unlike the
sons of ElGhim, and unlike ‘the Satan' of Zech. 8, ‘the
Satan” of Job lr is a cosmic personage. May it not be
that ‘the Satan’ owes his origin as a distinct character
among the ‘sons of ElShim (orangels), partly at any rate,
to the growing tendency, manifest in both Zech. and Job,
and even as carly as Ézckiel (cp eg., 403 £), to dis-
tinguish Yahwè's attendants by their functions ; and may
not at any rate the main reason why he gained a more
distinet and enduring individuality than, e.g., ‘the man
with the measuring line' (Zech. 21 [25]}, or "the inter-
preting angel’ (Job 3323), be found in the constant
presence of evil and the increasing desire to dissociate
it from God? The Satan, at least as far as the kernel
of the conception is concerned, may thus be one of those
figures due to the erystallisation of temporary functions,
which had long before been recognised as performed by
Yahwè or one of his spirits, into permanent personalities.
In an ancient story (Nu. 2222) the mal'aZk Vahwè

1 Cp de Harlez, Les ovigimes de Zoroastrisme, 301-307.
4697

BATAN

had on a special occasion become 2 Satan; now a single
personality among Yahwè's attendant spirits permanenily
appears as “e Satan, whose duty it is to test men or to
discharge God's hostile purposes against them. If we
would fix more exactly on the origin of the Satan, there
is much to be said for Marti's suggestion that he is the
personification of the self-accusing conscience of Israel
{cp Zech. 31-4) ; see ΤΆδοῖ, δέ. A7., 1892, pp. 208-248.
With the foregoing discussion cp ANGELS, $$ 3 5.

The development of the doctrine moves along two
lines; (<) from being subordinate to, Satan becomes
{largely) independent of Yahwè ; (6) from
‘ment of being the (not necessarily unjust) accuser

belief. he becomes the tempter and enemy of
i men. In NT hoth developments are
complete, in OT both are in process.

(α) In Zech. the chief marks of Satan's subordination
are the rebuke administered to him and the complete
disregard of his accusation, though, as the reference te
the ‘filthy garments'= ‘iniquity’ shows, it was well
founded. In Job this subordination is still clear;
throughout the book the angels are strictly subject to
Yahwè, and the Satan is virtually one of them; he
suggests trying Job by calamities, but has no power to
inflict them without Yahwé's permission or in excess of
the divinely assigned limits (11-13 25-7). Yet germs
of the later independence of the Satan can be discerned ;
the terms of 168 213 indicate that, whilst closely associ-
ated with the ‘sons of the Elchim,' he is in a certain
mapnmer distinct from them (‘the Satan came also in
the midst of them): cp Enoch 407; again, in Zech.
{110£ 65-7) the angels are sex/ by Yahwè to go up and
down in the carth, in Job the Satan appears to do so
on his cwn initiative (note the question 172 220),
although the idea is as yet by no means that of 1 Pet.
58; and finaliy he instigates Yahwè to injure Job (2.34)
—a significant feature when we contrast 1 K. 2220,
where it is only af Va4wèé's reguest that the spirit be-
comes a lying spirit to entice Ahab. In 1 Ch.2lr
(=2 S. 241) the independence of Satan has apparently
become as complete as it ever became ; whereas in Job
he moves God against man, in Ch. he moves man
against God. In Wisd.224 Satan's independence of
and opposition to God is so well-established that, as in
NT, men are classified as adherents of God or the
Devil (οἱ τῆς ἐκείνου μερίδος Bvres).

(5) The view of Satan as tempter! belongs to an
advanced stage. Statements attributing temptation to
God, which were at first harmless, became impossible
in the development of Jewish theolugy in a more reflec-
tive age. Four passages which illustrate the four main
stages in the evolution may be quoted in proof of
Ris. Temptation to evil is in 2 S. 241 directly attributed
to Yahwè ; in Job 1 ultimately to God, but through
the medium of Satan; in 1 Ch. 21 1 it is ascribed directly
to Satan, and by the Chronicler's alteration of his
source, #ac7#/y denied of God; and finally in James 113
it is directly denied of God. Except therefore in the
very latest OT passages temptation to evil is not incon-
sistent with the character of God; consequenily even
in Job, far less in Zech., the Satan is not in any distinet
manner morally opposed to God; this, at the earliest,
he becomes in Chronicles.

This is the main point; how much anticipation of the later
moral distinction can be discerned în Zech, and Job is an open
question ; in Zech. it certainly seems must natural to see in him
simply the spokesman for the sternly just demands of God ; but
the narrative of Job justifies Davidson's sentence, ‘He shows
an assiduity slightly too keen in the exercise of his somewhat
invidious function' (/05, p. 7).

The passage already quoted from Wisdom illustrates
another important development ; the Satan is identified
with the serpent of the narrative of the fall. This

4. Develop-

1 How little temptation is suggested by the term is illustrated
by Nu. 222232, So far is the angel of Yahwè, who becomes
for the nonce a Satan, from tempting Balaam {μαι he actually
obstructs him in an evil course.

4298

SATAN

identification may have been due to foreign influence,
either Persian (see Grimm on the passage) or Alexandrian
(see Toy, /xdaism and Christianity, 159, 167). Com-
pare and contrast Enoch 696. Another late identifica-
tion—that of Satan and the depraved will—is altogether
exceptional (Bd3d 3atk., 16); cp ECCLESIASTICUS.

Before passing on to the NT doctrine two negative
points may be noted ; in OT no reference is made to
angels attendant on Satan; ‘angels of evil'—z.e.,
angels who inflict injury—are still directly subject to
God (cp Ps.7849 cp 355f and earlier 1 $.1614 7
Judg. 923; see ANGEL, 3), nor to any ‘fall' or
‘ punishment' of Satan. G. 8.6.

All uncertainty as to the current conception of Satan
ceases when we reach the NT. No theory of dramatic
δ. τὰ ΝΎ, OT portic personification can here be main-
" * tained. ‘The ‘enemy’ of the OT is now
individualised, the ‘Satans' of the book of Enoch are
now unified. Satan is now the distinctly personal
(Ja. 47) originator {2 Cor. 113 Jn. 844 1 Jn. 38 χα),
instigator (τ Thess, 35 Mt. 4: 7) and perpetuator (Eph.
22) of sin, and the cause of its penalty, death (Jn. 844
Heb,. 214) ; the personal head of the realm of evil, with
the ministers thereof (Eph. 22, ἐξουσία, collective), evil
bodily (Mt.1224 Lk. 1316) and spiritual (Eph. 22 Jn.
1231 1 [η. 88); and the antagonist generaliy of God
(Mt. 1339 Acts 1310) and of man (1 Pet. 58 Eph. 616
Lk.2231 Rev. 1212),

Satan appears under nine distinct names.

1. ἄρχων, ‘ prince' (Synoptists, τῶν δαιμονίων, Mk. 822 etc. ;
Jp.) τοῦ κόσμον τούτου, 1231; Paul, τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ ἀέρος,

Eph 225 and cp θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου, 2 Cor
6. Names. 44, with the κατὰ τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ κόσμον af the
Ephesian passage.

2. è πειράζων, ‘the tempter,' Mt. 43 1 Thess. 35.

3, διάβολος, ‘accuser,’ not necessarily ‘slanderer,’ of those
who sin through his temptation (cp κατήγορος τῶν ἀδελφῶν,
Rev. 1210), a title confined to Satan, except when used of
human slanderers in the Pastoral Epistles,l but generally signify-
ing simply (asin 1 Ch, 211 and everywhere in LXX), the “enemy”
of God (Mt, 13 39 1Jn. 3 10) and of mani Pet. 58); see Hatch,
Essays în Biblical Greek, 4547.

4. Zararas(Hebrewtransliterated, with Grecised form) ‘advere
sary' NT fassim, whether as an ‘adversary (1 Thess.218), a
tempter (Mk. 1 13}, or the prince of the demons or evil angels
(Lk. 11 18 2 Cor. 127 (there is some authority for the form Σατᾶν
here ; see ΤΊ Ὁ).

5. βεελζεβούλ (βεεζεβούλ [NB]), of doubtful derivation and
signification(see ΒΕΕῚ ΖΕ ΒΒ), a name for Satan inthe Synoptists
alone, and solely in regard to demoniacal possession e Tlrg
compared with Mt. 12 26).

6. è ἐχθρός, ‘the enemy ' (Με. 1830 Lk. 10 19).

7. è πονηρός, ‘the evil, injuzious one' (Mt.1319, cp πρεύ-
para πονηρά, Τίς. 7 21) Eph. 6 16, and especially 1 In.).

8. βελίαρ, Syriac and Greek form of BeLiaL (9.2.), only in
2 Cor. 615 (Christ and Beliar, light and darkness, God and
idols, contrasted).

9. è ὄφις, ‘the serpent' (2 Cor. 113), and ὁ ὄφις ὁ ἀρχαῖος,
‘the old serpent,” Rev. 129 (ὁ καλούμενος διάβολος καὶ Zaravag)
è πλανῶν, ‘that deceiveth (sce Wisdom 224 as referred to above).
See ANTICHRIST.

It will be seen that, though various functions are
here and there suggested by these names and passages,

they all tend to the same issue, the

7. Works. maintenance and propagation of evil:
and the NT writers who contribute to the history of
Satan and the description of his doings in no wise con-
tradict one another. If we draw an inference from
what is said of evil angels in 2 Pet. 24 Jude 6, Satan
was not originally evil, but had a first estate which he
did not keep, leaving, through sin, his own habitation.
His sphere of dominion was now the air or firmament
{Eph. 612 22 Lk. 1018 Rev. 129), whence the Syriac
etymology of Beliar (in Bar Bahiul), ‘lord of the air.’
From the beginning he has been a man-killer (Jn. 844},
seducing Eve (2 Cor. 113), and bringing sin and death
into the world {cp Wisd. 224, not opposed to Rom.
512), and, by the power of death, keeping men, through
fear of it, in bondage (Heb.214 £): enticing men to sin
(1 Cor.75) and accusing them when they have fallen

1 Not used in any of the commonly called Pauline Epistles
except in Ephesians and the Pastorals.

4299

SATYRS

(Rev. 1210); trying to entice Jesus himself (Synn.)
but falling, Jn. 1430, cp Heb. 415 2 Cor, 521; inflicting
upon men misery both bodily and mental, sometimes
by ‘ possessing' them with his ‘deemons' (Mt. 1224), at
other times apparently by direct and ordinary disease
(τ Cor.55 2Cor.127). He is the prince of this world
{Jn. 1231)—£.e., ‘the present age (αἰών) with all its evil’
{Gal. 14) —and as ‘god of this age' he blinds the un-
believing (2 Cor. 44), and is prince of the spirit that is
active in the children of disobedience (Eph. 22), the
‘children of the devil’ (1 Jn. 310); and by deceitful
wonders and lying prophecy he will lead men astray in
the final apostasy (2 Thess. 29 £ Rev. 208).
But though Satan is opposed to God (Ja. 47), and
the ‘authority of darkness' to the ‘ kingdom of the Son
in οὗ God's love' (Col. 113), —as darkness
8. No dualism. .o tight in the Parses antithesis, —
there is no Parsee dualism in any true sense. True,
Satan is not often, as in the OT, a mere angel of de-
struction used by God (τ Cor.55 2 Cor. 127); but, on
the other hand, he is no more independent of God or
co-equal with him than is man, who can, as he chooses,
serve the one or the other. All that can be said in this
direction is that the Satanic power is superhuman, and
therefore equally superhuman is his capacity for seduc-
tion and destruction (Eph. 612). But, though Satan is
‘strong,’ Jesus is ‘stronger’ (Mt. 1229, and parallels);
he can spoil Satan's ‘goods’ (Mk, 327) and destroy his
works (1 Ja. 38); Christ will finally bring him to naught
and rescue his bondsmen (Heb. 214), casting him and
his angels into the eternal fire prepared for them (Mt.
254: Rev. 2010 Jude 6), along with the last enemy
death (1 Cor. 1526 Rev. 2013). This deliverance is, in
principle, already begun (1. 1018 f Col. 113 x Jn.
44 Jn. 123: 1611), but will not be complete till the
παρουσία of Christ (Rom. 1820 τ Cor. 1526 2 Thess, 2
Rev. 20). G. B, G., 88 1-41 1: M., 88 5-8.

SATCHEL (19M), Is.322 RV, in 2 K. 523 BAG (1).

SATHRABUZANES (cagpaBoyzanne [BA]),
1 Esd. 63, EV; AV®g. SHETHAR-BOZNAI.

BATRAPB (ὈΞΎ, and 527, c4elfarpinim,
«È; οἀτράπδι, but cTpatHro) in Esth.3r2 [not
14]; Vg. Safrafe ; AV ' princes,' or ' lieutenants," RV
always ‘satraps') are mentioned in Ezra836 (6
διοικηταί) Esth. 312 89 (G5aL8 οἰκονόμοι) 93 Dan. 857 27
62-57? It is the O. Pers. AkSalrapavan (khiatra,
‘realm, empire’ +74, 'to protect’), not to be con-
founded with the Avest. soithrafan, which has a
different meaning. ‘The division of the empire into
satrapies is due to Darius I. Hystaspis. Though really
bound to an implicit obedience to the king's orders and
controlled by other officials, the satraps grew into a
kind of viceroys, who exercised in their provinces an all
but sovereign power, and in their houschold imitated the
royal court. See, further, PERSIA, $ 18, SHERIFFS;
and cp A. Buchholz, Questiones de Persarum satrapis
(Leipsic, 1896). c.P.T.

SATYRS is the EV rendering of the Heb. DVI,
se°trim, în 15. 1821 8414 (RVME: ‘he-goats'; American
1. Meaning of RV ‘SII goats’) and RV®E: in Lev.
" the term. 177 2Ch.llis (ΕΝ ‘he-goats'; AV

‘ devils'). In these four passages? it

is quite clear that the reference is not to the natural
animal—the he-goat-—which the Hebrew word 54% (an
abbreviation for the fuller and frequent locution #7
‘ixzîm) generally denotes (cp GOAT, 88 1 [4] 5). It is

1 σατράπαι does not occur in Dan. 827 27 67/

2 And in 2 K. 238 which originally spoke of ὅλ υΨΦΗ ΠΏΣ τ
the bamoth of the se°iz322 (not as MT D\mpwn=the gates); so
Hoffmann in ΖΑ͂ ΤῊ, 1882, p. 175, subsequently others (e.g.,
Kautzsch), For post-biblical references to ovvpw, see M.
Schwab, vocabulaire d’Angelologie’ (Academie des Inscrip-
tions 10 [1807] 370 420 (s.0. tipe and Σέγιριμλ.

4300

SATYRS

true that some scholars {e.g., Hengstenberg ; similarly
Baethgen in Riehm, /7W8t) ‘ Feldgeister') have retained
this meaning by explaining the sacrifices to the sd'7r7z%
referred τὸ in Lev. and Ch. as belonging to an Egyptian
cultus of the goat (cp Herod. 246), borrowed by the
Hebrews from the Egyptians and practised by them in the
wilderness and revived by Jeroboam after his residence in
Egypt. But {apart from the consideration that these
two references are exilic and post-exilic respectively) this
interpretation fails to do justice to the passages in Isaiah.

The ancient tradition (as preserved in the versions) is sub-
stantialiy consistent and substantially also correct. In all four

Jassages the versions agree in not rendering £4‘ by the equiva-
(en οὗ he-goat. ‘They render either by a word denoting demon
or false god, or by a term probably implying demons though
signifying directly only ‘hairy'—a meaning which the Hebrew
word possessed (cp Gen. 27 rr) and out of which the use of the
word for he-goat probably sprang. ‘Thus (δ renders by δαιμόνια
or μάταια (in 2 Ch. 1115 there is probably a ‘doublet’; τοῖς
εἰδώλοις καὶ τοῖς paraioss), Syr. by sed4, Tg. 70), Vg. demon
or pilosus; cp, further, Field's notes in the Hexapla on Is.18.21
and 3414

The suggestion of the versions (see above) that id'7r
was a term for demons or a particular kind of demon is
confirmed by the contexts of the five passages (including
2 K. 288) already mentioned. Thus în Is. 8414 LILITH
(g.v.) is also mentioned'; and although certain natural
animals (e.g., wolves, jackals) are mentioned in the same
connection both here and in Is.1321, they are not
domestic animals like the goat; moreover, we have the
same combination of actual animals and demonie beings
in an Assyrian description of devastation (G. Smith,
Annals gf Afur-bani-pal ; see Che, on Is. 1321), The
association of demons with desert places was a prevalent
element in popular belief (cp DeMONS, $ 3). Note,
further, that the ie‘ are described as dancing and
calling to one another, In 2 K.238 Lev. 177 and 2Ch.
1115, where the ὀάηνδίά of the s@'irim and sacrifices
offered to them are mentioned, the term may be used in
derision of false and forbidden objects of worship in
general—for which abundant parallels could be cited.
In Lev. 177, however, the association of the ἐδ γένεα
with the ‘open field’ (. 5) suggests a connection, direct
or indirect, with the custom or rite of sending a goat to
Azazel on the day of Atonement (see AZA: n

It remains to consider how far the ἐν mo were a
clearly defined class of demons and what were their
special characteristics. ‘We have really
ταν little more than the etymology to guide

stica of the us. It is generaliy assumed, on the

8 ‘ground of the usual significance of
3d'îr, that they were goat-shaped. This is not im-
probable, and if correct, the use of the term ‘ satyr' is
sufficiently appropriate ; only it must be remembered
that we have no reason for attributing to the Hebrew
conception the richer details that characterise the Greek.
Some (eg, Duhm; Marti, Gesck. d. /sr. Rel. 236)
suggest that Azazel (cp above) was chief of the ie'zràzz ;
we might then compare the relation to the Greek satyr.
But this is not very probable {see Cheyne's paper în
ZATW, 1895; and cp AZAZEL). Wellhausen, on the
other hand, seems inclined to limit his inference from
the etymology to the Azirizess of these beings; see
Heid.) 135f.; ® 151 f. where some Arabic parallels
will be found. If sà (=demon), in spite of being
confined to exilic and post-exilic literature (for which
there may be sufficient reason; cp DEMONS, ὃ τὴ, is
actually of early origin, probably it merely expressed
the ‘hairiness' of the demons; but if jate, it was most
probably chosen on account of its secondary sense (goat)
because these beîngs were regarded as goat-shaped.
Cp in general Boch. Zieroz. bk. vi. 7; Ges. Jes. 465f.;
Baudissin, δὲ 11367 and the article ‘ Feldgeister® in
PRES; Mannhardi Wald μ. Feldbuite, ch. 3 (8. 8
refers to a trace of Syrian goat spirits în a story of
Iamblichusi. GB G

2. Character-

4301

Ù

BAUL

SAUL
Origin (8 1) End; character ($ 4/).
Wars (825). Family (8 6).

Saul (DIL, ΖΔ, as if ‘asked ἴον, $ 56; according
to Jastrow [782 19 (1900) τοι] ‘devoted, viz., το Yahw
but see below [8 1, midway]; caoyA [BALj]) is tradition-
ally regarded as the first king of Israel. His story has
passed through phases little less various than that of
David, with which it is so closely interlaced (see DAVID).
In its present form, indeed, it raises insoluble problems
both of history and of character ; neither the outer nor
the inner life of the heroic king is intelligible to us.
Reluctant, therefore, as we may be to touch narratives
which are universally interesting—though the interest
partly arises from their enigmas—we cannot avoid criti-
cising them, and we may be well assured that the gain
which will result from critical thoroughness will be far
greater than the seeming loss. There cannot but be a
more potent attraction in narratives which can be read
more nearly as they were meant to be read ; and if the his-
torical element turns out to be less than we have supposed,
we can at any rate use it with some confidence, whilst in
a secondary sense even the less historical elements are
of documentary value for the period to which the tra.
ditions in their present form can be shown to belong (see
SAMUEL [B00KS]).

The traditions agree {and we shall find good reason
to accept the statement) that Saul was a Benjamite of

; Gibeah (1 5,91 1026 1141534), though

1. Origin. the most ingenious of our par
torians (Winckler) seeks to show that he was a Gileadite.
The short genealogy în 1 5. 91 represents his father Kisk
asa ‘son of Bechorath' (APHIAH which follows is a cor-
ruption of ‘Gibeah'), and in 1021 Saul ben Kish is as-
signed to the family called MATRI [g.0.], while in 2 9.
20: SHERA the Benjamite, David's ‘opponent, is called
ben Bichri—i.c., a Bichrite (cp BECHER, and see below
on the ‘Bezek’ of 18.118). ’Taking these names
Bechorath, Matri, and Bichri together, and noticing
(61:5 reading saxe in 1 8.91, it is difficult not to see
that Saul's family, according to the tradition under-
lying 9: and 1021, was known as Machirith {cp
nus3=n2 in 91) or Jerahme'elith (cp 8 6); cp
1 Ch. 829, where the origin of Kish is traced to
Maachah (a corruption of Jerabme'el) In other
words, the clan and family to which the first king be-
longed were ultimately of semi-Jerahmeelite origin.
Nevertheless the early writers were quite consistent in
regarding Saul as a Benjamite, for the tribe of Benjamin
(as its very name may perhaps indicate) had a strong
Jerahmezlite element ; this is suggestively expressed in
1 Ch.77 where (by no mere arbitrary fiction) Jerimoth,
at once son of Bela and son of Becher, is recognised as
a Benjamite; now JERIMOTH is certainly not= ‘excel.
sa' [Ges.] but one of the most unmistakable popular
corruptions of Jerahme'el.!

This theory suggests an explanation of the name of
Saul's father Kish, which, in spite of the very plausible
connection suggested by Robertson Smith (see col.
2682), is perhaps best explained as a corruption of
Cush (#45) or Cushi (νι). Cush and Missur (Mugri)
were contiguous regions in N. Arabia; if there were
Misrite elements in Israel {see Moses, $ 4), there were,
of course, equally developed Cushite elements.

The name of the king himself does not admit of as

1 It may no doubt be asserted that this way of regarding Saul
was erroncous.. It is said in x Ch. 7 14, ΟΡ Machie whose wife
was Manca® (= Jerahme'elith), that he was the son of Manasseh,
and Winckler holdsthat Saul was not a Benjamite but a Manassite
of Gilead. But surely the right view is that there wete both
northern and southem clans of Machirite (i.e., Jerahmeclite)
affinities. According to 1 Ch.8 29-33 Kish and Saul belonged to
the southern Jerahmeelites (MAACAR). This is the theory ex-
pressed above.

4302

SAUL

ready an explanation, and it seems to have been very
1h, Name much misunderstood.. The key to it is
ἀπὰ Lomo, probably to be found în 1.128, where the
name Sxibe (Samuel) is expressly made
equivalent to lang (Saul), and connected (cp 7. 20) with
non (l'al), "το ask.' It is at any rate plausible to
suppose that Sémuù'el and ὅδ᾽ αἱ (also Ishmael and
Shobal?) are modifications of a common original,! viz.,
the southern clan-name Shema (=Sheba, 658 σαμαα,
Josh. 192?) with the afformative 5 or Sx. It will be
remembered that elsewhere Saul (SAUL, 2; SHAUL) is
a N. Arabian name, given both to a Simeonite and to a
Musrite ; also that Samuel, according to tradition, was
a son of JEROHAM—î.e., belonged to a clan which had
Jerahmeelite (N. Arabian) affinities. It is even possible
that the narrator who worked up the legends respecting
Saul's connection with Samuel may have been ignorant
of the seer's real name, and have selected for him one of
two variants of the traditional name of the first king.®
The view of the origin of the name ‘ Saul” here recommended
may help to account for the fact that ancient scribes were liable
to confound the two names Saul and Samuel, for evidence of
which it is enough to refer to 1 8.11 7, where the rival readings
Siew ‘me (after Saul) and Sing “me (‘after Samuel”) stand
side by side, and 1 5. 28 12, where the cry of the ‘witch of Endor*

is said to have been called forth by the sight of ‘Samuel, a
palpable error (as Perles has pointed out) for * Saul. "3

The true name of the first king, however, has prob-
ably passed into oblivion, like so much besides connected
with this dim far-off figure,

The true name of Saul’s native place is perhaps
recoverable. It was most probably not Gibeath-shaul
(EV Gibeah of Saul), but Gibeath-shalishah (ag and
neby may reasonably be taken to be kindred forms); i.e.,
Shalishah was the name of the district in which this
Gibeah was situated. Near it were (2) LAISH, also
called in MT Laishah and Zela (both corruptions of
Shalishah), and (ὁ) Gilgal or Beib-gilgal—-i.e., very
probably Beth-jerahmeel (sce 8 6). Bethi-jerahmeel* (if
we may adopt this name as the true one), which was
apparently a walled city of some importance, may be
regarded as the centre of Saul's clan. As we shall
presently see, it was the city which this hero relieved
when in a very critical situation ; it was also the place
where his married daughter (see MERAB, PALTI) and
his grandson (see MEPHIROSHETH) resided, and where
Sheba the Bichrite took refuge with his clansmen when
pursued by Joab. The restoration of the true name
throws a bright light on a number of passages (cp
GALLIM).

It is a disputed point whether or no Saul was the first
to realise the idea of kingly government. According to
Winckler (07 2 56 157), the stories of
Gideon, Abimelech, and Jephthah
were brought into shape as justifications of the claim
made by the Gileadite (?) Saul to the sovereignty of
western Israel and to the possession of the religious
capital—Shechem. This theory is decidedly ingenious ;
but it is more probable (see ISRAFL, 8 10; GIDEON ;
but cp ABIMELECH, 2) that Gideon was, strictly

1 For the same idea somiewhat differently applied see Wi.
GI 2224, KAT) 225. This scholar's own explanation of bixy
is fully set forth in X4719), Zc.; the Hebrew name ( ‘asked 7
is the literal transtation of 487 purusst, ‘the oracle-god,' a title
of Sin, the moon-god.

2 Cp Sayce, Hibbert Lectures (1887), 52. ‘Sheba,' too, was
hardiy the birth-name of the Bichrite mentioned in 2 5.201.

3 Σαμονηλ represents big in Gen. 4810 (A), 1 5.11 13 (B*)
ἃ (8A, 1512 (B), while Σαουλ represents Ὀμγοφ in 1 $.1512

10. Predecessors ?

4 There were, of course, different places called Beth-jerahmeel.
Cp Garin, SAck (Ὁ,

The passage (2 5. 2014 /) should probably be read thus,
‘And Sheba passed on to Beth-jerahme'el, and all the Bichrites
(Jerahmezlites) assembled and went in after him. And they
came and besieged him in Beth.jerahme'el*; hence în v. 18 boe
should be baniny]. In 2.14 ‘ba (033) should be pag, and
bar Sing: should be πον ὉΠ" ; the following words ΠΣ n'a
should be Sir n°2 (an early correction), Other references io
‘ Beth-jerahmeel' probably underlie certain corrupt words in
Am. 13 Hos. 1014 (see γέ, 874.).

4303

SAUL

speaking, the first Isvaelitish king. It remains true,
however, that Saul is the first king of a section of
the Israelites of whom fairly definite traditions are pre-
served, and it is to these traditions, not all equally trust-
worthy, that we now direct our attention.

Traditions of much interest respecting Saul have come
down to us from a school of writers trained under pro-

sinma Phetic influence. According to these,
14, Traditions. it was a seer called Samuel! who, by
his preternatural insight, recognised in the son of Kish
the destined ‘captain’ or ‘ prince’ (x4g74, see PRINCE)
of united Israel (x S.916). This patriotic Israelite (see
SAMUEL) is introduced to us going up to the bdz:dà of
an unnamed city to ‘bless the sacrifice‘ and partake of
the sacrificial repast. By a happy accident—as it
scems—Saul, on a journey in search of his father's
lost asses, appears before him, and timidly asks the
way to the seer's house. At once Samuel (who, if a
member of a. Jerahmeelite clan, would perhaps recog-
nise Saul) discloses his identity. He treats his visitor
with marked consideration, and on the morrow,
in strict privacy, communicates to him a divine oracle
respecting him.? ΑἹ the same time he solemnly anoints®
and then kisses him (see SALUTATIONS). Finally, to
strengthen Saul's faith, he specifies three remarkable
experiences which the favourite of heaven will have as
he retums home. One was that he would meet two
men (see RACHEL's SEPULCHRE) who would give news
respecting the lost asses and would mention the paternal
anxiety of Kish. Another was that three piigrims whom
he would also meet (see TABOR) would be so struck by
his bearing that they would salute him and offer him a
present of two loaves, The third sign was that Saul
would meet a company of πϑδὲ᾽ ἔνε in a state of frenzy
(see PROPHET, $ 4), and would be seized upon by the
spirit of Yahwè and pass into the same state (calling out
perhaps for the advent of Israel's war-god to lead his
people to victory). AIl this, we are told, came to pass;
yet it was not this, but the disclosures of the seer Samuel,
which transformed Saul's nature, and made him a true
king (109).
In about a month’s time Saul was called upon to
justify the seer's selection. So at least Ὡς true text of
᾿ 15.111 (preserved by 65)" tells us.
16, για οικιοτα Winckler, however, rejects the words
SOTY- which assert a months interval, as not
belonging to the original tradition. According to this
scholar, it is quite a fresh account of Saul and his origin
that we have in 1 S.1l:-1,, the original story having
been recast when, to soothe patriotic feelings, the Gileadite
hero was converted into a Benjamite. After undoing
what he regards as the work of the later editor of the
tradition, Winckler arrives at this simple statement of
fact which he considers to be authentic. Nahash, king
of the Ammonites, was besieging the city of JARESH in
Gilead, and pressing it hard. By a bold stroke, akin
to that related, Winckler thinks, by anticipation in
Judg.7 (see ΟἸΡΕΟΝῚ, Saul relieved the city (τ. 1),
which appears to have been his birthplace.® The
points which seem to Winckler to force upon us the
view that Saul was a Jabeshite are three—(1) the tra-

1 According to Winckler (G/2151), Zuph in Mt. Ephraim,
whence the earlier prophetic legend brought Samuel, was within
the ancient limits of Benjamin. See, however, Ζύρη. .

2 The relation between the prince-elect and the seer reminds
us of the traditions regpectine Elisha as a king-maker (r K.
19 15/ 2K.81393). No doubt it appeared natural to the pro-
phetic school of narrators. Observe that there is an omission in
the MT of 15.10x(see Var. 25.) which can be supplied from
€. The sentence dropped out by homoroteleuton.

8 Whether this is historical may be doubted (see Smend,
Rel-gesch.(2 66, n. 1).

4 καὶ ἐγενήθη ὡς μετὰ μῆνα (BA); καὶ ἐγένετο μετὰ μῆνα
ἡμερῶν (1). MT has ἐγ ἼΠΌ 3 ‘mi (καὶ ἐγενήθη ὡς κωφεύων [L]);
ᾧδτ points τὸ a Heb. text in which w=np and τύ both had a

lace at the end of 1 8. 1026, giving not only a wreng reading
But a wrong connection. For clearly 111 ἴς 6 continuation of
the narrative which breaks off at 1016, See H. P. Smith.

5 So, not only G/ 2 but also KAT) 227.

4304

SAUL

dition in 1 S. 8111-13 relative to the pious care of the
Jabeshites for the bones of Saul and his sons, (2) the
stand made by Saul's son and heir ISHBOSHETHA, as king
of E. Israel, at Mahanaim, and (3) the legendary state-
ment in Judg. 218-14 that Jabesh-gilead sent no warriors
against the offending tribe of Benjamin, and (virtually)
recognised the right of cozzzbizz: enjoyed by Jabeshites
and Benjamites.

Winckler's conclusion, however, though plausible
{cp MANASSEH, $ 4), cannot well be admitted. As to

+9 (3), the statement in Judg.218-14 does
Lf Cherne"e indeed imply the currency of a belief in
©“ the connection between the Benjamite
king Saul and Jabesh-gilead, but in its present form (the
text is, in the opinion of the present writer, in need of
revision) it is too late to have any critical value, As
to (2), Ishbosheth's stand at Mahanaim could only
prove that Saul's sovereignty extended in some degree
to Gilead. As to (r), the statement în the traditional
text of 1 S. 3111-13 is impossible, if, as the present writer
believes, the place where the bodies! of Saul and his sons
were exposed on the wall was, according to the original
tradition, not Beth-shan, but some southern town, such
as Eshean (Josh. 1552), perhaps Beer-sheba? (cp
EsHEAN, ASHAN), Who the friends of Saul really
were, we shall see later; Jabeshites of Gilead, they
most certainly were not.

Saul therefore was not a Gileadite but a Benjamite.
The difficuliy arising out of the improbable geographical
statement in 1 $,93 9,5 (see SHALISHA, ZuPH), and out of
the statement in the traditional text (rejected) of 1 S.
3111-13 (so far as it refers to Beth-shan and the Jabesh-
ites), must be met by stricter criticism of the text.
Underlying ‘Tabesh-gilead' there must be the name of
some place easily accessible from Saul's home at Gibeah.®
What that name is, no one who has studied the errors
of the scribes, both in MT and in @, can doubt for a
moment. It is Beth-gilgal, i.e., Beth-jerahmeel, a place-
nanie to which we have already been introduced--the
city intended was in the S. of Benjamin near Gibeam
and Anathoth ; and the foes who threatened the city
and ali Benjamin besides,4 were not the Ammonites but
the ‘Amalekites'—î.e., a branch of the Jerahmeelites
{por was miswritten for phoy=bxpmy; cp Judg 813),
the name of whose king was Achish (war), as we Should
probably read for ‘Nahash” (gm; see NAHASH). It
may be noticed in passing that the danger to which Beth-
jerahmeel was exposed from the N. Arabians was, in
the opinion of the present writer, not always averted ;
in Hos. 1014 and Am. 13 there is possibly a reference to
the cruel conduct of the Salmaeans (nearly = Cushites) at
their conquest either of this fortress or of a fortress
with the same name in the Negeb. See SALMA.

The place where the Israelites mustered in obedience
to Saul’s summons was Bezek (1 S.118), which on the
supposition that the distressed city was in Gilead is
suitably identified with Khirbet Ibzik. If so, there will
appear to be two places called Bezek, for in Judg.14/.
we meet with a Bezek® which is undeniably in the S. of
Palestine (see BEZEK).

Τῇ, however, the threatened city was in Benjamin, and the foes
were Jerahmeelites from the extreme S., it is probable that

the warriors who responded to Saul were from Benjamin and
from the territory farther S., and that the mustering

1 On 1 Ch, 1010 see Hran.

2 Not unfrequently in P's lists we find a corrupt variant of a
place-name presented as the name of a fresh place.

8 This has a close bearing on the criticism of Judg. 21 8-14
(referred to above).

4 1 S. 112 has been thoroughly misunderstood owing to textual
corruption. For ΡΞ we should certainly -ead ἾΡΟΣ. The
passage then hecomes, ‘that I stop up to your loss every foun-
tain of Benjamin® (cp 2 K.225). Ὁ and γ can be confounded in
Aramaic characters ; cp @BA's [εἐμαβεις ‘n 1 8.129 for 7.3".

5 ‘Adoni-bezek' in Judg.15/ is probably a combination of
two clan-names »yaa (from ‘ip; see PARADISE, $ 7) and ΤῚΣ
(see above). Cp ‘Adonikam' and ‘Adoniram,’ where ‘kam*
and ‘ram’ represent fragments of ‘Jerahmeel.'

4305

SAUL

place was in (or, less probably, to the S. of) the district
occupied by Saul's clan. Of ‘Bezek' we know nothing; but a
southern clan-name "32 is attested by the name mym2 and by
the place-name 1279 (near Tekoa). Most probably, however,

1 5.11 12-15 may be emended into ‘Jerahmeel,"
jerahmeel, the name of the central place of Saul's clan.

Naturally enough, such an important event as the
relief of Beth-jerahmeel (Jabesh-gilead) led to the

A recognition of Saul as king of Benjamin
Fate (τ. x, is rightly regarded by Driver as re-
". dactional, and may beomitted). Possibly
other tribes, too, recognised him as in a qualified
sense their king by sending him presents, so that
they might profit in time of need by his proved
ability in warfare ; but of this no certainty is attainable,
The thoroughly antique action! ascribed to Saul in 1 S.
117 has been placed in a wrong setting. ὙΠῸ compiler
gives no hint that the action referred to made the war a
holy war, and he represents the pieces of flesh as having
been sent throughout all Israel, It is not likely, however,
that other clans besides those most nearly connected
with Saul and those which were in equal danger from
the Jerahmeelites (on the significant notice in 1 5.817
{emended text] respecting ‘the men of Israel that were
in Jerahmeelite Arabia' see $ 4 δ) were summoned to
his standard. Saul was by no means king of all Israel;
that distinetion was reserved for David.

Still in such turbulent times even this moderate
dominion demanded all the energy and fervent
patriotism of the ruler, who was certainly no mere lad
at his succession, though his precise age is not recorded.£
The words in 1 5. 117. 'whosoever comes not out after
Saul,'* suggest that Saul was already well-Known as a
bold warrior. The story in 1 5. 9322, which presents
him as a youthfuì and modest dependent of his father
Kish, does not inspire us with confidence ; indeed the
whole connection of Saul with an individual called
Samuel is historically not free from doubt.

According to the tradition, Saul now returned to bis
home at GisrAH. From 1S.132 it would seem that

τ one of his first regal acts was to collect a
38, GIbEON. mali army of Israelitish warriors. Prob
ably they were chiefly Benjamites under the leadership of
Abner ; it is a plausible hypothesis of Winekler that
Benjamin was at that time by no means ‘ the smallest of
the tribes of Israel’ (1 S. 921), and that its territory was
more extensive than in the later period, after it had been
conquered (?) by David.* This view of the composition
of the army agrees with 1 S. 226 71 where Saul is described
as in Gibeah, surrounded by Benjamites,® when he pro-
nounced an unjust sentence on the priests of Yahwè. It
is probable, however, that he had also (like David) a
bodyguard composed of foreigners, if raszze (v. 17

1 For the archaological origin of the custom referred to see
WRS Rel. Sem.(%) 402, who flustrates from- Lucian and Zeno.
bius, and notices the parallel statement in Judg.1929. The
narrative in Judg, 19-21 has been much edited, the statement
referred to is partly connected with a mythological story relative
to creation (see Sovom, 8 9), partly with an antique sacrificial rite
(cp Schwally, Sensi. Ariegsaltertamer, 154). Those who par-
took ofthe sacrificial pieces of flesh which Saul sent round became
consecrated persons whom no enemy could harm. The later
compilers of the story of Saul had forgotten this; but it is the
duty of the historical critic, so far as he can, to get behind their
compilation, and restore the original setting of misunderstood
traditions.

2 15,131 gives no sense. Most critics since Wellhausen regard
it as a gloss, and read ‘. . . years old was Saul when he began
to reign, and he reigned . . . years over Israel’ The giossator
did not venture to fill up the number of years. This involves
regarding ‘ng before pg as a corrupt duplication of yy, See,
however, Driver and Lòhr, ad ἦσο. lostermann's theory seems
too complicated,

8 The following words ‘[and] after Samuel" are a variant, as
explained already.

The conquest may be obscurely referred to în Judg. 20,
Similarly, it seems, Néldeke (col. 536, n. 3).

5 On 1°S. 226 see TAMARISK; on ‘ye

Crit. Bib.

enjamites, 7. 7, see

4306

SAUL

*runners') is, as the present writer suspects, a _mutil-
ation and corruption of Zarephathim (Zarephathites).
These foreigners, however, were virtually Israelites ;
they had adopted Israelitish reverence for the persons
of the priests of Yahwè, whom they refused to massacre
at the bidding of the enraged king (7. 17). It was
Doeg an ‘Aramite’ (see 1 8.21 8 [7], @54)! who, ac-
cording to the narrative, out of hatred for David
performed the dreadful act, for which, after David had
come to the throne, a stern penalty was (not indeed by
David) exacted {2 8,21}.

The historical character of the massacre {apart from
the details) cannot be doubted ; but the real cause of it

stiatiman iS not clear Had the priestly clan
2b. Philistines. cp Gibeon, like Samuel. (a typical
personage), 'rejected’ Saul as king? Had they
really espoused the cause of a pretender, and so
done all in their power to paralyse Sauls patriotic
activity? However that may be, we must not forget the
arduous nature of the task to which Saul had braced
himself. He had to put an end to the disastrous in-
cursions of a powerful enemy, the name of which is
given as Péliitim (ἀλλόφυλοι) or PHILISTINES [g..].
The correctness of this name is generally accepted, but
has, elsewhere by the present writer (see PELETHITES,
ZAREPHATH}, been questioned. In particular, there
are passages in the narrative which is commonly used
as evidence for David's outlawry, but may really be a
transformedì, distorted version of a tradition of a struggle
between Saul and David (so Winckler), and also in the
account of the closing scene of Saul's life, and of David's
subsequent exploits, which force the present writer to
hold that the Zarephathites—excluding those who had ex-
patriated themselves and joined Saul’s bodyguard —were,
together with their neighbours the ‘ Amalekites,’ the true
enemies of Saul and for a time at least of David after
him (see PELETHITES, REHOBOTH, ZAREPHATH}. Ina
word, the so-called ‘ Philistines' are Zarephathites, and
their centre was not the ‘ Philistian sea-coast' but the
NEGEB [g.v.].

A striking account is given by one of the narrators of
the opening of the war against the ‘ Philistines’ (1 5. 18}
—of course, before the massacre just referred to.
Jonathan (whose relation to Saul the writer assumes to
be well-Known) had offered an open insult to the
‘ Philistines' (τ. 3); we may perhaps suppose that it
was an insult which affected their religion® The
* Philistines' mustered in force to avenge it. Affrighted
at their appearance, the Israelites took refuge in
mountain-hollows, or crossed over into Gad and Gilead.
From the camp at Michmash (opposite Geba where the
outrage had been committed) the ' Philistines* plundered
the country, secure of meeting with no opposition,
because few of the Israelites had any weapons (1 S.
1319-22; cp FoRK). Only six hundred men, we are
told, remained with Sauì at "the border of Gibeah”;
but one of these was no less than Jonathan. This brave
man, together with his armour-bearer, îs said to have
performed a most audacious exploit (1 S. 14 ; on the text

1 By Aramite we mean ‘Jerahmeelite'. There 15 some reason
to think that Doeg was one of the p*y5 or rather Zarephathites
(cp Gratz's view, col. 1124). For some new evidence see Crif.
Bib. @L has Ἰδουμαῖος.

2 ‘Garrison’ (EV) is not a probabile rendering of 3*4), Like
39 in the Hadad inscription found near, Zenjîrlî, the word
might mean either ‘prefect’ or ‘pillar.’ The meaning ‘ pillar*
is t0 be preferred (cp, however, IsRAEL, $ 13). Jonathan would
have slain more than one person, and wai seems to point to
some religious insult. Probably we should read n5", ‘he
shattered'(Klo.). A sacred pillar seems to be meant; we need
not emend 2°) into ΠΕΣ (cp JemosHAPHAT, n. 2, col. 2352;

Puenicia, ξ 9). In10 5 for ‘the hill of God'(munban ny) read
n'>xon» nya3 ‘Gibeah of the Jerahmeetites.' ‘ Jerahmeelites*
and *Zarephathites' (=" Philistines') are synonymous terms.
The sacred pillar of the Zarephathites (Philistines) caused the
place to be called ' Gibeah of che Jerahmeelites.” From 133 it
‘appears that Geba is meant.

4307

SAUL

of vv. 4 f. see MicuMasH). His object was to surprise
i the outpost of the enemy, whose duty it was to watch
the steep ravine between Geba on the S. and Mich-
mash on the N. {the Wady es-Suwenit). ‘The two men
went secretly down into the valley below Geba, as if on
their way to the caves where the timid Israelites were
hidden. There is in fact a line of such caves on both
sides of the wady, and they are practically impregnable
(cp MicaMAsH). Greeted with scoffs by the enemy,
who noticed their first movements, Jonathan and his
follower afterwards disappeared from view, and climbed
up on the other side! The Philistine outpost was
thrown into confusion by the sudden appearance of the
two men, Jonathan, fatigued as he was with his climb,
smote right and left, and his armour-bearer quickly
despatched the wounded. The ‘ spoilers’ fled in dismay,
and the general panic—so the legend says—was
heightened by an eartliquake (see EARTHQUAKE)
Then Saul, who had (somewhat strangely) been tarry-
ing under the pomegranate tree ‘in the border of Geba'
(142; see GIBEAH, $1; MIGRON), arose, and discover-
ing the absence of Jonathan and his follower, applied to
the priest for guidance, Before there was time, however,
for Ahijah to bring forward the EPHOD [g.v.], circum-
stances had made the duty of the slowly moving king clear
to him. Promptly he led his little band against the dis-
ordered enemy. At once those Israelites who had been
compelled to serve with the ‘ Philistines' withdrew, and
joined the patriots. The " Philistines ' were seen hurry-
ing wildly towards Bethel across the watershed and
down the steep descent of Aijalon, In hot chase the
Israelites followed them. The story is vividly told,
and is evidently ancient. How far is it trustworthy?
Certainly it cannot be a pure romance; but Winckler
has called attention to some very doubiful elements, and
to these the present writer must now add the designation
of the oppressors of the Israelites by the name of
© Philistines.'

We have also an account of a battle between the
Israelites and the Philistines in the valley of Elah
(rather, ha-Elah), or, as the scene appears to be
otherwise described, in Ephes-dammim (1S.171f).
The chief point in it, however, is the encounter of
David ‘with Goliath, which appears to be a reflection
of the story of Elhanan and Goliath in 2 S. 2119, where
the scene of the combat is at Gob (=REHOBOTH).
Probably ὥριος 4d-#ldh and dphes-dammim are cor-
ruptions respectively of ‘imef jerakmee/ and ‘Imet
drammim, synonymous phrases {drammim = jerak-
me'elim) for the valley of Jerahmeel (=the wady εἰς
Milk?). It is important to mention this here, to
prepare the reader for the change in our view of the
localities of the last fatal fight (‘ Gilboa ') necessitated
by our criticism of the text (see 8 4), As has been
shown elsewhere, the period as well as the scene of the
traditional fight with Goliath is misstated in 1 S. 18.

According to the statement in x S. 1447 Δ, Saul had
various other wars in which he was uniformly successful.

It is doubtful from what source this passage

8. Other ;; derived. Evidently the writer is an

WAS sdmirer of Saul, for he does not seruple
to transfer exploits ascribed by tradition to David
(2.812)? to his neglected predecessor. The text of
the passage needs rectification, and should probably
run thus (see Crit. Bib.)—

And when Saul had taken the kingdom over Israel [he
fought against all his enemies round about, against. Musur,
against the Amalekites, against Jerahmeel-Missur, and against
the Zarephathites, and whithersoever he turned, he was

1 Cp Miller, Τάς Least of all Lands, 104; also Conder, Tent-
work, ἃ τὰκ
2 $.812 should probably run thus, or nearly thus (see
εἰ Bib., but cp Davin, 8 8), ‘ From Aram, and from Missur,
and from the Amalekites, and from the Zarephathites, and from
the spoil of Hadad, the Rehobothite, king of Missur' On.
Aram’ (i.e., Jerahmeel), as an emendation of ‘Edom,’ cp
i Jorrmert, $ 2; REZIN; SALT, VALLEY OF} ZAR} ΖΟΒΑΗ.

4308

SAUL

victorious], he showed valour; he smote Amalek, and rescued
Israel out of the hand of his spoiler.

Thus in its original form the passage was not the
close of a history of Saul (Wellh. CZ 246/.), but
rather an introduction to the story of the campaign
against ‘Amalek,’ which is, in fact, the only war of
Sanl described at any length in our traditions before
the tragedy of Mt. ‘ Gilboa’ (see 1 S. 15, and cp AGAG,
Brsor, HAVILAH, SHUR, TELAIM, SAMUEL).

‘The narrative suffers greatiy from the want of pre-
liminary explanations. Are we to stppose that the
bands of raiders had already forced their way to Saul's
territory? Or should we rather assume that the clans
to the 8. of Benjamin had appealed for aid to the king's
generosity? In order to answer these questions we
must read the notice of Saul's expedition against
‘Amalek' in the light of the new but indispensable
theory (see above) that his warfare was chiefly with the
Sarephathites (Pèlistim being a corruption of Sarè-
phathim as ‘Amalek* is a distortion of Jerahme'elim).
It may be assumed that if these raiders penetrated into
Saul's kingdom (the territory of Benjamin was then
perhaps more extensive than afterwards), the Amale-
kites (Jerahmeclites}, whom we can only with some
difficulty distinguish from the Zarephathites, were not
less successful. Itis true, the details respecting Samuel
are, from a critical point of view, questionable. But
we may perhaps accept the statement (so much more
creditable, rightly considered, to Saul than to Samuel)
that on a certain point of religious tradition the seers
represented by Samuel were more conservative than the
king. The statement is that Samuel was highly dis-
pleased because, after Saul had ‘utterly destroyed*
(evnm) all ‘the warriors' {bypn) of Amalek, he spared
Agag and ‘the best of the sheep and the oxen' (22. 8.£),
thus violating the fundamental religious custom (see
BAN) of devoting enemies taken in war, and even the
animals which belonged to them, to the wrathful God of
Israel (cp τ 8. 2818). Still this, even if correct, was
surely not the only or the chief reason why the seer
(or the seers ὃ) broke off intercourse with the king. As
most agree, there was some other cause for the breach
which can only be divined.

We must not, of course, underrate the benefit of the
application of methodical criticism to the corrupt proper
names in this section (ch, 15); see BESOR, HAVILAH,
SHur, TELAIM, and especially JERAHMEEL, Thus, in
τ. ἃ we should do well to read, ‘I have marked that
which Jerahmeel did to Israel’ (the hostile section of
the great Jerahmeelite people is intended), and should
emend ‘Amalek’ and ‘Amalekites' throughout ac-
cordingly. In v. 12 the word ‘Jerahmeel' has under-
gone fresh transformations which obscure the narrative,
Not improbably we should read, ‘It was told Samuel
(saying), Saul came to Jerahmeel, and, behold he
destroyed the Jerahmeelites, and went down to Gilgal'
(181512; sce Crif δὲδ.). These gains are of the
utmost value from the point of view of intelligibility.
It is to be feared, however, that no textual criticism
can make the narrative quite satisfactory as a piece of
history. First of all, the success of Saul's expedition
is evidentiy much exaggerated. If the ‘Amalekites”
had really been so completely crushed, we cannot
believe that they would so soon have recovered from
their overthrow. Next, the rupture between Samuel
and the king (as was remarked above) is by no
means fully intelligibile. H. P. Smith considers the
‘rejection’ of Saul by Samuel in the name of his God
to be an imaginary justification of the anointing of
David as king; if David was to be anointed, it was
clear that Saul must have been rejected. We may also
plausibly hold that the ‘rejection’ seemed to the ancients
to account for Saul's subsequent calamity. It remains
true, however, that the cause of the 'rejection' given

in 1 S. 15 is far from adequate.
As an additional reason it was related (1 5. 137-154) that

188 4309

SAUL

Saul had offered a sacrifice himself instead of waiting for
Samuel, and (he object of the narrative in 1S.284-25 can
hardly ‘have been different) that before the fatal struggle on
*Gilboa’ Saul applied to a necromancer at En-dor (see ἘΝΡΟΚῚ
Harop, WELLOr)—anact of'infidelity to Vabwè which naturally
deprived Saul of the protection of his God. A modern historian
(Kittel, 7/754. 2136) suggests a more critical reason, which, how=
ever, is not entirely satisfactory, He thinks that the estrange-
ment of Samuel from Saul may have been caused by Saul’s
continued inattention to the fate of the ark, and his want of
comprehension of the peculiar religious character of Israel,

It is usual {in spite of the parallel feature in the
legend of Alexander!) to accept the report of Saul's
morbid melancholy alternating with fits of

«τα Bene. passion as historical, and {0 connect with
ΤΟ ji his first acquaintance with David (cp
MADNESS) Certainly there was enough in the

manifold difficulty of the king's position to affect his
mind injuriously; but the circumstances in connec-
tion with which ît is mentioned do not inspire us with
much confidence. The whole story of Saul's relations
with David, which has in general been regarded as
founded on fact (see DaviID, $$ 1-4), has received a
great shock from the investigations of Winckler. Apart
from some questionable details în this scholar's criticism,
it appears to be at any rate very unsafe to follow the
tradition in its present form. That David early became
attached to Saul, partly by loyalty, partly by a family
tie (cp MERAB, MICHAL), as the narratives represent, is,
in the light of Wincekler's criticism, very improbable.
David appears to have been an ambitious freebooter
from the Negeb who sought to carve out a realm for
himself (see JUDAH, $$ 4/), starting first of all from
‘Adullam'—à.e., the southern ‘Carmel’ (Jerahmeel)—
and afterwards, when that attempt was baffled, renewing
his enterprise from Halusah (‘ Ziklag'). Of course, to
say this, is not to deny that he may have possessed
some attractive qualities in which Saul was deficient,
and which not only favoured his ambitious schemes, but
also facilitated the idealising process of later narrators.
We now hasten on to the pathetic closing scene of the
life of the hapless king,
We have two versions of the ancient tradition: @,
chaps. 28 and 81 belong to one document ; 3, chaps. 27
29 and 2 S. 1 belong to another.®
40. Last battle. 1n°% the camp of the © Philistines" is
placed at Shunem ; in 3 at APHEK [g.0.] In a we
have the strangely fascinating story of the ‘witch of
Endor’; în 3, a great deal of interesting information
respecting David, who was at that time at Ziklag or
rather Halisah, a vassal of Achish {or Nahash?), king
of Gath or REHOBOTH [g.v.] in the Negeb. ‘There are
also differences between the two accounts relative to the
death of Saul. Neither of the two stories makes it clear
what the precise object of the ‘ Philistines’ was. An
able geographer holds that they sought ‘either to
subjugate all the low country and so confine Israel
to the hills, or else to secure their caravan route to
Damascus and the Fast from Israel’s descents upon ît
by the roads from Bezek to Beth-shan and across
Gilboa' (G. A. Smith, #G 402). Hence, when Saul
had taken up his position on Mt. Gilboa (or rather
Haggilboa yubin), which is taken to be the ridge running
SE. from the eastern end of the great central plain, the
‘ Philistines' did not hesitate to attack him on his superior
position (see GILBOA ; HAROD, WELL OF). Τὸ dislodge
him was imperative, because from Gilboa he could
descend at will either on Jezreel or on the Jordan
valley. Before the battle, as one of the documents
states, the despondent king, who neither by dreams,
nor by Urim, nor by prophets could obtain any oracle
from Yahwè (28615), applied to a female necromancer
at En-dor, of whom he had heard from his servants.
In former times he had done all in his power to ex-
terminate such magicians from his realm; but now he
relapsed into the ancient superstition (see DIVINATION,

1 Winckler, G/2172.
2 See H. P. Smith, SawweZ, Introd. pp. καῖν 7

4310

SAUL

$ 4). Accordingly the necromancer called up the shade
of Samuel, who disclosed the terrible fact that on the
morrow the king would die, and his army would be
worsted, as a punishment for his disobedience in the
matter of ‘Amalek.'1 On hearing this, Saul fell to the
ground ; it is added that he had not eaten bread the
whole day and the whole night, yet he could hardly be
induced to break his fast. After this meal, we are told,
Saul and his servants ‘rose up and went away that
night' (2820-25). It is impossible te decide how far the
story is based on fact.® As it stands, it appears to be
meant as an explanation of Saul's desertion by his God
(see $ 3). Whether in any degree historical or not,
the narrative is highly natural, though considerable
doubt attaches to the place-name, En-dor (see ENDOR ;
Haro, WELL ΟΕ : and the criticism below}
Thus far we have provisionally assumed the correct-
ness of the MT. There is, however, a strong prob-
ability that the text of both forms of
Ri the tradition îs vitiated by a great
" misunderstanding, and that here, as
in many other cases, there is an underlying tradition
very different from that represented by the text. The
geographical obscurity of the present text of 1 5. 28 f
31, is undeniable ; one may therefore naturally suspect
corruption. It is, moreover, difficult to believe that the
form ‘ Philistines' is correct in chaps. 28 £ and 31,
when close by (3015; see PELEIHITES) it has only
been introduced by a textual error. The case is very
similar to that of a passage in the famous elegy
(2 S. 120). Whatever we may think of ‘Gath’ (the
name is far from certain —see REHOBOTH), we can
hardly say that the mention of ‘Ashkelon’ was to be
expected, and even if we defend ‘FPhilistines) we
cannot assert that ‘uncircumeised’ forms a natural
parallel to it.* ‘Jezreel’ (x S.29111) needs no cor-
rection; the place intended is the Jezreel in the
hill-country of Judah, not far from Carmel (i.e,
Jerahmeel), to which David's wife Ahinoam by birth
belonged. But the other names have been partly
corrupted, partty manipulated, by an editor, till a com-
pletely false geographical setting of the narrative has
been produced, The scene of the military operations
has been supposed to be in the N., whereas it was really
in the S. It is not the least of the arguments for the
correctness of this view that it enables us to emend and
explain a historical notice (τ 5. 817) which has been a
great trouble to commentators {see ISRAEL, $ 16, and
cp HPSm.), but may, with the utmost probability,
be read thus :—‘ And when the men of Israel who were
in Arab-jerahmeel [z.e., Jerahmeel in N. Arabia] saw
that the men of Saul had fled and that Saul and his
sons were dead, they forsook the cities and fled, and
the Zarephathites came and dwelt in them,” The cities
referred to are the ‘cities of the Jerahmeelites,' where,
according to 1 5. 8029, ‘elders of Judah' had quite
lately been residing.
We must briefly ‘indicate the emendations referred to;
the names form the skeleton of the history. For ‘Shunem*

Conv, 15.234) and ‘Beth-shan' (e m9, 1 5.31 10) it is the
simplest course to read ‘Eshean” (yyw) and ‘Beer-sheha '
(2 1x5) The same place is no doubt intended by both
forms; see Esuravn. Perhaps pya (291) should be pyns, ‘at
Maon.” For “Gilboa' (y353) or rather Haggilboa (35m) we
should restore ‘Amalek’ (bmp) or ‘Jeraltmeel” uomo):
so; too, in 2S.lar. For ‘to Aphek' (pn, 291) we should
read ‘to Gibeah’ (2531; the same etror is probable in
To 1553; cp also nepg in 91 [see APHIAH]}; the ‘Gibeah’ of
osh. 1557 (see GIBEAH, 1) or that of Judg,71 seems to be
meant. ‘The house of Ashtaroth' (money n'3, 81 10) should
probably be ‘ Beth-sarephath® (pony n'u), better known to us as

1 Probably the original tradition represented the ‘ Amalekites *
and the ‘Philistines' as allied on this occasion, so that the
retribution to Saul would be exactly proportioned to his guilt.

2 Stade (GV/ 1 255) rejects the narrative; cp Schwally, Das
Leben nack dem Tode, 73 νὴ Budde and Kittel, on the other
hand, accept it as historical

$ The fourth line of the stanza cught, like the others, to
contain an ethnic name,

481:

SAUL

ὁ Beth-peley* (bo ns, rather nbs pr, where nba comes from
nbrs [see PeLeratTes); the situation is suitable. ‘Jabesh-
gilead' ($ 1) should be ‘Beth-gilgal'; ‘Ziklag’ should be
Haltisah, and Endor (1) 009} should be En-@rad (πὴ! py).
Tn Judg-71 En-hàrod is combined with Gibeath-hammoreh or
rather Gibeath-jerahmeel [see Moren], and in 2 $.2325/ a
Harodite and a Paltite are mentioned together ; Arad and Beth-
pelet (‘ En-dor* and ‘Beth-ashtaroth ') are, if our explanations
are correct, mentioned as in the same district in the narrative
which contains chaps, 29 31, To pass now t0 the elegy: the
true names in 2 S.120 are Rehoboth, Halisah, Sarephathim,
and Jerabme'elim.i

These, then, are in all probability the historical
circumstances of the great crisis. The Zarephathites,

probabiy with the aid of the ‘ Amalek-

4d. Saul's PO, È
Ν rg Ites’ {cp 2 5.160), were on their
desti arno e march northwards; David, lord of

Halùsah (ZikLAG), narrowly escaped
accompanying them. Saul and his army went to meet
the enemy, hoping to deal them such a blow as
would effectually stop their incursions. He encamped,
shifting his: position from Maon by Jezreel (2θι,
emended text} to the hills near ‘Carmel’ (i.e., Jerah-
meel), one of which we suppose to have been
specially called Gibeah or Gibeath-jerahmeel, It
was at this Gibeah (certainly not at any place called
‘Aphek') that the Zarephathites encamped. Not
far off was Arad, whither Saul may perhaps have
gone to consult a necromancer; Arad was presumably
one of the ‘cities of the Jerahmeelites' (τ S.3029)
occupied by the Judahites. The original encampment
of the Zarephathites was probably at Beersheba,® and it
was perhaps on the ridge which runs from the southern
‘Carmel' WSW. towards Beersheba that the fate of
Saul was sealed, ‘The Zarephathites attacked him
fiercely. After a heroic resistance, he gave way, and
bade his armour-bearer thrust him through with a
sword, on account of a critical blow which had been
dealt him by a great stone.? His attendant, however,
hesitating τὸ do his bidding.4 the hapless king is said
(but this is by no means certain) to have taken his own
life (314).

A different tradition is reported în 2 S.1 (the sequel
of chaps. 29, 30), where the fate which in 1 S.814
Saul is said to have deprecated, actually befalls him
(cp IskAEL, $ 15). An‘Amalekite’ (i.e., Jerahmeelite),
who ‘happened by chance upon Mt. Gilboa' (v. 6,
EV), but who, as the narrator probably means us to
suppose, had his own reason for being on the spot,
slays Saul. We need not, with Stade (Ὁ ΡῈ 1258) reject
the story altogether, though we must at any rate admit
that it has been touched up by the writer who records
it. Certaînly ît îs în harmony with the well-Kknown
elegy ascribed to David, where the destined successor
of Saul is represented as forbidding the sad news to be
publisher in Halisah, lest the malicious Jerahmeetite
women should triumph {see translation in col. 2334,
and compare 1 S,314a, ‘Iest the Jerahmeelites come
and thrust me through").

In this connection ît may be noticed that the elegy says
nothing of Saul's ‘sons, which is in accordance with the fact

that 2 S. 2112 speaks only of the bones of Saul and Jonathan
his son Very probably the statement in 1 S. 312 respecting

1 For ha, nin and fi9prs, o'ag0s, Di:
Book ὁ, $ 2. ᾿

2 Both locations (reading ‘Gibeah "for ‘Aphek,' and ‘ Eshean”
or ‘Beersheba” for ‘Shunem’) are plausible ; ‘but Beersheba
naturally comes before Gibeah.' Beersheba was doubtless more
important than Gibeah ; hence the omission of ‘Gibeah" in one
document and the probable reference to Beersheba in 81 10.

3 Read probably, in 2. 3, ὙΠΙΟΠΡῚ niasna ovnion er
DI PA, ‘and those who cast (stones) with'engines found lim,
and they crushed him between the thighs.' See Che. Κ᾿ τῇ, Τ᾽
11137- We can now see the full force of Saul's remark to his
armour-bearer, Ὁ. 42, ‘lest these Jerahmeelites come and
thrust me through,” etc. ; p:5*p (as often elsewhere) should be
obinn See Crik δι
, 4. Unlike the armour-bearer οἵα grandson of Merodach-baladan
in a similar case (ΑΚ 22125).

3 The “Amalekites’ (Jerahmeelites), as we have seen, had
possibly joined the Zarephathites.

4312

See JASHER,

SAUL

Abinadab and Malchishua is incorrect (cp $ 6) ‘Abinadab’
seems to the present writer to be a double of ‘Tonathan®
( Nathan ® and * Nadab’ confounded), and ‘ Malchitua' to be a
development (see $ 5) of ‘ Jerahme'el} (whose name is misread
Ishbosheth). The latter certainly did not fall on the field of
battle. On the contrary he lived to succeed his father on the
throne. Tradition not impossibly said that he was lame {see
MEPHIBOSHETH).

The story of the death of Saul in its present form is
a narrative of the heroic but useless sacrifice of the king's
life for the deliverance of Israel from the Philistines.
That we have had to interfere with it may be a subject
for regret, but not for surprise. The story of Saul and
of his relations with David was of course told and re-
told, edited and re-edited, and could not but be
considerabiy modified in the process. ‘Textual cor-
ruption, too, naturally increased the confusion. ‘The
story becomes to some extent intelligible only when the
textual errors have been removed by a methodical
criticism. We have also to consider alterations due to
later hands. It was the editor who placed the story of
the ‘witch of Endor' where it now stands. Endor (or
En-harod?) is in the N.;1 but the scene of the great
battle was in the S. The account of the indignities
offered to the bodies of the king and of his sons (vv. 9
10; see 412, 710522), however, has the impress of truth,
and we can well believe that fierce resentment arose in
the city so gallantly liberated by Saul. All night the
warriors of Beth-gilgal? in Benjamin are said to have
journeyed. Not the northern fortress of Beth-shan, but
more possibly Beer-sheba was their goal; there they
found the dead bodies of the heroes fastened to the city
walls. Piously they took them down and brought them
to Beth-gilgal, where they raised a fitting dirge over
them,3 and gave an honoured burial to the bones
beneath the sacred tree {see TAMARISK). Afterwards,
we are told, David sent his warrior Benaiah ὁ for them,
and they were reinterred in the family grave at Shalisha
(not 'Zela’) near Beth-gilgal (see ZeLAR, and cp
RIZPAH).

There is a third reference to this generous action in 2 S. 2.45-7
which needs elucidation. Vw. 44 5 should probably run thus,—
‘And they told David, “The men of Berhegligal have buried
Saul under the Asherah” (πη DER; cp 1 8. 81 13, above).
And David sent presents (Ὁ) 00) to the men of Jabesh-gilgal,'
etc. In 2. 6 EV's ‘will requite you this kindness' should be
‘show you this friendliness.’ David sends presents, nominally
to acknowledge the generous act of the men of Beth-gilgal, but
really to induce them to work for the extension of his sovereignty
over Benjamin. ‘Your lord” means ‘the lord of Benjamin,"
not ‘the ford of Gilead.”

The impression which Saul produced on the later
editor of the tradition was not on the whole favourable,

᾿ His fine physical gifts, his ardent
δ, Saul'a character. piriotism, andhisinextinguishable
courage were readily acknowledged (τ 5. 1073} Mln
187 1732/. cannot be quoted on the other side); but
we also hear of fits of passion and cruelty (1 S. 2027-34
226-19), of a dangerous religious scrupulosity (τ S.
14 36-45),5 and (cp $ 4) of sudden accesses of a disturb-

1 Of course there îs the possibility that dor of En-dor (ai jy)
may have come from ‘Arad (74), and that the original story may
have been recast in accordance with a later view of the scene of
the confliet. This may be the simplest solution of the problem.

2 Not Jabesh-gilead (see 8 τ).

8 Reading pn5 in5y» (Klo. Budde). H. P. Smith's objection
is of no weight ; the mourning is naturally mentioned before the
burial (Klo. refers to 251 283). W. R. Smith's suggestion
(δῶν 352), that the buming (1917) may have had a religious
intention, is ingenious ; but see MOURNING.

4 2 5.21 τῷ 65 see Klostermann, ad ἔσο.

5 Saul, it appears, had tabooed all eating before sunset. The
gnly person iwho tasted food was Jonathan, who had not heard
Saul impose the taboo. Yahwè was believed to be offended by
this transgression. By the sacred lot (see URIM AND THUMMIM)
Jonathan was found to be the culprit, and condemned by his
father to death. But ‘the people ransomzed Jonathan that he
died not’ (v, 4:, MT), How this was effected, we are not told.
Ewald supposes that it was by the substitution of another human
life of less value; Kittel (/#sf 2116) and Driver (note ad /oc.)
modify this view. But (5᾽Ξ προσεύξατο περί points to the read-
ing Sx 35555, ‘and they acted as arbitrators concerning

Conathan), δι, they mediated between Jonathan and the
4313

SAUL

ing melancholy {r S.1614 18:0 199) This mental
disturbance is described (in 1810) by the same phrase
(5y nb) that is used elsewhere for that heightening of
the physical powers under the influence of rage against
Yahwéè's enemies which characterised the successful
great warriors and athletes. Was it ἃ melancholy
produced by a wild longing for battle?! Was it ‘but
the morbid reflex of the prophetic inspiration of Saul's
heroic period'?? Does the story of the witch of Endor
suggest that it was a frenzied anticipation of evil for
Saul himself and his people? Oris it historical at
all? May not the statement be due to the influence of
a wide-spread Oriental tale (see $ 4)? At any rate it is
connected with statements respecting David which, if our
criticism is justified, cannot be evenapproximately correct,
‘Tradition has in fact bcen at once too kind to David
and too unkind to his predecessor, That Saul had
good cause to oppose David has been stated already
(8 4), and even if we consider the loyalty of the men of
Beth-gilgal (1 5. 811τ 7) to be largely the result of
clan-loyalty (since Jabesh-gilead = Beth-gilead = Beth-
jerahmeel), it is plain that nothing had been done
by Saul which seemed to his fellow-clansmen to be
unworthy of a great Israelite. Kittel (Z/5s4 21357)
has given an eloquent and sympathetic portrait 5 of the
heroic king to all of which one would gladly subscribe
if the historical evidence were slightly stronger. The
chief difficulty connected with Saul is his massacre of
the priests of Gibeon (‘ Nob’); but we cannot say that
we know the circumstances sufficiently well to pass a
perempiory judgment.

The best attested names in Saul's family are those of
his concubine Rizpah and his son Jonathan, unless

6. Saut's i2deed Jonathan was originally represented

È as Saul's brother.4 ABINADAB and
family. MALCHISHUA, however (15.312; cp 1 Ch.
833 939, and see above, $ 4), are suspicious. Abi.

nadab is probably a variant of ‘ Jonathan,” Malchishua a
corruption of ‘Jerahme'el [béne} Sh&'ùl.' The names
of the two sons of Rizpah (2 S.218), Armoni and
Mephibosheth, are also doubtful. Armoni is probably
‘aa corruption of ‘ Abinadab'; Mephibosheth seems to be
borrowed from one of the two historic ‘ Mephibosheths.'
Tradition probably did not preserve the names of
the two hapless sons of Saul and Rizpah. The present
writer has suggested that both Eshbaal (1 Ch. 833) and
Ishbosheth may be corruptions of Jerahme'el or Ishmael,
and a similar origin may with reasonable probability
be assigned to the current name of Saul's grandson {see
MEPHIBOSHETR, and cp Crit, Bib.).

It is remarkable that, according to a new theory which fits în
with a weli-supported theory of the course of the history of
Israel, no less than eleven of the personal names connected în
MT with the family of Saul are corruptions of Jerahmeel and
Ishmael, or of fragments of those names. These are— MERAB,
Mic®at, PaLTIEL, ADRIEL, MEFHIBOSHETH, ESHBAAL,
Isssostera, MeRIBgaAL, MicHa, Macmk, AmmeL.
This theory throws doubt on the genealogy in 1 Ch. 833.{£
939, which was possibly inserted to gratify a post.exilic
fumily professedly descended from Saul. It is obvious that
some of the names must be variants of the name of the same
person; also that the names Jerahmeel or Ishmael were given,
sometimes at least, as a substitute for the true name which had
been forgotten. Jerahme'el or Jerabme'elith was in fact most
probably the name of Saul's clan (see $ 1), and Beth-jerahmeel
that of the chief seat of the clan Here probably ‘Mephi.
bosheth' resided, not in ‘the house of Machir, the son of
Armiel, in Lo-debar'5(2 5.94). See $ τ, and cp MeHoLA-
THITE, SHEBA,

sacred custom or law.
‘they imposed a fine on Jonathan.”
assumes a mythological basis for the detail.

1 Schwally, Semrtische Ariegsaltertiimer, 1 105.

2 Budde, Meligion of Israel to the Exile, 93.

3 See also Tiele, Vergelijtende Geschiedenis van de Egypt.
en Mesopotam. Godsdiensten (1872), 607.

4 This is a startling suggestion of Winckler (ΟἹ 2 191), based
on 25.1227: Compare the doubt (Sopom, $ 10} whether Lot
was not originally Abraham's brother.

5 The repetition of the elaborate description in 25.95 Îs
suspicious. Note here, to supplement Lo-DERAR, that “3 in
31 15 may bave arisen cut of n°9; and pù cut of πρὸ, which

4314

So Klostermann, who paraphrases,
[Winckler, G/ 2163/53
Né

SAVARAN

2. (ΕΝ SHAUL). An early Edomite king (Gen.
3637/ 1Ch.148f) Was he, however, an Edomite or a
Jerahmeelite? pix and par are so much alike that we
may choose that reading which best suits the circum-
stances. On the whole, πην, i.e., Sony (Jerahmeel),
best accords with the notices of the kings, though a
connected examination of these would be required to
make this appear as probable as it really 18, To
suppose that this Shaul was a foreign conqueror and
founder of a dynasty,! is a serious error. . Certainly it
is plausible at first sight to identify ‘the river’ (in the
phrase ‘Rehoboth by the river') with the Euphrates
{see Onk.), and to compare the Rehoboth-Ir of Gen.
1011. Sayce (4/65. Lech. 55) would even identify
our Rehoboth with Babylon, and make Saul the
Hebraised form of Savul or Sawul (cp 8 1), which
he regards as a name of the Babylonian sun-god ;?
Furrer, however, thinks of a place called RaZada, on the
W. side of the Euphrates (Riehm's /W2 1201). But
all this is even hazier than the speculations about Reho-
both-Ir in Gen. 10rr. aan and oso “nm (Gen, 18 18) may
both mean ‘the stream of Mus , some wady
in the Negeb, perhaps the Wady el-'Arig, the border-
stream of the N. Arabian land of Musri (see EGYPT,
BROOK OF; ABEL-MIZRAIM, but cp SHIHOR), so that
‘Rehoboth' is er-Ruhaibeh, the REHOBOTH (g.7.) of
Gen. 2622, SW. of Beersheba. Cp BELA, PETHOR.
See also SHAUL.

Sce WMM ds. x. Ewr. 134 (RP 2115) Anancient Egyptian
text mentions Ra-ph and R-hu-bw-ra-ti next to Nabaru (the
‘stream ') The Robotha in Gebalene (05 28877; 14175) is
not to be compared, T.K.C.

SAVARAN (ἀγὰρὰν [AxV]), 1 Mace. 643, RV
‘Avaran.’ See ELEAZAR, 9; MACCABEES Ì,, $ 3 [2].

SAVIAS(caoyia[A]), 1 Esd.82= Ezra 74 Uzzi[1].

SAW. The saws of the Egyptians, so far as known,
were all straight and single-handed; but the double-
handed saw seems to have been known to the Assyrians
{(Layard, Nin. and Bab., 195), and we suppose from
the reference in 1 K. must have been known to the
Hebrews. ΟΡ HANDICRAFTS, $ af On the Egyptian
saws see especially Petrie, Temple of Gisek, 1737
Petrie infers that the blades of the saws were of bronze,
and that jewel-points were sometimes fixed in the teeth.
Circular saws were also employed. According to
Schliemann (7izy1s, 264 f) the ancient Mycenean saw
took the form of an ordinary knife or blade. See,
further, Diet. Class. Ant., s.v. ‘ serra,’ and for Egyptian
saws, Wilk. Arc. Eg. 2261, and illustration, 14or {nos.
7,8)

The OT words for ‘saw’ are:

1. masitr, “N, πρίων, serra, used for cutting wood, Is.
101st.

2. mdgiràh, N20, 28.1231 P τ ΟΝ. 2038 (in 1 Ch 90 36 it ἔς
usual to emend ΠῚ} into motzo, ‘axes,’ after 25.123: [so
already EV}); used for cutting stone, 1K.T9 (ἐκ διαστήματος
=mynmi, cp 66). See Axe, 6.

[There is a remarkable difference of expression
between 1 Ch. 203 and 2 S. 1231, The 1 Ch. passage
has mina “en, ‘and he sawed (them) with saws' (the
verb corresponding to nen), διέπρισεν [GB ἔκρισεν ἐν]
πρίοσιν ; Vg. fecit super eos tribulas . .. ita ut dis.
secarentur δὲ Contererentur. 25,193: has mina cin,
καὶ ἔθηκεν ἐν τῷ πριόνι (08° διέπρισεν ἐν πρίοσι); ΝΕ.
serravit. That the Chronicler's statement gives a gross

caricature of David, is becoming more and more generally

was a corruption of bb; Cp ‘Tabesh-rilead’ în 1 S.11 for
“Beth-gilgal.’ Also that 297 μὺ in Am. 613 is most probably a
corruption of πρὸ} nv3 (Beth-gilead). The two cities conquered
by the Israelites appesr to have been Beth-gilead_ie., Beth-
jerahmeel—and either Mahanaim or Horonaim. See further
MaKaNAIM, and cp Crif. Bi.

1 See Buhl, Gesck. der Edomiter, 47.

3 To illustrate Sayce's theory, see Schr. AAT) 576
(=COT 2256). Del. Ass. YWE explains samsllu, ‘a tree or
plant." The same ideograph elsewhere=x7w, ‘ light."

4315

SCARLET

admitted, and G. Hoffmann's explanation {‘he set them
at the saw and at the iron pickaxes,' etc. ) gains ground.
The difficulties in this explanation are referred to by
Driver (785 228 3}; but the corruptness of the whole
passage, perhaps, has not been adequately realised,
except by Klostermann, That able critic's restoration,
‘however, does not produce very good Hebrew. Ifwe take
due account of the three verbs www, Diem, and <3ym, the
general meaning of the passage ought to be clear. The
people of Rabbah of the b'ne Jerahmeel (not Rabbath-
ammon) were ‘brought out’ from their city, and
‘ placed’ in other parts of David's realm; so he ‘made
{them} to pass’ from Jerahmeel.? mi» must, therefore,
be a place-name.® This fits in with other results of a
more searching criticism of the history of David and
Solomon. Cp SoLomon, and see Crif 258.
τι Κι C.]

SCAB. 1. 273, q4r454, Dt. 2827 AV, RV ‘scurvy.”
See Diseases, 3.
2, nni, va/légheth, Lev, 21 20 22 22%. Sec DISEASES, 4.

SCAFFOLD (5, Bacic, δας) in EV of 2 Ch. 613
denotes the specially-made platform or stage of bronze
on which Solomon stood and kneeled at the dedication
of the temple. X'iyydr is elsewhere rendered pot, basin,
or laver ; and interpreters, therefore, have been led to
suppose that Solomon's piatform also was ‘probably
round, bowl-like in shape' (so BDB, s.v.); this, how-
ever, is not a likely shape, nor is it suggested by the
terms of length, breadth (each 5 cubits), and height
(3 cubits) in which its dimensions are given. Kloster-
mann followed by Oetili («4 /oc.) proposes, therefore,
to emend to }»5 (/n3); cp (δ, Veg. (cp also }9, used
of the laver; *v3, itself, is sometimes written vo).

‘With the measurements the description of the "base' in
1K.7 27 (sce LAVER, $ 1): Far (&, Jos. five) cubits long, the
same in breadth, and three (05, Jos. six) high. The position,
too, would correspond with P's statement (see LaveR, $ 2), as
also would the inference that there was only oxe base in the
temple. Finally, it should be noticed, that by np», for
which EV has ‘stood upon it," means equally naturally ‘stood
by the side of it ' (on this not infrequent use of by, see BDR σῦν
7562), in which case the MT ὙΡΞ may refer to the ‘laver’
itself, and no emendation is necessary.

2. πόρον AVmg., Neh.94. See STAIRS, 3.

SCALL (PMI, Lev.1330 7). See LEPROSY, 8 2.

SCAPEGOAT ΟΝ), Lev. 16877 AV, RV Azazet.

SCARECROW (mpoBackanion). Baruch 670 [69].
See GARDEN, $ 9 (end), Ewald, Graetz, Giesebrecht,
εἴς,, restore the ‘scarecrow’ in Jer. 105 (late), and
ἘΞ. accordingly renders ngipo ἼΡΠΞ, ‘like a pillar in
a garden of cucumbers.'

SCARLET is used in EV as rendering the following
words and phrases :—

1. Sant, “ag (Gen. 3828 and many other places), a
common word of uncertain etymology, which may be
connected either with Ar. sara—accordìng to Philippi
{ZDMG 3279) this root has for its original sense ‘to be
bright or shining’—or with Ass. Jixîfx, ‘a dyed cloth.
The plur. 52x77 is found twice, Is. 118 Prov. 3121.

2. The fuller μὲ /044244 (nghin vg, lit ‘worm:
scarlet') occurs in Lev. 14 (five times) and în Nu. 196.
3. Another equivalent phrase is the #0/a'a/% Sinz (ny%in
θν lit. 'scarlet -worm ') so frequent in Exodus, as well
as (4) the shorter 20/4 (y%im) of Is. 118 (EV ‘crimson’)
and Lam.4s. 5. A Pu'al participle, méfielia'im
(’ybnp, derived from 20/2‘), occurs once (Nah. 23 [4]) to
signify ‘clothed in scarlet.' 8

1 ambo @- 29), palo @. 30), and jabo (συ. 31; prefixed 3
should be p) all probably come from Sxpm.

2 nitao (cp Asa, 6) is a variant to rivi. Read, perhaps,
D'ni or ΟῚ ‘(the land of) the Geshurites' or ‘Girzites.

3 But see Skiok, $ 3, and cp Crit. Bib.

4316

SCEPTRE

6. κόκκινος in Mt. 2728 Heb, 919 Rev. 173 has, no
doubt, the same meaning as #27, of which it is (65
rendering. See CRIMSON.

7. argéwdnd, xy)358, the Aram. equivalent of ima
is in Dan. 5716 29 rendered ‘scarlet’ in AV (AVE RV
* purple '), and AVME. suggests the same rendering for
the Hebrew word in Ezek. 277. See COLOURS, $ 14; |
PURPLE. NM. |

SCEPTRE. 1. DIP, ἔδδεέ, cp Ass. Fibra. In Nu
2417 (EV) we read of a ‘sceptre’ which shall smite

Moab. ’Fhe translators apparently take
1. Terms. \sceptre' as a symbolic expression for
‘king.'. Here, however, as also în Ps. 29 (EV ‘rod'),
Set seems to denote rather a warlike instrument—a
mace. For Egyptian representations of such a weapon
see Wilk. Arc. Eg.1216/. 8 frontispiece; some, too,
will remember the large heavy maces of limestone
with relief sculptures, of the period before the sixth
dynasty, exhibited lately (1900) in London, and found
by Mr. Quibell at Kòm el-Ahmar {Hierakonpolis). An
‘iron ἔδδεξ᾽ is referred to in the traditional text of Ps.
29; such a weapon was, at any rate, known to the last
editor of the Psalter (cp the σιδηρείη κορύνη of //.7 140).
For a representation of ASur-nasir-pal holding a short
staff or sceptre see Perrot-Chipiez, «γέ in Ass. 2123;
and for another of Sargon with a long one, see SARGON.
In Ps. 1255 ‘sceptre’ is adequate (so ΕΝ, AV ‘rod‘);
in Is. 143 (EV sceptre) we seem to need ‘staff’ as a
parallel τὸ ‘rod.’ Less common are :—

2. Ὁ ΞΡ, Sardif, a late form of set, perhaps influenced by
σκῆπτρον (Κῦ. Lekzgeb. 2 152), only in Esth. 4115284.

3. PRI, sed40658, «ppi, Nu. 2118 ἘΝῚ (1 miyet), Gen,
4010 ΒΝ (Il vaw): Ps. 60718] RV (=Ps.1088[9] RV) In all
these three passages, however, Cheyne suspects that the text is
corrupt. In Nu. 2118 and in Ps. 607 [8] Ὁ has probably come
from Sanno Jerahmeel (Che.), and in Gen. 4910 ‘© means a ruler
(read, in ll, δεῖ). See Ssiton, 1, Che. Ps.(2), and Crif. Βίδιν
but cp Moore, /u47es, 153 (on Judg. 5.14).

As to the form of the sceptre, it is plausible to hold
that it was a reminiscence of the shepherd's staff or
perhaps crook (cp Ass. γε' ἄτα πρὸ, [1] shep-
herd, [2] ruler). Koran, Sur. 2017 £ may be
quoted in illustration ‘What is that in thy right
hand, O Moses?’ Said he, 'It is my staff on which I
Jean, and wherewith I beat down leaves for my flock,
and for which I have other uses.' We find the shep-
herd's erook (combined with the whip— mistaken by
Diod. Siculus [33] for a plough) as an emblem of ;
Egyptian royalty and vice-royalty; see Erman, £g.
60, 63, also Wilk. Arc. Eg. 837: (early, and Seti L.}
and 3128 (Ah, son of Athor), 1183 (πο. 7). As the
emblem of Hebrew royalty we find not only a ‘rod’or !
staff (Ezek. 191114) but a spear (4dr5/%, from ἀπ,
‘to bend, curve, bend down'}, 18. 1810 226; in Is.24
Joel 310 the ‘spear’ is parallel to the ‘ pruning-hook,'
out of which it might conceivably, according to the
writers, be made,

To illustrate the ‘golden sceptre' of Esth.4r1 52 84, see
Middleton in £2, s.v. ‘Sceptre'; Diet. Gr. and Rom. Antig.,
5.0. 'Sceptrum'; and Frazer, Paws, 5 210,7

SCEVA i(ckeyac). ‘a Jew, a chief-priest," whose
seven ‘sons’ (or disciples [Baur]) practised exorcism
at Ephesus, with the results described with reference to
two of them (τ. 16 ἀμφοτέρων, but TR αὐτῶν) in Acts
1914-17. See ExorcIsts. Schiirer thinks that ἀρχιερέως
(gen.) in τ. 34 means ‘member of a high-priestly
family.’ More plausibly we might read ἀρχισυναγώγου ;
the ἱερέως of D seems too slight an emendation. As to
the name Sceva, it may be a Greecised Latin name
(Blass). τ΄ κι C.

SCHOOLS. See EDUCATION.

BCIMITAR (akiNakHc), Judith 136 169 RV, AV
*fauchion.’ See SworD, WEAPONS, $ I.

SCORPION (ΞΡ, ᾿σξγαδ, ckopmtioc). Sccrpions
are especially common ἴῃ the peninsula of Sinai and the

4317

2. Form.

«fish.

SCORPION

desert of et-Tih (cp Dt. 815, and see AKRABBIM), and
the Arabian desert generally,

* Scorpions lurk under the cool stones,’ says Doughty ;
“I have found them in my tent, upon my clothing, but
never had any hurt. I have seen
many grown persons and children
bitten, but the sting is not perilous; some wise man is
called to “read” over them' (47. Des. 1328; Doughty's
statements about Arabia must not be taken too gener-
ally; cp $ 3). The form of expression, therefore, in
Lk. 1019 (‘Î empower you to tread upon serpents and
scorpions') is not quite so striking as that in the ||
passage, Ps. 9113 65 (‘ Thou shalt go upon the asp and
the basilisk '), and in the description of the locusts from
the ‘ pit of the abyss’ the weakest part may seem to
be the detail of their 'tails like (those of} scorpions'
{Rev. 910, see ΕΝ) From a picturesque point of view,
however, this detail is quite in place; it is indeed a
formidable appearance which the ‘appendages’ of the
scorpion present.

Ezekiel apparently likens bitter words to the sting of a

fon ΠΡ 26); so, perhaps, Ecclus. 267. In 1K.121r14

(= Ch. 101114) ‘whips” and ‘scorpions’ are parallel, but che
" scorpions' intended are worse than those of nature (see Wair).1
In 1 Macc. 6 51 the forcible term σκορπίδια (‘little scorpions')
is used for instruments for hurling darts; cp Cas. Bell. Gall.
725, ‘scorpionem.’ i

1. References.

The term, weakened by EV into ‘pieces’
(without mg.), arose from the resemblance of part of the instru-
ment to the uplifted tail of a scorpion.

There is also a reference to the scorpion in ΓΚ. 1112,
which needs fresh investigation. The saying of which,
2, Criticism: LE» Ît forms part, occurs also in

TIE! Mt. ραν; but there a hungry son

»11312. appears asking his father for a loaf,
or a fish, confident that he will not get a stone or even
a serpent, whereas in Lk. (in the ordinary texts) the son
is also represented as asking for an egg, sure that he
will not get a scorpion. There is good evidence (cod.
B, Vet. Lat., Syr. Sin.) for the omission of the loaf and
the stone in Lk., and Plummer and Jiilicher accept this
form of the text, the insertion from Mt. being, it is
urged, more probable than the omission. But how car
Lk. have been satisfied with such a form of the saying?
The hungry child's first request is for bread, and the
connection in which the saying stands being more
original in Lk. than in Mt., we have a right to presume
that Lk. did not omit the loaf and the stone. But there
is this prior difficulty to meet. How came Lk. to sup-
pose that one of the antitheses of Jesus was egg and
scorpion? One commentator suggests that ‘scorpion’
may mean the egg of a scorpion; another, that when
it is dormant, a scorpion is egg-shaped. Tristram
passes over this point, and remarks (Λ᾽}7} 1.305) that
Jesus adopts a current Greek proverb, ‘a scorpion
instead of a perch’ ἀντὶ πέρκης σκορπίον) 1 similariy
Jilicher (Gieichnisveden, 239). But if we compare this
Greek proverb, we are bound to show either that gér
can mean ‘fish’ or some kind of fish, or that gév can
have been corrupted out of some Greek word meaning
The second alternative alone is feasible ; ᾧόν
may be a corruption of ὄψον, which does not indeed
occur in the NT, but might occur just as well as
òydpiov.® The third pair of objects thus becomes
‘fish’ (ὄψον) and ‘scorpion’ ἰσκορπίος). These are
variants to ‘fish’ (ἐχθύς) and ‘serpent’ (ὄφις), There
are two pairs, not three, and the trouble of explaining
the egg is removed, ‘Scorpion’ is probably correct.

Scorpions are nocturnal in habit, and carnivorous,
living on the juices of insects, spiders, etc., which they

4 kill with their inted sting borne
8. Bpecies, ste» pn the last ἢ nt bf their tail When
the animal is running about, the tail is often carried
turned forward over the trunk. Scorpions are provided
with a pair of small clawed appendages on the head,
and these are followed by a large pair of nippers or

1 The p‘anpp may refer to scarifying instruments (Ass.
suhékipu, syni akrab); so Ubnpfund, BA 4 224.
2 Both words are used în the Greek Tobit.

4318

SCOURGE, SCOURGING

jointed claws which resemble those of a lobster and
which serve to catch and hold their prey. Behind
these are four pairs of walking legs. The stiug is very
painful, and if it occurs in such a part of the body as
the throat, or if the sufferer be out of health, may cause
death.

Zoologically scorpions belong to the group Scorpiones of the
Arachnida, The following species are described from Syria,
Palestine, and Sinai, Bwi4us australis, B. crassicauda, B.
Bicolor, B. fudaicus confined to these regions, 2. occitanus, B.
quinquestriatus, Butheolus melanuyus, Nelo hierochonticus,
N. favipes, Numerousother species are recorded from Egypt,
Arabia, and Asia Minor! τὶ K.C., 81 ΑἹ A_k.S.,83.

SCOURGE, SCOURGING. See LAW AND JUSTICE,
$ 12. The words are:—

1. mid, +06, 1 Κι 121114 2 Ch. 101114 Prov, 263 Nab. 32.
Metaphoricaliy, of the tongue (Job 521), and of a divine judg-
ment, [5. 10 26 28 τα (here, of invasion), Job 923. Cp Wai.

2. ven, ἐδέδέ, Josh. 23 13% (metaphorically ; cp ‘plague ’).

3. pi, ὀξῥδνεια, Lev. 1920;t AV ‘she shall be scourged,*
AVmg. ‘Following Mishnah) ‘there shall be a scourging,’ RV
‘they shall be punished,' RVme. (probably rightly) ‘there shall
be inquisition* (.e., judicial inquiry).

The NT words are :—

4. μάστιξ (Mk. 8 το, etc), μαστεγόω (Mt. 1017, etc.), μαστέῤω
(Acts 2225) See SYNAGOGUE, 8 4 (2),

5. φραγελλόω (Mt. 2726 Mk. 1515), φραγέλλιον (n.215);
Lit. Fagelto, Pagellum. Cp Law AND JUSTICE, ἢ 12:

SCREECE 0WL (mbò),

monster," RVz- LILITH.

SCREEN (99; επιοπδοτρον), Ex. 2636; see
TABERNACLE. U

SCRIBE. To do justice to this heading it is not
enough to register and explain the three Hebrew words
rendered ‘scribe’ in AV and ἘΝ taken
together. We are bound to notice the fact
that & sometimes renders “pv (304) as well as snò

(siphzr) by γραμματεύς, and to consider the sense
which this queen of the versions gives to that Greek
word, The two Hebrew words will illustrate what is
said elsewhere in this work on writing, literature (in its
various branches}, and government ; in studying them
we shall see how s454#7 came to mean ‘theologian,' and
iter came to signify ‘official’ The strange word fi94sar
(055), rendered ‘scribe* in ἘΝ με. at Nah. 317, will also
have to be considered ; the discovery of the meaning of
this word suggests literary influences, which are likely
to receive more and more justification,

For a hardly less strange word, 4ar/2» (gjban), rendered
‘sacred scribe’in RVmg. at Gen, 418, etc., see MAGIC ($ 3); the
rendering of RVm. is not very probable, and has no ancient
support (but cp Ges.-Bu. 5.21).

Sophèr (Ass. Sapiru) seems to be a denom, of sépker
(Ass. Spr), and to judge from the Assyrian usage
sépher may originally have had a very

5. The Oper wide sense, including every sort of
SEE message, and even permitting the
rendering ‘command.’ It is a question whether sdp4%r
in Judg. 514 should not be taken in accordance with this
{possible} early usage as ‘commander’; but to this we
will return presently. The root-meaning of #r, on
the other hand, is ‘to write'; the distinetion should be
remembered—adrx in Ass.='to send'; Jazdru=<t0
write," cp Aram. #efd74, ‘document.’ In Heb. ‘to
write” is not spr (bp) or Jr (sg), but 44 (an2) (see
the Lexicons), a word not found in Ass, Presumably,
therefore, sòphér (also, of course, sà4er ; cp EPISTOLARY
LITERATURE, 8 5) and 5 were borrowed from
Assyrian or Babylonian. We find the Ass. noun Mpirz
used as a syn. of @&/z, ‘secretary’; one or the other
term was often wanted, for the most different classes
needed secretaries to prepare legal documents and other
business records. So, doubtless, among the Israelites.
In Judg.514, as also in Is. 3318, we meet with a s3p42r
in the army (the Isaiah passage, being a late literary
work, may be used as a /ewisk record). There were,

Is. 84:4, RV ‘night

1. Terms.

1 Kraepelin, ‘Scorpiones u. Pedipalpi/ Das Thierveick, 8°
Lief., Berlin, 1899.

4319

SCRIBE

no doubt, different grades of military séf42rim; the
highest would be the military adjutant who enrolled the
warriors, and who might even (but this is an uncertain
inference! from 2 K.2519) be the same person as the
‘captain of the host’ {cp Ass. fair, 2, ‘ruler'). The
king, too, naturally had his sa94#7 (2 5.8.7 2025 2 K.
1230 [11], ete.), EVP8: ‘ secretary * (sce GOVERNMENT,
$ 21). Only twice do we find the sing. &@#—viz., in
Prov. 67 (between Ads and 72044) and in 2 Ch. 261
(of a military enroller, syn. with 545447)? Repeatedly,
however, the 5o/èrzz2 are mentioned either next to the
‘elders’ of the people (Nu. 1116 Di. 299 [10] 3128 Josh.
833 232 241), or beside the ‘judges' (Josh. 833 232 241
Dt. 1618). Proclamations or orders in time of war were
made known through them (Dt. 2058 Josh. 110 32).
In Ex. 5610, etc., the Israelitish vverseers appointed by the
Egyptian taskmasters are designated $3/#77; & gives γραμ-
ματεῖς ; cp @'s rendering of s8/# in Prov. ὃ 7, Τὸν ἀναγκάζοντα.
The termalso occurs six times in Chronicles (1 Ch, 23 4 26.29 271
2 Ch. 19rr 261134 13). Evidently s064é722 and SStérim were
synon, terms, and could be used of any subordinate office which
required ability to write. No doubt, too, in 1 Macc.54z

γραμματεῖς τοῦ λαοῦ τ ΡΠ *

Thus the later Jewish meaning of σὔῤλξγ (see SCRIBES
AND PHARISEES) must be kept carefully apart, when
we are considering the old and very slowly

3 Later forgotten meaning of the term. When the
séphèr. plur. sèéf£drzm took the new sense of holy

writings (Dan. 92, βίβλοι, 45 Theod.), it
was natural that 59947» should come to mean theologian
or 'lawyer' (so EV for vowxés) But the older
meaning was precisely that which was most natural to
Alexandrian Jews. Both under the Pharaohs and
under the Ptolemies a ‘scribe’ was a government ,
clerk, or registrar—in short, an official (see HISTORICAL
LIFERATURE, $$ 3, s). He was not a theologian;
the priests were the theologians. He was not properly
a military man, for he was exempt from military service.
Hence in Judg.514 $%ef siphér (πὸ va} becomes
διηγήσεως γραμματέως (68), ‘the report of an official’ (?),
and in Is. 3318 50942" becomes οἱ γραμματικοί. Under
the Ptolemies, it is true, the term ‘scribe’ received a
military colouring; but, for clearness’ sake, it was
usual to fill out the phrase and put γραμματεὺς τῶν
μαχίμων or τῶν δυνάμεων. 8

Δυνάμεις ἴ5 actually found once in 65, which gives in Jer.
52.25 (sce note τ) τὸν γραμματέα τῶν δυνάμεων, reading NIV3 “PD.
The term γραμματοεισαγωγεύς in ὅδ, Ex. 182725 (not in Bin
these two passages) Dt. 11516 18 299 [10] 81 28, awaits explana-
tion from the papyri.

The third and most difficult word remains—a word
on which @ throws no light,4 and for which our revisers

τ in their uncertainty give two renderings—

4 Tiphsar. + marshai' and ‘scribe.’‘Marshal;' no
doubt, was chosen for ψέράσαγ or {Nah. ) ῥαῥάεανγ, because
this sense suited Jer. 5127. But it can be shown that it
does not suit Nah, 317, and in Jer. (/.c.) we expect the
name of a country ; here 109» Îs probably corrupt (see
Crit. Bib.). In fact, fphsar, as Lenormant first
showed,5 is the Ass. dup-lIarru, ‘tablet-writer,5 which

1 MT reads here &3Y7 NW “BEI, but @ presupposes ἼΡδ,
whilst L reads }pD (τὸν Σαφαν) and Vg. Sosker, both as proper
names, “Bb, too, is MT”s reading in Jer. 5225 (© does not ex-
press rip). ‘Saphan'is adopted from 1 (Kings) by Klo.; ‘scribe
of the general’ is also a possible rendering în Jer., and is
preferred by Kamph. in Καὶ, 275 and Nowack (Arc4. 1360).
Otherwise aus Ἣν’ will be a gloss (but cp Giesebrecht).

£ @, however, gives κριτής for S6t27, γραμματεύς for «ὔρλᾶν.

3 Deissmann, Arde/studien, τοῦ (1895).

4 In Jer. ® gives βελοστάσεις, a mere guess(?); in Nah.
è συμμικτὸς σου, which seems to represent Ἴ2ἼΡ, a possible
variant to ΠῚ ἼΝΞ. which in &'s Heb. text supplanted abi
owing to the similarity of TE

5 La langue primitive de la Chaldée, 365 (1875); Éitudes sur
syIlabaires cuntiformes, 186 (1876), So Schrader, KAT!) 424.

6 Halévy (Origine de la civ. Bab. 235 [1875)) compares dip,
‘tablet,’ with New Heb. #9, column (of a scroll) or page. Cp
also Syr. da$p4, ‘ plank,' ‘board (e.g., Acts 27 44). Du$pwalso
=‘ letter’; see EFIsTOLARY LITERATURE, $ 5.

4320

SCRIBES AND PHARISEES

is of Sumerian origin, but occurs countless times in the
contract-tablets. See TARPELTI ‘The proof of the
correctness of this explanation is that a similar one is
equally needful for the parallel word ‘yo (EV ‘thy
crowned'; so Kimchi, unsuitably) which is perhaps
corrupt in one letter {1 for 1), and should be read 7:70
(so P. Ruben). Mindidz, like dupfarru, occurs often'in
contract tablets ; it means one who is legally empowered
to measure wheat, dates, etc. ‘These two officers are
naturally mentioned after the merchants (Nah. 316).

The same words (#if%sar and wrindidu) have been recognised
by the present writer in 15, 38 18, where, for pbaanne 200 ma
we should read DITO ΠΣ DMODO ΠΝ, ‘where are the tablet-
writers? where are the measuring clerks?” (Che. SBOT' ‘Isa.
[Heb.]), and 2xindidiz is probably to be found also in Zech.96,
where ‘a γμεανρῦν (EV ‘bastard’; see Mamzer) shali dweli in
Ashdod should he ‘a 22/2222 shall dwell in Ashdod'—-i.e., Ashdod
shall be subject to Assyrian (or foreign) civil functionaries (Che.
PSBA, May, 1900). This is at any rate at once a possible and
a suitable explanation. ας Κις.

SCRIBES AND PHARISEES

InNT ($ 15). Earlier history (88 11-19).
Name and position ($ 37). Assidasans= Pharisees ($ 17).
Character and beliefs (88 5-10), Later history (88 18-20).
Bibliography (8 21).
It is too often forgotten that the gospel narratives
make only incidental references to the Scribes and
Pharisees. ‘The stern reproofs uttered

1. Incidental by Jesus against their arrogant self-
τοῖο NT, ® righiteousness, narrowness, and deaden-

. ing spiritual pride, were undoubtedly
well deserved as applied to the later form of Pharisaism ;
but they do not aid us in discovering, either the funda-
mental principles of the school, or the causes which
produced such ἃ religious development. Our present
©bject must therefore be, first, to ascertain what the
two classes of Jews, designated in the NT Scribes and
Pharisees, really represented in the current theological
thought, and thus to determine, as nearly as possible,
the character of their party, and secondly, to trace
their historical development down from its beginnings
at the time following the Babylonian exile.
‘The usage of the terms ‘Scribes’ and ‘ Pharisees'
throughout the Gospels shows that a conscious dis-
2.0 È tinction was made between them, as may
EA 0” be seen, for example, from the common
τος expression'Scribesand Pharisees,' passim.
It is significant that the word ‘Scribe' is not used by
any evangelist with reference to single individuals. It
is in every instance applied to a literary class, as in
Mt. 729 Mk. 122 (more specifically Mt. 157 Mk. 324 ‘the
Scribes who came from Jerusalem,’ who naturally were
the most important and most influential members of the
party). ‘Where single scribes are meant, the writer
usually designates them ‘some of the Scribes' (Mt. 93
1238 MK. 71), or else classes them with the Pharisees,
as just indicated. On the other hand, the term
‘ Pharisees' is frequently used in passages where the
writer evidently means to refer to individual members
of a certain school (Mt. 9r1 34 122 14 24 Mk. 218 24, etc.).
Josephus also refers to the Scribes as ‘those learned in the
law! (ἱερογραμματεῖς, B/ vi, 5 3), and as ‘expositors of the law*
{πατρίων ἐξηγηταὶ νόμων, Ant. xvii. 62), whereas by the term
*sophists’ (σοφισταί, B/i.332 ii. 1787), he may mean the
members of the distincily Pharisaic” party, some of whom
taught law. Josephus, who uses the regular expression
Φαρισαῖοι much more often than any of the other terms,
neglects to inform his readers (for example in 4x2. xiii. 108) of
the close connection between the Scribes and the Pharisees, prob-
ably because ît was too well-known a fact to require explanation.
There can be no doubt that in the NT, especially in
the many speeches of Jesus directed against the Scribes
and Pharisees, the term ‘scribes’ (usually γραμματεῖς) is
used of those learned persons who made a special study
of the law (‘the lawyers,’ 1 Lk. 143; ‘ doctors, teachers
ofthe Law,' νομοδιδάσκαλοι, Lk. 517 Acts 5 34), and that
the expression ‘ Pharisees' always means the peculiar body
οἵ men who affected to live according to the letter of the

1 Νομικοί; cp Mt. 2235 Lk. 730 1025 114552143.
4321

SCRIBES AND PHARISHES

law. In spite of this evident distinction, however, it îs
quite clear that wherever the Seribes and the Pharisees are
mentioned side by side in the NT they were purposely
brought together as the representatives of the same
intellectual tendency (cp Mt. 520 1238, etc.) Further
more, in Mk. 26, in the account of the cure of the

| palsied man, we find the term ‘Scribes’; but in the

parallel passage Lk.52r, the expression ‘Scribes and
Pharisees' is used in an evidently synonymous sense.
Finally, the application of both terms to the same
school of thought is found în the later Jewish literature,
where the earlier Scribes of Maccabzan times are
generally made to call themselves 4d&dmzz, ‘learned
men,' but are also referred to as ‘ Pharisees,' especially
in passages inspired by hostile Sadducee sentiment
(Védaim, 46 fi; Bab. Sòt. 223). Cp ISRAEL,
$$ 814
The meaning of the name Pharisees (Φαρισαῖοι) is
perfectìy clear. Its original Heb. form ozina, pirafim
s. Name (Aram. 7") args) can signify only ‘those
Pharisees. Who have been set apart’—i.e., from the
mass of the people Casa ny). The op-
probrious sense in which the word was often used was
imposed upon ît by enemies, In itself the term means
simply a school of ascetics? and is really quite in
harmony with the general character of the Pharisees,
who may have used it of themselves at first. Their
own term for themselves was 44607r7m, ‘brethren’—
that is to say, members of the true congregation of
Israel.
Our data regarding the Scribes and Pharisees would
appear to indicate that, while the Scribes were a class
A of liferati devoted to the study and
4 Relations c.position of the Law, the Pharisees
and Pharisees. “ere more properly a distinct religious
- party, most of whose members belonged
to the class of Scribes. The object of the Pharisees
was, clearly, to live according to the Law, which the
orthodox Scribes interpreted. It follows, therefore,
that from the very inception of the Pharisaic party, its
leaders must have been orthodox Scribes. As the
Sadducees also followed the written Law, there must
have been Sadducee Scribes as well, and it is highly
likely that there were also Scribes who belonged to
neither party. This explains the distinctive expressions
* Scribes of the Pharisees' (Mk. 2:6 Acts 239); ‘the
Pharisees and their Scribes' (ἘΚ. 530), from which
it is evident that not all the Scribes were Pharisees.
It is probable also that some of the Pharisees,
owing no doubt to lack of education, belonged only
nominally to the scribal class and practised blindly the
precepts laid down for them by their more scholarly
seribal lenders.*? At the time of Jesus, we almost
always find Scribes in judicia] positions ; thus, where-
ever the high priests and elders are mentioned, the
Scribes are generally included—vwithout, however, any
specification as to whether they belonged to the Pharisees
οὐ the Sadducees, or whether they were merely neutral
scholars (cp Mt. 1621 Mk. 1127 Lk. 922, ‘the elders and
chief priests and scribes'; Mt. 2018, *the chief priests
and scribes,' Lk. 201. . ., ‘with the elders'; Mt. 2657
Acts 612, ‘the scribes and elders'),
It is certainly an error to characterise the Pharisees as
a religious secf, because that word implies a divergence
; in creed from other followers ‘of the same
δι Fharigoes cult. Thiswas distinctly not the position of
"the Pharisees, as they were really from their
first development representatives of orthodox Judaism

1 The abstract form mb is used în the sense ‘abstinence,
continence,’ Voye. 746

2 Wellhausen's statement (Pharisser τι, Sadducder, 11) that
the Pharisees were the party of the Scribes needs ‘some
qualification.

3 EV' rendering în Acts155 265 îs unfortunate; αἵρεσις
means here ‘a party which professes certain philosophical prin
ciples,' în fact, ‘a school.’ Cp Sext. Emp. 116. See HerEsY.

4322

SCRIBES AND PHARISEES

who distinguished themselves from the mass of their co-
religionists rather by the Strictness of their observances
than by any deviation from accepted doctrine. ‘The
words of Jesus in Mt, 232 clearly prove the Pharisees'
position ; ‘the scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat ;
all things, therefore, whatsoever they bid you, these do
and observe'; but, he adds, as a reproof to their ex-
ternalism, ‘ do ye not after their works, for they say and
do not.’ The sole object of the Pharisees' religious life
was to fulfil, regardless of consequences, the require-
ments of the law which they believed to be τῆς clearly
expressed will of Yahwè. According to fosephus, when
Petronius asked the Pharisee leaders whether they were
ready to make war against Caesar without considering
his strength and their own weakness, they replied: ‘we
will not make war with him ; but still we will die rather
than see our laws set aside.'! This short sentence
expresses most characteristically their fundamental
principles.

The Pharisaic dogmatic peculiarities, as outlined in
8.2 7, all tend to show how fully their religious position

. was in accord with orthodox Judaism, and
δ᾽ DOgmAE : 10 what an extent their oppotents the Sad-

OTALIAW. ducees had remained behind and apart
from the current religious development. The chief point
în the Pharisees' code wherein they differed from the
Sadducees was their insistence on the validity of a mass
of oral tradition (Mt.152 Mk.73) which had accumu-
lated in the course of centuries as a supplement to the
written law. The Pharisees held that this traditional
matter, regulating and explaining the observance of the
written law, was as binding on the Israelites of every
generation as the law itself (Sazz. 11 3), whereas the
Sadducees rejected all such oral traditions and held
strictly to the written Mosaic ordinances (472 xiii. 106}.
Herein the Pharisees, rather than the Sadducees, repre-
sent the natural religious development, becausetraditions,
both oral and written, recording, for example, precedents
for the interpretation of the law are a necessary and
logical supplement to a fixed code, and, whilst they
should not be accorded the same authority as the code
itself, are undoubtedly a permissible and normal growth.®
In the case of the Pharisees, however, their reverence
for. traditional precepts gradually degenerated into a
slavish regard, first, for the text of the law itself, and,
secondly, for a purely arbitrary supplementary oral code
which had exceeded the legitimate functions and authority
of tradition,

This oral matter had largely originated among the scribes
since the time of Ezra,* although most of the literary class un-
doubtedly believed that it descended from Moses, They conse-
quently even went 80 far as to lay down the principle that, în
case of a contradiction between a written and an oral precept,
the preference must be given to the oral. Their observance of
law and tradition became, finally, so thoroughly formal, that the
Pharisees actually seemed to have lost sight of the contents of

the Law in their endeavour to carry out its demands in proper
form.

The Pharisees believed in a resurrection of the body
7. Resur- and in a future state of rewards and punish-

rection, Ments (Acts 238, Jos. (πὲ xvili. 13).

The resurrection referred to in Dan. 12 2 is most
probably confined to the Israelites; probably the author of Daniel
did not believe in eternal life for the heathen. The resurrection
of all human beings, however, is announced in Enoch 22, and
was the prevailing orthodox dogma în the time of Jesus. The
author of Dan, 12 also teaches the doctrine of future rewards and
punishments for the Israelites, and for the first time uses the
expression ‘everlasting life’ 4 (Dan, 122).

The Sadducees denied both resurrection of the body
and a future life (Mt. 2223 ΜΚ, 1218, Jos. “1πὲ, xviii, 14).
See SADDUCEES, $ 6.

The Pharisees, unlike the Sadducees, believed in the

1 Ant.xviî.83.

2 Schiirer in Riehm, 27772 21200.

3 The oral law was regularly codified în writing în the second
century a.p. Cp Law Literature, $ 23.

Ὑ ΤΕῚς identica! with τῆς ζωὴ αἰώνιος of the NT, and must not
be confused with pbiyn ἽΨ nen of Ps. 1883, ‘eternal life' for
Israel as 2 nation.

4323

SCRIBES AND PHARISEES

existence of angels and spirits (Acts 238]. This was a
8. Other doctrine which had been part of orthodox
points. Judaism since the days of Zechariah (Zech.

"717; 520 B.C.), and had in later times be-
come expanded into a definite hierarchical system (cp

Dan, 1013 Tobit 1215, and the Book of Jubilees), Here,

also, the Pharisees were undoubtedly the representatives

of orthodox opinion. See ANGELS, DEMONS.

Furthermore, the Pharisees held in general the doctrine
of predestination, which was a natural outgrowth of
their strict literalism, attributiag the origin of everything,
even of evil, to the far-seeing wisdom of Yahwè. Unlike
the Essenes, however, they made a distinction between
such actions as were controlled entirely by fate (Yahwè's
will) and such as were, to some extent, directed by man's
will, which, according to their theory, was permitted to
operate within certain fixed limits—e.g., τὸ πράττειν τὰ
δίκαια, ‘to choose the right' (Jos. 2/11. 814, ἀπέ, xii.
59, xviii. 13). The Sadducees, on the other hand, held
that man's own will regulated all the events of human
life and determined his happiness or unhappiness.

‘The Pharisees were the most eager cultivators of
Messianic ideas. They longed for and awaited the
tempora] Messiah of the earlier Israelitish hopes (see
MESSIAH). They therefore, quite naturally, were among
the most bitter opponents of the more spiritual teachings
of Jesus, which they regarded as a dangerous departure
from their point of view. Their ideal of a personal
Messiah may be gathered from Jos. 4x2. xvii. 24 where
the author relates that the Pharisees were involved in an
intrigue of Pheroras against his brother Herod, and that
they sided with Pheroras, in order to accomplish the
overthrow of Herod and place Pheroras on the throne.
‘This statement is, without doubt, based on a misunder-
standing of the Pharisees' motives.

In the first place, the prophecy which they made to Pheroras
that Herod's government and dynasty should cease was uttered
quite openly, This would hardly have been done had the
Pharisces really been plotting directly against Herod with the
aim of supplanting him by another. Secondly, they are said to
have told Pagoas the eunuch that the new King would have
control over all things and would be able to restore to him his
powers of procreation. Such a statement could scarcely refer
to Pheroras, a mere human monarch, but was plainly an allusion
to the expected Messiah whose reign, according to Is. 66, should
be a time of miraculous fruitfulness.!’ It was quite natural that
such an idea should arise among the Pharisees at a time when
the impious Herod was sitting as an usurper on the throne of
David,

Jesus' frequent and bitter denunciations of both
Scribes and Pharisees because of their intense immov-

9, Defects. able bigotry and cold formalism, show

" "very clearly their intellectual attitude in
his time, They bound heavy burdens and laid them
on men’s shoulders (Mt, 234 Lk. 11 46)z.c., they laid
the utmost stress on a minute external observance of
details. Such a formalism, although originally the
product of a true desire to stand în the right way and
follow the injunetion of Yahwè, was certain to become
the most crass externalism in a very short space of time,
According to this system, the man who fulfilled to the
letter all the physical requirements of the law, such as
fasting, wearing the prescribed dress, etc., was technically
‘ righteous,' quite irrespective of his true inner feelings.
This position is admirably illustrated by the well-known
comparison between the Pharisee and the publican (Lk.
189-14). Such externalism could only breed a love of
religious show, a tendency to display their formal
‘righteousness’ before the world, and was certain not
only to kill all appreciation of the spiritual meaning
which underlay the various forms (Mt. 61 285), but also
to engender a spirit of casuistry which manifested itself
whenever the strict requirements of an ordinance became
‘unpleasantly onerous.

This cannot perhaps be better illustrated than by
citing the extraordinary means adopted by the later
Pharisees to obtain a greater degree of freedom on the
Sabbath than was allowed by the written law.

1 On this discussion see Wellhausen, Par. τ. Sadd, 25.

4324

SCRIBES AND PHARISEES

According to Jer, 17 21-24 (post-exilic) it was forbidden to con-
vey or carry anything on the Sabbath from one place to another:
Tris clearly stated in Jer, that the ordinance refers, not merely
to the city gates, but also to private houses out of which
nothing might be carried. The Pharisees, whose tradition used
the word 65224, ‘district,’ to define the limit in which carrying
was legal, deliberately enlarged the 65214 artificially according
to their own pleasure. Thus, if it was desired to fetch and carry
on the Sabbath within the limits of a street or large space, they
barred the street at either end or enclosed the space on four sides
with beams or cords, thus making technically a legally defined
limit (444) within which the labour of carrying or loading
might go on!? Cp SaBBaTH, $ 4, notes.

It is not surprising then that Jesus stigmatises the
Scribes and Pharisees as hypocrites ‘ who paid the tithes
but neglected the weightier matters of the law”; ‘men
who cleansed the outside of the cup and platter, but
within are full of extortion and excess'; ‘whited sepul-
chres, which outwardly appear beautiful but inwardly
are full of dead men's bones’ (Mt. 2323).

The following Jewish classification of the Pharisees is
aan interesting confirmation of Jesus’ estimate of them.

A Certain Rabbinical writers divided the
cl iowlal | Pharisees under seven heads : (1) the
shoulder Pharisee, who wore openly on
his shoulders a list of his own good actions. (2) The
temporising Pharisee, who begged for time in order to
perform a good deed. (3) The calculating Pharisee
who said: ‘my sins are more than counterbalanced by
my many virtues.' (4) The saving Pharisee who said:
«I will save a little from my modest fortune to perform
a work of charity.' (5) The Pharisee who said : ‘ would
that I knew of a sin which 1 had committed, in order
that I might make reparation by an act of virtue.” (6)
The God-fearing Pharisee (Job). (7) The God-loving
Pharisee (Abraham).

Of these, only the last two may be understood in a
good sense, In spite of the general self-righteous tone
of the party, such epithets were not infrequently applied
to Pharisees. It must not, of course, be supposed that
every member of the party was of necessity a spiritless
formalist, dead to all true religious feeling. We need
only remember the case of the righteous Nicodemus, and
especially the words of Jesus already quoted (Mt. 232/.),
confirming the Pharisees in their principle of observing
the law, but attacking their insincere and external
manner of carrying out their own precepts. Paul him-
self boasts that he followed the Pharisaic ideas regarding
the law (Phil. 35), thereby implying that he recognised
the authority of both the written and the oral law.

In considering this subject, it is necessary to seek the
reason why the Pharisees enjoyed such an ascendancy

over the people, and to examine into the
11, Growth cases which had produced such a lament.
ΟΣ seribal tie state of religion among the Jews of
PAFbY- the time of Jesus. These are all to be
found in the history of the gradual rise, after the Baby-
lonian exile, of the scribal class, and in the account of
the development of the distinctively Pharisaic party from
their ranks.

As both Josephus and the NT writers, whose state-
ments regarding the Scribes and Pharisees are certainly
the most important that we have at cur disposal, were
familiar with this school of thought only when it was in
an advanced state of development, their account is of
use chiefly in showing the character of the party in
later times. ‘The sources which are most instructive,
however, for the study of the origin and growth of the
scribal party are the OT Apocrypha and the Pseud-
epigrapha, especially the Psalter of Solomon. Besides
these, the canonica! books ot Ezra, Neh., Dan., Ch.,
and Esther are of great value in indicating the beginnings
of the tendencies which produced the post-exilic literary
and religious development.

It is useless to seek the origin of religious parties as
far back as the period of the Babylonian exile.

1 See Schirer in Richm, WB 21207.
2 See Levy, NW 4r4a.

4325

SCRIBES AND PHARISEES

The capture of Jerusalem by the Babylonians had of course
compleieiy shattered the Jewish political organisation, so that
᾿ς, Whatever differences of thought there had

12. Pre-exilic been before that event could hardly have sur-

times. vivedina concrete form under the radically
changed conditions which obtained after-
wards. Inthe pre-exilic days the people had been led, on the

one hand, by the priests and priestly families, who were the real
literalists and ritualists, and, on the other hand, by prophets who
claimed to speak in the name and with the special commission
of Yahwè, and who, as spiritual reformers professing to guide
Israel through the crises of her history,1 were, in general, opposed
τὸ the more formal and worldly priestly caste. As it is impossible
to trace here any of the differences between the Pharisees and
the Sadducees already noted, the rise of all of them must be
sought n the post-exilic times.
Directly after the return, we find the people divided,
as shown by many passages in Ezra and Nehemiah,
tin Into two hostile schools, of which one
18. dp ozio approved of uniting by marriage with
* the neighbouring peoples, especially
with the Samaritan mixed race which they did not
regard as heathen, and the other opposed such amal-
gamation most strongly, urging the necessity of keeping
Yahwéè's favoured nation intact {cp Ezra 91/ 102187).
Both Ezra and Nehemiah were most zealous upholders
of a strict observance of the law (Nch.817 147),
and the bitterest opponents of the tendency mani-
fested by all classes of Jews to contaminate themselves
by foreign alliances. Ezra's and Nehemiah's earnest
efforts to spread a knowledge of the law met, therefore,
with only partial success (Ezra 1015 Neh. 67 10-14 1030,
etc.}. ‘The worst offenders against their injunctions were
among the prominent high-priestly families who consti-
tuted the aristocracy, and in many cases had already
‘allied themselves with outsiders seeking admission into
the Jewish nation (note the relationship in Neh.618,
between the Persian official Tobiah and a prominent
Jew, and in 1328, between Sanballat and the son of the
high priest Eliashib). It should be said in all fairness
that the position so strongly taken by Ezra and Nehemiah
was not necessarily the strictly legal one, as their
©pponents could cite many precedents from the earlier
history which justified a considerate treatment of such
strangers as wished to live at peace and in union with
Israel {Lev. 2422 Nu. 1516, etc. ; cp STRANGER, $ 10).
In fact, in the earlier law it was only marriage with
the Canaanites that was expressly forbidden (cp Ex.
3416, but see Judg. 36, etc... This being the case, the
rise of two post-exilic parties at bitter feud with each
other can easily be understood, The one consisted of
the high-priestiy families, the real aristocracy (Ezra
1018), who were anxious to connect themselves with
another aristocracy in order to increase their own strength,
not, as some scholars thought, to form an anti-Persian
alliance. The pious leaders, on the other hand, were
the strictly Jewish party, who sought to follow the Law
as they understood it. These latter formed the be-
ginnings of the class of scribes whose founder was Ezra
‘the priest and scribe' (Ezra 711 Neh. 81). It should
be remarked that the Book of Ruth, which derives
the house of David from a Moabitish stock, is now
considered by many to be a conscious polemic against
the extreme position of Ezra with regard to foreign
marriages (but cp RUTH [ΒΟΟΚΊ, 8 7).
From this time onwards, a circle of Jewish scholars,
many of whom were of priestiy 2 (not high-priestly) race,
τος applied themselves with increasing de-
pri Saristio votion to the study of the law from a
Βυπαθηῦβ, ;ristic point of view. Among these
men began and developed the system of oral tradition
already mentioned which eventually took rank in their
minds with the law itself. Between the time of Ezra
and the period of Antiochus Epiphanes {520-175 B.C.)
the differences became even more accentuated between
this student class and the aristocratic high-priestly party
whose policy of associating themselves with the nobility

1 Cp Briggs, Messianie Prokpecy, 26.
® For priestiy Pharisees, see Jos. Vis. 1 39; and in the
Mishna, "Éday01 21/82; Abbth 2832.

4326

SCRIBES AND PHARISEES

‘©f the adjacent or dominant heathen people (Samaritan,
Persian, Greek) remained unchanged. By the time the
Graco-Syrian domination began, the scholarly class,
who edited and circulated the historical and prophetical
Scriptures, treating them from the same minute dogmatic-
ethical point of view as they did the law, had founded
many schools.

Into these schools gathered great numbers of students who, of
course, assisted in promulgatinz the peculiar orthodox doctrines
already described. In these schonis it was especially laid down
25 the imperative duty of the faithful student to remember
accurately the principles which he had learned and to transmit
them with equal accuracy to others. Thisis fully illustrated by
two characteristic maxims of the Talmud : (1) ‘To him who
forgets a precept it is accounted by the scribeas if he had deliber-
ately forfeited his life. (ii.) ‘ Every one is bound to teach with
the exact words of the teacher." 1! ‘In spite of these prescribed
lines which the faithful student should follow, we find the caste of
the Scribes at the time of Christ divided into two distinct schools,
viz., the school of Hillel and the school of Shammai, which
differed from each other, however, more on minor questions of
interpretation than on any serious points of doctrine. In
general, the school of Hillel was more lenient than that of
Shammai (cp Canon, $ 53, n. 3).

The Scribes were undoubtedly the originators of the
Synagogue service which was a natural result of their
religious position? Separated as they were from the
high-priestly class, the teachers in these synagogal
schools developed of necessity into a well-defined inde-
pendent order of religious leaders called Rabbis, whom
Sirach, writing at the beginning of the second century
8.C., praises most heartily (39-40). It is doubtful
whether the Scribes had crystallised into a distinctly
political party as early as the time of Sirach.?

The first thing which tended to turn the religious
students called Scribes into a fierce politico-religious

τ faction was the attempts of Antiochus
15, Assidmans. F iphanes, so bitterly stigmatised in
the book of Daniel, to Hellenise the entire Jewish
people. In this, Antiochus was aided by the aristocratic
party which, from the beginning of his reign, had
manifested marked phil-Hellenic tendencies. Among
the opponents of the Hellenistic movement we find
a party calling themselves -Assipzazans [g.2.] or the
‘pious,’ and representing the most rigid development
of the ideas of the Scribes.

They were strict observers of the law (= Macc. 2.42), and in
particular so rigid in their views of the Sabbath that they even
refused to defend themselves on the holy day (1 Macc. 2327).
That they were ascetics în their mode of life may be inferred
from 1 Macc.162 Κι, and that they were evidently a well.
organised body is seen from the unanimity with which they
acted together (1 Macc. 713). See ASSIDAANS.

It is interesting to notice that the author of Daniel
shows many Assideean tendencies. We need observe
only the stress which he lays on the necessity of
observing the law, and the indifference with which he
regards the Maccabean rising, calling it only ‘a little
help' (1134). This is probably an all'ision to the fact
that many of the Maccabaean combatants attached more
importance to the political than to the religious aspect
of the question at issue.

The reasons for the rebellion of the Assidacans against
Antiochus Epiphanes must not be confounded with those

16. The Which produced the popular rising of the

μ ἈΠ Maccabees. ‘The fundamental impulse of
popular he Maccabsean rebellion was a pure

FISIDE- Datriotism, a true feeling for the miseries
. P Ἑ tor,
which the common people were undergoing {τ Mace.
277). The Assidacans were much more selfish în their
aims, as they were perfectly willing to recognise the
dominion of the heathen king, as long as they were
left undisturbed in the observance of the law. They
accordingly took part in the contest only long enough
to insure their own religious freedom and, as soon as
this seemed safe, promptly surrendered to Alcimus the
Hellenistic high priest.

1 See Schirer in Riehm, HW 21453, .

2 See Svnacocue. Cp Sieffert, ‘ Die jad. Synagoge zur Zeît
Jesu, in Beweis des Glaubens, 1836, PP, 8 2; also Kuenen,
Over de Mannen der Groote Synagoge li msterdam, 1876).

3 Cp Sieffert, RZ) 13220.

4327

SCRIBES AND PHARISEES

The statement in 2 Macc.146 that the Assidazans were the
real Maccabazan war party is in direct contradiction to the data
in 1 Mace. regarding them. in order to explain this, Hitzig
(GUI 417) considers 1 Mace. 713 as an interpolation The
probability is, as was suggested by Siefferi (RE) 18223),
that x Mace! was written from a Maccabaan, and a Masci
from a Pharisaic point of view. The Pharisees wished to claim
for themselves the credit of the Maccabaan victories. The
true attitude of the Assidaans is probably given în 1 Macc. 713
(ee also Wellbausen, Ze. pp. 79,7 ; cp MaccaBeEs ἵν, $ 4).
There can be little doubt that these Assideeans were
practically identical with that party of the Scribes!
17. Asside: which came to be called Pharisees
ate pei under Johannes Hyrcanus (135-105
-" τ Β,6.}} As soon as the Maccabrean
dynasty had become established, the new rulers assumed
the bigh-priesthood, and so the ancient aristocratic and
high-priestly families who, up to that time, had been
the kernel of the phil-Hellenic party, were now forced to
relinguish their position as political Jeaders. They
retained a great part of their influence, however, as
party leaders of their own faction which continued
under the name Sadducees with essentially the same
principles.
At the time of Hyrcanus, we find the Pharisees
opposed to the Maccabeean or Has-

de cn monazan family, with whom during
Hasmonmans. the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes they

had temporarily made common cause.

It is not difficult to account for this change of attitude. As
has already been stated, the Assidzzans cared little for political
freedom and were therefore not in sympathy with the Maccabees
as to the main issue, It was only natural, therefore, that, as soon
25 the Maccabees had succeeded in founding a temporal dynasty,
they should begin to drift apart from the stricter scribal religious
class who had now quite evidently assumed the leadership of
their own party. The first rupture between the royal family
and the Pharisees occurred in the reign of Hyrcanus who,
although himself a Pharisee at first, deliberately left that party
and became a Sadducee (cp ISRAEL, $ 78).

The son and successor of Hyrcanus, Alexander
Jannaus (104-728 B.C.), inherited his father's spirit, and
waged a six years’ war against the now powerful Phari-
saic party. On the death of Jannaus, however, his
widow and successor Salome Alexandra (78-69 B.C.),
realising the futility of attempting to resist the Pharisees,
who were becoming stronger and stronger under opposi-
tion, made peace and allied herself with them (Ar&
ili. 6.1). It was at this period that the Pharisees
gained over the minds of the people the ascendancy,
retained without interruption until the days of Jesus,
which appears so plainly in the pages of the NT.
Indeed, their opponents the Sadducees never again
became prominent as a political party after the advent
of the Romans, who in 63 8.C. appointed the Pharisaic
Hyrcanus, son of Alexandra, as their vassal-king, giving
him the preference over his Sadducee brother, Aris.
tobulus (cp Ps. Sol. 2).

‘The Pharisees now appear as the leaders of Jewish
national religious feeling, although they must not be

regarded as forming the kernel of the
19. As leaders. people, nor as being the people's party.
This is true in spite of their violent opposition to Herod,
with whom the Sadducees had allied themselves. The
Pharisees naturally hated all religious oppression and
were therefore on the people's side. Their position,
like that of the earlier Assidasans, was purely religious,
however, and their object can be said to have been
political only în so far as they desired to establish the
theocratic idea. ‘The Pharisees hated the Romans,
therefore, with perfect consistency, because it was from
them that the anti-legal exactions came. Extremists

1 Sieffert denies the identity of the Assidazans and Pharisees,
claiming that they were merely alike in principle, and nof
necessarily the same party. He finds it therefore impossible τὸ
trace che Pharisees farther back than the time of Hyrcanus (/.c.
226). It seems quite clear, however, that the party divisions of
the Hasmonzan period were merely continuations of early
differences and, as long as we can note in the Assidezans the
chief characteristics afterwards found in the Pharisces, there is
every reason to see in the later party the logica! development of
the earlier.

4328

(11324
[20109
UO “gigi ‘7249 τος. A109Y) dH|PAUEISS, DUI TINA UONIIUUOI
UT palurexda1 Sq ὧν Spaol βϑίμει: PAJE[9I 91 PUE , ZEUSNUSY,
aiueu θη} Jo Sulueaw pur urto 91} Jo uonsanb ΟἾΤ] 1

ἐδ] P[9ITYOI
£ 01 85 UI (SPAPXDY @) 1 22U9xUYSV SE ΟἹ pallojal 818
SUENGIAOS 910} LI DI γ81}} 3]qeqo:d A]SUIpasoxa SI 21
ψασμθαιεα, 01 s60]8 πὶ aq ΟἹ Su9as
(Slgaxz) ,uemiAog, ‘(Sodagniva ἸῸΝ sovaog ‘odpgdng ava si
τοίγχα, Ὁ ΌΜΩΣ ‘soneuS] dd iatvergierga sbpunog ‘268
Tsodog fog! γοῦν alvva, “o710agodwp vox liviosrdau) wenreqieg pur
$R910) "ιοιξιοιμποιοιῖν pue noistsunomo, (su@pry 15. 5277429)
AUT 2030077, dm amoprydy “Via | Apre ταῦ 2ADYPUET
*1£G ‘Spxrga ἸῸΝ Somgnog) 9] 09.) pue ΑΓ, Apeutsto
pesi Afqegord 2] 9010 ur i0u ἀ}169|9 51 ἸΧΘῚ 910) 11 g [o
‘UEM peg 105 Uetyidog past vaey Au: ἐπηϑεισσιῖς Fupura
2009 ueY] snoruedu! ὅχοῦι St ἘΜῈΝ sN jva(U0I s τ ΠΣ ΘΗ 29M
‘6 3-exzg) segeg vetireg 910} se Yons ‘Ted-1ueq-msy Κα pazsodap
a[do»d atnos Jo 1319135 YI ΟἹ onp 51 aureu 961) γι) ofgrssod
OS]E Si τὲ ‘ELEIIEG UL AIOP PAEY 07 t199s EYINO) WOI SA|De9 2) SE
21942 2red Ὁ aueziodin se padeid pue uesys-ag ut savjouo ue
SE pauteuta1 "58 560 ul SUEIUIADS ὁπιοβ 781} ajqeqoidws Π952} ut
3OU ST 21 ISTIUAA ESAN JO atueu 96} peq ἄμϑιιοι stpodogiog
veul (δῷ 4727) S9IvIS AUT ‘DI giz 2J0}9q UondubsUI UE UO
4M950 1011 550 ‘I949MOY ‘SIUEU 501, "SNUINSUIMESK JO SUN SUI
UE UOISEAUI 961 01} Buiureuto: strettpA9g Jo Apoq e Jo Amo ve ur
aduasasd dif) sta ‘siano pue (SS 193 SO) sargasa a ate ἘΠ5 8 Ἢ
up) snjdaso { 03 MOLA OSJe ‘NVAHS-H1.2] 10} St]odoy.A9g oureu
910) 28 urSLIO 3YI (Sot ] -#0479) 5πῃθουίς SMIS1OIN) ΟἹ FUIP100DY
ὑδαδαπομθα, 10) ULfuouAs E Se Ajuo suerqilog, tor 961 posn
‘ap γε ‘iaadtoy ‘alqissod ospe st 11 "tuay) to paseg sBuifes
TeiqresoId auios 10 69-293 ῬΟΙΘΗ Ul asouI se suoniduasap uons
purta ur pey saey poapur £eur ‘emSije9) 0 ϑίαῃ az 15 -20e]y £
30 Hone al put ‘Tesz) Jo sfep ai Ul susi4o Jo uose
*SUEIU]AOg ILIOISH] 91} ΟἹ SI SIUIIIAI
911} SSOUEISUI osaUyI JO due ut 1eY) uEls9o 70 SI 11
πα 109 JO ἘΠῚ UL αὐμθαιθαᾳ,
Una pouonmoui st {skgarz) , UEIMIAog, J9A0DONI
vimga»z ‘6 13] Ὄ9Ω ut (wrerg) ἤν 05 parejsuen
soypeunndg υχόξ δὶ ὌΡΕΙ 2 orguupnf /e1
“Spn( ur (Sivoli egarz) stpodomikog palfeo si è ΠΈΙΠΊΜΟΗ
(02:8) xVanisinLag 10 09 ayg suetmios )0 = IN PIE @
ΔΟΡῸΣ at? safe sanijonso jo pasnase θὰ 2016d τ gligaye *T
“Of g ΓΑΙ Auraforg Jo siueasos 96} 5. αὶ ΟΜ € ἡ
utpue ‘inoo ueigiA5g © ur puno} aq 01 pino se sopsnfur jons
gira padrego st souegdida “AI SUQIONTY ἔνν ὍΘΕ. δ UL
“stretiiog ei ΟἹ s90USI9AI
quazedde aos βυθοῦ XX UL SNVIHLAOS
SII $ ‘LOIAVHO) 995 ‘(ndogiunuado ‘Sur
«Ivaquaynios,) 2g (907 z το “MOOHONINNAg 905. ‘GiGlL)
LswAw Ie] 9/9 ΟΥ[Ε] 8ΊΡΟΓ #35] sog “ὦ $ 'πβησοῦ,
spy 905. ‘(GÉg) suAv 9109 I το “FHLLAOS
8 ‘sasvasig
905. ἐμεθζ"α ἐδ δῷ 9: 15 9 ‘(ÉLC) ΧΛΉΠΟΒ
‘(006 κμρ
τψερς 98Ὲ emy SUI τὰοαρ unyq popnpoxo pur ‘ameisode
Jo ueamordg, Ue uewi 8 epeui YoIYM JO JEIUSp 91}
‘Qelo 1 910} Jo urdto Auaavay aj) UI Jonaq Usimaf 91} di
(i9eg ‘ozdo;02/ 24M 499 “94427 'παθυπῃῈ}
,8amMduog 91} 0) Apoaznp paguose st ,, ensnaudoay),,
orga ΟἹ Sutpiosse "iutog 3509128 SH ur simduos
911 10 urduo peinzeuiadus ΑἸϑαπα sui Jo mara Usima(
91} soreus soia sUL, ‘omiduog Jo aSessed affurs
fue ‘meg up oso 58. 9100 suvoui kdndA (oste St
pon 30 pandsur) smidims Aisaa, ou! , (st pue ‘por Jo
uonendsu; £q usa,8 si) omidios IT, SAV SuStego πὶ
ISU SSARIQNOPp SI AN IPASMOWY ‘9Ig ὌΠ ZU] SOyA
È sv ainidios sui 10 posn si Ufndk 4 “frurentdo Mag è
pue ‘uf ‘sefu: pue ‘4fqegoid 1a 1 τὰ Jey] sal9sqO
σογρῃ! αϑό5) alte) E2g "Ὅουγς δ i (ora pe
vivgg vi) 6g1 ooeNgi do τοις et] z (sFunum ρους θη}
“ΔῊ fsammiduos AOY | ‘AV) o2orirtedi pda vs for gun ©
ἀφοσά pops 061 Ἴοα ς 9gadgi ὁ: ἔξβα ὉΓ 812 ἍΠῚ i
0% τεβα ito 511 1101 ἔτ Eprmog Ξε δέῃ orpsioy ρα
ἀξ φεβδ νοοῖ ἔτι 81 g1SEQI248€ ἐς α Ἢ ταν "NT (ΒΟ ΓΟΥ ΣΙ
ἜΝ ᾿᾿φοσά & 51 ὍΠΟΥ ‘imp inpodi ἐξ αὶ ‘NONVI 998 (IO
30 'δὲς 'ἋΓ “#2 N Ul sati πρθγηϑι5 aulos) poghok γυ “δ
‘PS 860}
PEY ‘monsef do pur "Ὁ" ἐν “dd ἸἃΔ ‘a ‘Gy nz Jo
Au 15π| 911 pue ‘r€rp EE] ‘L10;s-UonmaI) uenojfgeg
91) 9995 NUPIEK JO 519148} 91}. Jo UIduo 3Y Χο! pur
‘£1€£1 ‘dd uo 9101 ‘72027 ‘S9pityo 905 SP0US19/SI USIAMO [
2928/ 91} το “(addiey “Mogsef) usw Jo 5918} 910)

SNVIHILAOS

beer

SBQLIOSUI ΘῈ YOIUA US WIN] 9I0JAQ OOq E UNA dep γε}:
UO UOISS8s Spjoy por) ΠΌΜΑ 0) Fuspiosse ‘fuojAgeg 18.
TeAnsa; qnuspez 2UI=) AUCI S.IEDA MON USIMAf 911 JO
Mala Usimof sejndod ey ul soAlAIaS ἘΘΡῚ 9111, ὝΠΡΟΒΙΛ
30 SJAITEI Sip} JO Juopeambo Ysimaf aq 518 τρια {2118
"QIOUY | γλεϑ ρα ‘11% ‘959,7 995 ‘goandao 80. S3NpYL)
, ΞΊΦΕΙ Ajusatay, 911 jo uondasuoo 91} 0) £jaso]>
ϑιῖοῦι gomu Asa Inqig[ ‘ueg do 66] 5669 sg Fura
24) JO, “IO AH] JO XOOq, 91} se ucIsssIdzs we yons
ΟἹ paie[as ‘osinoo Jo ‘st i] “poxyaid si suoas said
9501) JO SUO SOS JO ϑίμθα 90} YIYA ΟἹ STunna Ye]
2507) Jo uoIisuaysIdUI09 911] 10} JUEJIOdUI SI TX9}UOI SU UI
oseiyd ayL [919 ‘etued ‘Mas ‘Yooug) 508) 581 395,
ΟἾΔΑ spoSue 950} Jo suo Aq πὸ 'Apos1rp 20YNI ‘suon
τΈΪΘΑΘΩ [eoads tusy) Sural Δα pasnoae; ‘porstfag ses Il
‘QMUEA WOYM saunm) saniutid Jo sodes pure s199s 950}
ΟἹ Apersads ϑυοσι JO—po5 03 ‘Zia —ammmy 96} Jo afpo;
sAOMNY ANI) [TE JO 90INOS 971 ΟἹ HOO[ 0) A1essso0au ϑῃθοϑα,
ἢ ‘posero Suse 9415. po puei$ sy ut Aoaydorg
.'SBUtu} ISE], 917) ὉΠ SMof I9}e] 9U} Jo 19919301 Fulmo19 98}.
ΟἹ ΠΟΠΈΪΘΙ 9500 UT Spurs uoissaidxa 911, ‘pueyssopq
UMOP USPILIM SIE PUINUEUI JO SOIUMSAp 981 UNITA τῇ Yooq
861 UL ‘22, UNI] JO Funtma 911 UL paquosur 5. θα
TEU} 99UI MOYS IAT, (ΛΠ) σϑύχεα 10 Av) tiny Jo
AIMdLIOS 90} ΠῚ polou SI ΠΌΤ ΑΛ Jeu} 991} MOUS [TIM I,
'Sufes se papiode1 51 queNsta jeImenisdns 5,199S 98}
δ 1 ὍΒΩ ἢ I ‘SFUNLAITOS ‘FINLAITOS

{παν [995) Feq 10 x0q pjoyssnoy e
iva p[noa 1} ssaa ‘(UL LI) 926 ‘pn( ur paroisa1 sq
oste (39) few defu(e) o «gela : 9. ‘orgI ἽΝ 30
pue '(,8e0, Aq) StorgI 501 Unpn/ Jo dk 961 AjqegoId
SIG] “siolppata) Aq pasn ose sta 24/24 981 ng
‘9 $ ‘alLivo do !1(929 7 ‘s22409 ‘UuoNM) spioydays
ἴα pasn 198 Jo yonod e 51: duos yo {IITIVM
AU) 4 SE88 #01 56 ὙΊ 89M 5101 INI “OAHLL “2

(HIOYVA9) Jo 21 Ὁ το ‘(, ppesdeny
᾿ἰϑψογξε 'ποποά, “ωρ )ρὰ αν 10! .19YSÎO equi
οι, 'adu=rzpivz ssy do) ingpoé “dda 1 “ὍΤΒΟΒ

‘aa I
“(+491) cazonppro «n aspsrezyz "uosneuia A " (7881) Ῥϑτοτα er
ITA IAGAIS Î(#6g1) PS-ISFI ox2I-SOZE ἢ 74127 S.UWSIN UL
10981) 47 VIE ‘4arzz πεν. n52f 49103197 ud 52404 “DIL Sp
149599) ἀραῃηος ‘14819 ν ‘2271292 Ἰρχαύηος (ANTI
Sssnoy © (Eggi ‘Uniog) τ 90c ‘woxdiz24772 1 pun 0:512454]01
1 (6991) ἡ δρὲ g 1720457 Una 1502105009) ΦΩ͂ ᾿ἀϑυθτ 196-184 0g
“<498p9z4DnÒ ‘10741 UL ,19USSSH “N IOESUCUK 29p SSIWUUSN
Inz aFenpog, oShiy 672, 961 ‘y0s291232 ‘359/0247 ‘UieisneH
t(aggr) “7 ἔοι n pron] n 19919 «nf "962427027 r9Finquetr
s(E9gr) 7/58 414 ('uapnf «dp ‘y9529) "zze10) + (gEgr) 4 60£T
224 “p_respunyego/ sog ‘Iosquo ‘(€931 det ISIZ
PU/ WI πη n ‘Ppes, ‘193180 ‘(P9g1)
Foto GF LSE αὶ (᾿ῃ νας; ἐρχγο SIp ‘42595 "Κα Δα ΒΟΉ ΙΕ ‘TE
‘premg ‘(2/81 Sueg) suapszeong 597
“960 )ττὸ Patonuat 2 pinoys Βαμλο οι 2 suontoqnd uspou
911} Flowy vsAIsua:ta Al9A SI 399fqNs al Lo SImierelti YL
"STQRASOU09 JSULEWI 5119] 150 91}. ur paystund
ata ‘Ajjuauiagoa os pue Ajuanbaz; os pouuapuoo pey
snsaf YA “ΘΟ Θ 91} ‘SS9UPIIUTIS-110YS MolItu pure
£nofiq ,ssesuegg 911, “uotSiai pue uoneu αἴθῃ Jo
ITEJUAOP 961 UT STUELIRIISUI 1910. 91) ‘opud purfq uao
219) YSn01Y1 ᾿ϑαιβοθα SALIMU9 10. sedoy dIUEISSATA
91} JO UONEesijeeI 911 0) pue ssausno9yfti 0) adoad
91} PES] Ὁ} pausim OUA ΘΕΟῚ] Jeu) usyl pauaddey 3]
ἽΠΘΙΠΒΛΟΤΙ SI] JO SIOPUA[SULI pue sIOVESTSUI 911 asoA
ΟἾΔΑ’ ‘uatido[pasp oresueygq A pougsip È ΞΟ Ε97 9}
sem 1 (11 ἽΠΑΧ vup ‘7/68 “Αἱ /g) snydasof 03 Su
-pi099t ‘paepuy “uoneu {51:49 91Π| 10} Α1{6}8} os papua
TETI ΠΟΗ]ΘΗΘΙ UEWIOY- NU SNONSESIP , .
98] pesnvo Apenuosao ‘yoesd 03 MONTORO ‘07
Pastao I9A9U SFASLIBYYJ 91} YOIYM ‘ouspua) ὉΠ ΞΙΓΒΌΟΙ)ΕΙΙ
INEII0IYI PIOTTA SIUI TEU) IQMoOp ou aq 1180 SUL
“qeuontu-nue ‘janus
alam sIOssavepald. otus]ppH-]tyd so a] sesonppes
497€] 911 TEU] ᾿ΙΘΑΘΑΛΟῸ ‘pres aq Jouuto 1 ‘pajzoddns
‘suopoafpard USt910] I9YI 0) OI) ἀ9λ9. ‘SOsOnPpeg au
WUOYA SONLIOYINE feIDUIACIA UELIOY 911 WIM UOnoLIz
JO 3718 Iuelsuoo 2 ul Apuonbasuo aisA pue xe}
1819103 au] fed οἱ ‘A1dUIpiosoe ‘pasnjol SAQUOG 911 INI

dIuos

SCYTHIANS

Originally the Hebrew word may have been pronounced
AÈkunza (MR, i, 1138, 1129U/R, 1DWYR); it is as Delitzsch
: licia CI " Mr i derti -

has pointed out (see ΑΞΗΚΕΝΑΖ) identical with
2. Ashkenaz Aîkuza and ISkuza pecurine in Assyrian in-
=Scythian, scriptions (see $ 6). In the Behistùn inscription
gi the Saka chief Shuka is called, in the Susian
version, Iskunka. Already Vater(Ceruwz., 1802, p. 100) observed
that a name beginning with Sc would be suitable on account of
the prosthetic A, E, or 1. The essential part of the name scems
to be Sku: cp Sxv-Axs, Σκοίλοτοι, Sxw-rao:s, Chinese Szî,
Persian Sa-ka. Afkuza-Skuza is apparently the origin of
Σκύθης.

In Gen. 103 the Scythian is, then, regarded as a son
of the Kimmerian (GOMER, Gimirra, Gamir, Ἱκεμμέριοι)
and a brother of Riphath and Togarmah, whilst in Jer.
51.27 he appears as the companion of the Manneean and
Urartazan. The author of jer. 50-51 58, whose produc-
tion is largely a patchwork of quotations, seems to have
used in 5127 some old writing now lost, since the con-
nection of MINNI and ARARAT (gg.v.) with Ashkenaz
reflects a definite historical situation centuries before his
own time (cp JEREMIAH [B00x], $ zo, vili.). Whether
Riphath and Togarmah were current designations of
certain countries in the N. at the time of the priestly
editor of the Pentateuch, or likewise drawn from some
older source, must be left in doubt.

It has also been maintained that the Scythians are
alluded to under the names Gog and Magog. Magog

was interpreted as Scythians by Josephus

3. Gog and (Ant. i. 61[$ 123]), Jerome, Theodoret,

" andothers. The fact that Gomer {Kim-
merian), Madai(Mede), Javan (Greek), Meshech(Moschi),
Tubal (Tibarenes), and Tiras (Tursa, Tyrrhenians} are
so manifestly names of famous nations renders it quite
certain that, if the word has been accurately transmitted,
or formed at all a part of the original text, Magog must
also represent the name of a well-known people. It
must be confessed that the absence of so important a
name alike in cuneiform and classical sources makes one
suspect the correctness of the name,

This has led Cheyne to suppose a dittography of wi in Gen.
102, and a corruption of |TT5 in Ezek. 38 £ (see Goc anD
Mac0G, n.) The interpretation of ArMAGEDDON (9.2) by this
scholar is indeed as plausible asit is brilliant. e MS foubeful,
however, whether the new-found chthonic divinity will be of
service in Ezek. 38 (cp textual corrections în col. 3881, n. 1, and
for the opposite view that a great historic personage is refiected
by the Gog nf Ezek, 38 see $ 5), A simpler suggestion as to Gen.
102 would be that Magog (n) was miswritten for Gog (111)
under the influence of ‘Madai’ (ip), as a consequence of a
changed conception of Gog, because at one time it was customary
to contract the Assyrian mat Gag into Magag (Streck), or asa
designation of a people akin to the Scythians and derived from
Gog {yiap), such as the Sarmatians or Massagetae. Itis interest.
ing that Saadia în this place has injx* (ed. Derenbourg), the
customary rendering of 2}} at his time; cp Kur'an 2196 and
Arabic writers quoted by Herbelot. ln Ezek. 382, ‘Iand of the
Magog' (1101 pun) is apparently an interpolation (Stade), and
in Ezek. 396 the original seems to have been Gog (2580). [On
Ezek. 38 see further Cri. 210.) In Targ, Jer.l to Ν. 1] 56
Mann ene [00 po ab, ‘a king shall arise from the land of
Magog,' depends on Ezek, 382, while in Targ. Jer.2 mim mi
mmm ‘Gog and Magog and his armies,” x) is probably an
interpolation ; but Magog seems τὸ be the name of a king, as it
certainly is in Targ. Jon. to 1 8.210,

Amenhotep III. (4w. Td. 138 7.) mentions three
countries—Gag, Hanigalbat, and Ugarit. Hanigalbat
is probably Melitene, and Gog is likely to have been
situated NE of Commagene (Streck, ZA 1532:). A
people called Gag, or Gog, was thus known in the
fifteenth century B.c. Concerning its ethnic relations
we as yet know nothing. In view of the marked Iranian
character of some names în the Amarna letters (see $ 13),
it is not too bold an assumption that Gag may have
been a forerunner of ASkenaz in Anatolia belonging to
the same family. Like the Muîki, the Kaîki, the
Tubali, and the Haldi, the Gagi may have been driven
N. by new invaders ; and it js significant that, in the
days of Strabo, there was a province Gogarene im-
mediately E. of the territory occupied by the Moschi,
the Colchians, the Tibarenes, and the Chaldaeans (Geogr.
1114, pp. 452 ed. Didot). In the time of Afur-bani-

4331

SCYTHIANS

pal Gagi still lingered în the neighbourhood of Urartu
as the name of a chief of Sahi (Οὐ. B. 41f). ‘That
the memory of Gog as a people was not lost is shown
by Rev. 208, Ewald rightly felt that the phrase ‘Gog
and Magog” was not the creation of the NT apocalytic.
After the name Gogarene had attached itself to the
territory occupied by Seythians, at least since the be-
ginning of the seventh century n.c., Gog naturally was
understood as a Scythian people, whatever its original
character may have been,

As, according to Ezek. 3817, the coming of Gog,
prince of Meshech and Tubal, had been predicted by

“πὶ , the former prophets, Jerome looked for
4 ‘King Gog uch a prophecy and found it in Nu.
247 where & and Sam. with Aq. Sym. read ‘his king
shall be higher than Gog.'1 There can be little doubt
that this is more original than MT, though the whole
verse is probably a late interpolation. [Cp OG, col
3465] (Sur Le ᾿κδέες, 169 6,55) called i

'eyron (Str les prophètes, 1693, Ὁ. 136,5) called attention to
Amt ic where & irad ‘and behold one caterpillar, king Gogy
and made this passage refer to a Scythian invasion. Here, too,
the Hebrew text gives no satisfactory sense, and Nowack rightly
rejects it as a gloss. @ probably reproduces more nearly the
words of the glossator; but it may be questioned whether the
original read 21} Ἵν, “king of Gog,' or pn mi, ‘Gog, the
king. lf‘king of Gog' was the reading, “Gog the king,’ and
with it ‘king Gog' himself, may have originated in a misunder-
standing of this marginal comment to Am. 71. But the idea of
this king may also have been Suggestei by descriptions of Gagi,
ruler of Sabi, given by some of ASur-bani-pal’s Syrian colonists,
unless it should ultimately prove to have its roots in Babylonian
mythology, where a divine messenger Gaga figures in the fue
{is epic, 327. 67. That the descriptions of Jer. 4-6 and Zeph. 2
(see $ 6, and ZEPHANIAH, 8 4) cannot by themselves have led
to the definite conception of king Gog, is sufficiently evident
from Jewish and Christian exegesis, whick so long has been
satisfied (but see $ 27, and Crif. Zi5.) with seeing in these
passages references to the Chaldzans only.

That, with all its apocalyptic character, Ezek. 38-39
reflects the career of a great historic personage, was

ci pri already felt by Polychronius (about 427
δ. atitaridates , n.) who thought of Antiochus III.
Ez δα He was followed in this by Grotius,
“whose commentary gives a detailed
application of the text to the history of the Seleucid
king. 'Winckler most ingeniously interprets the prophecy
as occasioned by the career of Alexander (40/2160 7).
But neither Antiochus nor Alexander would naturally be
designated ‘ prince of Meshech and Tubal,' and there is
in neither case any motive for the feeling of hostility
displayed, whilst there is evidence of a different dis-
position toward these kings on the part of the Jews.
The present writer would suggest that the conqueror
whose career inspired this prophecy is far more likely
to have been Mithridates VI. Eupator Dionysus of
Pontus,

Mithridates alone could rightly be entitled ‘prince of Meshech
and Tubal,’ his seat of power being where the Moschi and che
Tibarenes lived, and his sway extending over the territory once
associated with those names. None could more aptly be con-
sidered as the coming Gog than the prond conqueror of Scythia
who reigned over all the coast-lands of the Black Sea and brought
from the farthest N. his armies. No other ruler of these realms
had with him Paras, Cush, and Put, Gomer, Togarmah, and the
extreme N. than Mithridates, whose general Pelopidas could
justly boast of the Persian auxiliaries, Egyptian ships, Cappa-
docian troops, Armenian contingents, and Scythian, Sarmatian,
Bastarnian, and Thracian hordes that swelled the king”s forces.
Mithridates' dark intrigues, his boundless ambition, his insatiable
greed, the ‘Ephesian vespers’ with their 80,000 victims, the
persecutions of the Jews in Cos and elsewhere, who were at the
time warm friends and allies of Rome, must, in 88 B.c., have filled
many a heart in Palestine with fear of an invasion, hatred, and
abomination. But, in an age of eschatological hopes, the con
fidence could not fail that, should he invade the ‘navel of the
earth where quiet and prosperity had been restored, and prove
indeed to be the predicted Gog, he would there meet with a
miserable end. By the sword of the faithful and the wrath of
heaven he would perish, and his hosts would be buried during

1 MT na: the addition of the prosthetic g may be explained
as in Arab. 4725 for 113 in Ezek. 882 Ar.

2 [This alternative can, it would seem, be avoided by the
conrse suggested in LocusTs, $ 3 with note 6. Cp Crit: διό.
ad loc.]

4332

SCYTHIANS

seven months în ‘the Valley of the Travellers to the Sea ‘(6 of
Ezek. 3911), whilst for himself would be reserved a famous
sepulchre in Israel in this valey of Hamon-Gog (Esdraelon),
apparently în the city named after the foreign horde Hamonah
Gorthopolis). Thus the king of Scythia would be buried in the
cityof the Scythians, the new Dionysus in the tomb where
Dionysus-Oitosyrus buried Leucothea, his nurse (Pliny,574), who
gras Hfencificd with Artimpasa, the Scythian Diana (Hegesippus
319).
Tt is possible that already Photius understood Jere-
miah as referring to the Scythians in 622 7
In his first homily on the Russian invasion in 865 Photius
seems to regard himself as speaking of the same northern people
: that the prophet had in mind. He no doubt
8. Scythians shared the view of his contemporary Nicetas
in Jer. and who, in his life of Ignatius, speaks of the
Zeph. Russians as a Scythian people (Σκυθῶν ἔθνος
λεγόμενον ‘Pus), as does also the unknown con-
tinuator of Theophanes!s chionography; see ‘De Russorani
incursione’ in Lezicon Vindobonense, ed, Nauck, 203 Καὶ and
χχίν. fe
In modern times, Cramer, Fichhorn, Dahler, Hitzig,
Ewald, and most recent critics have seen in Jer. 4-6
Zeph.2 original references to the Scythians, though
admitting subsequent retouching under the impression
of Chaldaean invasions. It has seemed to them im-
possible that Jeremiah should have feared a Chaldsean
attack in the thirteenth year of Josiah, whilst the Seythian
invasion mentioned by Herodotus (1103 7} seems to
have occurred about that time. In JFREMIAH [B00K],
$ 20, i., it has been suggested that Chaldaean designs
upon Syria may have become apparent already in 625,
and that the Scythian army may have contained a
Chaldaan contingent by virtue of the agreement between
Nabopolassar and the Umman Manda prince alluded
to in the Nabuna'id inscription. ‘That view must now
be somewhat modified, as Winckler's researches have
rendered it highly probable that the Umman Manda in
this case are the Medes, and that there was an alliance
between the A3kuza-Scythians and the Assyrians. A
prayer to Sama$, published by Knudtzon (Assyrische
Gebete, no. 29), mentions the request of Bartatua of
ASkuza for a daughter of Esarhaddon. —Winckler
identifies this chief with Protothyas, father of Madyas,
king of the Scythians (Herod, 1103), and reasonably
supposes that there was effected an alliance which led
Madyas to defend Nineveh against Cyaxares. Ἡ Madyas
was the son of Bartatua who flourished about 675, he
is likely to have taken just such a part in the events of
625 as Herodotus indicates. Phraortes had fallen in a
baîtle against the Assyrians 625. ΤῸ avenge his father,
Cyaxares marched against Nineveh and invested the
city. Itis as natural that he should accept the aid of
Nabopolassar as that this Chaldsean usurper should be
eager to gain an alliance with him by sending an army.
In this predicament Madyas came to the aid of
Nineveh. The Medes were worsted in the battle, and
the city was saved. Another ally of Cyaxares and
Nabopolassar had, however, to be dealt with. Psam-
metichus had long been encroaching on Assyrian terri-
tory. Since 639 he seems to have laid siege to Ashdod.
The Scythians, therefore, went on from Nineveh to
invade Egypt. Their ostensible object was further to
defend the endangered interests of Assyria. Hence the
absence of any record of violence done. Even in the
disorders in Ashkelon, it is distinctiy stated that the
mass of the army took no part, only a few individuals.
Such treatment at the hands of Scythians could scarcely
be expected. Prophets like Jeremiah and Zephaniah
naturally watched their approach as a new scourge in
the hand of Yahwè, amply justified by the moral con-
dition of fudah. That these hordes should quietly come
and go in peace, having received their tribute from Egypt,
they could not dream, This line of conduct finds its

1 There îs nothing in the history of the, Hebrew canon that
forbids so late a date; see the present writer's articles on the
canon in the Jewis Encyclopedia and the New Inter.
national Encyclofedia and ‘Daniel among the Prophets,
Hibbert Journ. vol. i. Nor is there any evidence that this
appendix already formed a part of the book that no doubt was
translated a generation earlier (preface to Ecclus.),

4333

SCYTHIANS

explanation only in the political relations between
Scythians and Assyrians. ‘he editor of Jer. 1-20 (see
JEREMIAH [Bo0K], $ 5,/:} had an important landmark
to go by, and rightly put the beginning of his prophet's
ministry in the memorable thirteenth year of Josiah (625).
Winckler assumes that the defence of Nineveh by
Madyas occurred at the time when the city was finally
è 14 destroyed (606), and that the Scythians

7. Wineltler's CSStToei [00] nd Ἧς correaiiy ob
eriticism. serves that a parenthesis begins after
the statement of the appearance of Madyas, and con-
cludes that orly the beginning of Herodotus' account
(11034) and the end of it (1106, end) were drawn from
an older source, the remainder being the historian's own
work. But the parenthesis only tells how the Seythians
happened to be in Asia, and the narrative manifestly
continues with ‘Then the Medes fought with the
Scythians' in 1:04, end. The rest presents only one
difficulty, which, however, may be satisfactorily met.
If the twenty-eight years of Scythian rule felì within
Cyaxares' reign (625-585), as 1107 distinctly affirms,
«they must have extended from 625 to 597; yet the
capture of Nineveh in 606 is mentioned after the re-
covery of the nations ruled before 625. But the
restoration of Media's former territory is not unnatur-
ally mentioned first, even though it had not been fully
accomplished before 597, and the important addition of
Assyria only afterwards with emphasis, though occutring
already in 606. ‘There is no evidence that Scythia lost
anything but an ally by the fall of Assyria. If the king
of the Umman Manda in the Nabu-na'id inscription is
Cyaxares, there is no hint in that document of a Scythian
army appearing for the defence of Nineveh in 606.
Had the Scythian power in Asia Minor been crushed in
that year, it is not likely that hostilities between Media
and Lydia would have been so long deferred. In 597
the two allies, Media and Chaldza, seem to have made
a great attack upon the W., Media destroying the
Scythian power in Armenia and Cappadocia, Chaldwea
humiliating Egypt's Syrian buffer state, Judah. They
were still united when in 586 Nebuchadrezzar put an
end to the Judean kingdom, and the next year secured
for his ‘helper," Cyaxares, an honourable péace after the
battle of the eclipse, Cilicia being then the heir to the
position and policy of Scythia. Winckler's hypothesis
appareutly makes the distance too great between Madyas
and his father Protothyas, and does not sufficiently re-
cognise the importance of the political situation in 625,
Such doubis concerning the first siege of Nineveh by
Cyaxares and its attendant circumstances (already ex-
pressed by We., 47. Proph.(1) 1560),

Some: 160), questions as to the reliability of
τος Jer. 462 (cp JEREMIAH [B00K], $ 14),

and particularly ἃ searching and much-needed criticism
of proper names in MT, finally led Cheyne to look for
an învasion from the S. by the Jerahmeelites instigated
by Nebuchadrezzar in the years immediately before 604
{see PROPHETIC LITERATURE, $ 40). The Jerahmeel-
ite theory unquestionably promises to throw much light
on the obscure history of the Negeb. That the Arabian
neighbours of Egypt, as well as the peoples E. of
Judah, should have been inflamed by Nebuchadrezzar
Îs altogether probable; and that Jeremiah, watching
these repeated raids, should have felt behind them the
master-hand of the Chaldzean is not incredible. Nor
need it be denied that pps has occasionaliy been under-
stood as ‘the North,’ where, in reality, a place-name
was intended. It is even possible that the reports of
the prophet's earlier speeches have been coloured by the
memory of more recent words of his occasioned by such
raids by the neighbours. In view, however, of the
account by Herodotus of a Seythian invasion of Pales-
tine, following the relief of Nineveh by Madyas, the
suggestion in a cuneiform letter of a Scytho-Assyrian
alliance already in the time of Bartatua-Protothyas, the
occasion for Scythian interference in the accession of

4334

SCYTHIANS

Cyaxares forty years before the eclipse of 585, the in-
surrection of Nabopolassar, dated by Ptolemy's canon in
625, and the united attack of Cyaxares and Nabopolassar
upon Assyria, and the assignment of these prophecies to
the same year by an editor apparently dependent on an
early biographer, it seems safer to adhere to the con-
struction of the history given above. [See, further, Crié.
Bib.]

At most, little knowledge concerning the Scythians
could be derived from these biblical references. If the
identification of ASkuza is correct,

ὃ. Comelform the Scythians are mentioned în cunei-
Chinese sources. form inseriptions, such as I R. 45 col.

227, and Knudtzon, Ass. Gedete, 29,
35, in a manner that throws light upon the beginnings of
Seythian rule in Asia Minor.

In a Persian cuneiform inscription at Behistiin, Saka huma-
varka, and Saka tigrakhuda are referred to by Darius, who also
speakks of the ‘Sala at the ends of the earth in a hieroglyphic
list of nations at the Suez canal, The Scythians are not men-
tioned by name in the Homeric poems, though they may be
referred to as ἱππημολγοί, ZL 18 5. Strabo (7 ‘5 quotes a direce
reference from Hesiod; but whether this was drawn from an

otherwise unknown genuine γῆς περίοδος or from the third κατά-"

Aoyos written about 600 B.c., as Kirchhoff emends the text, is
uncertain. About 600 n.c. the name occurs in a fragment of
Alcaus, and that is probably also the date of the poem af
Aristeas of Proconnesus. /Eschylus refers to the good laws of
the Scythians (Strabo, z.c.), and Hecatezus of Miletus gave
valuable information concerning them, The most important
source is Herodotus. His fourth book is devoted to Scythia,
Much of his knowledge is derived from native Scythians in
Olbia, as well as from resident Greeks. Hippocrates also seems
to have visited Scythia, and, like Herodotus, still confined the
name Scythians to the Scoloti. Pseudo-Scylax (about 337 8.6.)
and Ephorus begi to use it in a somewhat wider sense,
though familiar with the character and history of the Scoloti.
Some of the representations in art of Scythian life found at
Kertsch (Panticapeum), Kum Olba and Altun Olba (see 8 1r)
belong to the fourth and third centuries. The Greek inscriptions
of Olbia containing Scythian namesare not older than the second
century nc. Diodorus adds little to the earlier sources ; but
Strabo's geography throws much light upon the Scythia of his
day. The changed conditions there inspired him with undue
scepticism as to the accuracy of Herodotus, Trogus Pompeius
in Justin, Ptolemy the geographer, Polyenus, Ammianus
Marcellinus, and others acquaint us with some facts. For the
history of the eastern Scythians Ktesias is not without value,
Coins give the names of Seythian kings. Of great importance
are the Chinese writings of Sse-ma-tsien (about 100 B.C.) trans
lated by Brosset, Jourx, 45, ii. 8.418, and of Panku (about 80
209, both bechuse sf thelr sober descriptions of lands and
peoples, and because of the aid they furnish to the chronology.
‘Whilst, in historical times, there have been important
centres of Scythian life in Asia Minor and in Europe,
in Margiana, Bactria, Kophene, and
μὴ Home And India, the people neither considered
fr ythi itself nor was regarded by others as
nians. utochihonous in any of these lands.
Even in the territory between the Danube and the Don,
which might properly be called Scythian, because for so
many centuries the seat of a Scythian civilisation, a
native tradition declared the Scoloti to be strangers.
Many indications point to the region N. of Jaxartes,
between the Aral Sea and Lake Balkash, in modern
Turkestan and the adjoining Khirgis steppe, as the
home of the Scythians in the days when their immediate
Iranian kinsmen, the Aryan invaders of India, were stili
their neighbours S. and SE. in the old Airyanem
Vaejo. The presence of Mongolian and Tibetan
tribes on the NE. and E., and of the kindred
Massagete on the SE., occasioned by the expansion of
Chinese power, gradualîy forced a branch of the people
across the Ural, the Volga, and finally the Don. The
time of this invasion of Western Scythia cannot be
determined with certainty ; but it may have occurred as
early as in the sixteenth century B.C. (see $ 14). Another
Iranian people, the Kimmerians,! occupying the land so
far S. as to the Danube, were gradually driven into the
Crimea or, at different times and by different roads,
into Asia Minor, The Kimmerian invasion that

1 Such names of Kimmerian kings as Teutpa, Tuktammi
(Δύγδαμες τε Λύγδαμις, Sayce) and SandrakSatra, occurring in the
seventh century, are clearly Iranian.

4335

SCYTHIANS

followed the E. coast of the Black Sea in the eighth
century was probably the last. Down the W. coast of
the Caspian Sea the Scythian tribes È. of the Don
followed and established themselves E. of the Kim-
merians and N. of Mannaeans and Medes, whence they
apparently extended their power over all Armenia and
Cappadocia. Their cid places E, of the Azov Sea were
taken by a Median people, the Sauromatee or Sarmatians,
possibly not before the return of Median power. On
the plateau through which the Dniester {Tyfas), the
Bog (Hypanis), the Dnieper (Borysthenes), and the
Inguletz (Panticapes) flow, and so far as to the Don
(Tanais), the Scoloti took possession of the land, some
settling down to agricultural pursuits, others retaining
their nomadic life.

The arrival of Milesian colonists (Olbia founded about 650)
created mixed Graco-Scythian tribes such as the Kallipide and
Alizones. A kindred Thracian tribe, the Agathyrsi, was sub-
dued. Northwards the territory extended into Ukraine. Be-

‘ond their own clans in that direction lived Slavonic tribes, the

eari, the Melanchlzeni, and the Anthropophagi (wrongly so
called). Up the Volga there were the Budinz (Permians Ὁ, and
across the Ural the Thyssageta: and Tyrkee, Finnish peoples,
‘Wwhilet E. of these were the Turkish Argimpasi and the Tibetan
Issedones, and their neighhours the Ariamaspee, fighting with
griffins for the possession of gold.

The Scythians do not seem to have been driven out
of their home in S. Russia, but rather to have been
absorbed in the Sarmatian and then in the Slavonie
tribes.

The eastern branch of the people was not allowed
undisturbed possession of its lands N. of the Jaxartes.
Already in the time of Cyrus and Darius a part of the
Scythians had been pressed into Margiana (see $ 17),
and at the end of the third century another part was
forced by the Massageta into 8, Sogdiana, and some-
what later into Bactria. Im Bactria these Scythians
found only a temporary home, as they were driven from
there by the Massaget® (Yuechi); but they maintained
themselves longer farther east.

In$. Kabulistan, Arachosia, Drangiana, and Sakestan (Kipin),
and in KaSmir, Nepal, and Punjab they established themselves:
Finally, they were there also submerged by new powers and
absorbed in the native population.

That the Scythians spoke an Iranian language, is
already evident from Herod. 4117, where the Sauromatee,
a Median people, are said to speak the

11. ò speak 1
n Scythian language, though in an im-
and etnie perfect manner. The Scythian words

explained by Herodotus are manifestly
Iranian, and the many names of persons and places
recorded by Greek writers and in the Olbian inscriptions
leave no room for doubt. ΙΕ is the merit particularly of
Zeuss. and Miillenhoff to have proved conclusively the
Iranian character of Scythian speech. ‘That the Eastern
Seythians spoke substantially the same language is
evident not least from the names of the Caka kings in
India (see Hoffmann, Syrische Akten persischer Martyrer,
139).

An oceasional Scythian loan-word in a neighbouring Stavonic
or Turkish dialect cannot affect this result. The discussions of
Neumann, Cano, Fressì, and others, who have tried to invalidate
the arguments of Zeuss, would have proved quite futile even if
their philological method had been more discriminating. Still,
it should not be denied that neighbouring dialects of the same
family have a tendency to shade off into each other.

For determining the ethnic relations of the Scythians
the pictorial representations on objects found at Kertsch,
Kum Olba, and elsewhere on the Kimmerian Bosphorus
are of utmost importance,

As the best of these are not later than the fourth century B.C.,
δρᾷ were probably made for Scolotian grandees (see Rayet,
Etudes d'archéotogie, 196 725), tbey may be taken to represent
fairly the Scythian type. ‘The similarity to Russian mujiks, in
dress, hair, beard, and general appearance, due to climatic cone
ditions and the same mode of life, cannot obscure the fact that
the features are essentially Iranian. If they all should prove to
be likenesses of Sarmatians, as the later ones probably are, this
would not weaken the conclusion, since the Iranian character of
the Sarmatians admits of no doubt.

Through Herodotus we know that the Scythians worshipped

4336

SCYTHIANS

Tabiti (Ἰστέη, Vesta), goddess of the fire; Papaus (probably

ΝΕ Papai or Βαραῖ, Zeus), the heaven-father;

12. Religion. Api (γῆ), the earth ; Oitosyrus (Apollo, pos:

sibly descriptive name of Mithra), the Sun;

Axtimpasa (Aphrodite Urania), Venus; Thamisadas (Poseidon),
the Sea ; Herakles and Ares,

‘The Scythians had no images, or altars, or temples.
Their chief sacrifices were horses, which they offered in
a peculiar manner ; but prisoners in war were also at times
offered. Only the god of war had a few great shrines.
There is evidence of ancestral cults. Divination by
rods or linden bark was practised, and the soothsayers
formed distinct classes, A comparison with. Persian
divinities and religious customs shows a remarkable
similarity. Whilst a heptad of divinities occurs (‘Af?-
dapda), there is no trace of Ahura Mazda. Whether
any of the E. Scythians accepted the Mazdayasnian faith,
is not known.

Baddhism may have made some progress among the Sse în
Kipin and Punjab; but the Vuechi king Kanitka (78 A.D.)
seems to have been the first monarch officially to embrace that
form of religion.

The earlier Greek writers speak in terms of high

13. Character praiee of the character of sie
and civilisation, SOthians, giving instances of their

" justice, sincerity, love of truth, and
sharp intelligence.

It is possible, however, that these descriptions have to some
extent been coloured by ἃ 7277 reasoning as to the virtues of a
nomadic life, such as may still ‘be found in modera works. On
the other hand, the less flattering tone of later authors was,
no doubt, due in no small measure to their confusion of the
Scythians with their rader Slavonic, Finno-Ugric, and Turkish
neighbours. In Roman times, the conflicts with the Sarmatians
naturalîy added bitterness to the references to Scythians.

The Scythians probably possessed, in addition to the
general characteristics of all Iranian peoples, some
qualities peculiar to that nomadie life so large a part of
them continued to lead. The réle which the A3kuza
played in Asia, at a time when the Assyrian empire had
reached its greatest extent, and in the days of its decad-
ence, indicates a somewhat highly developed political
organisation and a certain adaptability to conditions of
settled life, sagacity as well as energy, diplomacy not
less than enterprise.

In Russia the long contact of the Scythians with Greek civilisa-
tion, at a time when it had attained its very highest development,
could not but exercise a profound infiuence upon them. The
antiquities found on the Kimmerian Bosphorus, now in the
Hermitage in St. Petersburg, amply prove what the tastes of
Scythian lords were and what enviabie means they had of gratify=
ing them. One class of these finds probably represents the work
of native artists trained upon Grecian models. These Scythian
masters produceda type ofart the influence of which may be traced
beyond (N. οὔ the Baltic. Since some tribes had for centuries
cultivated the soil, and large numbers of Scythians lived in cities,
many nobles undotbtedly had their residences built by Greek
architects. King Skyles had a palace in Olbia. Concerning
their industrial skill, we have no information, except that they
excelled in metallurgy. In Bactria the Scythians became the
heirs of another Greek civilisation ; and in India they evidently
adapted themselves to native and Greek traditions, not without
themselves exerting an influence upon the life of Punjab and
Sindh.

Concerning the period in which the Scythians still
had for their neighbours in the Airyanem Vasjo

- . (Vendidad, 1) the other branches of the
14 Eietory τ Iranion family, before these bad passed
id into Sogdiana, Margiana, Bactria, Hyr-
period —cania, Herat, and Kabul, we possess no
direct information. The presence of Iranian names in
the Amarna Tablets and early Assyrian and Egyptian
inscriptions indicated by Ball {PSBA, 1882, pp, 4247),
Bezold-Budge {ΤῈ οἱ Amarna Tablets, 1892, p. xiv),
Rost (ΚΑ, 1897), and especially Hommel (Sitz.-
der. Bòhm. Ges. d. Wiss. 1898), seems to show that
Anatolia, Mesopotamia, Syria, and Elam had already
become acquainted with some members of the Iranian
family in the sixteenth century 5.C.

According to the native tradition of the Scoloti found in
Olbia by Herodotus (47), the first king of Scythia, Targitaus,
reigned 1000 years before Darius Hystaspis ‘and no more.”
We have no means of determining on what data this computa-
tion rests, and its historical value appears doubtful, Targitaus
himself being probably a mythical personage. Hommel con-

4337

SCYTHIANS

mects this story with the accounts of a Scythian conquest as far
as the Nile and an invasion of Asia to the borders of Syria by
an Amazonian queen (Diodorus, 243 46), and regards Strabo/s
(1516) Idanthyrsus as a mistake for Targitaus. But it îs
probable that the accounts in Diodorus are only reflections
of the invasion in the time of Psammetichus, and that Idan-
thyrsus has in Strabo received credit for the work accomplished
by Madyas. The narratives of the conquest of Scythia by
Sesostris (Ramessu II.) are clearly late exaggerations; but
Hommel's notable theory, accounting for Iranian names in
Kadavaduna (=Cappadocia, a country closely allied to the
centre of Hittite power, Melitene, and Cilicia; see Miiller,
Asien, 288, 335) by the Scythian character of its people, also
tends to explain this confusion of Hittite and Scythian. The
people called Gag may prove to be akin to the Kimmerians and
forerunners of the ASkuza. As regards the history of the
Scoloti in Russian Scythia before theîr contact with the Greeks
in the seventh century, we have no information.

From tablets inscribed in the reign of Esarhaddon
(681-668) we learn that Scythians had established

sanì, themselves N. of Lake Urumiab.
15. fatanie ταῦθ : Fear is expressed lest the Seytbians
Mea: DA » © should break through Manneean into
785. Assyrian territory, the chief I$pakai
is said to be an ally of the Mannaeans, and king
Bartatua (Protothyas) is referred to as seeking an
alliance and the hand of Esarhaddon's daughter. That
the alliance was concluded is highly probable, since in
625 Madyas, Protothyas' son, came to the aid of
Assyria by defeating Cyaxares, who was besieging
Nineveh, and by checking the advances of Psam-
metichus in Syria. In consideration of these services,
it is natural that the suzerainty of Assyria over Urartu
acknowledged by Sarduris III. should pass to Scythia,
and that such states as Cappadocia, Commagene, and
Melitene should become tributary. What the relation
of Cilicia to the new power was, it would be interesting
to know ; but it cannot yet be discerned, ‘The Median
border states Atropatene, Matiene, and others are
likely to have been subdued, From 625 to 597
Seythian rule in Asia Minor continued. Then the
power was broken by Cyaxares. In sor Scythian
refugees from the Median court fled to Lydia for pro-
tection ; but Scythians continued to live under Median
and Persian domination in Asia Minor. There was a
Sacastene in Cappadocia as well as în Armenia.

Darius claims to have conquered the ‘Saka beyond

the Sea." By these he means the Scythians N. of the

Euxine. He probably also refers to

164 Sevthians them as the sake rigra4fuda, since

the pictorial representations from the

Kimmerian Bosporus show that these wore the Phrygian

cap. Itis to Darius' campaign into Russia in 512 that

we owe the elaborate account of the Scythians by Hero-

dotus. That Darius marched as far as to the Volga

may be doubted, and some other points in the narrative
are manifestly unhistorical.

There is no reason, however, to question the important ròle
ascribed to Idanthyrsus, through whose adroit management of
the defence Darius was frustrated in his object, His father
Saulius seems to have already impressed himself upon the
colonists, as his name is especially mentioned. No events of
any importance, however, bave been recorded by the Greek
writers before Herodotus who refer to the Scythians. Whether
the use by them ofthe name Scythian (Σκύθης) shows that their
knowledge of the people was derived from the Akuza of Asia
Minor, or that Sku-za was as much a native designation of the
people as Sko-lot, cannot be determined.

The Milesian colonists were, of course, tributary to
the Scythian suzerain ; but the relations seem to have
been cordial.

Only when a king like Skylas forgot his native traditions to
the extent of talcing part in the Dionysiac orgies in Olbia, the
Seythians resented his proceeding. Friendly relations also pre-
valled between Ariapeithes and Teres of ‘Thrace, in the beginning
of the fifth century. Itis doubtful whether Spartacus (438-432),
the founder ofthe Bosporanian kingdom, was a Greek or of mixed
race. There are some indications that the king whose skeleton
was found în a tomb at Kertsch (Panticapazum) had Scythian
‘blood in his veins, The Spartacida were not a serious menace to
Seythian power in the fourth century. Danger threatened first
from Macedonia, whose ambitious ruler Philip invaded Scythia
and killed în battle king Ateas in 339, and subsequently from
the Sarmatians who crossed the Don and made themselves
during the third century the most important people in the

4338

SCYTHOPOLIS

territory once claimed by the Scythians. In the beginning of
the second century the German Hastarnians made their appear
ance. A Scythian reaction seems to have occurred under
Scilurus who, however, was defeated by Mithridates VI.,
105 8.c. After Mithridates (132-163) had conquered the country
N. of the Euxine, he could lead armies of Scythians as well as
Sarmatians, Bastarnians, and Thracians against the Romans.
Later, the legionaries of Rome found Sarmatians as soon as
they had crossed the Danube. Finally, the Scythians were
absorbed in the prevailing Slavonic population“.

From their old home the eastern branch of this
people was also driven by invaders across the Jaxartes
into Chorasmia, Margiana, and Bactria.

patrocini According το Ktesias, Cyrus fought

“ against these Scythians, and forced
Amorges to aid him in his war upon Creesus (546).
There is probably also a nucleus of truth in his account
of Cyrus’ war with the Derbikkae, though he has
wrongly connected his death with this war, There
is no reason for doubting the substantial accuracy of
Herodotus' account of his death in the war upon
Tomyris, queen of the Massageta, though there are as
usual some embellishments. ‘The grounds on which
Duncker rejected this story are quite insufficient,

Darius had to fight with Scythians whom he designates as
Saka humazarka. These are probably identical with the
Amyrgian Scythians. Fressl may be right in connecting both
these words with Margiana. According to Fr. Miiller ΖΑ͂
* 258) they are the ‘Soma-preparing Scythians'; but Ed. Meyer
(GA 3110.) doubts this interpretation. Scythian archers took

art in the battle of Marathon, and were also in the army of

erxes. Where their home was, is not indicated, Alexander
came into contact with Scythians only after he had crossed the
Jaxartes in Sogdiana. For some time before 138, Scythians had
held possession of Margiana.

Through Chang-kian's account of his mission (in Ssematsien),
it is possible to trace the political situation in Îran in 128, and
to discem some of the events that led up to it, Pressed by the
Hiungnu, a Turkish people, the Yuechi (probably Massageta:)
had forced the Szù (Caka, Saka, Scythians) across the Jaxartes,
In 175 the Szù conquered Sogdiana from Eucratides of Bactria,
This king defended Bactria against their attack with the aid of
Michridates I. in 160. In 130 the Scythians took most of
Bactria from Heliocles, But they were in their turn driven
from Bactria, and fled into Kipin, Kashmir, Nepal, and India,
where they established kingdoms, Maues reigned in Kipin
and Punjab (130-110), Azes (t1o-80), and Aspavarma, Aziles, and
Vanones after 80. Between 70 and 30 Spalahoras, Spalag-
dames, Spalyris, and Spalyrisis reigned in W. India, though
their power was much limited by Hermaios. They were finally
overthrown by Kadphizes I. (Kiutsiu-Kio), the founder of the
Yuechi dynasty. This dynasty (until 116 A.D.), whose most
famous king is Kazishka (70-90 A.D.), was also designated as
the Scythian (Gaka), and the Caka-era begins with the year
78 ap. The È. Scythians were confused with their kinsmen,
the Massageta, and other neighbours in India, as the W.
Scythians had been confused with their kinsmen, the Sar.
matians, and other neighbours in Europe. In India, as in
Afghanistan, the Scythians were absorbed in the’ native
population.

(1) On the biblical references see the commentaries on Genesis,
Jeremiah, Zephaniah, and Ezekiel, and the histories of Israel

[also Crit. 875.1. The best modern history
18. Literature. of Mithridates of Pontus is by Theodore
᾿ Reinach (Mfit4ridate Eupator, 1890). (2)
For descriptionsof Scythia see especially Ukert, Geog. der Griech.
und Rimer,82; Reclus, Géog. Univ.; Lindner, Skythien w.
Skythen des Heredot, 1841, and especially "Neustann, Die
‘Hellenen im Skythenlande, 855; Baer, Hist. Fragen, 1873, and
Tomaschek in Serichte d. Wiener Akademie, 1888. ) The
most important works on the language are Zeuss, Die Dewtschen
und die Nachbarstàmme, 1837; and Miillenhoff, Deutsche
Altertumskunde, 3 (1892). Fressì, Die Skythen-Sahen, 1886, îs
not sufficiently critical. (4) For the antiquities see Stepha!
Antiguités du Bosphore Cimmériens 1854; MacPherson, An-
tiquities of Kertck, 1857; Neumann (see under 2), Rayet,
Etudes d'archéologie et d'art, 1888; Solomon Reinach, Ax-
tiguités du Bosphore Cimmérien, 1885. (5) For the history,
see, in addition to primary sources, Winckler, Gescà. &
Alterturns, 188,0) 24307: Gutschmid, £849), artt. ‘Scythia*
and ‘ Persia,’ discriminating, but wrongly excluding the castern
Scythians; the suggestive discussions of H. Winckler, 407°
184; the admirable summaries of Ed. Meyer, GA, especi-
ally 3, 88 60/7 (igor); Lassen, /adische Altertumskunde,
1847-1857; Schròder, /ndiens Literatur und Cultur, 1887,
and Lefmann, Gesck. des Alten Indiens, 1890. Ν. 5.

SCYTHOPOLIS (οκγθὼν πόλιν), 2 Mace. 1229 ;
in Josh, εἴς. BETH-SHEAN [g.2.]; cp HAMONAH.

BEA (DI, yam; Garacca). See GrocraPHY, $ 4;
also DEAD SEA, GALILEE (Sea of), MEDITERRANEAN,
RED SEA, SALT SEA.

4339

SEA, THE BRAZEN

SEA, THE BRAZEN(NWNI] DI; τὴν BAXaccan
THN χάλκην 2 K. 25 13 Jer. 5217 {om. A] 1 Ch. 188),
1. Size and TRE MOLTEN SEA (PYMD DI; τὴν

form. = BAAaccan [B]. 7. θ. ayTHN [A]. τ. 0,
xyrHn [1], 1 Κ. 723; T- 8. XyTHN
[BAL], 2 Ch. 42), or simply THE Ska (1 K.744, 2 K.
1617, 2 Ch. 415), the large bronze reservoir which stood
in the SE, angle of the court of Solomon's tempie. The
designation ‘sea’ is explained by Josephus from the size
(Ant. vii.35; ἐκλήθη. θάλασσα διὰ τὸ μέγεθος).
According to the description in 1 K. 7..3-96 the ‘sea’ was
round, méasuring ro cubits (17.22 {1.1} in width and 5
(8.61) in depth; ‘and a line of 30 cubits ((BAL 33
cubits} compassed it round about." These numbers are
of course only approximate—not given with mathematical
precision, otherwise to a diameter of τὸ cubits would
have corresponded a circumference of 31.4159.,, cubits;
failure to observe this has caused commentators need-
less trouble. The capacity of the “sea' (1 K. 726; 81
om.) was 2000 baths= 16,010 gallons (see WEIGHTS
AND MEASURES, $ 3). 2 Ch. gives 3000 baths (=24,015
gallons), certainly an impossible figure, even that of
1 K. being too large for the data; a hemisphere of the
dimensions given contains only 6376 gallons and a
cylinder 10,798 gallons.? Even if, in view of what 15
said about the 12 oxen, we come to the conclusion that
the ‘sea' must have been more or less cylindrical in shape,
not, as Josephus (Ax4. vili, 3 5, τὸ ἡμισφαίριον) will have
it, hemispherical, we can hardly suppose it to have held
much more than (say) 7000 gallons, There is, how-
ever, no recorded ancient parallel even for such a
casting. It is one of very considerable magnitude
(great bell of Moscow 198 tons; great bell of St.
Paul's—largest in England—17} tons). The ancients
no doubt usually did their large castings in pieces; but
where possible they preferred hammered work.
Solomon's ‘sea’ may, therefore, it has been suggested,
have been a wooden vessel plated with bronze. On the
notice in 1 K. 746 see ADAM, 1 ; and for a different view,
SUCCOTA, 2.

As to the form of the 'sea' the only further data we
have are that the brass was an handbreadth thick, that
the brim was wrought like the brim of a cup, like the
flower of lily, and that below the brim ran two rows of
gourd-like ornaments p'yp5* (see GouRD, end). These
ornaments, as distinguished from those of the brazen
pillars, were cast when the sea itself was.cast ; in other
words we have to think of them as in relief, not as
‘undercut. The sea rested upon 12 brazen oxen arranged
in four groups facing the four quarters of the heavens.

On every other point worth knowing—the height of
the oxen, the shape of the basin, and so fortht—the
writer is silent. Nor are we told in what manner the
water was supplied or drawn ; one naturally thinks of
the temple spring or a conduit from it.

Elostermann satisfies our curiosity as to the mode of filling
by conjectural emendation of 1 K.723 where he reads ‘There
were 30 cocks around the sea; 20 were under the brim and
supplied it, and at the bottom of the sea were ro which drained
it; the cocks were in two rows and their flow was according to

their measure.’ The Vss., however, supply no sort of hint
towards any such emendation,

According to the Chronicler (2 Ch. 46) the sea was

1 [On the assumption that by 22:64 is meant the long cubit;
see WeicxTs and MeasunES, $ 1.1

2 [Prof. Unwin, F.R.S., in a private communication, says:
ΕἸ make out that a hemispherical cup, 15 ft. extemal diameter
and 4 ins, thick would require 113,5 cubic ft. οὗ brass, and would
Weigh 261 tons. It would contain 770 cubic ft. or 4805 gallons
of water, and this would weigh 21 tons. A cylindrical vessel
would weigh more and contain more—but the spherical shape is
the most favourable for possibility.']

8 IERI OP in 1 K.724 is usually rendered ten in a cubit'
(so RVmg. and AV), and accordingly the total number of gourds
in each row reckoned to be 300. The words as they stand, how-
ever, can only mean “in a length of 10 cubits ; but this gives no
sense. The clause is (with Stade) to be deleted as a gloss (cp
Benzinger, ad /oc.).

4340

SEA CALVES

for the priests to wash in (cp Ex. 8019); as to this, all ‘

2, Signi one can say is that the arrangement would
ficasre, be in the highest degree inconvenient for

* any such purpose. Almostinevitably there-

fore one comes back to the conjecture that the sea itself
had a symbolical meaning, as well as the oxen on
which it rested. ‘The oxen are to be explained not by
the consideration that the ox was the principal sacrificial
animal {so Riehm, WB, s.v. ‘Meer, ehernes') but
rather by the symbolic character of the ox as repre-
senting deity, in Canaanitish-Israelitish religion. Kosters
(cp 7%. 7. 1879, pp. 4557) explains the sea itself as a
symbol of the subterranean ocean, the 40m. He
recalis the many traces to be found in the OTof acquaint-
ance with the Babylonian creation-myth and the struggle
of the gods with Tiimat (cp Gunkel, Sckò#/wng, 153,
and see DRAGON, LEVIATHAN, RAHAB, SERPENT).
It is this Tiamat—who was held to represent the
waters of chaos, and to have been vanquished by the
gods — that according to Kosters was represented by
the ‘ sea’ upon the oxen (these last symbolising Marduk}.
In view of the admitted fact that the Babylonian
creation-myth determined the form of the Israelitish
cosmogony, one cannot deny that such a view may be
correct, even though the OT itself does not directly
support it. Cp CREATION, $$ 13, 19, 22; NEHUSHTAN,

2.

[Gunkel refers to the τι, or primeval sea, made by king
Ursina of Laga® and the ##x:%%, or sea, of Agum (1500 n.C.);
ep ΑΒ ii 113143; Del Aso HIWB 14; MussAm. Dik

i Jensen, Rosviok 2334, stu and οἱ. 3. See also Sayce
ΣᾺ Lect., 1887, p. 63, and R PI 165), who poîuts cut the
connection between the sea and the large basins called a$si in
Bahyionian temples. What this acute scholar did not remark
was the connection of these basins with the Babylonian
creation-myth, in which assu (the ἀπάσων of Damascius ; see
CkeaTIoN, $ 15, end) designates the ocean which ‘in the be-
ginning' was, or filled, all things.)

At all events no other satisfactory explanation has
been proposed. How the worshippers of Yahwè inter-
preted or (if it came from Babylon) adapted this symbol,
we have also no information from the OT. But that
the original meaning of the ‘sea’ did not quite accord
with later Yahwistic ideas, may be inferred with great
probability from the fact that the later period either
explained it in an impossible manner (so the Chronicler ;
see $ 2, begin. ) or eliminated it altogether. In Ex. 3018
407 30, instead of the molten ‘sea’ P has merely a
brazen laver or basin (xj’5) for the priests to wash their

hands and feet. So also the post-exilic temple has
only a basin of the same sort, not to be compared in
point of size with Solomon's ‘sea,' In Ezekiel it would
seem as if the temple fountain were to take the place of
the molten sea, which does not otherwise seem to be
represented in the temple; in its place we find a
fountain to the E. of the temple (note the agreement,
partly verbatim, between the expressions of 1 K.739 and
of Ezek. 471). ΑΒ regards this fountain too we can see
that it is not primarily intended to provide an arrange-
ment for the priests to wash their hands, but has a
symbolical meaning (see the comm. ad /oc.).

Of Solomon’s brazen sea we are further told that
King Asa took it down from off the oxen, and put it
upon a pavement of stones (see PAVEMENT), Like
other brazen appurtenances of the temple, the oxen were
made available for paying the tribute exacted by the
king of Assyria (2 K. 1617). The sea itself fell into the
hands of the conquering Babylonians, who broke it in
pieces and carried off the fragments {2 K. 2513 16 Jer.
5217 20—where the twelve oxen also are erroneously
reckoned among the spoils of the Babylonians).

See the Archasologies and Dictionaries, also the commentaries
on Kings by Thenius, Keil, Klostermann, Benzinger, and
Kittel. See also Perrot and Chipiez, Sard,, Jud. etc. 1 258-264;
Phon, and Cypr. 1289-2902; Renan, Mist. Peup. [sr 2156£
Consult fig. in Masp. Struggle, 110. 1. Β.

SEACALVES (}*3), Lam. 43 AVmE, ἘΝ JACKAL(1),
SEAL (ὈΠῚΠ), 1K.218. See Rino, 8 1.
139 4341

SEDECIAS

SEALSKINS, Ex. 255 etc. RV, AV BADGERS' SKINS.
SEAMEW (0), Lev. 1116 Dt. 1415, AV CUcKOW.

SEA MONSTER (}M*), Lam.43 AV, AVME ‘sea
calves,’ RV JACKAL (g.v., 1); cp WHALE.

SEAT. See THRONE.

SEBA (ND: caBa [BNAL, εἰς, 1, -[Bonce]; ἴπ 15,
433 coHNHN [BNAO], cyHNHN [PT]; in 15. 4514,
pl. D'X20, EV SABRANS (9.7.) caBaeim [Β], ca-
Baein [N*], ceBweim [A]. σεβώειν [δέ "PO",
cabwerni οἱ γ' caBaeim [Q98-]; Lam), first in
order of the sons of Cush, Gen. 107 [P], 1Ch.lo.
Mentioned also in other late passages—e.g., Is. 483
{with Mizraim and Cush), 4514 (în pl, with same com-
panions); Ps.7210 (with Sheba), where, however,
Bickell, Cheyne, 5.0, regard ît as a later insertion.
This last passage may simply indicate a locality în the
far S.; the other passages favour Africa, and the
neighbourhood of Ethiopia (but cp CusH, 2). Dillmann
(on Gen. 107) thinks it safest to regard Seba as a branch
of the Cushites or Ethiopians settled eastward from
Napata, on the Red Sea or Arabian Gulf, a view which

Baethgen {on Ps, 7210) and Duhm (on Is. 483) accept.
The name is not found in Egyptian; but Dillmann cites τὸ
σαβαϊτικὸν στόμα, λιμὴν Σαβα, Tafar πόλις εὐμεγέθης, from
Strabo, xvi. 4810 and Σαβαστρικὸν στόμα, σαβατ πόλις ἐν τῷ
᾿Αδουμικῷ κόλπῳ from ΡΊΟΙ. ἵν. 17,6; Josephus, and many
following him, identify with Meroé ; but this does not seem to be
elsewhere distinguished from Cush. See also CusH, 2; Mizrarm,

F.B

SEBAM (Ὁ3}»), Nu. 323 ΕΝ, in ον 38, RV SIBMAH.
SEBAT, RV SHEBAT ma, Zech. 17). See MONTH.

BECACAH (N955; διχιοζὰ [B]. διοχ' [B*]
coyoya [A], οχάχὰ [L]), a city in the wilderness of
Judah (Josh. 156rt), mentioned’ between Middin and
Nibshan. Assuming the ordinary view of the sites
mentioned în Josh.1561 (see BETH-ARABAH), we
might suppose Secacah to be the name of a fort erected
(with cisterns) on the plateau above the W. coast of
the Dead Sea to keep the nomad tribes in check {cp
2 Ch. 2610).

The caurion, however, given elsewhere (Mippin, ad /7.) may
be here repeated. Ρ may have led subsequent ages into a great
misunderstanding by putting ‘En-gedi’ for ‘En-kadesh.'
Secacah was probably a place in the far south (Negeb); possibly
Khalasah is meant. Sec NinsHan. T.K.C.

SECHENIAS (ceyeniac [AL]). 1. 1 Esd.829=

Ezra 83, SHECANIAH, 2.

2. 1Ésd, 832= Ezra 85, SHECANIAN, 3.

BECHU, RV Secu (35), a corrupt reading in τ 5.
1922 (in the same late narrative referred to under
NaroTH). In the place so called in EV we are told
that there was ‘a great well' (AV) or ‘the {well-known)}
great well’ (RV). © Unfortunately 43r 4ag-g440/ cannot
properly be rendered either way. € not only suggests
the right reading, 40r Aaggdren (un for Dim), ‘the
cistern of the threshing-floor,' but also completes the
correction by the very appropriate ‘bgi3, ‘on the (bare)
height.' A treeless height where there would be cool
breezes was the natural place for a threshing floor; cp
Jer. 411 and see AGRICULTURE, 8 8. ((δ, ἕως τοῦ
φρέατος τοῦ ἅλω τοῦ ἐν τῷ σεῴει [B], ἕ, dp. τῆς ἅ.
τῆς ἐν cegi [L], φρ. τοῦ μεγάλον τοῦ ἐν σοκχω [A],
Socho [Ν 8.1.) 8.4. Ὁ.

SECRETARY (DID), ete., EV
SCRIBE.

SECT (διρεοιο), Acts2414 ΕΝ, AV HERESY.

SECUNDUS (cekoynAoc [Ti. WH]), a Thessa-
lonian, who accompanied Paul for (at least) a part of
the way from Europe on his last recorded journey to
Jerusalem (Acts 20 4).

SEDECLAS, RV Sedekias (cedekiac). τ. Db.

4342

2 5.817 EVme,

SEDUCERS

Maasias, an ancestor of BARUCH [g.2.] (Bar. 11); cp ‘Zedeliah
b. Maaseiah' Jer. 2921 £

2. In Bar.18; elsewhere called ZEDEKIAH, 1

SEDUCERS, RV ‘Impostors' (ronTec), 2 Tim. 813.
See MAGIC, $ 4.

SEER (MXN, 1 5.99; MIN, 2 8.241); see PROPHET,
8 5.
SEGUB (2012, ceroyB). 1. b. Hezron; father of
JAIR [7.v.] (τ Ch. 22rf, cepoyx [B]). See CALEB-
EPHRATAH, REUBEN, $ τε.

2. The youngest son of HiEL [g.v.] (1 K.1634; Kr.
DIP; teyov8 [B; om. 1,7). Cp REUBEN, $ 11. In
of Josh. 626 it may be his name that is rendered
διασωθέντι; the translator apparently misread or
(Aram. ‘to save ').

On the name, see Names, $ 57, and for S. Ar. analogies,

Hommel, S&darad. Altertiimer (1899), 21. But the theory that
it is an ethnic like Jair, Hezron, and Machir is attractive. ©?

in Ch, 221£ implies 2%, and this comes probably by trans.
position from WY3 (cp Serva), Abiram, the brother of 2, also
probably bears an ethnic name. ‘“Ram,'if not also the fuller
form Abiram, comes (like ‘ Jericho ') from onv=%xpmv (Che.).
See Crit. Bib. _

SEIR (*'YW), the reputed ancestor of the Horites
(Gen, 3620 f 1Ch. 138). See SeIr, MOUNT.

SEIR, MOUNT {Ὁ}, either lit. ‘hairy' [Lag.
Users. 92}, or trop. *overgrown' [NG. ZDM/G40165 n. 2]; &
always ome, except Josh. 1117 σήειρα [A]; 127 σεειρα [ΑΕ],
ἀσσεειρα [L]; Ch. 1 & peo AI; Ezek 2be tom. ΒΟΊ; Di
fassim, Ch. (except 1 Ch. 1 38} otesp [L]).

The name of a mountain district occupied by Esau and the
Edomites, Josh, 244 (E), Gen. 368,£ (P), Dt. 25 etc., but by the
Horites i Gen. 146 (on text see especially Buhì, Edomriter, 28).

The name ‘land of Seir'(1*y IX) also appears in Gen. 824
() 3630(P; where, however, & has «ug [ADEL, B lacking]),
and (often) simpiy *Seir, Judg. 54 Gen. 88 14 τό (1), Nu. 2418
UE: where, however, has σαν [BAFL]), Dt. 144 eto.

The mountain region of Seir (mod, ef-JardA4) extends 15
or ῶο m, E. from the 'Arabah (S. from the Dead Sea),
which it skirts nearly to the Gulf of ‘Akaba (the terms
*land of Seir* and ‘Seir,’ are sometimes applied to the
plateau W. of the 'Arabah); Zimmern (ZA 68257 n. 13)
doubtfully suggests a connection with the district of
Seri mentioned (with Gintikirmil) in an Amarna letter
from Jerusalem (Wi. 25:82 [B 105] 26) On early
traces of the name Seir, and on its meaning, see EDOM,
88 2, 3. F. B

*Edom' and ‘ Seir' are terms which are often used
interchangeably as the designation of a region occupied
ty Esau and his descendants (Gen, 323 861 8/ 192143
Nu. 2418 Dt, 25829 Josh. 244). ‘Mt. Seir,' the range
of mountains running S. from the Dead Sea, on the E.
ΟΥ̓ the ‘Arabah, was a main feature of ‘Edom’ {Gen.
‘146 368/. Dt.28 Josh. 244); but ‘Seir' (Gen.3814
Dt. 144) and ‘the land of Seir' (an ancient variant to
‘the country [or field] of Edom,' Gen. 323); are terms
which are clearly not limited to, nor, indeed, are com-
monly, if ever, identical with, ‘Mt. Seir’ in the OT
text. Sometimes vyw ‘Seir’ appears to be miswritten
for “so. ‘Missur’ [Che.]. ‘The practical question
therefore is, What portion of the country westward of
the 'Arabah was included in ‘Seir' and in ‘the country
of Edom,' in the days of the Israelites' wanderings ?!
Cp Epom, $ 5.
plain es-Sîr, bounded on the S. by Wady el-Fikreh, a
w&dy which ascends south-westerly from the ‘Arabah,
from a point not far S. of the Dead Sea, and separates
Palestine proper from the ‘Azazimeh mountain-tract,
or Jebel Makrah group. - The northern wall of this
w&dy is a bare and bald rampart of rock, forming a
natural boundary as it ‘ goeth up.to Seir' ; a landmark
both impressive and unique, which corresponds with
all the OT mentions of the Mt. Halak', Aadesk-barnea,
99f? Cp HALAK, MOUNT.

1 Trumbull, Wadesk-darnee, 84 fi

2 See, further, Palmer, Desert 47 Zxodus, 404 (es-Sirt), and

note that Rowlands (Williams, Yo/y C:t9,1 465) had already
connected ‘Seir” with es-Serr (s/0).

4343

Trumbull answers, ‘The extensive’

SELA

SEIR, MOUNT (9°? 3; opoc accap [B]
o. accapec [B?°], o. cHeIp [A]: 0. cieip [L]). one of
the landmarks on the boundary between Judah and
Benjamin (Josh. 1510), between Kirjath-jearim and
CHESALON [{g.v.], and therefore in the neighbourhood
of the rocky point of Saris, e τῇ, W. by S. from Aaryet
el'enab {so Robinson), With Saris may be identified
the Sores of (5, Josh. 1560 (εωβης [B], σωρης [A], -εἰς
{L]}; see Buhl, Pa/ 91167, and ΒΕΝΙΑΜΙΝ, JUDAH.

SEIRAH, but AV Seîrath (NDYUÈEM), the place to
which Ehud fied, where he ‘blew the trumpet in the
hill country of Ephraim' (Judg. 326, cereipw0a [B],?
ρεειρωθὰ [A]. σηρωθὰ [L]). ‘The name has greatly
puzzled critics.? Winckler (A/ttest. Unt. 55 91) even
supposed some unknown place on the E. of Jordan
to be meant; in G/ 2100 he prefers the ‘Mt. Seir' of
Josh. 1510. If, however, we use the key supplied by a
number of the narratives, in which, as the evidence
tends to show, the scene has been transferred from the
Negeb to the tribal territory of Ephraim, we shall see a
way out of this perplexity. Eglon was king of Missur,
and the city he took was a place called Jerahmeelt—s.e.,
either Jericho (see JeRICHO, $ 2} or more probably the
capital of the Jerahmeelite Negeb (possibly Kadesh).
After his exploit Ehud escaped to Zarephath (anos),
and mustered the Israelites who dwelt in the southern
Ephraim—i.e., the Jerahmeelite highlands. Ehud
himself was probably a Benjamite of the Negeb.

T.K.C.

BELA, or (ΑΝ 2 K.} Selah, or once [see $ 2] PETRA

bo, πτετρὰ in Is.; vba, H πετρὰ in Judg. 2 K.),
Tudg, 136 (RVm&.) 2 K. 147 (EV) Is. 16: (AVS Petra)
421 {Hitz., Del, Duhm}. Commonly supposed to be
the Hebrew name of the later city of Petra (see $ 2).
The name of Séla' indeed is parallel to the Arabic name
Sal, which Yakit gives to a fortress in the Wady Musa,
where Petra stood (cp Nòld. ZDM/G 25259). Wetz-
stein (in Del. 765. 5) 696 7) thinks that Séla' is another
name for BozraH [g.v.]; the full name of the Edomite
capital being Bozrath has-séla', a view which has not
much to recommend it. Nor is the
τ No du simpler view that a city on the site of
in OT. Petra was known to the Hebrews as Séla'
* or has-séla' (‘the rock') exegetically
tenable ; there is in fact no city called Séla' mentioned
in the OT. See, however, EDOW, 8 7.
*From Séla',' (25m), in Judg.136 should rather be ‘from
the rock’ (9797); the reference may be to some striking cliff

near the S. end of the Dead Sea, fitted to be a landmark, such
as that now called es-Safieh (so Buhl, Moore). In 2 Κ' 147,
it may be ‘some castle on a rock unknown to us’ {Kittel) that

fs referred to, In Is.161 y025, ‘from the rocks* (collectively ;
cp Jer. 48 28), is generally taken to describe the route taken by
the Moabite ambassadors, which would run through the rocky
country of Edom. 15. 4211 should be rendered ‘ Let the inhabi-
tants of the rocks (vp collectively) sing'; cp Ob. 3, It should
be added, however, that though as against ‘Sela’ the above
summary of current interpretations will stand, the views of the
geography of the texts which are proposed seem open to
question. The redactors themselves were sometimes the authors
of confusion (see Cri. Βιδ.).

Of all these passages the only one which can with
any plausibility be thought to refer to Petra is 2 K.147.
But in the |] passage, 2 Ch. 2512, we only read of a
*rock,' nor does Joktheel occur anywhere as the name
of an Edomite city; JORTHEEL [g.v.} is very prob-
ably connected with * Maacath' or ‘ Jerahmeel.' The
misinterpretation (for such, as Kittel has shown, it is}
arose partly from the supposed mention of the Edom-
ites, partly from the comparatively early confusion
between Petra and Kadesh. Eus. and Jer. (0528671
1459) distinetly assert that Petra, a city of Arabia în

1 @5's σετειρωθα may, perhaps, be a corruption of σεγειρωθα
€T and Τ' confounded). ne

2 See Budde, Moore, and cp van Kasteren, M.DPP, 1895,
pp: 26-30.

3 WRS, Ency. Brit., ast. ‘Petra.

4344

SELA-HAMMAHLEKOTH

the land of Edom, surnamed Joktheel, is called Rekem
by the Assyrians (so Eus., but Jer. ‘Syrians'). Still,
as elsewhere they appeal to .Jos., they may not be
speaking here on their own authority. Jos. (4x4
iv.47 71)says that Petra, the capital of Arabia, was
called ἀρκὴ or ρεκεμὴ from its founder Rekem, a
Midianite king. But Targ. Ok. and Targ. Jon.
apply pp? to Kadesh-'barnea,' Gen. 1614 201, om
is supposed to be connected with y/pm, ‘to stone'; it
is probably, however, as applied to Kadesh, a corrupt
fragment of ‘Jerahmeel,' whilst, as applied to Petra, it
may perhaps, as Wetzstein suggests, be derived from
the Greek ῥῆγμα, ‘a cleft in the rocks.”

Wellhausen (De Geat:dus [1870], 39, n. 2) doubts whether
Rekem as the name of Petra is derived from the variegated
colours of the rocks about Wady Misa or from a tribe dwelling
in che Edomite region called Rekem, and virtually mentioned
in 1 Ch.2 44. The present writer is convinced, however, that
the Rekem of Chronicles, which is the name of a tribe of
S. Palestine, îs really a mutilation of Jerahmeel.

See Wetzstein in Del. ZsarzA,{8) 606-707; Buhl, Gesck. der
Edomiter, 34:37; Kittel, YA, on 2 Κ, 147; Lury, Gesck. der
Edomiter, 28 f; Robinson, 28 26534" (n: 36. ΤΥ. K. C.

Petra (ἡ Πέτρα ; ai Πέτραι), however, which gave its
name to the province Arabia Petreea (ἡ κατὰ Πέτραν

2, Petra, ἀραβία, Agathemerus), became famous

" “ under the NABATZAANS (g.7.}; but, t0 judge
from the advantages of its situation, it was doubtless a
city or fortress before that time. Its ruins are in the
deep valley called Wady Musa (from its connection in
in Mohammedan legend with Moses), which is in the
mountains forming the eastern wall of the great valley
between the Dead Sea and the Gulf of ‘Akaba. Wady
Mîisa lies just N. of the watershed between the two
seas, in 30° το N. lat. and 35° 31’ E. long. Travellers
coming up the ‘Arabah usually approach the ruins from
the SW. by a rough path, partly of artificial construc-
tion ; but the natural entrance is from the E. down a
narrow defile more than a mile long called the Sik
('shaft') The Sik is a contraction in the valley of a
stream which comes down from the E, rising in the
so-called Fountain of Moses (Ain Misa),3 and passing
between the villages of Elji and ‘Aireh (Palmer). Both
these places are ancient; the latter is the fortress Wo-
"aira of Vakùt,4 whilst Elji, mentioned by Edrisi, is the
‘Gaia urbs juxta civitatem Petram' of the Orromasticor.5
Below these and above the ravine the characteristic
rock-cut tombs and dwellings of the Nabatazans begin
to appear.

Not only was Petra a place of refuge and a safe
storehouse, it was also the great centre of the Nabatsean
caravan trade. It was the place where the Gaza road
branched off from that to Bostra, Palmyra, and N.
Syria, and it commanded the route from Egypt to
Damascus. From Petra, too, there went a great route
direct through the desert to the head of the Persian
Gulf, Thus Petra became a centre for all the main
lines of overland trade between the E. and the W.,
and it was not till the fall of the Nabataean kingdom
that Palmyra superseded it as the chief emporium of
N. Arabia.

See Léon de Laborde and Linant, Voyage dans lArabie
Pétrée (2830); Duc de Luynes, Voyage d'exdloration ἃ la mer
morte (s.a.); Palmer, Desert 0f the Exodus, 440 f; Visconti,
Viaggio in Arabia Petrea (1872); Libbey, PEFO, 1902,
pi 4125 T.K.C.,$1; w.R.s.,82

SELA-HAMMAHLEKOTH σήροπρπ vo; πετρὰ

1 The latitude and longitude are taken from De Luynes's
map. Piolemy, who, according to Olympiodorus, spent some
time in Petra, and doubtless owes to this fact his excellent in-
formation about the caravan. routes in Arabia, gives the latitude,
with surprising accuracy, as 30° 20/.

2 Cp Diod. 1997.

3 This seems to be the fountain mentioned by Nowaîri (in
ΕΣ Mélanges, 84), which fowed with blood and was
changed to water by Moses. The name Od-demi, which gave
riso t0 this legend, may possibly be a relic of the old name of

lo.

4 Perhaps also the ‘ram of Gen. 86 43 [see [ram].

5 See Tuch, Gex.(®) 271 n.

4345

SELAH

Ἢ mepicéeica [BAL]: cp Driver's note), the name
οὗ a mountain where Saul and David ‘played hide and
seek' {1 5, 28.8.1). Saul hurries along on one side of
the mountain, thinking to overtake the unseen David,
and David on the other flies (as he thinks) before the
unseen Saul. There is danger of their coming into
collision, which is averted by the news of an inroad of
the Philistines ; Saul turns aside from the chase. The
narrator must have explained Séla'-hammablékoth so as
to suggest this “hide and seek’ game. But neither
‘rock of divisions’ (EV®S:}, nor ‘rock of escaping' (an
unjustifable rendering) can be right Though the
name is confirmed on the whole by the certainly corrupt
form nb:5n (see HACHILAR), we are almost driven to
suppose that the original form was nibhsn pòp, ‘the
rock of the mé40/0h' (circling dances). Mebolah, like
Hachilah, may come from ‘ Jerahmeel.' T.K.C.

SELAH (MUD) occurs seventy-one times in forty
psalms, and three times in Habakkuk (33913). Mostly
it occurs in the middle of a psalm ; but
1. Data of MET ;n four psalms (8 9 24 46) also at the
and versions. end. Usually it occurs only once in a
psalm ; but there are several cases of two Selahs, and
in some psalms we find three (3 32 46 66 68 77 140);
Ps. 89 actually presents four. In 5520 [19] 574 [3]
Hab. 339 Selah occurs in the middle of a verse. The
accents connect it closely with the preceding word;
Aq., Jer., Tg. also imply that it forms part of the text.
These three versions take it to mean ‘always’ (del,
semper and jugiter, pnsyh, but also avan). So Ps.917,
Theod. and ἄλλος give del; Quinta εἰς τοὺς al@ras;
Sexta διαπαντός, €, however, gives διάψαλμα, a word
of somewhat uncertain signification (Theodoret, μέλους,
μεταβολήν; it occurs more frequently than the Hebrew
* Selah."
Various conjectures as to the etymology of Selah have
been offered (see Ges. Tàes. 955; and the commentaries
Use and οἷ Pelitesch and Baethgen); even a Greek
2. Use origin (ψάλλε) has been suggested (Paulus
meaning. Cassel; see Siegfried-Stade, Lex.). Parisot
(Rev. διδί,, Oct. 1899) approves the theory that Selah
represents a musical interlude. Briggs suggests that
when a section of a psalm or a prayer was used apart
from its context in liturgical service it was followed
by a doxology, and that 'Selah' divides a psalm into
sections for liturgical use. By an inductive process
Miss E. Briggs arrives at results of much interest (A/SZ
161-29). These partly depend on the correctness of the
MT; but Grimme has shown that in some cases {and
the present writer, Che. ὥς, δ᾽, has added considerably
to the number} the np of MT is due to corruption of
the text.
Attractive as the view that nbo is properly a musical
indication may be, it will have to be reconsidered if
A the other so-called musical notes in
8. Conjectured ne headings owe their existence to
OTIBIIL. © textual corruption In that case ît
becomes plausible to hold that πρὸ is a corruption of
Sallim (oh ἢ, ‘supplement,’ or Z$aZier (pSd%), ‘for
supplementing.' The note may either be a direction
to supplement the MS at a defective place from another
MS, or an intimation that an editor at this point has
made an insertion in the psalms. Possibly the old
traditional interpretation ‘always’ points to a reading
pby or nbyb, which was itself a corruption of nsg or

jb. For another view see B. Jacob, ZAT'W 161297

to the meaning of @'s διάψαλμα: for the opinions of the
Fathers see Suicer, 1890; Lag., Nove Psalterii Greci Editionis
Sfecimen, 10; B. Jacob, ΖΑ ΤΙ» δ (1896) 173- 181. The result
is that all the various explanations are pure guesses. What,
then, is to be offered in place of them? We cannot suppose
that the Alexandrian translators coined διάψαλμα ; but it is very

1 ‘An inductive study of Selah' (7,82 181327). Briggs
thinks it probable that πῦρ is an imperative cohortative, ‘lift
up a benediction or doxology.”

4346

SELED

possible indeed that διάψ. only exists through textual corrup-
tion. διχάψαλμα and ἀνάψαλμα have been suggested (af.
Schultens, Lex. #8 LA [1820] 1146), but neither word exists.
lt remained to suggest that διάψ, may be a Gracised Hebrew
word; nby5 (see above) might become first δασαλμα and then,
for cuphony, διάψαλμα. τ, K. C.

SELED (ND: arc. cahad, [Β], ο: [A]. -εὰ [L]),
Ὁ, Nadab Ὁ. Shammai, a Jerahmeelite ; 1 Ch. 230.

SELEMIAS (:.e., Shelemiah). 1. (ceAemiac [BA]}
1 Esd.934= Ezra 1039 SartEMIAH, 6.

2. (Selemiam) a scribe; 4 Esd. 1424, ἘΝ Selomia.

SELEUCIA (cereykia, Acts134, ΤΟ ΜΗ ; 1 Mace.
118). One of the four chief cities of northern Syria
(the others being Antioch on the Orontes, Apameia,
and Laodiceia) which together were spoken of as the
tetrapolis of Seleucis (Strabo, 749). They were the
foundation of Seleucus Nicator (died 280 B.C.).
Seleucia lay on the southern skirts of Mt. Corypheeus
{the Pieria of Strabo, 751) —a spur of Mt. Amanus!—
separated from it by a ravine (see description in Pol.
559). The town extended to the sea, and was sur-
rounded by cliffs, except towards the W., where the
site was more open ; here lay the mercantile buildings
(éumopeîa). The upper town could be reached only,
from the seaward side, by an artificial ascent cut in
the rock like a stair (κλιμακωτήν). Seleucia was the
port of Antioch, which was distant 16 m. by land;
the distance by the Orontes, which fell into the sea
about 5 m. to the southward of Seleucia, was still greater
(Strabòo, 751). Being strongly fortifed (Strabo, 751,
ἔρυμα ἀξιόλογον καὶ κρεῖττον Bias) Seleucia was the key
of Syria (cp Pol. 558). In 1 Mace.118 there is a
reference to the capture of ‘Seleucia which is by the
sea' by Ptolemy Philometor VI. (146 B.c.). Its
remains are still great. In consequence of the resistance
it made to Tigranes, the Roman Pompeius declared it a
free city, and this was its condition in Paul's time (Pliny.
HN 58).

Paul, with Barnabas, sailed from Seleucia on his
first missionary enterprise (Acts134), and to Seleucia in
all probability he returned (Acts. 1426; for the expression
‘salled to Antioch' need not imply a voyage up the
river: cp the expression ‘sailed away from Philippi'
in Acts206) Probably also Paul's passage through
Seleucia is implied in such places as Acts1539, and
15 30 (with which contrast the land journey summarised
in 153). In this connection it is interesting to note
that two piers of the old harbour bear the names of
Paul and Barnabas, with whose work they are probably
coeval, W.kw.

SELEUCIDA

ALPHABETICAL LIST or KINGS

Alexander II ($ 17). Antiochus IX.
‘Antiochus I. (8 3). (8 10).
Antiochus X. (8

Antiochus IL (8 4).
22).
Antiochus XIII

Demetrius III

Piiszàs I. (622)
ilippus I. ($ 22).
Selencus I. (8 2).
Seleucus IL. (8 5).
Seleucus ILL. (8 6).
Seleucus IV. (è 8).
Seleucus V. (8 17).
Seleucus VI. (8 20).
Tryphon (8 13).

Antiochus III. (87).
Antiochus 1V.

. (8 9).
Antiochus Ψ, ($ Εν (8 23
Antiochus VI. (15), Demetrius I. (δ
Antiochus VII.($ 15). τι).
Antiochus VIII, © Demetrius II. (88
(8 18). τῷ, 14, 16).
Bibliography ($ 24).
‘ Seleucidee ' is the general name applied to the kings
of Syria, who were so called from Seleucus IL, the
ion founder of the monarchy. This empire is
1. Origin. luded to as ‘the kingdom of the Greeks'
in 1 Mace. 1τὸ 8:8, and in the phrase ‘the diadem of
Asia’ in x Mace. 1113. The Syrian kings claimed to
rule over the Asiatic portion of Alexander’s empire,
and to interfere in the affairs of every country from the
Hellespont to India; but the territorial limits were
gradually reduced, the border-lands of India being first

1 Hence the town was called Σελεύκεια Πιερία, or Σελεύκεια,
dv Πιερίᾳ, to distinguish it from other towns of the same name
‘Serabo, 749).

4347

SELEUCIDA

lost, and then Asia Minor and Egypt effecting their
withdrawal from Seleucid sway. Egypt under the
Ptolemaic dynasty became in fact a standing rival, dis-
puting with the Seleucida the possession of Palestine.
‘The hold of the Seleucide: upon Asia Minor was pre-
carious, owing to the peculiar characteristics of the
Greek cities there, and the rise of new powers (e.g.,
Pergamos and the Attalid dynasty). Here nothing can
be attempted more than a few general remarks upon
salient features of the monarchy. Syria was its intel-
lectual centre; for Seleucus abandoned his capital at
Babylon (which was in truth suitable only for the
undivided world-wide empire dreamed of by Alexander),
and transferred his permanent abode to Antioch on the
Orontes (see ANTIOCH, 2). This transference also calls
attention to the constant striving, as constantiy thwarted,
of the Syrian empire, to become, not so much a military,
as a naval power. Its wealth, indeed, came from com-
merce, which partly depended upon command of the sea,
and partly also upon keeping open the old trade routes
leading into inner Asia. The latter condition was
found to be more easily realised than the former, for
the rise of Egypt and of Rhodes, with other powers,
prevented the realisation of the designs of the Syrian
dynasty, As regards its internal characteristics, the
Seleucid empire is well described by Holm (G%. Mist.
ET 4:12) as an artificial creation—in its essence an
attempt to found in the E. a state based on Greek
views. ‘That Seleucus tried to promote the Hellenising
of Asia in the spirit of Alexander appears from the many
cities (about 75) which he founded’; and the progress
of Greek life is seen from the fact that eventually Syria
proper breaks up into a number of city communities
almost entirely. It is precisely through their continua-
tion of Alexander's work on this line, of controlling
Asia by a policy based upon a preference given to the
Graeco- Macedonian civilisation, that the Seleucida
come into violent contact with the pecnliar institutions
of the Jews. It was especially in Seleucia on the Tigris
that the Greek life of Mesopotamia and Babylonia
centred, to such an extent that this city completely
overshadows the other Greek communities in these
regions.

Seleucus I., Nicator (312-280 B.C.), one of the best
of Alexander's generals, was made chiliarch by Perdiccas
upon Alexander’'s death. Perdiccas

2 βίοι I invaded Egypt, and being checked

+0. upon the Nile by Ptolemy was murdered
by his own officers, among them being Seleucus.
Subsequently Babylon was assigned to Seleucus ; but he
was soon compelled to flee for his life from his satrapy,
to avoid Antigonus, and took refuge with Ptolemy (316
B.C., cp App. Sy”. g3). In the war with Antigonus
that followed, Seleucus bore a distinguished part, at
first as commander of Ptolemy's fleet, and afterwards
in the operations in Syria which culminated in the
battle of Gaza (312 B.C.), in which Demetrius, the son
of Antigonus, was completely defeated. Seleucus in
consequence with a small force recovered his satrapy,
and the era of the Seleucids dated from the capture of
Babylon (rst Oct. 312 B.C.).

The career of Seleucus is very obscure during the ten years
which followed ; his name is not even mentioned in the peace
concluded in 311 B.c. between Ptolemy Cassander and Lysi-
machus on the one side, and Antigonus on the other; but the
record of that peace may be incomplete. It seems clear, at any
rate, that Seleucus was left to extend his conquests in the E.
undisturbed, and that in a series of successful campaigns he
recovered all the eastern provinces of Alexander's empire between
the Euphrates, the Oxus, and the Indus. He was obliged,
however, to acquiesce in the cession of the territories beyond
the Indus to king Tchandragupta (Sandracottus, Strabo, 724) in
return for five hundred war-elephants.

In 306 B.c. Seleucus followed the example of Anti
onus and Demetrius in adopting the title of ‘king’;
and from that date his coins are so inscribed, whilst
Alexander's types are gradually abandoned in favour of
new devices, such as his own head with bull's hornm—

4348

SELEUCIDAR

an emblem of divine strength, probably also bearing
allusion to the story told by Appian (.Syr. 57); as an
adjunet symbol in the field occurs an anchor, the badge
of the family (cp Justin, 154).

When Ptolemy Cassander and Lysimachus again
combined against Antigonus, Seleucus also joined the
coalition, and was largely instrumental in winning the
decisive victory at Ipsus in which Antigonus fell (301
8.C.). Seleucus consequently received a great extension
of territory—all Syria, and Asia Minor as far as Phrygia
(with the exception also of Cilicia) —Hence the
Seleucidae are spoken of as kings of Asia (e.g., 1 Mace.
86; though in other passages, such as 1 Macc. 1113,
it is doubtful whether the term Asia should be restricted
to Asia Minor). -

Seleucus reigned over the largest kingdom that had
been carved out of Alexander's empire. The direct
government of the provinces beyond the Euphrates was
in the hands of his son Antiochus.
defeat of king Lysimachus at Korupedion in Phrygia,
Seleucus became heir by gage of battle to the crowns of
‘Thrace and Macedonia, and appears to have intended
to hand over his Asiatic possessions to his son, and
spend the remainder of his life (he was now about
seventy-two years old) as ruler of his native country,
Macedonia, from which he had been so long absent.

In 281 B.C., by the ᾿

He set out for Europe, but was murdered at Lysimachia ἡ

by Ptolemy Ceraunus, the exiled elder son of Piolemy I.
Ceraunus took possession of Thrace and Macedonia ;
Antiochus succeeded to his father"s Asiatic sovereignty.

Seleucus was undoubtedly an able administrator of what his i

generalship secured for him. He was a patron of art, fostered
trade, and by his foundation of many cities encouraged the
spread of Hellenic civilisation through his dominions; he was,
in fact, perhaps the only one of Alexanders successors that
showed an appreciation of Alexander's true policy (‘I should be
inclined to call him a true disciple of Alexander, Holm, σάν
Hist., ET, 4izi).

Not much is known of the reign of his successor,

Antiochus I,, Soter (281-261 B.C.). It was occupied

A partly with attempts to assert himself
Sans no ᾿ in Asia Minor, as a prelude to making
ὙΠ good his claims to the Macedonian
erown, and partly in endeavours to render effective the
Syrian rule over Coelesyria, as against the claims of
Egypt to those territories {the so-called First Syrian
War). In Asia Minor he was defeated by the
Bithynians, at the beginning of his reign; and by
Eumenes, king of Pergamum, towards the end of ît.?
‘The intermediate years show him engaged in warfare
with the Gauls who poured into Asia Minor (277 B.C.)
and founded the state of Galatia (see GALATIA, $ 1). He
wona victory over them (App. Sy. 65), andin consequence
assumed, or was given, the honourable title of Soter
{‘Saviour‘) and a festival was founded in his honour.*

In 261 8.c, Antiochus was killed în battle by a Gaul(Celt);
but whether he was actually then fighting the Celtic invaders Îs
doubtful. He seems to have been a brave and energetic prince ;
history knows nothing to his discredit, and he deserves praise
for his attempts to carry on his father's Grecising policy by
means of city foundations.

Antiochus il., Theos {261-246 B.c.), son of the

- preceding and Stratonice, married
item ν Laodice, daughter οἵ Απείοομυς I.
+0.) by another wife {Polyeen. 850).

Practically our knowledge of him is confined to the statements
that ‘he was a debauchee and addicted to drink, that he left
affairs in the hands of unworthy favourites, that he waged war
în Thrace, that he earned his surname by liberating the Milesians
from their tyrant Timarchus, and that he was generally popular
in the cities of Lonia' (Holm, 04, οί, 4 r88).

Of the second Syrian war which he waged with
Ptolemy Philadelphus, we know little. This led in-
directly to his death; for to put an end to the strife
Piolemy gave his daughter Berenice in marriage to
Antiochus, who put away Laodice. After a time,
however, Antiochus changed his mind and recalled

1 Alluded to only in Paus, i. 73.

2 See Strabo, 624. It occurred near Sardîs.

3 See decree of thanksgiving from Novum Îlium, C/G 3595=
Hicks, Manwal, no. 165, with notes thereto added.

4349

SELEUCIDZA

Laodice, who immediately poisoned him and murdered
Berenice and her infant son, and her own son ascended
the vacant throne. It has, however, been suggested
that this dark history was an invention of the Egyptian
partizans of Berenice, and that Antiochus really died a
natural death. According to the traditional interpreta-
tion, Dan. 116 refers to this king (Jerome, ir /oc.); but
the text is corrupt (see DANIEL, $6/.).

Seleucus II, Callinicus! (246-226 B.C.), was the
eldest son of the preceding by his first wife, Laodice.

From the moment of his accession
ΕΣ ΣΕ ΣΝ Seleucus Il. was engaged in warfare
“°° with Ptolemy IIf. Euergetes, who in-
vaded Syria to avenge the death of his sister Berenice
(the third Syrian War). This war is as mysterious in
its course and results as the two previous conflicts
between Egypt and Syria. Ptolemy, we learn, drove
Seleucus beyond the Taurus, captured Antioch, made
himself master of Syria and Phcenicia, and penetrated
even beyond the Euphrates ; the Egyptian successes are
sketched in even more extravagant terms, which make
them tantamount to the recovery of all Alexander's
empire? Seleucus summoned to his aid his younger
brother Antiochus Hierax, promising him the regency of
Asia Minor. Ptolemy was indeed obliged to consent to
a peace ; but Seleucus soon found himself at war with
his own brother (Justin, 272). Antiochus was at first
victoripus, with the help of the Galatai (Celts); but they
deserted him, and when their co-operation was again
bought, both theyand Antiochus suffered repeated defeats
at the hands of Attalus of Pergamum, who seized the
opportunity of the strife between the two brothers to
strengthen his own position in Asia Minor. Anticchus
Hierax was at last driven from the country into Egypt;
but Ptolemy imprisoned him, and when he escaped he
was slain by brigands (227 B.C., Justin, 273).

Seleucus apparently owed his title Callinicus to an eastern
expedition in which he vanquished Arsaces of Parthia (Strabo,
513; Justin, 41 4). Afterwards, however, Arsaces defeated
Seleucus in a great battle which the Parthians long celebrated
‘2 the foundation of their independence. ‘The title to the sur-
name of Callinicus was therefore as well made out as is necessary
for an Orienta! monarch, and the subsequent foundation of a
city called Callinicum ‘in his hereditary territory on the
Euphrates by the hero who had been fortunate enough to
escape from the Parthians, no doubt made a great impression on
the surrounding inhabitanis” (Holm, 04. ci4.4215).

In 226 B.c. Seleucus lost his life by a fall from his

horse,

Seleucus III., Ceraunus, or Soter (226-223 B.C.),
was the elder son and successor of Seleucus II. He
6. Sel HI, invaded Asia Minor in order to put
(026-228 E g), down Attalus. He was assisted by his

"°*£. skilful and energetic relative Acheeus.
Soon, however, he was murdered by one Nicanor and a
Gaul named Apaturius (Polyb. 448).

Seleucus III. seems to have left a son Antiochus, mentioned
only in an inscription, to whom are attributed coins bearing on
one side the image of an infant Antiochus (see Head, eg. cit. 640,
and cp CZG 4458, and Droysen, Cesch. αἰ. Hell. ii. 2121).

Antiochus III., the Great (222-187 B.c.), the younger
son of Seleucns Callinicus and Laodice (Pol.5 40), was

. only twenty years old when he came to
ΕΣ the τῆγοπο, and for some time he was
"R ΓΝ entirely under the influence οἵ his

vai minister Hermeas. The condition of
Egypt, then governed by Ptolemy IV. Philopator, a weak
and vicious monarch, invited attack. A rebellion in
Persis and Media weakened the blow; but when that
bad been put down, and the king had freed himself
from the evil influence of Hermeas by executing him
{Pol. 556) the war with Egypt was resumed. At first

1 He was also called Pogon, the Bearded, from his habit of
wearing a beard, which, like Demetrius IÎ., the only other
bearded king of Syria, he probably adopted d'iring his sojourn
in Parthia (cp Head, Mist. Num. 639).

ἢ See the Adule inscription preserved by_Cosmas Indica:

leustes in his 7ogografhia Christiana=CIG 5127 (and cp
et on Dan. 115: also Polyzen.8 50, who says that he pushed
Îs conquests μέχρι τῆς Ἰνδικῆς).

4350

SELEUCIDAZ

Antiochus carried all before him, and made himself
master of Phoenicia-and the territory on both sides of
the Jordan (Pol. 568), and wintered in Ptolemais. In
the following year, however, he was utterly defeated at
Raphia, the most southerly Syrian city (217 B.C.), and
compelled to cede to Egypt all Coelesyria and Pheenicia.
In the meantime Achaus had raised the standard of
revolt in Asia Minor, and it cost a two years' warfare
round Sardis to overcome him {Pol.715£).

Then followed an expedition to the east, in which
Parthia and Bactria were invaded; these successes

- gained the king his surname (209 8.C.). When Ptolemy
Philopator died and Ptolemy V. Epiphanes ascended the
throne (204 B.c.), Antiochus III combined with Philip
V. king of Macedonia, for the partition of the Egyptian
kingdom (Livy,38114; Pol 1520). In pursuance of the
scheme Antiochus invaded Coelesyria and Pheenicia,
and overran Palestine (Jos. ἀπέ, xii. 33); and though a
diversion caused by Attalus of Pergamum enabled the
Egyptians to reoccupy Palestine, they were defeated
(198 B.c.) by Antiochus hinself near the sources of the
Jordan, and driven out of the country. Jerusalem itself
fell into the hands of Antiochus (Pol. 1639). A peace
was concluded in which it was agreed that Epiphanes
should marry Antiochus’ daughter, Cleopatra, who
should receive Ccelesyria, Phoenicia, and Palestine
as her dowry (on this peace, see Holm, cp. οἶδ, 4339,
and note on p, 368). Antiochus then commenced
operations in Asia Minor, with a view of recovering the
Greek cities there as a whole, and more especially those
of the S. and W. coasts, which had long been reckoned
to belong to Egypt, but had recently been occupied by
Philip under the terms of the secret alliance with Syria
above-mentioned,1 The defeat of Philip by the Romans
at Cynoscephala brought Antiochus also face to face
with the power of Rome (197 B.C.).

Antiochus claimed not only sovereignty over the
cities of Asia, but the throne of Thrace also, in virtue
of the victory of Seleucus over Lysimachus a century
before him. The tension between him and Rome was
increased when Hannibal, a fugitive from Carthage,
sought asylum at the Syrian court (App. Sy. 4)
After long negotiations war was declared between the
two powers in rgr B.C. The decisive battle took place
in the autumn of 190 B.C. at Magnesia on the Hermus,
and the motley host of Antiochus was utterly defeated ;
the Roman legions were never actually called upon, and
the victory which gave them a third continent cost but
24 horsemen and 300 light infantry (Momms. Z7ist. gf
Rome, ET, 1881, 2270f).® Allusion is made to
these events in Dan.llio, and 1 Macc. 110 86 αὶ (see
ANTIOCHUS, 1), Antiochus was compelled to renounce
all his conquests N. of the Taurus range, which had in
fact always been the boundary of effective Syrian power
in this direction (Pol. 2117; Diod, Sic. 29 το ; Livy, 37 45).
In consequence of this defeat and loss of prestige
Armenia fell away from the Syrian empire (Strabo,
528). In 187 B.C. Antiochus himself, marching into
Elymais, at the head of the Persian Gulf, in order to
plunder a temple of Bel to replenish his treasury ex-
hausted by the enormous war indemnity, was slain by
the natives.of the district {Strabo, 744).

Seleucus IV., Philopator (187-175 B.C.), son and
successor of Antiochus the Great, came to the throne in
8. Seleucus IV. difficult times, when Armenia had
(i 87-175 8.0} * already revolted and the prestige of his

"Sl country was dimmed. ‘The power of

Rome also overshadowed the East, and freedom of

policy was almost impossible. Thus he was compelled

1 It was probably at this period, or perhaps earlier, that
Antiochus sent 2000 Jewish families from Mesopotamia into the
cities of Lydia and Phrygia, securing their loyalty by grants of
land and immunity from taxation. See Jos. Aaf. xii. 3 4.

2 ‘With the day of Magnesia Asia was erased from the list of
great states; and never perhaps did a great power fall so
fapidly, so thoroughly, and so ignominiously as the kingdom of
the Seleucide under this Antiochus the Great * (Mommsen, 4c.).

4351

SELEUCIDA

to forego the oppprtunity of interfering beyond Mt
Taurus, in assisting Pharnaces of Pontus against Eumenes
of Pergamum (179 B.C., see Diod. Sic. 2924). Yet he
concluded a treaty of alliance with Perseus of Macedonia.
With Egypt he lived outwardly at peace, though his
minister HELIODORUS (g.2.) interfered in the affairs of
Palestine. One APOLLONIUS (2), son of Thraseas, being
governor (orpariyis} of Coelesyria and Phoenicia,
induced the king to send Heliodorus his chancellor
(* treasurer,’ AV) to plunder the temple of Jerusalem.

This attempt, and the supernatural (?) means by irhich it was
baffled, are related in 2 Macc. 81 (cp 4 Macc. 417, where
the attempr is ascribed to Apollonius himself). In 175 5.c.
this Heliodorus murdered Seleucus, and tried to seize the
Syrian throne, but was driven out by Eumenes and Attalus of
Pergamum (Appian, Sy». 45; Livy, 41 24).

Seleucus IV. left two children, Demetrius, who subse-
quently ascended the throne (see $ 11), and Laodice.

Antiochus IV., Epiphanes! (175-164 B.C.), was the
son of Antiochus III, and Laodice (daughter of the

τ Pontic king Mithridates II.). After

3. Antiochus ne battle of Magnesia he had been

IV. (175-164 R hi B

8.0.) sent to Rome as hostage (Appian, Syr.

0. 39). At Rome he remained nearly

fourteen years, and then Seleucus IV. who was on the

Syrian throne secured his exchange for the heir apparent,
Demetrius (Appian, Sy. 45; cp Justin, 343).

On his way home Antiochus visited Athens, and displayed his
phil-Hellenic sympathies by accepting the post of first sfrazegus
(στρατηγὸς ἐπὶ τὰ ὅπλα, see coins; cp Reinach, Zev, δέ, Gr.,
1888, p. 1635). He also contributed to the completion of thè
Olympieum (Pol.261), and placed a golden xgis over the
theatre (Paus.v.124) He presented gifts to the temple of
Zeus at Olympia, and to those of Apollo at Delphi and Delos,
as well as to many Greek cities— Rhodes, Cyzicus, Tegea
(theatre), and Megalopolis (contribution to walls) His favourite
cult was that of Olympian Zeus (cp Mauzzim), to whom he
erected a temple at Daphne near Antioch on the Orontes (see
ANTIOCK, 2), with a statue which was a replica of that made by
Phidias for Olympia.? It was his thorough-going programme
of Hellenisation which gained him his notoriety in Jewish
annals (Tac. Hist.58: ‘rex Antiochus demere superstitionem
et mores Grascorum dare adnisus').

‘While he lingered in Athens Antiochus received news
of the murder of Scleucus IV. by Heliodorus and, being
supported by the king of Pergamum, he expelled the
usurper, and gained the crown în defiance of the rights
of his nephew Demetrius (Appian, Syr. 45; cp Frinkel,
Inscr. of Pergamon, i 160; 1 Mace. ro). He showed
himself soon even more enterprising than his father,
For the death of his sister Cleopatra, the widow of
Ptolemy V. Epiphanes (173 B.C.}, opened the whole
question of the ownership of Ccelesyria, which the
Egyptians claimed as the dowry of the dead queen (Pol.
2719), whereas she had only enjoyed a portion of the
revenue derived from that country (Pol, 28 πο), Antiochus
forestalled the Egyptian attack (2 Macc. 421). Αἱ the
end of 171 8.6. the contending powers came into
decisive conflict on the Egyptian frontier between Mt.
Casius and Pelusium (τ Macc.117). The Egyptians
were utterly defeated. Antiochus even secured the
person of the young king Ptolemy Philometor, and was
himself crowned king of Egypt at Memphis. There
was a Seleucid party among the Egyptians themselves
{Died, 8014); but upon the withdrawal of Antiochus
{τ Mace. 120 f) the national party in Alexandria rose
and placed the young Ptolemy Physcon upon the throne
of Egypt. Antiochus therefore invaded Egypt a second
time (2 Mace. 51; Pol. 2819), nominally at fifst in the
interests of Philometor.® He demanded the cession of

1 ᾿Ἐπιφανής, ‘illustrions,’ called also *Erquanjs, ‘mad,’ from
his actions, Pol. 261, Athen. 1052. On coins his titles are
᾿Ἐπιφανής, Νικηφόρος, and Beds. Cp Jos, Anz. xii. 55. See
ANTIOCHUS, 2.

2 The figure of Zeus Nicephorus enthroned appears on some
of his coins in place of that of Apollo. He seems to have con-
sidered himselt a manifestation οὗ Zeus 5 and perhaps his name
Epiphanes really means that. On some of his coins his own
portrait occurs, in the character of Zeus. See Head, Misf
Nin. 641. The nimbus on the diadem of the Seleucide
originates with him. See the remarksof Holm, G+&. Mist. 4399.

8 The wars of Antiochus IV. with Egypt ‘are complicated,
and it is doubtful whether he made three or more invasions (50

4352

SELEUCIDA

Pelusium and of the island of Cyprus which was now
practically his through the treachery of Ptolemy Macron
{& Macc. 1013). Antiochus' victorious career in Egypt
came to an abrupt ending. For at this moment the
Roman victory at Pydna (168 B.c.) changed the whole
face of affairs in the East.

Popilius Lenas, the Roman envoy, a harsh, rude man,
demanded in the name of the senate that Antiochus should
restore his conquests and evacuate Egypt within a set term.
Antiochus asked time for consideration; but the envoy drew
with his staff a circle round the king and bade him answer
before he stepped beyond it (Pol. 29 27, Livy 4512). Antiochus
yielded. ‘Like Macedonia în the war just waged by Perseus,
the Seleucida: had made in the war regarding Corlesyria a final
effort to recover their carlier power; but it is a significant
indica ion of the difference between the two kingdoms, that in
the former case the legions, in the latter the abrupt language of
a diplomatist, decided the controversy’ (Momms. Zist. 9, Rome,

2309).

It was upon his return to Syria after finding the prize
of Egypt, so nearly within his grasp, thus forever snatched
from him, that Antiochus committed those outrages in
Palestine which earned him the undying hatred of the
Jews, and for which he is pilloried in the books of Daniel
and Maccabees as the very personification of impiety.
Already upon his first return, in 170 B.C., he had
captured Jerusalem, slain and enslaved thousands of
Jews, entered the Holy of Holies, and despoiled the
temple {1 Mace. 120f 2 Mace. ὅτι δ; see ANTIOCHUS 2,
Jason, MENELAUS}. Now the king determined to
carry through the Hellenisation of Palestine. A royal
edict made the practice of Jewish rites punishable by
death; the temple was dedicated to Zeus Olympios
{168 5.0. See 1 Macc. 141 £, 2 Mace. 61/.).! These
persecutions led to the revolt of the Maccabees. The
outbreak of Mattathias at Modin (167 B.C.) seems to
have attracted little attention at the capital. [τ was not
until the death of Mattathias and the assumption of
leadership of the movement by his son Judas (166 5.C.),
who defeated several detachments (that of Apollonius,
1 Macc, 810; that of Seron, 1 Mace. 313), that ‘his
name came near even unto the king,' and energetic
measures were taken to suppress the insurrection
(τ Mace. 327). The general conduct of ‘the operations
was entrusted to LySsIaAs {φ. ν.}, ‘an honourable man,
and one of the seed royal’ (1 Mace.332); but the
victories of Judas at Emmaus and Beth-zur secured the
practical evacuation of the country, and gave opportunity
for the purification and rededication of the Temple
(τ Mace. 436, 2 Macc. 10: 7) Antiochus was unable
apparently to direct upon Judea the whole force of the
empire, before which the Jewish national party must
undoubtedly have succumbed. He was engaged
beyond the Euphrates (τ Mace. 337), not, as the Jewish
narrative puts it, to ‘take the tributes of the countries,
and to gather much money '{1 Mace. 331), but more
probably in safe-guarding his frontiers against the grow-
ing power of the Parthians (cp Tac. Mist 58: ‘rex
Antiochus demere superstitionem et mores Graecorum
dare adnisus, quominus taeterrimam gentem in melius
mutaret, Parthorum bello prohibitus est’).

The sequence and extent of his operations in this quarter are
unknown. After making an attempt to plunder a temple of
Artemis in ELvmAIS (9.2, see also Nanea), Antiochus died of
discase at Taba in Persia; some said that he died mad (Pol.
8111, Appian, Sy». 66); the professediy circumstantial narratives
oft Macc. 61 and 2 Macc.91 are mutually contradictory
and of no historical value (cp in general MaccaneEs, FIRST,
$ το, Seconp, #2). When, în fact, we compare the last episode
of this king's life With that of his father, we may well doubt

whether the tradition is not a confusion partly suggested by and
founded upon the nickname Epimanes applied to Antiochus IV.

Wilcken, 5.0, ‘Antiochus’ in Pauly's Rea/encyo., ed. Wissowa),
oronly two (so 2 Mace. 5 1 ; see Mahaffy, Ext. a/#he Prolemies,
3365). His usurpation of Egypt was marked by the Seleucid
ancher on the copper coins, and also by a new issue of copper
coîns with his own name.

1 Perhaps the savage outbreak at Jerusalem upon the second
occasion was due to some more peisonal grievance than mere
resistance to innovations. The nationalists of Palestine may
have been in part responsible for the delay and failure of his
Egyptian expedition, as Mahaffy suggests, 04. cif. 341.

4353

SHLEUCIDA

Antiochus V., Eupator {164-162 B.c.), son of the
preceding, was either nine or eleven years'old at his
> father's death (Appian, Syr. 46; Eus.
rta Chr.1253). In 166 Βις. Antiochus
"50, Epiphanes, on the eve of his departure
ii to the east, appointed Lysias ‘to be
over the affairs of the king from the river Euphrates
unto the borders of Egypt, and to bring up his son
Antiochus, until he came again’ (1 Mace. 332 1}; sce
Lysias. On the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, Lysias
declared Antiochus his son king, with the title Eupator,
‘@n account of the virtues of his father' (1 Macc. 617;
cp Appian, Sy. 46). The young king and his guardian
then led an expedition to the relief of Jerusalem, where
the citadel was hard pressed by Judas Maccabeeus.
The armies met at Beth-zacharias, near Beth-zur, and
Judas was defeated and his brother Eleazar slain
lx Macc. 6287, Jos. 4né xii.94; but 2 Macc, 1816f,
representing the Jews as victorious, is clearly unhis-
torical). ‘The victory of Antiochus enabled him to
invest Jerusalem (τ Macc. 648/.), and famine was already
doing 115 work when the king's troops were recalled by
the news that Philip, the foster-brother of Antiochus
Epiphanes (2 Macc. 929), was approaching Antioch
with an army (τ Macc. 655/). Philip had, in fact,
been appointed by the dying Epiphanes as guardian of
the young Antiochus (1 Macc. 655). Peace was made
with the fews on the terms that ‘they shall walk after
their own laws, as aforetime' (1 Mace. 659; 2 Mace.
1323); but Antiochus in spite of this destroyed the
fortifications of the city and imprisoned the high priest
(x Mace. 662, Jos. Art. xii. 97), Returning to Syria,
he found no difficulty in expelling Philip from Antioch
{x Macc. 663). In 162 8.0, Antiochus himself was
betrayed, along with Lysias, into the hands of Deme-
trius, the son of Seleucus, and rightful heir to the Syrian
tbrone, and was by him put to death (1Macc.72/,
2 Mace, 141 Δ, Polyb.8119/, Jos. Anz xii. 101).
See ANTIOCHUS, 3.

Demetrius I., Soter (162-150 B.c.), son of Seleucus
IV. Philopator.

As a boy he had been sent in 175 p.c. to take his unele's place
as a hostage in Rome (Polyb. 8112, x Macc. 110). When his

cousin inherited the crown which his father
11. Demetrius I. Fpiphanes had usurped, Demetrius, who
(162-150 B.0.), had then lived nearly twelve years” prac-
tically a state prisoner in Italy, begged the
Roman Senate to recognise his claim to the Syrian throne, but
in vain. It suited the Senate better that a mere boy should rule,
rather than one who had reached his twenty-third year. ΑἹ last
he made his escape in a Carthaginian esse and landed in Syria
(55. 4πῈ χῇ 101, a Mace. 147), There seems no ground for
the opinion that the Senate really connived at his escape (50
Holm; Gr&. Hist.44:6 ET).

After putting to death Antiochus V. and Lysias (see
above), the first object of Demetrius was to gain the
recognition of the senate (Polyb.324/, Diod. 3129).
It was only after a long time that he gained the grudg-
ing and half-hearted recognition he sought. Timar-
chus, who under Antiochus Epiphanes had been satrap
of Babylon (Appian, Sy. 47), revolted, and declared
himself king, and ruled Babylon with an iron hand.
Him Demetrius put down, being given for this service
his title Soter (‘Savionr*) by the grateful Babylonians.
The relations of Demetrius with the Jews are sufficiently
set forth elsewhere (DEMETRIUS, 1, and in the references
there given).

The foreign policy of Demetrius was not skilful;
indeed it is difficult to see the object at which he aimed.
First, he attempted to get his sister Laodice, the widow
of Perseus, married to Ariarathes V. of Cappadocia,
possibly in order to form an anti-Roman league in the
east. Failing in this, he married her himself, and in
revenge encouraged a claimant to the Cappadocian
throne in the person of Orophernes, brother of Ariarathes
(Polyb. 3224), The only result was to raise against
Demetrius the enmity of both Rome and Attalus of
Pergamum (Polyb. 35). Attalus II. in return supported
the claims of a pretender, Alexander Bala, or Balas, to

4354

SELEUCIDA

the Syrian throne; ALEXANDER (9.%., 2)
out to be a son of Antiochus Epiphanes.

Alexander Bala appeared at an opportune moment, as Deme-
trius had completely alienated his subjects by his ryranny and
excesses (153 6.c.), whilst at the same time he had given way to
love of drink, the hereditary vice of his house (Polyb. 88 19). In
addition to this, an attempt to secure the island of Cyprus by
treachery had indeed failed, but had earned the Syrian monarchy
the hostility of Ptolemy Bhilometor (Polyb. 33 5). The result
was that, though a party at Rome (perhaps that of the Scipios)
was favourably inclined to Demetrius, the Roman Senate, pon
grounds of policy, and also upon more sordid grounds, was
induced to recognise the impostor Alexander (Polyb. 83 18), who
was also supported by Attalus Ariarathes and Ptolemy Philo-
metor, Consequently, in 153 B.c., Alexander appeared with an
army in Syria.

Both Demetrius and Alexander made bids for the
favour of the Jews, who were now under Jonathan
(1 Mace. 10:f). The king recalled his garrisons from
ali the towns except Jerusalem and Beth-zur, and gave
Jonathan power to raise an army and to liberate the
hostages. The various taxes and royal ciaims upon the
Jews were also remitted (see the instructive list given in
Jos. Ars. xii. 227)! The impostor, however, was
more successful in appealing to Jonathan's personal
ambition, nominating him high-priest, and sending him
the insignia of royalty, with the title of ‘king's friend’
(cp FRIEND). The decisive battle was fought in 150
8.C., and Demetrius fighting heroically was slain
(Justin, 351, Polyb.35, Jos. ἀπέ, xii. 24). In spite
of the fragmentary and obscure character of the record,
we may well doubt whether this Demetrius was not one
of the most gifted of the Seleucid dynasty (v. Gutschmid,
Iran, 43).

Demetrius IT., Nicator (145-139 and 129-125 B.C.),
the elder of the two sons of Demetrius I., had been sent

A by his father for protection to
12, Demetrius 1. Chidus when Alexander invaded
(first reign; ἢ - Di 1
145-139 ΒΟ) Syria (Justin, 352), and remained
"there for some years in exile until he
became aware that the usurper had forfeited the goodwill
of his subjects by his negligence of state affairs and his
self-indulgence (Livy, Z$:4 so). In 147 B.c. he landed
on the Cilician coast with a force of Cretan mercenaries
(τ Mace. 1067) Ptolemy VI. Philometor had given
his daughter Cleopatra Thea (‘one of the most
impudent women produced by the Ptolemy line, which
had no lack of such characters," Holm, Gr4. Mist
4417) in marriage to Alexander, and at first came to his
assistance, but afterwards transferred his favour to
Demetrius II., to whom also he transferred his daughter.

Ptolemy's vo/te.face was accounted for by a story that Alex-
ander had attempted his life (x Macc, 11 10); but the true motive
was probably the desire to take advantage οἵ the intestine strife
to annex at least Palestine and Corlesyria (1 Macc. 111).
According to Josephus (Anf.xîii, 45), Prolemy actually at
Antioch assumed the ‘diadem of Asìa”(so also 1 Macc. 118,
where, however, the motive assigned for Ptolemy's conduct
ditte). On this episode, see Mahaffy, Em. ef #46 Ptolemies,
364 Κ

The opportune death of the Egyptian king on the
third day after he had gazed upon the severed head of
Alexander Balas, removed a formidable rival from the
path of Demetrius {1 Mace. 1118; was he murdered ?
Strabo, 751, says that he died from a wound received
in τὰς battle on the CEnoparas, near Antioch, fighting
against Alexander). Having thus won back his father's
Kingdom by arms he received the title Nicator (‘ Con-
queror'; Appian, Syr. 67, ὡς νόθον τοῦ γένους ἄνδρα
viuedoas)2 ‘The entire country, in fact, had rallied τὸ
him, with the exception of Judzea, where the ambitious
Jonathan had inflicted defeat upon his adherent Apol-
lonius, governor of Coelesyria (τ Macc. 1069 f).
Demetrius was, indeed, fain to purchase the acquiescence
of Jonathan by confirming him in the high-priesthood,
and by the abolition of taxes (τ Mace. 1l20/.), and
the surrender to Judzea of three Samarian districts.

‘When peace was assured Demetrius disbanded the

made himself

1 See the remarks of Mahaffiz, Ανεῤ. ον the Ptolemies, τϑα
2 On his coins he also calls himself Theos and Philadelphos.

4355

SELEUCIDAI

native troops and retained only his Cretan mercenaries.
This lea to risings in Antioch, which were put down by
the mercenaries with the aid of 3000 Jewish troops sent
by Jonathan. Confiscations and executions alienated
the goodwill of the people (1 Macc.1138f). This
emboldened one Diodotus, a native of Kasiana, brought
up at Apamea on the Orontes (Strabo, 752; cp #4
668), to declare a young son of Alexander Bala king as
Antiochus VI. Dionysus.! This was în 145 B.c. ‘The
Jews profited by this revolt, for Demetrius had not
redeemed his promises to withdraw his garrisons from
Judza. The disbanded troops also rallied to the
standard of his rival, and Demetrius was compelled to
evacuate Antioch and to retire to Seleucia {Livy, &pi4
52) or to Cilicia (so Jos. “τ xili. 54). Jonathan and
his brother Simon mastered all southern Syria (for the
details of the operations, see 1 Mace, 1160).

Seleucia, near Antioch, remained true to Demetrius,
along with Cilicia and the eastern provinces generally,? so
that the young Antiochus never ruled

re over more than a small part of
(140-142 8.0) Syria His reign soon came to

an end, as he was murdered by
(142-138 B.C.) Diodotus, who usurped the throne
under the name of Tryphon.

The date is disputed ; probably it was in 143-142 ».c.; 50 the
coîns (see Babelon, Rois de δγνέδ, 131 and cp 1 Macc. 1831).
On the other hand, according to Josephus (4x4. xiii.5 11 7 3) the
murder of Antiochus occurred 4/#e7 the capture of Demetrius
by the Parthians. (On this much disputed point see the
authorities referred to în Schir. isf. φῦ #4e /ews, ET, i.1 177,
and Cambridge Bible, First Book of M. in bc.)

The usurper made himself detested for his cruelties.
Chiefly he alienated the sympathies of the Jews, and
earned their active hatred, by the capture and execution
of Jonathan when he had alt but established the inde-
pendence of his country (1 Macc. 1239/.).

The three or four years of the reign of Tryphon are
almost destitute of incident, save for a few isolated
notices. ‘ His headquarters seem to have been at Cora-
cesium in Cilicia Aspera, a robbers' eyrie on a pre-
cipitous crag by the sea, Strabo (668) attributes to
him the rise ‘of the piratical power in Cilicia, which
afterwards attained such extraordinary dimensions.
The generals of Demetrius, in Mesopotamia and Ceele-
syria at least, retained their ground before those of
Tryphon, whilst Simon, who had succeeded to the
leadership of the Jews (1Macc. 138), entered into
negotiations with Demetrius, who granted all his
demands, including even exemption from tribute
(x Macc. 13367). Though the Jews thus did not gain
absolute independence, but had stili to recognise the
suzerainty of the Syrian kings, they adopted a new era,
and Simon ruled as ethmarch, or vassal prince (1 Mace
1841 ; cp Justin, 38613).

At this moment the attention of Demetrius was diverted to
Babylonia, where he had to face a new peril. Mithridates I. of

._ Parthia,3 after displaying his power in the

14. Demetrius E., had conquered Media (147 B.c.), and
in Parthia se Sgleucia on the Tigris two years later.

w ,, The Babylonians appealed for assistance.
(139-129 B.0.) Bemetrius was joined by the Persiane, ΕἸΣ:
mans, and Bactrians; but in 139 B.c. he was defeated and
taken prisoner by the Parthians, and carried about through
their territories as a show4 (1 Mace. 141, Jos. Ax. xii. 71,
Appian, Sy. 67, The actual capture was due to treachery).
For ten years Demetrius remained a prisoner; but very soon
after his capture his treatment improved, and he was even
given the king's daughter Rhodogune to wife. Probably the
promise of reinstallation in his kingdom would have been
realised had not Mithridates himself died, and been succeeded

1 The coins of this sevencyear-old king also bear the title
Epiphanes. His mother was the Egyptian princess Cleopatra
Thea. In Appian, Syr.68, he is wrongly called Alexander.
See ANTIOCHUS, 4

2 Cp inser, ffom Babylon în Zeitschr. 5 Assyr.8110, and
insor. from Paphos in /ourn. of Hellenic Stiidies, 9 (1880) 230.

3 Mithridates I. reigned 174-136 .c. He calls himself on his
eoins King of Kings, the Great, Arsaces, Epiphanes, Euergetes,
Philhellen He was the most considerable of the Parthian
monarchs. ᾿

4 From this circumstance he was called mockingIy Seripides
(Eus. C4ron. 1256).

4356

SELEUCIDA

by Phraates II. as Arsaces Philopator Epiphanes Philhellen
(reigned 136-127 B.c.), [τ seemed better to this monarch to
retain Demetrius in order to he able to use him in case of
threatening circumstances. ΝΕ

Whilst Demetrius was a captive in the hands of the
Parthians {see above, $ 14) his younger brother Antio-

3 chus Sidetes, who owed his surname to
15 Antiochue the fact that he had been brought up at
138.129 5 Ὁ.) Side in Pamphylia (see Sibe),! asserted
(138-129 B.0-). pi: claims to the kingdom of Syria
{1 Mace, 1517). He was now sixieen years old. His
attempt succeeded, perhaps chiefiy because he was joined
by queen Cleopatra Thea, who, enraged at the union of
Demetrius with the daughter of the Parthian king,
went over to the side of Antiochus, and surrendered to
him the strong tower of Seleucia, near Antioch, which
during all these years she had held for Demetrius,

Tryphon was defeated and driven into the Pheenician town of
Dora, where he was besieged. Thence he escaped to Apamea,
but was again besieged, and compelled to end his life by his own
hand (1 Macc, 15 τὸ 37 ; Strabo, 668; Jos, Art. xii. 72; Appian,
Syr. 68).2

Antiochus married Thea {'the objectionable but
evidently inevitable adjunct of the Syrian throne,'
Holm, Gr&. Hist.4419), and acted very vigorously to
unite again the severed fragments of the Syrian kingdom
(Justin, 36). First and foremost came the necessity
of dealing with Palestine, which in the turmoil of the
past few years had absorbed large tracts of Syrian
territory, and attained an almost completely inde-
pendent position, even entering into diplomatic relations
with distant and, in part, hostile powers (1 Mace, 1059 Κ
1217 1416/24) In 135 5.6. Antiochus invaded
Judzea in person. Already, three years previously, the
Syrian king had come into collision with the Jews,
who, under Judas and John Hyrcanus, inflicted a defeat
upon his general CENDEB=US. After the assassination
of Simon and two of his sons by his son-in-law
Ptolemy, the son of Abubus (τ Mace. 161rf.), John
Hyrcanus had become high priest and prince of Judea.
Upon the invasion by Antiochus he was shut up in the
citadel of Jerusalem for at least a year, and then forced
to capitulate. The walls were destroyed, hostages
demanded, with five hundred talents indemnity, and
tribute for the cities which had been occupied by the
Maccabees (Diod. 341, Justin, 361, Jos. Axz. xiii. 8 2).3
Syrian suzerainty over Judaza was fully asserted.

Next occurred the final attempt of the Seleucida to
overthrow the formidable Parthian power which had
wrested from them so much of their eastern possessions,

In 130 Bc. Antiochus undertook an expedition against the
Parthians. His brother Demetrius was still in their hands,
having twice been recaptured when he attempted escape, . Three
vietories gave the Syrian king the possession of Babylonia, and
brought to his standard all the peopies who had been reduced
under the Parthian yoke.d "Phofatts opened negotiations with
Antiochus to amuse him, while he prepared once more to try
his fortune in the field (Diod. 35 15); more effective still was the
stroke by which Demetrius was at last released from captivity
in order to cause che withdrawal of the Syrian forces. In the
next collision with the Parthian troops Antiochus fell, bravely
fighting (Appian, Syr. 68; Justin, 8810). His entire army was
cut to pieces.

The Parthian king, having thus won the victory by
arms, keenly regretted having set Demetrius at liberty

τος (see $ 14), and tried to recapture him,
16. Demetrius Ὁ οι failed. He tried next to undo his
IL, Nicator x b ding i ΕἾΝ d
(second reign, work by sending into Syria a secon
129-125 8.0) pretender, a son of Antiochus, the late
πο kiag; Seleucus by name, who had fallen
into his hands. This also proved of no avail. Deme-
trius, however, did not long enjoy his change of fortune.
1 ‘In Sida urbe educatus, quapropter Sidetes utique voca-
batur' (Eus. C4rez. 1255) On his coins Antiochus VII, calls
himself Euergetes, which was, therefore, his true official title.
Jos. Ant. xiii.T 1 calls him Σωτήρ, See ANTIOCHUS, 5.
2 On his coins Tryphon calls himself Βασιλεὺς αὐτοκράτωρ,
which no other Syrian ruler does.
8 This Antiochus was not hostile to the Jewish faith, and for
his tolerance was called Eusebés (‘ pious”), Jos. Ant. xili. 82.
For these victories Antiochus recerved the title Great

{Dittenh. Sylloge, (1) 244 and 245, Βασιλέως μεγάλον ᾿Αντιόχου,
cp Justin, 8810: ‘Magnus haberi coepit ’).

4357

SELEUCIDZA

He was induced to enier into war with Egypt on bebalf
of Cleopatra IL, sister-wife of Ptolemy Physcon,! and
his own mother-in-law, who had taken refuge in Syria.
The war with which he was thus threatened Physcon
evaded by setting up Alexander Zabinas, a pretended
son of Alexander L Bala, to claim the Syrian throne.®

Supported by ἃ strong Egyptian army the pretender invaded

i: where several cities fell away from Demetrius. The
decisive battle was fonght in 125 fc. near Damascus, and
Demetrius was defeated. He fled to Ptolemais to his wife
Cleopatra, who refused to receive him, and, when he tried to
enter Tyre, had him murdered (Justin, 897, Appian, $yr. 68,
Jos. Ant. xii. 93).

Little is known of the rule of Alexander II.; but one
authority at least passes a favourable verdict.* He
entered into friendly relations with
17 Alexander Hyreanus, infuenced largely, no doubt,
Beleucas y. PY the desire to find support against
* Egypt, from which power he soon
became estranged (Jos. “πὲ xii. 93). He was, in fact,
not left to enjoy his usurped dignity long without
rivals. Immediately upon the death of Demetrius II,
Seleucus, the son of the murdered king, laid claim to
the throne, only to be murdered after a few months by
the infamous Cleopatra Thea, his mother, who was
indignant that he should have taken such a step without
her, and without sharing the power with herself.

Cleopatra then put forward the second son of Deme-
trius II. as heir to the throne; his claim was also

- supported by Egypt. Alexander II
de Aufiochua, was defeated and fled to Antioch, and

(120960). then to Seleucia (Diod. Sic, 35 28,

+0.) Justin, 892). Finaliy he was captured
and brought to Antiochus, who had him put to death,
Thus from 125 B.c. Antiochus reigned, in association
with his mother, after the fashion common in Egypt.
‘Their joint reign lasted four years.?

The queen-mother was thrown more and more into the shade,
especially after the marriage of her son with Cleopatra Try
phana, given to him by her father Ptolemy Euergetes II. asa
pledge of Egyptian support, and also after 123 by the
victory gained over Alexander II, (cp Justin, 392 : ‘Cleopatra
cum huiùs [sc. Antiochi] quoque victoria inferiorem dignitatem
suam factam doleret'). ‘In τοῦ H.C. she tried to poison him, but
was compelled instead to drink the draught herself (Appian,
Sor. 69).

For some years Antiochus Grypus reigned quietly,
and then there arose a claimant to the throne in the

; person of his half-brother and cousin
1a. Antiochus. Antiochus {IX.), son of Antiochus VII.
DI Sidetes and Cleopatra Thea (see above,

(116-985 B.C.). gs) Antiochus owed his surname to
his having been brought up at Cyzicus (his title on his
coins is Philopator), whither bis mother had sent him in
129 B.C. upon the return of Demetrius II, her second
husband, from his Parthian captivity (105, 4a xiii. 101).
The poisoned cup with which his mother had made
him familiar was employed in vain by Grypus to remove
this rival. The attempt only precipitated the inevitable
struggle (116 B.c.), In the first important battle of
the war Grypus was victorious, and took Antioch,
where he found his own sister-in-law Cleopatra IV., sister
and divorced wife of Ptolemy Soter II. (Lathyrus);
having been expelled from Egypt by her mother (i.e.,
Cleopatra III, Physcon's niece and former wife, who
herself married Ptolemy Soter} Cleopatra had married
Antiochus Cyzicenus. By command of her sister, Try-

1 Ptolemy Euergetes IL., or Physcon, reigned 146-117 .c.

2 Or, according to another and more probable version (Justin,

39 1), he claimed to be an adoptive son of the dead Antiochus

VII. Sidetes. He was really an Egyptian, son of a merchant

called Protarchus, though Jos. At. xiti, 9 3 calls him a genuine

Seleucid., He also gives the title as Zebinas, It is translated
“slave” (ἀγοραστόν) in Eus. Ολνύπ. 1257.

3 Diod. Sic.8522 (8445), ἣν γὰρ πρᾷος καὶ συγγνωμονεκός,
ἔτι δὲ ἐν ταῖς ὁμιλίαις καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἐντεύξεσι προσηνής. ὧν
χάριν διαφερόντως ὑπὸ τῶν πολλῶν ἠγαπᾶτο

His titles are Epiphanes Philometor (1) Callinicns. The
name Grypus=‘hook-nose'—a feature conspicuous on his coins
Grypus is, of course, not an official, but a vulgar title,

Coins bear her portrait, with cormucopia. Her titles are
Thea and Eueteria (‘abundance ').

4358

SELEUCIDA

pheena, the wife of Grypus, the unfortunate Cleopatra
was put to death (fustin, 393). Soon the scale was
turned, and Grypus was defeated, and compelled to
retire to Aspendus {Eus. C4ror.1257); Tryphena was
put to death in her turn by the victor. In ταὶ 8.6.
Grypus returned and won back northern Syria. The
result of the struggle was that the Syrian empire, now
sadly shrunken in size, was partitioned between the con-
testants, Grypus retaining northern Syria with Cilicia,
and Cyzicenus taking Phoenicia and Coelesyria with its
capital Damascus. Apparently a state of peace did not
long continue; but the details of the never-ceasing
warfare are hard to trace.

It is clear that the brothers' war in Syria was intimately con-
nected with a similar strife in Egypt, where also Ptolemy
Alexander and Ptolemy Soter II. were at enmity, due to the
intrigues of their mother the reigning queen Cleopatra IIL (cp
Journ. of Hell. Stud.9230; Justin, 394; Jos. Ang. xiii. 102;
and see Mahaffy, Empire of the Piolemies, 409/.). Grypus
held with the party of Alexander, and by way of attaching him
more closely thereto Cleopatra sent him as his wife her youngest
dguebter, Selene, beforetime the wife of the exiled Ptolemy

oter 11.

The confusion in Syria was an opportunity for sur-
rounding powers. In 103 8.6. even Rome, by the
victory of the Prator M. Antonius over the pirates,
gained a footing in Cilicia (cp Justin, 395). By the
union of Laodice (Thea Philadelphus), daughter of
Grypus, with Mithridates I. Callinicus, the dynasty of
Commagene was founded, and the way prepared for the
severance of that kingdom from Syria {cp Mommsen in
Athen. Mitt. 127f) The Jews also, under John
Hyrcanus, who had practically thrown off their allegi-
ance since the death of Antiochus VII. (129 B.C.},
made great strides forward, investing and destroying
Samaria (about 108 B.c.) in spite of all that Antiochus
Cyzicenus, even with the help of 6000 troops sent by
Ptolemy Soter 11., could do to save it (Jos. Ark
xiii. 102/) Such successes as the Syrian king won
were entirely neutralised and torn from his grasp by the
senatus consultum secured by Hyrcanus bidding ‘Anti-
ochus the son of Antiochus' (Jos. Ar xiv. 1022; cp
id. xili, 92) restore all his Palestinian conquests,

In οὐ B.c. Antiochus Grypus died, or was murdered by Her-
acleon (Jos. Ant xili.134; cp_Eus. C4ron. 1259). He was

forty-five years old at the time of his death, and left behind him
five sons.

Seleucus VI., Epiphanes, the eldest son of Antiochus
Grypus, on his father's death leid claim to the un-
divided empire, and proceeded to
vi pEAIeuet8. assert his claims by arms. Antiochus
» Bpip Cyzicenus marched into northern Syria
Nicator LA A i di
(06-95 E.0) 269inst him, but being defeated killed
-95 ΒΟ. himself in the battle (Appian, Syr. 69 ;
Jos. Ant. xiii. 134 seems not quite accurate). A sketch
of the character of Antiochus Cyzicenus is given in Diod,
3534 We are told that he had to wife Selene, the
Egyptian princess, who had been married to his rival
Grypus; but whether her marriage to Cyzicenus occurred
before or after the death of Grypus is unknown. For a
few months Seleucus VI. was master of the whole extent
of the Syrian empire, as it then existed, but soon he was
expelled by a rival, Antiochus X. Eusebes, Philopator,
the son of Antiochus Cyzicenus. He was compelled to
retire into Cilicia, where he took refuge in the town of
Mopsuestia (mod. Afissis).

By his violent and tyrannical behaviour, and his extortions,
Seleucus raised the inhabitants against him; they fired the
Bymnasium in which he had taken shelter, and he either perished
in the flames, or slew himself to avoid a worse fate (Jos. An.
xiii. 184; Appian, Syr. 60). This was probably in 94 B.c.
Mopsuestia was thereafter razed to che ground by Philippus and
Antiochus XI, brothers of Seleucus.

“Syria now presented the spectacle of, firstly, a
contest between two branches of the Seleucids, the
A descendants of the brothers Demetrius

21. Antiochus 7, and Antiochus VII., but both
X. (94-83 8.0.) having the same ancestress [Cleo-
patra Thea], and, secondly, of squabbles between the
members of the first branch, the five sons of Grypus

4359

SELEUCIDA

(Holm, Gr&. Mist. 4542). The confusion prevailing is
well illustrated by the fact that Antiochus X, married
Selene who had first been the wife of Grypus and had
then married Antiochus Cyzicenus, his own father.

First, Antiochus X, had to meet the opposition of
Antiochus XI. and Philippus I., the thirà and the
second sons of Grypus. After a battle on the Orontes, in
which Antiochus X. was vietorious, Antiochus XI. lost
his life in the river in his flight (Jos. /c.; Eus. Chroz.
126), Philippus then assumed the royal title, and
held part of Syria {from 94 B.C.). In the meantime,
Ptolemy Lathyrus! had sent: for Demetrius, fourth son
of Grypus, from Cnidus, and had established him as
king in Damascus.? After hard fighting Antiochus X.
was expelled from Syria {or, according to Josephus,
lost his life in battle with the Parthians).

According to Appian (Afit4r. 105) this Antiochus was alive
and ruling in 83 n.c. when Tigranes (see below, $ 22, end) made
himself master'of Syria. If chis is true, his death in war with
the Parthians fell later (it had already occurred in 75 H.c.).
Appia (Sy». 69) also tells us that he married Selene, bis father's
| wridow. His son was Antiochus XIII. (& 23; cp Kuhn, Beit.

x. Cesch, der Seleukiden, 331).

In what way Philippus and Demetrius divided the
kingdom is not known; but Demetrius probably ruled
Coelesyria and Antioch. Soon hos-

22. PRILIPPUS tilities broke out between them. Deme-
trius III. trius was also engaged with the Jews,

who in 88 B.c. called him in to aid
them against their tyrani prince Alexander Jannacus.
Demetrius defeated Janneus (Jos. Ans. xii. 14rf);
but in the moment of victory Jewish national feeling
awoke, and 6000 Jews went over to Alexander from the
army of Demetrius. The Syrian king must have shown
signs of desiring to reduce Judzea once more to a de-
pendency of Syria. Demetrius then tumed his arms
against his brother Philippus, whom he besieged in
Beroea.® Straton, the ruler of Bercea, who supported
Philippus, appealed for assistance to the Arab sheik
Azizus and the Parthian Mithridates. By them Deme-
trius was himself beleaguered in his camp, and com.
pelled to capitulate. He died in honourable confine
ment at the court of the Parthian king Mithridates IL
{Jos. Art. xii. 143).

After the capture of Demetrius by the Parthians,
Philippus made himself master of Antioch, and for a
short time was sole ruler of what was left of the Syrian
empire (88 Bic.) The intestine strife was soon re-
newed, for Antiochus XII. Dionysos,! the youngest of
the sons of Grypus, claimed the throne, and established
himself in Damascus (87/6 8.c.). Philippus, indeed,
shortly afterwards took the town by the treachery of the
governor Milesius, while Antiochus was engaged with
the Nabateans; but he was compelled to evacuate it
again. When Antiochus resumed operations against
the Arabians, the Jewish despot, Alexander Janneus,
attempted to bar the road through Judsea by construct-
ing a great wall and trench from Joppa to Capharsaba,
but in vain (Jos. “πὰ xili.15:). Ten thousand Arab
riders surprised the forces of the Syrian king, who, true
to the traditions of his house, fell fighting bravely
{probably about 84 B.C.).

The end of Philippus is doubiful. In 83 Εις, the Armenian
king Tigranes was invited to pur an end to the long strife by
making himself master of the Syrian kingdom. Neither
Philippus nor Antiochus X. (if they were still alive; see above,
$ 21) could offer any real opposition, and Tigranes made him-
self master of the entire Syrian kingdom from the sea to the
Euphrates, including also Cilicia (Justin, 401, Appian, Sy.
48), He so ruled for fourteen years, Syria being governed by a

Viceroy. In 69 n.c. the connection of Tigranes with his father-
in-law Mithridates of Pontus led to his own defeat by Lucullus.

1 Ptolemy Lathyrus= Ptolemy Soter II. (see PTOLEMY).

2 Demetrius II., Euceris (95-88 B.c.). Βύκαιρος, so Jos.
Ant. xiii.134, where, however, Niese reads "Ακαιρος, The
coins of Antiochus X. bear the triple title Theos Philopator
1 Soter, or else Philometor Euergetes Callinicus.

8 A town E. of Antioch.

4 Dionysos' coîns bear also the titles Epiphanes Philopator
Callinicus, the title Dionysos being also sometimes omitted.

4360

SEM

After the defeat of Tigranes, Syria did not all at once
23. Antiochus SOM into the possession of the

ppt Romans. The royal house of Syria

XI τ τ
ΤΙ. Asiaticue was not yet extinct, for Antiochus X,
{69-65 B.0.). Eusebes and Cleopatra Selene had

left a son Antiochus. Lun ᾿

The youth of Asiaticus μὰ been passed in Asia Minor (Justin,
402, ‘in angulo Cilicize '), from which circumstance he received
his ‘surname (Appian, $3». 70). This Antiochus, along with a
brother, appeared in Rome to urge their claim to the kingdom of
Egypt, then under the sway of the illegitimate Ptolemy Auletes.
This ciaim was disregarded, and the disappointed princes re-
tumed home by way of Sicily, where Antiochus was robbed
by Verres of a rich present intended for the Senate (Cic. Verr.
i 427). This was about 72 e.c. Three years later Tigranes
bad lost his Syrian possessions, and Antiochus was received
with open arms as the heir to his kingdom: (Appian, Sy». 49)
Lucullus recognised his claim.

In 65 8.c. disturbances broke out in Antioch (Diod,
#8. 34}, and Philippus son of Philippus I. was
encouraged to lay claim to the crown, ‘Thus the old
strife between the two rival lines was renewed in the
third generation. The Arabian chief Azizus (cp $ 22)
supported Philippus, whilst Sampsiceramus, prince of
Emesa (Strabo, 753), supported Antiochus. Into the
details of the strife we need not enter. Pompeius, who
had taken the place of Lucullus in 66 B.c., took in hand
the reduction of this chaos to order. Antiochus, on
requesting to be acknowledged as the rightful heir to
the throne, ‘received the answer that Pompeius would
not give back the sovereignty to a king who knew
neither how to maintain nor how to govern his kingdom,
even al the request of his subjects, much less against
their distinctly expressed wishes. With this letter of
the Roman proconsul the house of Seleucus was
ejected from the throne which it had occupied for two
hundred and fifty years. Antiochus soon after lost his
life through the artifice of the emir Sampsiceramus, as
whose client he played the ruler in Antioch’ (Mommsen,
Hist. of Rome, 4135). Syria now became a Roman
province (63 B.C.).

Besides the special articles devoted to Antiochus, Demetrius,
etc., and collateral articles, in the present work, Schiirer's

_ Jewish People in the time of Jesus Christ,
24. Literature. ET, should be consulted for a sketch of
Syrian history, and for the authorities there
cited. The literature of the subject is extensive. Most impor.
tant are P. Gardner, Cafalogue of Greek Coins in the British
Museum: The Seleucid kings of Syria; and Babelon, Rois de
Syrie. Extremely valuable are the articles under the various
headings Antiochus, Demetrius, etc., in Pauly's Real Aneyelo-
padie, now available in part in the revised edition by ΘΟ WA Ὁ
in it will be found the fullest collection of recent authorities, to
which general reference must here suffice. W.].W.

SEM (cHm [Ti. WH]), Lk. 336, ΕΝ SHEM.

SEMACHIAH (AM9319D, $ 29), one of the sons of
Shemaiah b. Obed-edom (τ Ch. 267, caByeia [BI],
camaxia [TL], -1ac [A]. Cp IsMACHIAH, where a
religious meaning is suggested. This meaning, how-
ever, seems to be due to a redactor. The neighbouring
names are surely clan-names of the Negeb (cp OBED-
EDOM). Cp SIBBECAI, τι κι

SEMEI (cemelel). τ. 1 Esd. 933=Ezra 10 33,
Sue! (15).

2. Esth.11 2, RV Semetas; elsewhere Sumet (10).

3. Lk. 326 (σεμεειν (Ti. WH]), RV ΒΈΜΕΙΝ, a name în the
geneatogy of Jesus, see UENEALOGIES, $ 3.

SEMEIS (cemeic [A]), r Esd. 923 RV, AV Semis
=Ezra 1023, SHIMEI, 14.

SEMELLIUS (cemeAAioc [A]), 1 Esd.2:6= Ezra
48 SHIMSHAI

SENAAH {Π| 3), Ezra 335; HASSENAAH.

SENEH (120), in Neh.33, 1 S.144. See Bozez,
MICHMASH, $ 2.

1 As no coîns of Asiaticus are extant, we do not know his
official title. The name Asiaticus, of course, belongs to the
some class as Grypus, Hierax, etc., which are vulgarin origin,
not official, Possibly the official title of chis last of the Seleucida:
was Eusebes, which would account for his being confused with
his father by our authorities.

4361

SENNACHERIB

SENIR (ὍΣ, canfelip: Seri; Dt 39 τ Ch. 523
Cant. 48 [canteip, N] Ezek.275 [ceneip, B]) or
sometimes, incorrectly, in AV, SHENIR (Dt., Cant.).
Senir (the Amorite name of Mt. Hermon, Dt. Ze.) is
described in an inscription of Shalmaneser as ‘Saniru,
the mountain summit at the entrance to Lebanon’ (Del.
Par. 104); Ezekiel says that the Tyrians (but cp TYRE,
$ 1) sent thither for planks of fir-trees. In 1 Ch.523
Senir is coupled with Mount Hermon. Tt might be a
designation of that part of the Hermon-range which is
between Ba'albek and Homs, and was known by the
same name to the Arabic geographers (e.g., Abulfeda).

Cp AAT 159; Halévy, RÉ/ 20 [1850] 246; Wetzstein,
ZATW 3278, Sce HerMoN, Sirion, and, on the question
whether there is once or twice a confusion between a mountain-

range în the far N. and one in the far S., bearing a similar
name, see Crif. B:6.

SENNACHERIB! (3°MD or [2 K. 1920] 29M;
cennaxHplelim [BNAQT1] -e18 [Q"8 Is. 8721], -yeip-
1. Sources ΠῚ GENAXHP: [2 Καδης deri Mace.
for history. 819 Ἴ. τχε!ρ. [2 Macc. 819 1522, ;
3 Mace, 65) VI, cenHpHB[Is. 861, Aq.];
Ass. Sin-agé-erba, “Sin has increased the brothers '),
son and successor of Sargon, came to the throne on
the 12th of Abu, 705 B.C. Sennacherib's own dated
inscriptions, the Taylor Cylinder being the latest,
give the events of the first fifteen years of his reign,
in a chronological order, but arranged according to
campaigns, not, like Sargon's Annals, according to
years. The Canon Lists, of the second class, which
fix some definite event for each eponymy, are defective
after his first year. ‘The Babylonian Chronicle, which
was exceptionaliy full for this reign, deals chicfiy with
what concerned Babylon. The Kings List, a Baby-
lonian document, records the succession of kings who
ruled in Babylon during this reign. Some statements
preserved in classical authors are to be regarded with
suspicion until they are brought to the test of further
inscriptions, still unpublished, of this king's. The
many contracts of this reign and a large number of
letters, now being published, give many incidental refer-
ences. Hence the last word on the history of Sen-
nacherib from the Assyrian side cannot yet he said.
AI that can now be done is to summarise the present
state of knowledge.

Sennacherib does not seem to have been in a position
to proceed to Babylon directly after his accession to the
throne of Assyria and there ‘take the
1, Struggle ΤΟΣ hands of Bél,' or become legitimate

kingdom. Ling of Babylon. Polyhistor relates
indeed that Sennacherib's brother reigned there at first,
and, on his death, a man named Hagises reigned for
one month, till he was killed by Merodach-baladan, who
reigned for six months, The Babylonian Kings List
assigns one month to Marduk-zékir-5um, who may be
Hagises, and then gives nine months to Merodach-
baladan. Whatever means Sennacherib took to govern
Babylon in his first two yearst—whether he ruled by a
Saknu or governor, or whether he really sent a brother
to act as sub-king—his rule was thrown off by an up-
start, ‘son of a slave.’ Merodach-baladan, who had
been expelled by Sargon in 721 B.c., although a
Chaldrean, was evidently more welcome than Senna-
cherib, whom the Babylonian Kings List calls a member
of the dynasty of Habigal. According to Jensen, this
means simply ‘Great Rascal.”

Sennacherib's own inscriptions ascribe to the com-
mencement of his reign the active hostility of Merodach-
baladan, king of Kardunia$, the old name for Babylonia,
whom Sennacherib defeated in his first expedition.
Merodach-baladan was supported by an army from
Elam. These allies were defeated at Kisu {now Hymer),
about τὸ m. E. from Babylon. Merodach-baladan fled
alone to GuzumAni, Sennacherib immediately entered
Babylon and took possession of Merodach -baladan's

1 Fora portrait of Sennacherib see col. 729.
4362

SENNACHERIB

palace, acquiring great spoil. He then sent after Mera-
dach-baladan an army which searched the swamps where
he had taken refuge; but the wily Chaldasan escaped.
Sennacherib then proceeded to conquer the country, city
by city. He seems to have had to fight with a number
of tribes, Urbi, Aramu, and Chaldacans, who had
occupied Erech, Nippur, Kisu, HarSagkalamaand Cutha,
and boasts of having captured 89 strong cities as well
as 820 smaller cities in Chaldaea. On his return to
Babylon he had to pacify the country, and rescue it from
the hordes of Aramean and Chaldeean peoples, who
would not acknowledge him as king.

Sennacherib enumerates the Ti?muna, Ribibu, Iadaku,
Ubudu, Kipré, Malibu, Gurumu, Ubulu, Damunu, Gambulu,
Tindari, Ru'a, Pukudu, Hamràna, Hagarànu, Nabatu, Li'tau,

ramu. The number of his captives he puts at 208,000. The
nature of these tribes is indicated by the spoil taken from them:
7200 horses, 11,073 asses, 5230 camels, Bo,1c0 oxen, 800,500
sheep. The country was clearly over-run by nomads.

It is evident that Assyria had completely lost control
of the country. Sennacherib had to reconquer it. The
Babylonian Chronicle and a fragment of the Canon List
place a conquest of Larak and Sarabanu in 704 B.C.

This doubtless marked the commencement of the recon- |

quest, But the campaign clearly lasted beyond 702
B.c., when Sennacherib set Bél-ibnî on the throne of
Babylon. This prince had been brought up at the
Assyrian court, but was of the old Babylonian seed
royal, for all the sources acknowledge him as legitimate
monarch, and the Babylonian Kings’ List ascribes him
to ‘the dynasty of Babylon,’ and gives him a reign of
three years. He was, of course, a vassal king.
Sennacherib assigns to this period the submission of
Nab0-bél-SumAte, 4457 of Hararàti, and the destruction
of Hirimmu. Some of Sennacherib's inscriptions follow
the plan of presenting together the events connected
with one district. Thus we learn that after Bél-ibnî
had proved faithless or inefficient, Sennacherib once
more marched to Babylon and deposed him, setting
ASur-nàdin-Sum, his own son, on the throne. The Baby-
lonian Chronicle places the pillage of Hararàte and
Hirimmu in 702 B.c., and associates the accession of
ASur-nàdin-Sum with Sennacherib's pillage of Akkad,
or Northern Babylonia. Bél-ibnt was called away to
Assyria. It was probably during Sennacherib's absence
in the West that Bél-ibnì became disgraced. ASur-
nàdin-5um was acknowledged king in Babylon according
to all sources; but the Kings' List assigns him to the
dynasty of Habigal. Hereigned six years, 699-693 B.C.
Sennacherib owed Elam a grudge for supporting
Merodach-baladan against him. In his second cam-
paign, as he calls it, before September 702 B.C., when
the Bellino Cylinder is dated, he marched an army
towards Elam. The Kassi, who had once furnished
the ruling dynasty of Babylonia, about 1725-1155 B.C.,
and a neighbouring tribe, the Iasubigalli, on the borders
of Babylonia and Elam, who had never been subjected
to Assyrian rule, were now ravaged. The neighbouring
kingdom of Ellipi, once subject to Sargon, was also

pillaged. As in Sargon's case, some distant tribes of ;

the Medes sent presents, Sennacherib boasts that his
predecessors had not even heard the names of these
peoples. But although Elam was threatened, it does
not seem that Sennacherib made any direct attack this
time. His hands were soon full in another quarter.
How long the West had been in rebellion does not
appear; but Sennacherib calls the campaign în which
he proceeded to bring the West to submission his third,
This is ascribed by general consent to 7o1 B.c. Bél.
ibni was settled in Babylon, and Sennacherib was free
to attend to the West at that time; but we have no
explicit statement of date from cuneiform sources. ὙΠῸ
first move was against Tyre. Eululaeus, whom Senna-
cherib calls Luli king of Sidon, according to Menander,
as quoted by Josephus, had gone to Citium in Cyprus
to establish his authority. He was thus committing a
technical act of war against Sennacherib. The latter

4363

SENNACHERIB

does not state the grounds of his quarrel. But doubt-
less all the West had become very backward in payment
of tribute, Sennacherib says that Luli fled from Tyre
to Cyprus and that all his country fell into Assyrian
hands. Great Sidon and Little Sidon, Beth-zait, Sarepta,
Maballiba, δᾶ, Achzib, and Accho are named as
fortresses captured from Luli. Sennacherib set up
Ethobal as vassal king over a new kingdom of Sidon.
Tyre he could not reduce.

The vassal kings and semi-independent rulers of Syria
and Palestine now hastened to secure exemption from
pillage by tribute and submission. Menahem of Samsi-
muràna, Abdi-li'ti of Arvad, Urumilki of Gebal, Mitinti
of Ashded, Pudu-ilu of Ammon, Kamus-nadab of
Moab, Airammu of Edora, all called kings of the Martu-
land, submitted. Sidka of Ashkelon stood out, was
captured and with all his belongings carried to Assyria.
He had apparently come to the throne by a revolution
which had expelled Sarru-lùdAri, son of Rukipti, whom
Tiglath-pileser III had sei over Ashkelon, about 734
».c. Hence he probably expected no mercy if he sub-

| mitted. Sarru-lddAri was reinstated. Sennacherib then

reduced Beth-dagan, Joppa, Benebarka, and Azor which
had been under Sidka's rule.

The nobles and people of Ekron had rebelled against
their king Padi, a faithful vassal of Assyria, put him in
chains, and sent him to Hezekiah, king of Judah, to
keep in prison. When Sennacherib advanced against
Ekron, he was faced by a great army of the kings of
Musur, with troops, archers, chariots, and horsemen
from Meluhba. This army he defeated at Eltekeh,
capturing the sons of the kings of Musur and the generals
sent from Melubha. He then stormed Eltekeh and
Timnath. Ekron soon submitted. After wiping out
the conspirators and enslaving their supporters Senna-
cherib reinstated Padî, whom he says he ‘ brought forth
out of Jerusalem.'

Sennacherib then proceeded to ravage Judah, captur-
ing forty-six great fortresses and smaller cities ‘ without
number,’ ‘counting as spoil' 200,150 people. He does
not claim to have captured Jerusalem. He says of
Hezekiah, ‘him, like a caged bird, within Jerusalem,
his capital, I shut in, forts against him I raised, and I
repulsed whoever came out of his city gate and tore it
up’; but there is no mention of capture. ‘The captured
cities were annexed to the dominions of Metinti of
Ashdod, Padi of Ekron, and Silli-bél of Gaza. What
caused Sennacherib to leave Judah we are not told; but
it is nearly certain that troubles in Babylon were again
pressing. The army left behind under the Tartan and
Rabshakeh would be well able to carry on a siege ; but
Hezekiah would not push matters to the point of stand-
ing a long siege. He did submit, as is evident from
the tribute which, Sennacherib says, was sent after him
to Nineveh. It amounted to 30 talents of gold, 800
talents of silver, and an enormous amount of precious
stones and palace furniture, besides Hezekiah's daughters,
his eunuchs, musicians, ete. Sennacherib's account of
the submission seems to imply that it was the Urbi,
Arabs whom Hezekiah had received into the city to
strengthen it, who really gave in, and so forced the
king to submit. They may have been a garrison from
Meluhha. These events are recorded on Cylinder B,
which is dated in the Eponymy of Mitunu, 700 5.6.
That the account is complete no one can pretend. It
makes no mention of Lachish, although the celebrated
scene of Sennacherib receiving the submission of that
city shows the great importance attached by him to its
capture. Whether Lachish was one of the forty-six
great fortresses, or not, it seems probable, as it was
only ro m. or 80 from Eltekeh, that it was captured in
this expedition.

What was the exact nature of Bél-ibni's fault we do
not know ; but Merodach-baladan's activity in the Sea-
land and the unrest of Marduk-uSézib in Chaldaea
caused Sennacherib to attack the southern portion of

4364

SENNACHERIB

Babylonia. His principal enemies fled. Merodach-
baladan, with his gods, escaped by ship to Nagiiu on
the Elamite coast of the Persian Gulf; but his brothers
and the rest of his people, whom he had left in Bit
Yakin, were taken captives. Sennacherib added 15,000
bowmen and 15,000 pikemen from these countries to
his army. This was in 700 B.C. Sennacherib calls it
his ‘ fourth campaign.'

Sennacherib now seems to have considered his empire
thoroughly subdued, for he embarked on a fancy ex-

Oth pedition, what he himself calls his fifth

8. Other campaign. [τ can have brought little

GAIMPAIBNS. profit, but he dwelis upon ît with evident

pride and delight. Some of the mountain districts of
Cilicia, peopled by the Tamurru, Sarmu, Ezama, Κίρξα,
Halbuda, Ka, Kana, dwelling in cities perched like
birds' nests on Mount Nipur, ‘were not submissive to
my yoke.' So, pitching his camp at the foot of Mount
Nipur, with his bodyguards and picked warriors he scaled
the mountain peaks, leading the attack în person, ‘like a
mighty bull’. He goes on to describe the hardships of
this raid in a way that shows his own love of fight-
ing. ‘Then he turned to Manîa, king of Ukki, at
the Mount Anara and Uppa; then against parts of
Cilicia, Tulgarimmu, and the borders of Tabal. Every-
where he succeeded, pillaged, burnt, and destroyed,
This seems to have been in 699 8.6, Although there
seems to have been small value in this move, Berossus
seems to have known of Sennacherib's war in Cilicia
and ascribes to him the foundation of Tarsus.

In his sixth campaign Sennacherib struck out a com-
pletely new plan. Merodach-baladan's elusive tacties
had repeatedly foiled his enemy, He had taken to the
ships, for which the Chaldaeans were famous, and escaped
to Nagitu, whither Sennacherib could not follow. Now
Sennacherib determined to strike him even there. So
he set his captives from the Phoenician coasts, skilled
shipbuilders, to build ships at Nineveh. These he took
down the Tigris to Opis, dragged them overland to the
Arabtu canal, and fioated them on the Euphrates at
Bit Dakkàri. He then embarked his bodyguards and
picked warriors, stocked the ships with provisions for
the men and fodder for the horses, and sent them down
the river, while he marched beside them on land, as
far as Bab Salimiti, ‘The fleet stretched on the shore
of the river to the shore of the Gulf, ‘two 4aspu.' At
the mouth of the river Sennacherib seems to have stayed
behind. He senton his fieet, however, and after five days
and nights they reached a point where he caused sacri-
fices to be offered to Ea, god of the ocean, and threw a
gold ship, a gold fish, and an e/iz#% of gold into the
sea. The landing at Nagitu was opposed and the shore
was difficult; but at the mouth of the Ulai, where the
shore was practicable, a landing was effected and
Sennacherib's army swarmed out of the ships ‘like
locusts.' The Chaldeans were utterly routed, Nagitu,
Nagitu Dihibina, Hilmu, Pillata, Hupapanu, Elamite
cities, were captured. The gods of Bît Vakin that bad
been carried there, the people, with a number of Elam-
ites, and immense booty, were brought back to Senna.
cherib at BAb Salimiti. Sennacherib added to his army
30, 500 bowmen, 30, 500 pikemen. The rest of the spoil
he distributed among his warriors.

In this campaign Sennacherib had violated the terri-
tory of Elam. IStar-bundu of Elam had never crossed
swords with Sennacherib since the defeat of his army
sent to support Meredach-baladan. Probably he was
regarded by the more warlike spirits in Elam as pusillani-
mous. At any rate in 690 B.c. his brother Hallusu
imprisoned him and took the rule in Elam. How long
Sennacherib was occupied over his preparations for the
extirpation of Merodach-baladan is not clear; but it
was in 693 B.c. that he pillaged Nagitu, Hilmu, Pillatu,
and Hupapanu. This invasion was at once revenged
by Hallufu. While Sennacherib was triumphing in the
S., the king of Elam made a raid into Babylonia, cap-

4365

| pillaged its gods and people.

SENNACHERIB

tured Sippara, slew its people, defeated A3ur-nAdin-%um
and carried him captive to Elam, whence he seems
never to have returned, The king of Elam then set
Nérgal-usézib on the throne of Babylon. Nérgal-ud@zib
at once set to work, evidently assisted by Elamite troops,
to occupy the country in Sennacherib's rear. In Tam-
muz he occupied Nippur. He attacked Erech and
His Elamite allies carried
off the gads and people. This was on the first of
Tesritu; but on the seventh he met the victorious army
of Sennacherib returning from the S. and was defeated,
captured, and carried off to Assyria, after a reign of a
year and six months. This was in 693 B.C. At the
end of this year Halluu of Elam was killed în a revolu-
tion and was succeeded by Kudur-nahundi, Senna.
cherib is silent as to the troubles in Babylonia and the
fate of ASur-nàdin-Sum. But he appends to the account
of the sixth expedition the statement that on his return
he defeated and captured Suzub, son of Gahul, who had
seated himself on the throne of Babylon. He ascribes
this revolution to the Babylonians, who had fied with
Merodach-baladan to Elam, and had returned thence
to Babylon. Sennacherib then sent an army against
the Elamite auziliaries while he apparently pursued his
way to Assyria. His army defeated that of Elam and
slew the king of Elam’s son.

It was clear that Sennacherib could not pass over
such conduct as Elam had shown. In his ‘seventhi
campaign,’ Sennacherib raided the land. He claims
to have captured thirty-four fortified cities and an end-
less number of smaller towns, ‘the smoke of their
burning lay over the land like a cloud.’ But Kudur-
nahbundi would not meet the invader, who seems only
to have ravaged the lowlands. Sennacherib states that
the king of Elam returned to Madaktu, a mountain
fortress. Thither Sennacherib determined to follow and
root him out. Kudur-nabbundi abandoned Madaktu
and fled to Hidalu, a remote mountain fastness. Sen-
nacherib attacked Madaktu; but in the hills. winter
came on so fast and the storms were so severe that he
could not press the assault, and returned to Nineveh.
Kudur-nabbundi did not survive more than three
months, and was succeeded by a brother Umman-
minAnu, whom Sennacherib regarded as a man without
sense or prudence.

Sennacherib with his plunder-laden army had passed
Babylon by on his return from the S., and though he
had captured its king Nérgal-usèzib at Nippur and
driven the Elamites out of Babylonia, and subsequently
raided Elam, he had not yet entered the capital
Doubtless bis first efforts had been directed to an

, attempt to. recover his son from Elam, and the place

was hateful to him, Now, when he would enter
Babylon, he found that the inhabitants had made
tbemselves a new king, MuSézib- Marduk, another
Chaldasan. He is credited with reigning fonr years—
692-88 B.C. Sennacherib calls him a felon who had
fied from the prefect of Lahiri and had collected a
band of murderers and robbers, and taken reluge in
the marshes. When surrounded by Sennacherib before,
he managed to escape to Elam; but when he found
there only danger and trouble, he had come back to
Babylon and there found means to secure the throne.
He broke open the treasure-house of Marduk's temple
and sent a bribe to Umman-minànu, ‘The latter giving
no heed to the fate which Sennacherib had brought
upon Elam în his last campaign, received the bribe and
assembled an immense army, drawn not only from Elam,
but also from many îands which had once acknowledged
Assyrian power. It is interesting to note Parsua, Anzàn
{afterwards the land of Cyrus), Ellipi, Labiru, Pukudu,
Gambulu; also Samuna, son of Merodach-baladan.
The forces reached Babylon and effected a junction with
Musézib-Marduk. It was the greatest coalition that
had yet faced Sennacherib. In his cighth campaign he
met them at Halulè on the Tigris, and the chronieler

4366

SENNACHERIB

waxes eloquent over the immense array that faced the
Assyrian army. They were ‘like a great swarm' of
locusts. ‘The dust of their feet was like a heavy storm
cloud which spreads over the wide heaven about to
break in downpour,' The account of the batile given
by Sennacherib is a masterpiece of description, but too
long to quote. He claims to have defeated his enemies
with tremendous slaughter and terrible butchery. The
Babylonian Chronicle, however, claims the victory for
Elam. At any rate Sennacherib returned to Nineveh for
a time. Itis not clear in which year the batile occurred ;
perhaps it was in 601 B.C. In 689 B.c. (Nisan the 1sth),
Umman-minAnu had a stroke of paralysis and lost his
speech. Sennacherib seized the opportunity to attack
Babylon, which was without Elamite assistance, On
the first of Kislimu the city was taken, Mu&ézib-
Marduk was carried away captive to Assyria, Marduk
himself was taken to Afur. Babylon was sacked,
its walls razed to the ground, the greater portion
of the houses burnt, its inhabitants driven out, or de-
ported, and the waters of the Euphrates turned over
the site. For eight years the Babylonian Chronicle and
Ptolemy's Canon write the city down as ‘ kingless.'

Some time after this Sennacherib made an expedition
to Arabia. This we learn from a notice by Esarhaddon.
Aduma was captured and the gods carried off to Assyria.
‘Winckler sees in this an excuse for postulating a second
expedition of Sennacherib to the W., at any rate to
Arabia and Egypt. Several fragmentary inscriptions
have been published which are consistent with the
supposition that there is a cylinder at least partly pre-
served, which narrated events occurring after 688 3.0.
There is no means, however, of dating the events until
the remaining historical inscriptions are published. The
reference to Azekah, noted by Hommel, may belong to
the reign of Sargon. No convincing evidence from
cuneiform sources is available to support a second
expedition of Sennacherib to the W. Ali sources are
silent as to the last eight years of his reign,

Sennacherib was the maker of NIxEVEH (g.v.).
His inscriptions are very full on the subject of his

4. Other δι οὶ buildings there. Some think that it

Sotaile was with a view to make Nineveh supreme

#tali8 that he humbled Babylon so completely ;
but the trouble it had given him and the memory of
his son amply account for his policy.

Besides Afur-nàdin-$um, king of Babylon, 699-693
B.C., doubtless Sennacherib's eldest son, we know of a
son Ardi-Belit, crown prince in Nineveh, in 694 B.C.;
ASur-Sum-uSabii, a son for whom Sennacherib built a
palace at Scherif Khan; Nérgal-&um-(usur?), named în
693 8.c. ; Sar-etir-ASur, whom Winckler woufd make the
Sharezer of 2 K.1937; and ESARHADDON (g.v.), who
succeeded him. ‘The mother of Esarhaddon seems to
have borne the names Zak@tu and Nakia. For an
account of a jewel belonging to this queen, see Scheil,
Rec. des Trav., and see the article ESARHADDON for
her réle as regent in Assyria. Her sister was called
Abirami, Sennacherib also left a daughter called
Matté.

Sennacherib was murdered by his son, according to
the Babylonian Chronicle, and the Canon Lists, on the
zoth of Tebétu, 682 B.C. On the biblical account of
the murder, see ADRAMMELECH, SHAREZER, and
NISROCH. cC.H. W.J.

With regard to the-history of the relations between
Sennacherib and the kingdom of Judah, there is much
È difference of opinion. The chief points
5, Folations in dispute are (1) whether the Hebrew

" narratives, except where they coincide
with the cuneiform record, can be used at all for
bistorical purposes, and (2) whether these narratives, if
based upon facts, relate to one period, or to two, in
the reign of Sennacherib, ‘That the first of the three
portions, into which Stade and his successors have
analysed the Hebrew record, agrees in the main with

4367

SENNACHERIB

the cuneiform record, is obvious. ‘That portion con-
sists of barely four verses (2 K. 18138 [from nbp]-16),
and probably comes from the royal annals of Judah,
It states (so too Is. 3615) that Sennacherib took
‘all' the fortified cities of Judah {Sennacherib himself
says forty-six}, and exacted a heavy tribute from Heze-
kiah as the price of forgiveness; two points of differ-
ence in the respective accounts, (1) as to the amount of
the tribute, and (2) as to the place to which the
tribute was sent (Lachish? Nineveh ?), need not be
dwelt upon. ‘The second and the third portion (z.e.,
1817-1990 and 36f 1994-35), however, contain several
statements which are unconfirmed by Sennacherib.®
Thus (1) in 2K.199 (1s.379)—£e, in the second
narrative—we are told that Tirhakah took the field
against Sennacherib, and it is implied that this stood
in close relation to the withdrawal of Sennacherib from
Palestine. (2) 2 Κ. 1935 (15. 8736) tells us that 185,000
men in the Assyrian army were destroyed in one night
by pestilence—the explanation which the third narrative
gives of the failure of Sennacherib's invasion of Judah.
(3) 2 K. 198 (Is. 878} speaks of Sennacherib as engaged
in the siege of Libnah when the news respecting Tir
hakah reached him—s.e., the third narrative gives the
prominence to Liîbnah which the first and the second (see
2 K. 1814 17 Is. 362) give to Lachish. The first and the
second of these statements are commonly supposed to
be confirmed by the legend in Herod, 2141, that when
Σαναχάριβος, king of the Arabians and Assyrians,
invaded Egypt and besieged Pelusium in the days of
the pious king Sethos, field-mice gnawed the quivers
and shield-handles of the invaders, who precipitately
fled. Even Winekler and Pradek accept this view, and
they find in the passage of Herodotus a support for
their theory (which is accepted by Guthe [Gesck. 205]
and Benzinger) that Sennacherib made a second expedi-
tion to S. Palestine and NW. Arabia {in the course of
which he actually besieged Jerusalem) some time between
690 and 681, which is referred to in the third narrative,
whilst the second narrative relates to the expedition of
701, in the course of which Jerusalem was only blockaded,
not besieged,

We shall do well in considering this theory to put
aside altogether the material in the second and the third
Hebrew narrative, for a close examination of them
clearly shows that they are parallel. The two narra-
tives are no doubt inconsistent in some respects; but
upon the whole they interlace and are mutually comple-
mentary. AIl depends, therefore, on the justice of the
inference drawn from Herod, 2141. Praîek? conceives
himself to have shown that the Séthòos of Herodotus is
no other than Tirhakah. That Egypt was a member
of the coalition against Sennacherib is shown by the
presence of ‘kings of Egypt’ at the battle of Altaku
(Schr. ΑἸ ΤῸ 302 /.), and the designation of Zara-
χάριβος as ‘king of the Arasiens and Assyrians’ is
thought to be a record of the fact (?) that after his
successes against the NW. Arabian tribes Sennacherib
assumed the title of ‘king of Arabia’; lastly, the
mouse is said to be the symbol of pestilence. The
@bjection is threefold. (1) As Winckler has shown, it
was the kings of Musri {nmyp), not of Egypt (
who fought at Altaku; (2) We have no occas
assume that ‘Sethos' is written in error for ‘ Tirhakah' ;
and (3) there is no trustworthy evidence that a mouse is
the symbol of pestilence (see HEZEKIAH, $ 2, col.
2059). ‘The second of these criticisms may need some
explanation. The reason why scholars equate Sethos
with Tirhakah is simply that Herodotus gives his
Arabian and Assyrian king the name of Σαναχάριβος.
But how if Herodotus or his informant has made a
confusion? And how if the king of Egypt really in-

1 See Winckler, in NATO) 34,
Cp Zetri Is. 229 δὲ
8 Forschungen sur Gesch. des Alt. 21-21.

4368

SENUAH

tended was Seti (the natural equivalent of Sethos)? As
Brugsch relates :1—

“The wars of Seti towards the E. began in the first year of
his reign. The scene of them was the districts and the fortresses
on the territory of the Shasu, or Bedouîn, ‘from the fortress
Khetam, in the land of Zalu, to the place Kan'ana.” . . . The
fortress Kan'ana was stormed by Seti and his warriors, and so
‘Pharaoh became the lord of the entire Edomite Negeb.”

The name of the Shasu chief is not given us. It îs
not unreasonable to suppose that the popular tradition
caught up by Herodotus spoke of “the chieftain of the
«Arabian Shasu,' and that this became to Herodotus'
ears, ‘[Sennacherib] the king of the Arabians and
Assyrians.”

The result, so far attained, is that the only historical
accounts of the campaign of Sennacherib against Judah
and its capital are to be found in the cuneiform inscrip-
tions of Sennacherib and in the short extract from the
Annals of Judah (2 K.18134-16). But how is the rest
of the Hebrew narrative to be accounted for? We are
not bound to answer the question here at length; but
some suggestions must be given. According to Marti
{/es. 259), the subject of the deliverance of Jerusalem
from Sennacherib attracted imaginative and didactic
writers. This, indeed, is about all that we could
venture to say, as the text of the Hebrew narrative now
stands. Βαϊ it is not all that we can say, if we give due
weight to critical considerations. We must not ex-
aggerate the imaginativeness of later Hebrew writers,
but rather dig deep down for the fragments of genuine
tradition in their works. This is by no means a hopeless
task because we know that the two powers constantly
present to the minds of the peoples of Israel and of
Judah were N. Arabia and Assyria; the works of the
prophets of the ‘ Assyrian age' prove this conclusively.
We have, therefore, something to direct and restrain us
in our application of text-critical methods, Now in
the account of the national extinetion of Judah two
invasions appear t0 be combined, an Assyrian and a N.
Arabian, ‘This leads us to suppose that such may have
been the case in 2 K. 1813-1937. ‘The king who invaded
Tudah may have been a king of Melubha—the same who
sent troops to fight against Sennacherib at Altaku,—
and the Cush, whose king interfered with the invader’s
progress, may have been the N. Arabian Cush (friendly
to Judah?). ‘lhe names Sennacherib and Tirhakah
may be explained on the analogy of the erroneous
Σαναχάριβος of Herodotus.

The pestilence, if at all historical, may have attacked the N.
Arabian army. “ Nineveh,' as în some other passages, may
have come from ‘ Jerahmeel,' ‘ Nisroch’ from ‘ Nimrod,” ‘ Adram-
melech' from ‘ ferahmeel,' and ‘Ararat’ (as in Gen. 84) from
‘Aram i.e.‘ Jerahmeel” The object of the Asshurite or N.
Arabian invasion would be to form one strong united empire in
opposition to Assyria. It may be added that the much-disputed
and badly transmitted prophecy in Is. 22 1-14 refers most prob.
2bly, not to an Assyrian, but to an Asshurite stege of the Judabite
capital (see Visio, VALLEY OF, and Crif, 2%6.

τ may be urged în objection to these conclusions that fresh
inscripions of Sennacherib ate not past hoping for. That is
true; but these inscriptions will not supersede the Hebrew
traditions. ΤῸ attempt to write the history of the Israelites
simply on the basis of the uncriticised Hebrew texts and the un-
criticised Assyrian inscriptions would be a very grave mistake.

G. Smith's History of Sennacherib gives the chief events with
the original texts. " For additional small items of information

I see the Histories of Assyria, especially
6. Literature. Winckler's G84, R. W. Rogers' istory
of Babylonia and Assyria, Winckler's AOF,
passim, and Assyrian Deeds and Documents, passim,
C.H.W.J, $$ 1-4, 6; T.K.C., $ 5.

SENUAH (118330), Neh. 119; in 83 HASSENAAH,

SEORIM (Db), the name borne by one of the
{post-exilic) priestly courses: 1 Ch. 248 (cewpelm
[BL], -pin [A]).

SEPARATION. On the water of separation ("Ὁ
TW), RV=8. ‘water of impurity,' Nu. 199 7, see CLEAN

AND UNCLEAN, $ 17.
On the separation of the Nazirite see NAZIRITE.

1 Gesch. Egyptens, 458-460; cp EovPT, $ 57.

4369

SEPHARAD
BEPHAR (ΒΘ; cwpupa FAEL]} is mentioned

in Gen. 1030 as one of the boundaries of the territory
of the sons of Joktan. It has not been identified with
certainty. ‘The usual identification—a very appropriate
one—is with the rargapa, σαφαρ of Ptolemy, Pliny, and
the Periplus (i.e, the ancient Himyarite capital Zafar);
this again is held by Karl Ritter, Gesenius, etc., to be
the same with the seaport of Hadramaut, near Mirbit,
the name being now pronounced /sf@r or /sfir, The
possibility of this may be granted; but it is still uncertain
{see DI. Gez,@, zo1; Del. Ger. [1887], 228). ‘The
mountain of the East' is too general an expression to
give precision to the undefined geographical terms of
this verse. [On the textual criticisim and the meaning
of Gen. 1030 see further GoLD, $ 1 (c), PARVAIM.]

{See also Ritter, Erd4wunde, 14372; Tuch, Ger.) 212;
Sprenger, Alte Geogr. von Arabien, τᾶς; Glaser, Skizse, 2.437}
Hent, Sonthern Arabia (1900); A. H. Keane, 7he Gold of
Ophir, 70. From Prof. Keane we quote the following lines;
his work only appeared as the article OPHIR was passing through
the press. ‘Dhofar [==Zafàr], as Bent tells us, forms a sort of
oasis, an extremely rich alluvial plain, extending some sixty
miles along the coast a little to the W. of the Kuria Muria
islands, and cut off by the Gara range from the sandy wastes of
Hadramout. Here still flourish both the myrrh and the frank-
incense shrub, which have constituted the chief industry of the
inhabitants for thousands of years. . .. The harbour of Moscha,
now nearly blocked by a sandbank, is still deep, and extends
inland about a mile and a half, and there are many ruins abuut
it. Here we have the Portus Nobilis of the Periblus' (70 £).
Here Prof, Keane would place ‘the elusive Ophir.' Moscha
‘was în fact the port of Ophir, which itself stood a little inland,
round about the head of the inlet, which Bent tells us 15 sur-
rounded by many ruins and was reached ‘from Mesha as thou
goest into Sephar ”' (82).] F. RT. Κι C.

SEPHARAD (MED, in pause for MED [BDB]?
edppaba [BNA], copaga [Q"ri/1], capapad
[25]; Vg. [in] Bosphoro, as if the prefixed 3 were
radical). If the text is right, a place or country in
which Jewish captives from Jerusalem resided when
Obad. 15-21 was written (Obad. 20). That Sepharad
{or Sephared ?) is not Spain! (Tg. Jon. Pesh.), nor
Sipar, or some other Babylonian city (Schr. X479
285; cp vonder Hardt, De SippAara Baby\onie [1708])
need not now be shown. Schrader în ΑἸ4 70) 4457
identifies it with Saparda, a region in SW Media
towards Babylonia mentioned by Sargon (cp_AGF
116-119). This view is also accepted as most probable
by Fried. Delitzsch (£ar. 249) and G. A. Smith
{Twelve Profhets, 2.176) ; it harmonises with the theory
that vv. 10(rs}-21 are t0 be referred to the time of the
* Babylonian exile.'? But it is also possible to identify
Sepharad with Gparda, a province of the Persian empire
mentioned in two inscriptions of Darius between
Cappadocia and Tonia, and în a third (Behistun} at the
head of the list of provinces, immediately before Ionia,*
In the Seleucidan chronicles from Babylonia this name
is applied to Asia Minor as a whole. According to
Winekler, the origin of the Jewish captivity of Asia
Minor is to be referred to 168 B.c. (Antiochus
Epiphanes): if, however, the tradition of a captivity
under Artaxerxes Ochus is historical, this period will
naturally deserve the preference. ἍΜ. R. Smith remarks,4
‘ Lydia was a great slave-market, and Asia Minor was
a chief seat of the Diaspora at an early date (cp
Gutschmid, exe Beitr. 77)."

The text of Obad. 20, however, 15. very far from trustworthy,
and the context does not favour the view that any distant place
of captivity or indeed (see OrADIAH, $ 5) any place of captivity
at all'is referred to. We expect some part of the Negeb to be
mentioned. It is not too bold to take "ἼΒΌ as a dittographed
N3ny.3 This is confirmed by ®'s reading εφραθα (so the Ar,

1 From Sepharad thus explained comes Sephardim, the name
of the Jews of Spanish origin.
Knudtzon (Ass. Gesefe, nos. 8, 11, 30) has also found a
Saparda, NE. from Nineveh, spoken of in Esarhaddon's time.
So Silv. de Sacy, Pusey, W., R. Smith (see col. 3454), Sayce
(Crit. Mon. 483), Cheyne (Founders, 12 £), Wi. A0F2430.
L'assen even connected the name Sardis with Gparda,
4 EB), art. ‘Obadiah.”
δ Cp Cris. Bib, on Ezek.27 14 (ovmib). That ‘o in Obad. is
corrupt is recognised by Wellhausen and Nowack.

4370

SEPHARVAIM

version), ‘Zarephathites’ was a synonym for ‘ Jerahmeelites.”
See OBADIAH, $ 5 end, n. 1. T.K.C

SEPHARVAIM (DWIDI; variously cerrpaperm.
SIN, SEIN: -OYAIM; τουὰιν, OYMAIN [2 K. 1834, B],
1. ΟἹ TOYN: CEDDAPOYAIM, -OYAIN: -OYN:
references. ETTIDAPOYAIM, ETTO.. ETT@RAPEND
" EM®APIN CETT®APoyem), whence the
gentilic Sepharvites (D'MODAI, 2 K.173:0, Kt in
τ. 313 DDD). The references to a piace, or places,
called *Sepharvaim' are in 2 K.1724 {cp 31), 1834
{=Is 3629), 1913 {=1s.3713). Taking the passages
as they stand, in contexts relating to the political
intercourse between Assyria and Israel or Judah, we
may venture to explain them provisionally as follows,
reserving our own judgment to the end.

1. The passage 2 K.18322-35 (15. 368-20), which îs
plainly an interpolation (see Marti, and cp Zr#r, 75. 218),
seems to be based on 2 K.1913 (Is. 3713), which may
refer to the Syrian city called in the Babylonian Chronicle
Sabarain, which was destroyed by Shalmaneser IV.
(see SIBRAIM).

2. ‘The Sepharvaim of 2 K. 17 2431 (in which passages
captives of war appear to be referred to), however, is
more plausibly identified! with Sipar, or Sippar, the
city of Samas the sun-god (Zurgapa, Ptol. 518;
Σιππαρηνῶν πόλις, Abyden. as. Eus. Prep, Ευ.9 «ἡ,
famous from its association with the Deluge-story as
given by Berossus, and regarded as one of the mafazi
rabiiti, or ‘great capitals.'2 This place was one of
the three cities which maintained the great Babylonian
revolt against ASur-bani-pal the longest. It was on the

A + left or eastern bank of the Euphrates ;
A Aseyziological ine site was identified with_the
» —.moundsof Abu Habba, about 16 m.
SE. of Baghdad, by the explorer H. Rassani, who
found here a large stone with a representation of the
shrine of Sama$ and short inscriptions, dating from the
time of king Nabu-abla-iddina (about 800 5.6.}. The
builder of the temple was Naram-sin (about 3750 B.C.),
whose original inscription was found by Nabu-na'id
(about 490 B.C.), one of the royal restorers of the
sanctuary. ‘The temple was held in high honour; one
of the most constant titles of Sama® was, ‘the great
lord, dwelling in È-bara, which is witbin Sipar*
{Pinches, 7.584 85:64 7). But there was also a
second divinity, called Anunit, who was specially
worshipped at Sipar. In the SyrcQronozs History
(218.21), Durkurigalzu is said to have conquered Sipar
of Samas and Sipar of Anunitu (Χ 81 τοοῖ Sayce,
TSBA2:3:); the Anunitu referred to was the consort
of the sun-god. We must not, however, use this
statement to confirm Schrader's (very natural) explana-
tion of ANAMMELECH {2 Κ. 1731) 85 τὸ Anu-malku,
for if Anu {the heaven-god) were designated ‘king”
in Assyria, the word used would not be #:a/#2 (‘ prince '}
but Farr.

Dr. W. H. Ward {Proc. Am. Or. Soc., 1885, pp. 291}
thought that he had found the site of a double city of
Sipar (Sepharvaim, dual?) at the mod. el-Anbar, a few
miles from Sufeira, WNW, of Baghdad, where, from
the appearance of the ruins, it 15. evident that a canal
was conducted from the Euphrates into the heart of the
ciy. Dr. Ward found there a small tablet on which
three or four Sipars were mentioned, and he supposed
*Anbar to represent at once Sipar $a Anunitum and
Agané (Peters, Nispwr, 1176355 [Dr. Ward's diary]).
If so, Sipar $a Anunitum was a more considerable city
than Sipar of Sama$ (Abu Habba). But we can hardy
admit that the duality of the city which lies under the
mound of el-Anbar is made out. Most probably the
form Sepharvaim is erroneous. Either the editor con-
founded ‘Sipar' with the ‘Sepharvaim' of 2 K.1913,
or, as Haupt proposes, we should restore the reading

1 E.g., by Wi. Alt. κέ, vor; Benzinger, ANC, Kdx. 175.
ui ἃ See Wi. A0F2 5:0.

4375

SERAH

n “no (or 89), Sipar (or, Sippar) -maim!—i.e., ‘Sipar
on the stream.’ ΟΡ the phrase ‘the stream of Sipar,'
a title of the Enphrates (Z4 1 [1887], p. 267). .
There is, however, a threefold difficulty in the above
explanation of ‘Sepharvaim’ in 2 Κ. 17:4. (1) The
πάτρης, Annals of ASur-bani-pal do not affirm
5. Objectiona that the king transplanted people from
‘fheories. = Babylon, Kutu (Cuthah), and Sipar,
but only that he ‘ commanded that they
should remain alive, and caused them to dwell in
Babylon.'? (2) The god specially worshipped at Sipar
was neither ‘Adrammelech’ nor ‘Anammelech’ but
Samas. ©On the other hand, it is equally true that
Sargon, who as a fact brought captive populations τὸ
Samaria (48243 £ 20; cp SAMARIA}, did not and
could not include any captives from Babylon, Sepharvaim,
etc., for the excellent reason that he made none there.?
And (3) the theory in question requires us to suppose
that Avva and Hamath have been introduced into 2 Κὶ,
17 24from1834 by Rp,“ which is a complicated procedure.
The question of Sepharvaim is therefore no simpie
one. At present there is no current theory which
satisfies the conditions of the problem.
d Toatual There ἰς a strong ἃ priori objection to
distinguishing the Sepharvaim of 2 K.
1913 and 1834 (with the parallels in Is.) from that of
2 K. 17 24 31, and there are three considerable difficulties
in this course, two suggested by Assyriology and one by
literary criticism, Let us, then, approach the subjeci,
bearing in mind the gradually accumulating evidence
for the apparentiy destructive but in reality conservative
theory that many passages both of the narrative and of
the prophetic books have been recast, and provided
with a new historical and geographical setting. It is
by no means an impossible view that the passages in
Kings and Isaiah here referred to have been recast by
an editor to suit his own theory of the course of later
Israelitish history {see SENNACHERIB, $ 5). ‘This view
implies that the names of the cities mentioned there
have come out of somewhat similar names of places on
the N. Arabian border of Palestine,
Sepharvaim, like Rezeph in 2 K.19 2 (Is, 87 12), will then be
a distortion of Sarephath, one of the most important places in
that region (see ZAREPHATH), or rather the final letters pe (MT
ὯΝ), vayim) are, together with Ty (MT pd, ‘to, or of, the
city’), 93M (MT 939, ‘Hena'?), and possibly my (MT, mp,
‘and Ivvah'?), representatives of burma (ferahmeel). It is
noteworthy that the god worshipped by the ‘Sepharvites'
receives the double name “bp and pap (e Κ. 171... In
the latter form ) has displaced 3 (cp ‘n3y and 730}; probably
the best intermediate reading is 3bmn8, the original of which is

surely bunny Cerahmee])_ The rite of sacrificing. children
was apparently distinctive of some famous sanctuary in Jerah-
meel (see MoriaH, and cp Crif. διό. on Gen. 222 Jer.23411 15).

The other passages which have to be considered in this
connection are Ezra 48-10 (see SuUsHANCHITES) and Is. 109 (see
Crit. Bib.). See also REZEPH.

See especially Winckler, 4%. Un#. 100-103; and cp Cheyne,
Exp,T, 1898, p. 428£ T.K.C.

SEPHELA (cepnAa [AN"# °D], c- red inH [N*V],
ΝΕ. Sephela), 1 Macc. 12 38, ἘΝ ‘ plain country.’ See
SHEPHELAH ; also JUDZEA, col. 2617.

SEPTUAGINT. See TEXT AND VERSIONS, $$ 46-55.

SEPULCHRE (N93), Gen. 236 Cic.; MNHMEION,
Mk. 1546 etc.), See TOMB, RESURRECTION.

SERAH (MY, in pause MI, AV SARAH în Nu.
264: capa [L]), daughter of ASHER [g.v., $ 4];
Gen. 4617 (caap [A]. cappa [D]), Nu. 2646 (Kkapa
[B 7. 30 capa: B®0AF])=1 Ch.730 (cope [Β]. capai
[A], <aa [L]}.

1 Cp 62,2 K.1834, n

ΠΥ Montone.

5 Sce Wi A. Unt. 99.

4 Ibid. τοῦ f.

5 The most plausible alternative original is ann ‘Marduk*
or ‘Merodach'(cp Nisrocn). This is favoured by ‘ Nergal’ in

the same list. But it must perhaps be owned that ‘Nergalg is
only a little less doubtful than ADRAMMELECH [g.v.].

4372

SERAIAH

‘ Heber* and ‘Malchiel® (=Jerahmee!) both point to the
south (cp Aster, $ 4); of Asliers original settlement în the
Negeb we may perhaps still possess a record in an early poem
(see Cet, Bid. on Judg. 517). ‘Serah’ too will be a southern

ethnic name; cp ΠῚ, Zerah, and indigo Ashhur. We have
also Sab. proper names banng> busmid, meta, with which we
might compare bemmm* Goot, ‘to open?) the origin of which
need not be discussed here.

SERAIAH? (ΠΡ, once [Jer. 3626] IT, 88. 35, 80,
as if ‘Gad strives”; capalalc] [BANL]. ” Gray [HPA
236] argues from the apparent formation with a perf.
followed by w that ‘Seraiah’ can hardly be an early
name, ‘The formation has indeed been questioned,
though perhaps without sufficient reason. It is suggested
thatthe name has been adapted froman old ethnic; cp ve

Note that in 1 Ch.414 Joab, b. Seraiah, is called the
father of Ge-harashim, which ἰδ probably a distortion
of the ethnic Geshurim, or of Ge-ashhurim [Che. ]).

1. David's scribe (2 5.817: aca [Β]}, probably miswritten for
Suavsia [q.0.1.

2. ὃν Ariel, one of those whom Jehoiakim commanded to

take Jeremiah and Baruch (Jer, 3626: σαρεα [BR]).

3. Ὁ. Tanhumeth, a captain, temp. Gedaliah (2 K.2523
Jer. 408).

4. Ὁ. Neriah and brother of Baruch, mentioned in
a passage (Jer.5lsg-6r, σαιραια [A*for once w. sg],
gapeas [N once τ΄. 591} which follows a prophecy
(50 51 1-58) wrongly ascribed to Jeremiah. He is said
to have gone up to Babylon with (or, see below, from)
ZEDEKIAH [g.v.], carrying a prophecy of Jeremiah on
the fate of Babylon, which he was commanded to bind
to a stone and cast into the Euphrates, as a sign that
Babylon would sink and not rise again. Seraiah bears
a title which AV renders ‘a quiet prince’ and RV
“chief chamberlain’ (so AV®&, Rashi, etc. mm sé).

‘ Prince of Menucha' (AVE) is evidently a resource of
despair; Menucha= Manahath (!) τ Ch. 86. Another
interpretation is ‘officer of resting-place’ = quartermaster
(so Hi., Gr., Giesebr.); this strangely poetical title is
assumed to have belonged to the officer who arranged
the halting-places of the royal train! More probably,
however, Seraiah's office was that of commissary of the
tribute (20; (5, Tg., Grà., Che). This view

implies a further correction of ‘with’ into ‘from
Zedekiah." Note that Jeremiah's interest is entirely
absorbed in Seraiah (v. 61, ‘when thou comest, and
seest,' etc.)

But is this story historical? It has the appearance
of being Haggadic, #.e., an edifying romance, See
JEREMIAH {(BooK), ὃ 17, and cp Giesebrecht's com-
mentary:

b. Kenaz, brother of Othniel and father of JoaB 2 (1 Ch.
4 ἦς 'σαρια {A m. 14}. Sce gd init.

6. Ὁ. Asiel of Simeon (8 g ili.), 1 Ch. 435 (σαρααν [B)).

7. A chief priest in che time of Zedekiah, who was put to death
by Nebuchadrezzar (2 K. 2518, Jer.5224/ [BNAT om.)).
The Chronicler traces his origin to Eleazar b. Aaron (τ Ch.64/7
530); he is the son of Azariah b. Hilkiah (©. 13), and
father of JenozapAK [g.v.]} In EzraT1f Ezra, who was
perhaps not even a priest at all, is made a son of Seraiah, which
betrays the desire of the priestly redactor to bring him into the
high-priestly family (cp EZRA, GENEALOGIES Î,, $ 7 [iv.]). The
same fragment of genealogy springs up again în Neb.1ltr,
where Seraiah b. Hilkiah is called Diga MI TI) (cp 2 Ch.
91,13), cp also 1 Ch.9 11, where, however, the name is replaced
by Azariah. In 1 Esd.5g 2.Esd. li Saratas, EV; but RV
AZARAIAS, τ Esd. 81,

8. One of those who came up from Babylon with Zerubbabel
(Ezra? 2 apacas [ΒΑ ?)), in Neh. 77 called Azartan (17). His
name appears in 1 Esd. 58as Zacnarias, RV ZARAIAS (Capasov
[B], ζαρεου [A]).

9. Priestly signatory to the covenant (see Ezra Î., $ 7);
Neh. 102(3]; cp 121. In Neh.1212 the house of Seraiah is

first on the list, whence we infer that in the mind of the
Chronicler his family was considered to be of great importance,
and perhaps therefore connected by him with Seraiah (7). See
SaREA, SA. 6,

SERAPHIM (ἘΠῚ, cepadlelim, -ν [BNAOT],

1 Severa! Palmyrene inscriptions state that they have been
set 8) ‘in honour of the leader of the caravan (xnmen πὸ by
the senate and people.’

140 4373

SERAPHIM

cap. [N* once]), supernatural guardians of the throne of
Yahwé, mentioned and partly described
1. Reforenoes. ji the account cf Isuiah's indugural
vision(Is.62-46/). ‘Abovehimstoodthes&raphini'—i.e.,
they seemed to tower above Yahwè, who was enthroned
in the most sacred part of the temple (the 5.55}. Each
had six wings; a pair covered the face, another the
loins, and the third served for flight, when Yahwè
sent his servant on some errand, Responsively they
proclaimed the antiphon, ‘Holy, holy, holy is Vabwè
Sebaoth ; the whole earth is full of his glory,' and so
powerful were their voices that the posts (read nigi) of
the doorway trembled. Then one of the seraphim flew
to Isaiah with a ‘hot stone' (see CoAL, $ 1) from the
altar in his hand, and touched Isaiah's mouth with it,
as a symbol of the purification of his lips. The
seraphim are not mentioned again by name in the
OT or the NT, though in Rev. 46-8 the four cherub-like
beings (ξῶα) sing the anthem of Isaiah's seraphim. But
in Enoch 207 ‘ the serpents’ (δράκοντες, Giz. Gk.)—i.e.
no doubt the seraphim—are mentioned together with
Paradise and the cherubim as under the rule of Gabriel,
and in 6110 717 with the cherubim and the ophanim;
the latter classification also occurs in the Talmud {cp
CHERUB, $ 1). And in the Slavonic ‘ Secrets of Enoch*
{first edited by Charles) we find not only cherubim and
seraphim mentioned together as orders of angels (201
211), but also seven six-winged creatures overshadowing
the throne of God and singing with one voice (196
211), who are obviously the same as the seraphim and
certain fiying creatures that sing called Chalkadri
(= ‘erocodiles’? cp COCKATRICE), with the feet and tails
of lions and the heads of crocodiles, mentioned with
the fabulous Phoenix-bird (12: 151). ‘These creatures
have twelve wings, and attend the chariot of the sun;
evidently they are a modification of the seraphim.

Passing over the view that the seraphim are merely
a class of ‘high’ or ‘ noble' angels
(Ar. Sarufa, to be high), we note
three possible views as to the original meaning of
the name.

1. Fried. Delitzsch and Hommel see a connection
between +4r4045% and Sarrapu (the burner), which is
given as one of the names of the Babylonian solar
fire-god Nergal ‘in the land of the west'—ie., in
Canaan (5 R. 46, 22, c.d, ; Jensen, Kosmol, 62).

This suggests that Redeph, the old Palestinian solar fire-god
(CIS1 38), also admitted (as ReSpu) into the Egyptian Pantheon,

may possibly în early times have been called Saràph. If Rektib
(one δὲ the gods of Sam'al in N. Syria) were sea ΠΝ as Halévy
thought, the same as Kèrib, ‘Cherub,' this would supply a
parallel. The Saraphim (not S&ràphim) would în this case be a
mythic rendering of the supernatural flames in which this god
revealed himself (Ca Cant.36 Job57?); the form which they
took would naturally be that ‘of the fion (cp Nercat). And
Isaiah's Saraphim () may have been suggested by mythic forms
which perhaps existed in the temple, similar τὸ the nergal/i or
colossal winged lions with human heads which, like the colossal
winged bulls, guarded the portals of Bab. Ass, temples and
palaces. We find ‘lions, oxen, and cherubim' mentioned
fogether i in1K.729
2. Another possibility is that the Séraphim (not
Sdraphim) were originally, in accordance with Nu, 218
1s.1429, serpents; Arabian and Hebrew folk-lore
placed fai serpents, with burning venomous bite, in
the desert, and Hebrew mythographers may have
represented winged serpents as the guardians of the
dwelling of the Deity, The place of honour given to
living serpents in the Egyptian temples, is remarked
upon elsewhere (see SERPENT, $ 3 [£]}), and though to
Isaiah the seraphic guards of Yahwé have assumed a
higher form of being (see 5307, ‘Isaiah,’ 139), yet
no one who remembers the frequency with which in
folk-lore serpents are transformed into human beings,
can pronounce such a development impossible. Itis
true, there is no mention of the seraphim in the Hebrew
story of Paradise as it has come down to us. But it is
quite possible (see PARADISE, $ 11} that the serpent

4374

2. Explanations.

SERAR

{nahdF) who held discourse with the first woman was
originally represented as the guardian of the wonderful
tree in the midst of God's garden. There may have
been originally only one seraph just as there may have
been onìy one cherub (cp Ezek. 281416 Ps. 1810 [11]).

3. It is also possible to regard the seraph as a nobler
development of a bird of prey. H. G. Tomkins long
ago suggested a comparison with the Egyptian seref,
which appears as the guardian of graves and as the
bearer of the Egyptian kings to heaven on their decease.

The serg/is met with as early as the pyramid texts; in a lare
papyrus he is said to ‘seize [his prey] in his claws in an instant
and take them above the top of the clouds of heaven.'1 It isa
composite animal, and bears a close resemblance to the Hebrew
cherub and to the γρύψ or griffin (part lion, part eagle).

‘The arguments in favour of the second of these views
preponderate. It is against the first that we find no
trace of rp: as a divine name, and against the third
that it leaves no real distinction between the seraph and
the cherub. And it is against both that pray is so
much more naturally rendered ‘serpents’ than either
‘burning ones’ or ‘serefé.’ It may seem strange that
the symbolism of the temple decoration made no use
of the seraphim. But the temple did contain one
sacred object closely analogous to the original seraphim
—the so-called ‘brazen serpent' (see NEHUSHTAN).
Hezekiah broke it in pieces, ‘The Jewish and Christian
imagination did something better with the seraphim
inherited from folk-lore ; it transformed and ennobled
them. See CHERUBIM, $ τ᾿ τ. KR. C.

SERAR (cepap [BA]), 1 Esd, 632 RV, AV ASERER
= Ezra 253, SISERA, 2,

SEREBIAS (ecepeBiac [BA]), 1 Esd. 854, AVma
= Ezra 818, SHEREBIAH,

SERED (MD; capeà [BAFL]]), a clan of ZEBULUN
(g.v.), Gen. 4614 (ce- [A]. ecp- [2], σελεκ [L], Nu.
2626), whence the patronymic, AV SARDITE, ΕΝ
Beredite (Nu. 26:6; “TDI: 0 capedleli [BAFL]).

SERGIUS PAULUS (ceprié ttayAw [ΤΊ WH]}»
Acts 137. See PAULUS.

SERJEANTS (Acts 1635 38, EV), ΕΥ̓͂ 36: LICTORS.
SERMON ON THE MOUNT

Critical presuppositions ($ 1). Beatitudes and Woes ($ ro).
In Mt. ($$ 2-4). Jesus and the Lay (δὲ 17-13)
In Lk. (ὃ «χὰ ew Law (814 Δ.
Sermonic logia in Mk. ($ 7) Finale (ᾷ 16).
Mt.'s Sermon a compilation Audience ($ 17)

(8. Historical significance (8 18).
Transposition in Sermon ($ 9). Bibliography (ἢ 19).

The Sermon on the Mount is the conventional title
given to an address variously reported by the first
(Mt. 5-7, ἀνέβη εἰς τὸ ὄρος) and the third {Lk. 620-49)
canonical evangelists, assigned by both to the early
Galilean mission of Jesus. The remarkable divergencies
and as remarkable coincidences between the reports
constitute a problem of some nicety which is bound
up with the general synoptic question. How far
free editorial revision upon the part of each author
extended in the case of these reports of the Sermon,
and how far it is feasible not simply to reconstruct the
original address as that lay in the Matthean Logia
(=Q} or in the Greek recensions of Q used with other
material by each writer, but also to estimate its
historicity and actual situation in the life of Jesus —-
these are questions to which no answer can be attempted
until a firm foothold has been obtained upon a critical
examination of each report and a comparative analysis
of their contents.

Evidently unknown to the original Mk. (‘Ur
1. Critical pre- Marcus De sermon sransmitted ino

suppositiona. 5ems to have simply borne the title
to disciples’ and a general reference
to the Galilzan period—to judge at least from the

1 Revillont, Révue dgyprienne, 1887, Ὁ. 861 see PropA. 75.)
284, 81296,

LI 4375

SERMON ON THE MOUNT

unfettered way in which Mt. and Lk. make a place for
it in their narratives.

The idiosyncrasies of the reports, too marked to he explained
from the separate use of Ὁ by each editor, necessitate the
hypothesis that they had at their disposal different recensions
of Matthews vernacular logia-collection, which had originated
in various circles of faith and practice. Translation such as
Papias mentions certainiy would involve editing ; the Auidity of
fotereste in the primitive church, together with the absence of
any definite authority upon the biography of Jesus, exposed
evangelical collections to considerable vicissitudes, even before
they came under the free but neither arbitrary nor doctrinaite
handling of an editor with religious aims and prepossessions of his
own (see Goseets, $$ 120 £), to say nothing of the diverse
needs of edification, Upon the characteristics of the recension
used by Lk. see P. Èwald, Das Waupsproblem der Evang.frage
(1890), 2127, ἀπό: Soltau, Zine Liicke der synopt. Forschung
(1899), 3-5, and ‘Feine, Zine vorkanon. Ucberlicferung des
Lucas (1891), 1425

The place assigned to this orafio morfaza! in our
first gospel illustrates the literary method which here as

elsewhere leads Mt. to produce his effects

2. In Mt. :

setti by means of massing together alternate
3Ng. groups of incidents and of sayings, not
infrequently taken from various quarters without strict
regard to what may have been their original setting or
chronological sequence.

As in Mk., which (substantially) lay before Mt., the baptism.
and the temptation of Jesus are followed by his return north-
wards to Galìlee and the choice of the first disciples (Mt. 8.1-4 22
=Mk.li-20) 80 far the two writings generaliy agree. But
whilst Mk. proceeds to narrate the healing ministry of Jesus in
detail, Mt. either postpones this till he reaches his cycle of
Miracles (Me Βα τῇς Mik. 129-34 Lk. 438-4r) or omits part of it
altogether as irrelevant to his plan (Mk, 1 35-38=Lk. 442,5),
huerying on to elaborate an impression of Jesus as the prophet
and authority of the new religion. The description of a preach-
ing tour în the Galilzan synagogues, which fell here in the
primitive document underlying the synoptists (Mk. 139=
Lk. 444), is expanded by Mt. (423-25) somewhat vaguely ? in
otder t6 form an Introduction to ino separate eyeles of (a) in-
struction, and (2) healing. The author's plan thus is to repre-
sent Jesus successively as teaching and preaching (διδάσκων καὶ
κηρύσσων : 5-7) and as healing (ϑεραπεύων : 8-9 34, a cycle, for
the most part, of ten miracles). The exigencies of this method
postpone to the latter phase all the incidents narrated in their
proper place by Mk. (140-312) and ΓΚ, (512-61117-19), In
historical order these ought to form a prelude to Mt.5-7, upon
which they serve to throw occasionally rays of light.

‘The inner structure of the address corresponds in
part, but only in part, to its setting.* Out of the

erowds, Galilean and non-Galilzean,
3. Btrneture. ἢ thronged Jesus on the border of
the lake, his adherents gathered to him as he retired to
the hill-slope (517). What follows is represented as an
address delivered to them directly, in the hearing of the
larger throng (728). Jesus seizes the opportunity to
proclaim vividly and openly his aims and methods in a
magna charta of the new reign of God. With large
and divine utterance (ἀνοίξας τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ), he at
once lays bare the continuity of his message with the
religious tradition of the people, and explicitly differen-
tiates what made up the original element in his own
ideal as compared with that of current Judaism,

The address opens with a reflective but glowing description of
the genuine religious character, in its demands and privileges.
The eight beatitudes (53-10), of which the last is repeated and
specially applied to his hearers (0 11A), define a spirit ofchastenedi
and unselfish devotion towards God and man, rather than a

1 For the question of the Sermon's ethical originality, which
does not fall within the scope of the present article, see especially
Titius, Die NT Hiche Lehre von der Seligkeit(Erster Thell, 1895),
197-199; for the teaching on marriage, ἐδ, 67-72, and on
man's consciousness of God, i8i4. 114-117. Further, Ehrhardt,
Der Grundcharakter der Ethik Jesu îm Verhàliniss su den
messian. Hoffnungen seines Volkes, ete. (1895), 107 f

2 The incident în the Capernaum synagogue (Mk. 12r-28=
Τα, 431-37) and the flight of Jesus (Mk.135-38=Lk. 442,7) are
both omitted.

8 Jesus as the deliverer of a new law speaks from a hill at the
opening (51/£), as at the close, of the gospel (2816, equally
vague). ΜῈ moderate concern for chronology renders it un-
certain how far an expansive passage like 423-51 (Ss. om.
4240) rests upon some hill-tradition, or is derived and modified
from the narrative of Mk. (see the doublet 935-101). Certainly
in 51 there is no tinge of contempt for the crowd as composed
of χάμαι συρομένων (Chrys.).

4376

SERMON ON THE MOUNT

robust attitude to the world. But Jesus the rabbi hastens? to
explain that his ideal, so far froni being parochial or pusil-
lanimous, involves an unflinching stand before hardship and
duty @13-10);2 so little was it a relaxed method of piety,4 that
it demanded from men a loftier and more exacting conduct than
that taught or practised by the conventional rabbinical religion
of the day (517-20).9 This avowal naturally suggests the new
and final attitude of Jesus5 to the Jewish Law, which is ex-
emplified with brilliant and effective paradox in five or six
crucial instances (5 21-48) of the radical antithesis between the
new legislation and the old jurisprudence with its ethical limita-
tions. "The new rests on motive and inner disposition, summed
up in ungrudging charity to one's enemies; thus Jesùs rounds
οἷς the circle of thought started in the beatitudes, cutting up the
poisonous growths of evasion and quibbling by unconditional
precepts οἱ incisive brevity.

The principie of inwardness and sincerity is then expounded
(61-12), pointedly and strongly like all effective principles, in the
shape of a triple antithesis to the Pharisaic praxis of almsgiving,
prayer, and fasting, which, by their externality, develop ostenta:
tion. Jesus then recurs? to the positive relation of man to
God's fatherly providence (6 19-34, cp 545) as a motive for
singleness of heart and for freedom from undue world!y anxiety
(cp O. Holtzmann's Newtest. Zeitgesch., 1898, p. 229), The
loosely joined aphoristic logia which follow (in 71:20), are
party resumptive and in the main accessory rather than vital
to the body of the address. Warnings against censoriousness
(7 1-5) with its attendant hypocrisy, and the opposite (though
less common) fault of an undiscriminating temper which is blind
to the differences of men (76); an encouragement to prayer,
based on God's fatherly goodness (7 7-11); a reiteration of the
golden rule (7 12); a call to personal effort and independence in
seeking life (7137); a warning against being misled by false
prophets, whose conduct is to be made their test (7 15-20}; these
lead up to the epilogue (7 21-27), in which spurious discipleships
is exposed, and (by means of a parable) the responsibility of
hearers and the wisdom of practical obedience to Jesus' com-
mands are vividly depicted.

In style, conception, and arrangement, Mt.'s elaborate
and prolonged Sermon shows traces of his workmanship
and characteristic traits. It is a com-

+ Character. position rather than an actual address.
i That it was carried in some retentive

memory as it now stands, is a perfectly unmanage-

1 Achelis ingeniously traces missionaries (9) and martyrs (10)
suffering, the latter (11) generally, the former inside (12) and
outside (14-16) Israel. ‘The temper of ὧν, 3-10 resembles, with
less eschatological emphasis, that of passages like En. 57, ‘but
for the elect there will be light and joy and peace, and they will
inherit the earth,’ Cp Taylor's Ancient /deals, 2.257 S. (1896).

2 The connection of 5 12 and 5 13 £ seems to be : as successors
to the noble and devout company of the prophets, you must be
prepared for bardships which flow from an open stand for
religion among the people, Fear of such peril is not to deter
you from taking your place, any more than the subtler tempta-
tion of false modesty. On the continuity, of which Jesus was
conscious in his preaching of God's reign, between himself and
the OT psalmists and prophets, see Barth, Die Maustsroblenze
des Lebens Jesu, 58-67 (1899).

3 Zahn (Εἰπὲ, 2 277 287) actually makes 5 16 the theme of the
sermon, emphasising the apologetic aim of the whole Gospel as
a defence of Jesus and his religion against current Judaism
Grawert ingeniously tries to detect in the beatitudes a reversed
programme of contents : 510=5 11-16 59=517-26 58=527-37 57
=5 38-48 S6=61-34 b5=T1/ 64=736 b3=7711

4 The curious variation of 5 15-17 in an early Talmudie story
{1 am not come to take away from the law of Moses, but to add
to the law of Moses am 1 come,’ accompanied by ‘ Let thy light
shine in the candlestick ') is supposed by Giidemann to have
been derived from Mt-'5 Logia. Cp Studia Biblica, 157-59
(Neubauer), PhiloZ. Sacre, 45 (Nestle), and Laible, /ess
Christus im Talmud (1893), 62/

8 The φορεῖ works of v. 16 are simply the higher rig4teomsness
of v. 20, which (it is implied in vv. 26 and 45) reflects and repro-
duces on earth the character and conduct of the Fatber in
heaven ; cp Holtzm, Δ᾽ Theoz 171.174 £

6 Although, in conformity to the historical situation, the claim
of Jesus upon the personal life of his followers is not emphasised
at this inaugura] period of the ministry, and his Messianic ròle
is still obscure (cp on 721), his commanding authority and
self‘consciousness are evident in words like “I come . , . Î say.”
Such language is the utterance of ‘a superhuman self-conscious-
ness which, as the secret of Christianity's origin and growth,
must be grasped first and foremost as a fact. .,. It is quiteim.
possible for us to conceive such an inner life. Revelation,
redemption, forgiveness, helpt—he has it all within himself and
offers ît to those who yield to the impression of his personality *
(Wernle, Anfinge uns. Religion, 24f, after Baur).

7 Mt. may, however, have meant ὃ 19-34 to continue the anti-
Pharisaic polemic (cp Mk. 12 40 Mt. 2925 Lk. 1613).

8 To imitate God's ungrudging love towards men (5 43-48) or
to obey his will (7 21) îs as impossible along the road οἵ legal
crupulousness (520) as it is for mere profession and empty
words. On? 21-23 cp the (too conservative) essay by Schlatter
in Greiftwalder Studien, 85-105 (1895), The citation in

4377

SERMON ON THE MOUNT

able hypothesis. ‘The well-known habit of compiting
material, which stamps Mt.’s Gospel, is legible all
through the orazio mortana ; earlier and later logia are
massed together, and even their dexterous union cannot
obliterate their heterogeneous nature and foreign sites.!
Με 5 Sermon, to a much larger degree than Lk.'s, is
neither consecutive în trend nor a unity in time; in-
ternal evidence, and the comparative evidence gained
from Lk., put this beyond the reach of doubt. The
very style shows how the source has been worked over.
In Mt. 5-7 we have the authors favourite ‘come unto’ (προσ-
ἔρχομαι) in the introduction (like Lk."s ‘as he was’ [év r@ginfin.]
111 etc.), and favourite or characteristic phrases throughout the
whole—c.g:, (and) then’ ([καὶ] τότε : 524 7523), ‘verily ' (duojv:
Bi8etc.), ‘say... against... (εἰπεῖν τι κατά τενος : 5111232),
‘again’ (πάλιν : 533 etc.), “be δέῃ (φαίνομαι : θ 516 18), intrans.
‘do’ (ποιεῖν) with adverb (547 62 712=Lk.631), ‘be done’
(ψενηθήτω : ὃ το, not in Lk, ; Acts120 (5), ‘it was said’ (éppe@n:
521 etc., non-Lucan), verbs în -evetr (νηστεύειν, προφητεύειν,
φονεύειν, ἀγγαρεύειν), “go thy way' (Uraye: 524), ‘whoever*
Gone: 53941 71524=08, Lk.6,48), ‘till’ (ἕως τ 61826), ‘before
Imen] (ἔμπροσθεν: 51624 61 76), ‘forso' (οὕτως γάρ: 25815
5 12), the simpler pron. for the reflexive (5 29 6 19), πρὸς τὸ (‘to’)
with infin 28 61), ‘that... may” (ὅπως [6 times]), ‘as’
(ὥσπερ: 62 etc.), ‘it is profitable’ (συμφέρει : 529 7, non-
Lucan), πονηρός (-6r) of evil (one)=5 37 39 613 (cp 18.19.38; Lk.
645 only of men), δῶρον a sacrificial gift (023 /.), ‘raiment’
(ἔνδυμα: 625=1k.1223 Mt. 628 715 etc.), “in danger of'
{évoxos: 521 Δ, non-Lucan), ‘altar? (θυσιαστήριον : 523 /
23 18-20 35), ‘be hid’ (κρύπτω ; b14etc.), ‘reward (μισθός: δας
etc.), ‘only’ (μόνον, adv.: 547), swear’ (ὀμνύω: ὃ 34 36 etc),
* profess’ (ὁμολογέω τ 7 23 etc.), ‘for this is' (οῦτος γάρ: 83712;
cp li 10 AV), ‘bring. ... to” (προσφέρω: 923. etc.), | hypocrite ΐ
(ποκριτής i 62516 7 5), ‘wise’ (φρόνιμος: 724 etc.) besides, of
course, the famous 4ixgdom gf heaven (5310 etc.) instead of
kingdom of God, and the distinctive (except Mk. 11 25) usage of
Father (in heaven, or heaventy) as applied to God (your Father
occurs în Lk. only 636=Mt.548 and 1230=Mt. 632, besides
12/32; it is Matthean) Of Mt/s 120 4agax degomena the
Sermon alone contains 12 (βαττολογέω, βροχή, διαλλάσσω, εἰρη-
νοποιός, ἐπιορκέω, εὐνοέω, ἰῶτα, καταμανθάνω, κρυφαῖος, μίλιον,
πολυλογία, fard, ὅρκοι (plur. τε vows, 533), πληρόω (absol.),
ἐθνικός (5 47 8718 17), [βασ. τῶν οὐμανῶν] and ῥαπέζω (5 39 96 67}.
Phrases like 07 ἡλαξ day (722), κρίνειν -μᾶ -σις (in sense of
final judgment, 521,7 Τα Δ) are more frequent în Mt. than în
the other synoptics, and îraces of the apostolic (Pauline?) age
have been more or less reasonably found in expressions such as
ἐργαζ. ἀνομίαν (723), ἀνομέα (7 23), ἀπώλεια (7 13), δικαιοσύνη
(56 etc. ; Lk.173 in OT sense), μωρός (522 7 26, etc.), ὀφειλή-
para (812), παραπτώματα (014 f), περισσεύειν (520), ἀγαπᾶν
τὸν ἕτερον (6 24 Rom, 18 8), eto.
Following in the main Mk.'s order during the narra-
tive of the Galilaean mission, though with one char-
acteristic {see below, $ 9) transposition
δ. Τὰ ΤΆ: (Nik 37-12=Lk. 6 Mk. 313-19=
ti (Mk. 37-12=Lk. 617-19, Mk. 313-19=
° Lk. 612-16), which was introduced to
provide an audience and situation for the non-Marcan
‘address to be inserted at this point, Lk. narrates the
choice of the Twelve and the subsequent position of
Jesus on some level ground where he was surrounded
by (a) the Twelve, (4) a large crowd of disciples, and (c)
a large multitude of non-Galilaeans.® Abbreviating
Mk.'s account of Jesus as a healer of diseases, Lk,

2 Clem. 4 accentuates the logion, ‘even though ye be gathered
with me in my bosom and do not τον commandments, ete.*

1 Some logia would by their nature be associated with certain
places and certain people. Others would be somewhat timeless,
either owing to their repetition or to their less local content.
Introductory and explanatory comments, by way of setting,
must have been retained by many of the primitive logia în pass
ing from oral to written form, just as earth clings to the roots
of a plucked plant, But a comparison of Mt. and Lk. shows
that whilst Lk. frequently found no setting for his logia, and
generally tried to furnish them with a site, Mt. îs much less
concerned to preserve the local and chronological position even
of logia which he found equipped with such a habitation. His
Sermon consists of several smaller collections of logia, already
compiled, perhaps in part by himself, for catechetical purposes.
These, welded more or less skilfully together, make up the
splendid summary of the Sermon as it now lies in the gospel.

2 Mk.'s Galilzzans and (so Ss.) Ilumaeans are omitted. Just
as the force of Mt.514-16 is felt when one realises that it was
addressed to a crowd drawn primarily from Galilee (425), that
traditionally inferior and ignorant province (415), so ΓΚ. 5
omission of the logion from his Sermon becomes significant when
one recollects that he wrote for a public in the Roman empire
when memories of the desperate part played by Galilzzans în the
recent war (66-70 AD.) made it fnadvisable to dwelì upon their
connection with the new religion. Jerusalem and Judzxa bulk
largely in Lk. 2-8; Lk. alone narrates the Galilzans' punishment

4378

SERMON ON THE MOUNT

hastens to incorporate an address of his to the disciples
(620, not to the Twelve}.

The address opens with a quartette of beatitudes, apostrophis-
ing literal poverty, physical hunger, and actual tears as destined
to secure eventually bliss and benefits for disciples in such a
present plight of social want and oppression. These beatitudes

reathe a spirit of intense sympathy with the poor and down-
trodden, which is characteristic of the third gospel. Dives, for
example (16 r9-31), is not sent to hell simply because he is rich.
Yet his riches, it is implied, have not merely aggravated his
guilt, but proved a barrier to the conduct which would have
saved him. Better without them, is the inference. Better
bestow them in alms upon the needy. Lazarus, as this scriba
mansuetudinis Christi assumes, being a poor man Îs pious.
Similariy, in the good time coming, Jesus promises a complete
revolution of the social order, when the destitute will receive
compensation for their present ills 1 (cp the deliberate ‘now’ [νῦν]
repeated in 2. 21; ‘is [ἔστιν], τ. 20, implies certain, not present,
possession). As 627 indicates, vz. 20-26 are spoken in the hear-
ing of the disciples rather than addressed to them directly. They
represent an impassioned monologue addressed to two general
classes of individuals whom Jesus, here ‘one of the prophets’
indeed, sees in his mind's eye. Among the many disciples
(ῳαθηταῦ standing round him, there were probably poor men,
poor by circumstances or by choice (5 12), hungry people (δ: Δ},
and sufferers (6177). But at this juncture it would have been
neither an appropriate nor an exhaustive description to classify
the disciples as a whole under these categories.

This is corroborated by the quartette of woes (099 ἽΝ), in

which the reverse side of the ture is sketched (Is. 58-23, cp
6513-16). Like the rest of what is peculiar to Lk, in the
Sermon, it is mainly concerned ‘with the perils of authority (375),
popularity (26), and especially money (247 33/ 384). ‘The
second woe is unaccountabiy omitted în Ss. ‘There is no woe
corresponding to the third beatitude, and the fourth woe ἴθ
addressed to the disciples, rather than to an objective class,
thereby resuming ve. 22 and paving the way for the transition
inv. 27. In his second volume Lk. fas “stories illustrating the
joy felt by disciples under persecution (623=Acts5 41, etc.),
‘while at the same time he points out. that popularity is not in-
variably (Rom. 14 18) a proof of disloyalty (626, cp Acts247].
Although the first three Beatitudes and woes are rather external
and eschatological,? the fourth touches a deeper note of experi-
ence ; yet all are controlled by the same sense that the religious
question is bound up with the social, as the OT prophets were
never weary of reiterating.

Tn quieter tones Jesus now proceeds to address not the twelve
aposties but the wider circle (61320) of his disciples or im-
mediate hearers (627 /), passing from the vehement denuncia-
tion of prosperoys and proud folk into a persuasive appeal for
charity and forbearance among his adberents.3. The inti
duction, ‘But I say unto you' (ἀλλὰ ὑμῖν Aéyw), where ‘you' is
defined by ‘who hear' (τοῖς ἀκούουσιν), corroborates the im-
pression pai hitherto in 6 20-26 Jesus has been describing, rather
than addressing, certain types èf men. At this point the con-
trast is almost equal to a dropping of the voice, The substance
of the discourse, in its second phase, is love to one's enemies or
opponents. According to Lk., this humane disposition is to be
expressed not simply în blessing and prayer, but heroically în
(@) a patient, uncomplaining endurance of violence and robbery,
and in (3) lending money freely—so freely, indeed, that it is a
loan merely in name. As usual, the question of money bulks
largely in Lk.'s mind. He represents Jesus as counselling the
disciples in effective and unqualified aphorisms never to make
money an occasion of quarrelling; if it be stolen from them,
better acquiesce than retaliate and attempt to recover the loss:
if borrowed, neither money nor property is to be demanded back.
To this passive 4/7, an active side is added ; money is to he
ungrudgingiy lent 4 even to one's enemies. One does not need

by Pilate (18 1-3) and the false charge of sedition (ἀπὸ τῆς 1'.
285) made against Jesus by the priests; Galilee plays no pari
in his Resurrection stories.

1 Lk.'s Sermon is less true than Mt.'s to the normal position
of Jesus towards the future of God's reign on earth ; in rightly
reproducing the somewhat catastrophic side, which ‘Jesus held
in common with his age, he fails to give sufficient prominence
to the inner spiritual side, which formed the real contribution of
Jesus to the time. Hence the impression left by his Sermon is
vivid but limited. See Titius, 177/£, 185

2 This is so far in keeping with the first preaching of Jesus în
Galilee, which echoed the eschatological note of the” Baptist
(Mk. 114 Mt, 41723/). Both ‘holy spirit’ (ἅγιον πνεῦμα) and
*fire' (up) are in the Sermon; but, particularly in Mt., the
gracious heavenly spirit predominates, even although Τῆς. has
title or nothing of Mt.'s sweeping anti-legal criticism. Both
versions are, from different standpoints, to be regarded as ‘ good
news'(Mt. 423)

3 The connection would he still closer if the wealthy
oppressors of a. 24 were the enemies of Ὁ, 27.

On the religious economy of alms see 16.1-14, and contrast
1233=1822 with Mt.619. Like the Epistle of James, Lk.
reflects the trading atmosphere of early Palestinian Christians ;
the dangers presented by property and wealth to the faith
(Gosper.s, $ 40) are vividly present to his mind. See Peabody's
Jesus Christ and the Social Life (1901), 1975, and especially

4379

|
{

SERMON ON THE MOUNT

to be rich in order to be robbed or to lend money; but it is
obvious that reiterated and prominent injunctions like these
would lose much of their point, if the society to which they were
addressed consisted of poverty-stricken outcasts, This enforces
the view that 6 20,f is not intended to describe the actual con-
dition of the disciples round Jesus, to whom 6 27,£ is spoken.

The third phase of the address (39-45) opens with some loosely
set logia ; the thread upon which Lk. has strung chem seems to

be as follows. Turning from one's duty to

6. Char- enemies, Jesus dwells on the duty, especially

acteristica. of teaching and instruction, which one owes τὸ

the brethren. To give safe guidance (6 39=
Jas. 519) one must be clear-eyed oneself; to give adegnate
and complete assistance to the untrained and inexperienced,
one must be equipped adequately first of all (640). Self
criticism (641_£) is the necessary prelude to any stacere and
useful criticism of other people. It is the inner state of a inan's
own heart (6 43-45) that determines che value and virtue of what
he contributes to the world. See M1xES (col. 3098).

Finally, the epilogue (6 46-49) in parabolic form (which ‘might
constantly inhabir both the memory and the judgment,” Sir
Philip Sidney) sums up the responsibility of hearers; a stable
character is built up not on mere verbal admiration of the
teacher, but on practical obedience to such commands as he
has laid down.

‘Whatever be Lk.'s method elsewhere in dealing with
his sources, the Sermon exhibits traces of considerable
freedom on the part of the editor, whose general
characteristics of style, conception, and arrangement
are fairly conspicuous in 620-49. Not merely in the
beatitudes and woes {Feine, pp. 112-120), but through-
out the whole, the Jewish-Christian circle reflected in
Lk.'s sources becomes visible and audible. Whilst
Mt, reflects the early church under the strain of opposi-
tion at the hands of Pharisaic religion, Lk. reveals
indirectiy the fortunes and hopes of Palestinian
Christians, possibly within the Jerusalem-church (Feine,
Pp. 142-145) itself, under the overbearing rule and
bitter animosity of the wealthy Sadducees (see Renan's
l'Antéekrist, chap. 3). His sources vibrate with feel-
ing similar in many points to that felt in the Epistie of
James, Hermas, βίο. Formally, too, his pungent
report of the Sermon is shaped into a homily, whereas
Mt.’s is built up out of didactic pieces used by catechists
of the apostolic age.

In the Lucan beatitudes etc. (6.20-26), the poor (πτωχοῦ) are
first of all blessed (as already in 418 Jesus îs represented as
quoting Isaiah 611,7: and placing in the forefront of his mission

—*to preach the gospel to the poor’ [εὐαγγελέσασθαι πτωχοῖς]},
Several of the Lucan hasax legomena occur (e.g. γελάω and
σκιρτάω), and in the introductory formula (ἐπάρας x.7.A.), as
throughout the rest of the address, the style is Predominanty
Lucan. Favourite or characteristic Lucan terms recur; δυσὶ
κλαΐειν (more external than Mt.'s πενθεῖν), κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ ποιεῖν
(6 23), πλούσιος, νῦν, παράκλησις (6 54 of selfish worldly satis-
faction, as opposed to messianic bliss, 225, cp 16 25), ἐμπίπλημι
(625, contrast similarly 133), πεινάω (621 153) πᾶς with ptc.
(6.30.47 etc.), πλήν (624 35), ἀπαιτεῖν (ὃ 30p1220), ἀπολαμβάνειν
(634), καθώς (636), κόλπος (6 38), Sualvi (631) etc.), σαλεύω
Gin unique sense 6 38), ἐκπέπτειν (6.39, cp Mi. 15/14), ἔδιος (641,
cp Mt.74; 644, cp Mt.1233), ἔρχεσθαι πρός (647 1426),
ὑποδείξω (6 47 12 5), one instance of his preference for compounds
with ἀντί (Ὁ 38), ἰσχύω [οὐκ] (6 48), δὲ καί (6 39), εἰμέ with dative
(0 5573}. the Hebraism ἰδοὺ γάρ (6 23, eto., never Mt.), εἴπενταν
δέ (639, etc. | Mt, 12 47 2), εἶπεν παραβολήν (6 39, etc., only Mk,
1212), καὶ αὐτός (620, etc.), προσεύχεσθαι περί (6.28 Acts815),
ὕψιστος of God (1 32 35 76; 6.35), the common Lucan and Pauline
constr, of the article (642; only in Mt. once, 7 3), etc. Notable
hapax legomena ate? ΕΑΝ ΑΣΤΩ 2 (635), ὑπερεκχύννω (6 38),
πιέζω (ὃ 38), πλημμύρης (6 48), σκάπτω (6 48), βαθύνω (6 48), τιθ.
θεμ. (8.481: 423), συμπίπτω (ὃ 49), προσρήγνυμι (6 48 £), and ῥῆγμα
(649). In 627, ἐχθροί and μισοῦντες are paralleled as in 171,

L. Paul's study (ΖΉΨΤ, 1901, pp. 504-544), ‘Welcher Reiche
wird selig werden?* Also Hastings" 28 4 19/0

1 Cp the second-century interpolations in Test. γαῖ, 25; καὶ
οἱ ἐν πτωχείᾳ διὰ, Κύριον πλοντισθήσονται καὶ οἱ ἐν πενίᾳ χορτασ-
θήσονται. .. οἱ δὲ ἀσεβεῖς πενθήσουσι καὶ ἁμαρτωλοὶ κλαύ-
σονται. "The preceding saying (οἱ ἐν λύπῃ τελευτήσαντες
ἀναστήσονται ἐν χαρᾷ) reflects an outlook alien to either of the
synoptic versions of the beatitudes—a fact which incidentally
confirms their historic verisimilitude. When the Sermon was
spoken, Jesus had not yet emphasised his second coming or even
denth ; all the future for him and his lay within the horizon
of his lifetime, as yet hardly clouded by opposition culminating in
tragedy or delay. Even the allusions to excommunication
from the synagogue and other apostolic ills do not obliterate
this primitive feature, although they qualify it.

3. The idea is one of several anticipate in Ps. Sol. (cp 515 /).
See further, on the meaning, Reinach, Aevwe des études grecgues,
1894; pp. 52-58.

4380

SERMON ON THE MOUNT

and ill-will1 defined as speech (xarap.) and act (ἐπηρ. cp 1 Pet.
3.16) Similar phrases recalling the apostolic age may be seen
in the use of Lk.’s favourite (eleven times) ἅγιον πνεῦμα (11 13),
ἀγαθοποιεῖν (ὃ 9 33 35, never in Mt, ; ep τ Pet. 215 20 36.17), and
θεμέλιον (648, cp 1 Cor. 8 το, εἴ0.), besides phrases like ‘ Father”
“ pitiful* (636, cp 2 Cor. 13), παρέχειν (ὁ 29), χάρις (6 32:34, for
Mis μεσθάς), ἁμαρτωλοί (generic for ML'S ἐθνικοὶ, τελῶναι),
ἀχάριστος (635=2 Tim.32; cp 813 with 1 Tim.41), ἐλπίζειν
(634, ete., only once in quot. in Mt.1221), and blind guides
(639= Rom. ? 19, which is perhaps a reminiscence of the logion).
Similarly, the two other passages (11 1-4 9-13 1222-34) where
Lk. has reproduced matter included in Mt.'s Sermon, show
evident traces of the author's style in favourite or characteristic
expressions, such as :—drao7ds, ἀναστάντες (117 £), καθ' ἡμέραν
(11 3), πρός of address, very common in Lk. (11 1 1222), εἶπεν dé
(1121222), ris with a noun (Ilr 1216, etc., only once in Mt.
1212), &s= where (11 1, never in Mt.), βαλλάντιον (12 33), elvar
with prep, and art. (111).

These linguistic phenomena bring Lk.'s version of
the Sermon into line with the rest of his gospel. It
cannot be said that Hebraisms or Aramaisms are at all
characteristic of the passage, and the inference is that
Lk. has either translated from Q with a freedom which
makes his rendering something of a paraphrase, or (as
is more probable} that like Mt. he has edited and in
part rewritten a Greek recension of Q. In this Ὁ,
to ali appearance, the Sermon lay between the choice
of the Twelve and the healing of the centurion's child at
Capernaum {Mk. 3 13-19= Lk. 6 12-16 Mt. 8 5-13=Lk.
71-10). Near {NW.) Capernaum and about midway
in the Galilean period Jesus may be conjectured to
have spoken this address. It is much less probable
that Lk. had before him not merely the logia but also
another independent document containing a discourse
which he confused with the Sermon on the Mount,

In three instances our canonical Mk, contains logia
equivalent to passages in the Sermon: on retribution
in 424=Mt. (6330) 72 Lk. (12318) 638,

Termini on saltless salt Qsoa=Mt δια Lk

gl * 1434, and on a forgiving spirit with
prayer 1125 [26]= Mt. 614 ΚΑ

The presence of these in Mk. may be due to a redactor of the
primitive * Mk.,’ who had become acquainted with the logia ;
certainly the first two Marcan passages occur in extremely
difficult contexts and are in themselves not particularly apposite,
whilst the third is distinctly inappropriate to its surroundings
(cp Mk.1123 from Mt.1720) Even were this hypothesis
telected, however, it would not be necessary {0 presuppose
Mk.'s acquaintance with Q. There may have been identica] or
substantialiy identical logia in Ὁ and in the Petrine narrative
which is practically equivalent to the primitive ‘Mk.’ There
is no reason to believe that these documents were mutually
exclusive, and it is natural to suppose that occasionally the
vame logia in divergent historical settings and linguistic shapes
lay in both: e.g., Mt.529,/3 (Q)=1887 Mk. 9434547; Mt.
532 Lk.16 18 (0)= Μὲ 199 Mk. 1011 Similarly it ìs possible
that even within Q itself logia lay in'two different connections
preserved from heterogeneous traditions. A capital instance
ἧς the saying on the lamp and the bushel, which is a pendant to
the parable of the seeds (Mk, 421= Lk. 816, Jùlicher, Glesc4rsis-
reden 28692: cp Gosres, $ 134, col. 1873), and also connected
with a disciple-logiorg(Mt. 5 15, repeated and misplaced by Lk.
in 1133), This seems on the whole a preferable hypothesis to
that which would confine the logion to the former setting and
make its employment elsewhere by Mt. and Lk. an arbitrary dis-
placement and application Mt.716-18 and 1233-35 form
independent variations of a common idea rather than a doublet,
and passages like 3.10=7 19 37=1234 2333 may reasonably be
taken as reminiscences by a younger man of his first leader's
phraseology. These are cases where pure literary criticism
requires to be conscious of its limitations.

Happily, in the absence of direct parallels 4 to the

1 Justin Martyr's apology is offered (1 5) ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐκ παντὸς
γένους ἀνθρώπων ἀδίκως μισονμένων καὶ ἐπηρεαφομένων.

2 Similarly, in expanding the warning against censoriousness
(6377 Mt.71,5), Lk. redoubles it by adding καταδικασθῆτε (of
which, as of dmoAsw=let off, Mt, 1827, Mt. is content to give a
practical illustration 127), and presents the positive side as the
secial form which appealed to him, viz. charity in the sense of
liberality or benevolence. The ground ΟΥ̓́Τ, 35 is shifted;
charity now is advocated as certain to win ample return.

$ V 30 is textually suspect, however (om. D, Ss), and with
v. 29 is probably placed here by the editor.

4 The parallels in Jewish thought (( κι Hilel, the δεσμός,
the Pirkè A6at4, and the earlier wisdom.literature, including
the negative form of the law of love) may be seen in Wilnsche,
7. Lightfoot, Wetstein, or Rodrigues’ Les origines di Sermon
de la Montagne (for Mt.69-13 see Lorp's PRAVEX), and are
worked out in more or less detail by critical editors. 80 far as

4381

SERMON ON THE MOUNT

Sermon in the fourth gospel. the comparative phenomena
of the third gospel enable us sometimes

8, Mt8 +0 analyse Mt.'s version of the Sermon,
Sermon a ‘hich is obviousl te i -

pilation, Which is obviously composite, into its

comi component parts. At least seven

passages set in Mt, 5-7 appear throughout Lk., although
differently edited and applied, in connections which are
not merely superior but intrinsically probable from the
historical standpoint. These are the logia on (@) coming
to terms with an opponent (Mt, 525 Καὶ =Lk. 12 57-59),!
(5) the model prayer (Mt.69-15=Lk. 111-4), (2) God
and mammon (Mt. 624= Lk. 1613), (4) worldly anxiety
{Mt. 625-33= Lk. 1222-31),? (e) encouragement to prayer
(Mt. 75-= Lk. 11 9-13), (7) the narrow way (Mt
7135=Lk. 1323 5}, and (g) the final rejection (Mt.
721:23= Lk. 1325-27). Upon the other hand, it must
be admitted that Lk. is possibly inferior to Mt. in his
setting of other four logia which occur in Mt. 5-7 {515=
Lk. 11 33, 5:8=Lk. 1617, 531 f/ =Lk. 1618, 622 £=Lk.
1134-36); although this does not imply that even Mt.
preserves them in their original strata. Two instances
are neutral—that is to say, Jesus might have uttered the
saying upon either occasion or upon both, so far as
the evidence available is concerned (Mt. 5r13= Lk. 14 34,
619-21= Lk.1233/.; soeg., Lk. 644a= Mt.12330, 645c=
Mt. 12345), In three instances of a doublet in Mt
affecting the Sermon (529/. =188/ 532=199 and 719=
Bro Lk.39), the historic probabilities seem to favour
that setting of the logion which is extra-Sermonic.

The Sermon also exhibits several curious instances of
transposition (e.g., the temptation-narrative Mt. 45-10=

Lk. 45-18, Jonah and Solomon Mt,
9. τατον 12417 =Solomon and Jonah 1, 113: 0,
Lira etc. } in passages like Mt. 540 (yer...

ΟΝ Lk. 629 (ἐμ. κι. x.
54244 (liberality and prayer)= Lk, 628.30 (prayer and
liberality), 545 f. (sonship and reward)= Lk. 632-35
(reward and sonship), Mt. 619 Καὶ (moth and thief)=Lk

1233(thiefand moth), Mt. 619 33(treasure in heaven and
seeking kingdom)= Lk. 1229 £ 33 (seeking kingdom
andtreasurein heaven), Mt. 628(neitherlabournorspin) =
Lk. 1227 (neither spin nor weave [Ti. WH®&.]), Mt 716
(grapes and figs)= Lk. 644 {figs and grapes). Such trans-
positions occur throughout the threesynoptists. If literary
variety be considered too artificial a motive to explain
their phenomena, we must have recourse to the hypothesis
that such divergencies grew up unconsciously during
the period of oral transmission, although the freaks of

the Sermon is concemned, the resemblances only serve τὸ
accentuate the profound difference berween Jesus and the
contemporary piety of his age, even when he is using the latter's
language and developing germs already present on the higher
levels of the OT and of pre-Christian Judaism. Here, from the
historical standpoint, Jesus appears cogaged not merely in
clearing away accumulated rubbish to permit the stream of
piety to have free course, but in opening fresh fountains for its
supply as well as în disclosing a reach and flow for its waters
larger than had been hitherto imagined-—much less attained.

ΤΑΣ Lk. plainìy reproduces the original setting of this logion
(cp Weiss, Matth. Evglm. 138 £), and as Mt. 5 21-48 represents
a Lomogeneous and fairly coherent address, it is probably right
to regard 525% as an interpolation (e.g., Holtzmann, Bruce,
Réville) Its insertion was mediated by the well-known con-
nection of debt and sin in the ethnic mind (ἔα. Τ᾽ 1054, cp
Mt. 61214 £).

2 The unique ‘the nations of the world' (rà ἔθνη τοῦ κόσμου :
Lk. 12 30), translating an Asamaic or Hebrew rabbinica! equiva:
lent (Dbiy3 nibit, Dalman, Worte Jesw, 1 144/), is one proof that

Lk. stands nearer than Mt. to theoriginal source. Lk.'s retention
of Lk. 12.32 balances his omission of Mt.634. Similarly the un-
Matthaan 4ingdomr 0/ God in Mt.633 (as in 12.28 19 24) shows
that Q is reproduced here verbally, as by Lk.; ‘and che righteous-
ness’ (xaè τὴν due. : cp Jas, 1 20) 15 an editorial explanation (like
πρῶτον) or gloss upon ‘kingdom.’ Even were the variant order
adopted (λές rig4teowsness and kingdom), still ‘kingdom’ would
remain as the predominating term. Lk.1231 is plainly more
faithful to the original. Cp Titius, 82,

3 Lk. preserves, in an altered and somewhat expanded form,
the original reference to unbelieving Jews. Mt., who applies
the logion to antinomian adherents of Jesus (possibly ultra-
Pauline Christians), is obliged to use the sequel elsewhere
(811 f=Lk.1328£), as it would not have suited his purpose in
the Sermon.

4382

SERMON ON THE MOUNT

memory do not seem quite adequate to account for
inversions so repeated, Intentional or accidental, they
are to all appearance destitute of significance.

Assuming these results and continuing to employ

the larger report as more convenient for the purpose of ;

comparative analysis, we now pass to its divisions. As
a working hypothesis we may provisionally surmise that
the original scheme! of the Sermon in Ὁ embraced (4)
beatitudes, (ὁ) a statement of Jesus relation to the
Jewish law, followed by (c) a definition of his own ποῦ
dex, and (d) a warning against unreal, idle adherence to
it and to himself IF Lk.'s Zevel spot (617) meant a
plateau among the hills, a comprehensive designation
of the Sermon both in Lk. and Mt. might be ‘the
teaching on the hill-side' or ‘ the hill-teaching.*

(a) The divergence of the beatitudes in style and
Spirit accentuates at the very outset the general variation
of the two reports. Lk.'s four beatitudes

ὃ ἀρ τὴ are followed? by four woes (after Dt
and panna 2711 5}: Mt.'s eight? stand alone, save

for an expansion or application of the
eighti. Lk.'s are more vehement (sec. pers. plur.},
Mt.'s (exc. 511) employ the quieter third plur. Lk.'s
order {poor, hungry, weeping, persecuted) differs from
what verbally corresponds to it in Mt, {2065 in spirit,
mourners, meek,4 Azngry for righteousness, merciful,
pure in heart, peacemakers, fersecuéed), much more
his general atmosphere and colour. The original
Sermon in Q probably contained beatitudes and woes in
the second person corresponding to those preserved with
somewhat heighiened ascetic colouring by Lk.; their
number it is impossible to ascertain with any certainty ;
their nature is as elusive, except that it was less restricted
and external than Lk.'s report (see below, on the
audience). Mt.5irf=Lk.622/ is apostolico in its
present form (cp for my saze, the Name, and terms of
persecution 5) ; especially in Mt. 511 f it is a comment
such as Mt, loves, added here to lead over from the
beatitudes into 513-16.

As the crucial instance of the first beatitude indicates, the
discrepancies of the two reports run back not only to the pre-

dilections of the final editors, but to variant renderings of the
vernacular in Ὁ : πτωχοί and ταπεινοί are (8᾽ 5 equivalents for
Ὁ in Is. 611, a passage applied by Lk. elsewhere to Jesus
and his career (417, where Mt. places the Sermon), and πραεῖς
is similarly used. Mt.'s beatitudes, therefore, represent varia.
.tions upon the leading idea of ‘the poor being blessed'—‘ poor *
being the devout lower classes in the main. Lk.'s rendering is
truer to the letter, Mt.’s to the spirit, of the original. "No

1 Feine (‘Ueber das gegenscitige Verhaltniss der Texte der
Bergpredigt bei Mt. und bei Lk.y' 727, 1885, pp. 1-85) finds
the original Sermon in Mt. 3-10 17 20-22 27// 33-48 6-6 16-18
Ti-5 τῷ 15-18 21 24-27. The Hebrew and Greek reconstruction
attempted by Resch (Aussercanon. Paralleltexte, 1893-73
262-65 SI-102 113/ 362/98 1016; Die Lagia Jesu, 1898, PP.
18-29) traces the Sermon in 52-6 11/7 20022 27,7. 31 33.354 37-48
# 1-5 12 16-18 20/7 24-27; whilst Wendt's outline consists of Lk.
620.26 Mt. 517.20 21-24 27-29 31-42 712 543-47 Lk.634 Mt.
548 61-18 7 1-5 15-19 7 21 (Lk. 6,46) 24-27.

È Fourfold woe in En. 95 4-7. Ss. om. Lk. 6254, κατηρτισ.-
μένος . . » αὐτοῦ 40, and softens beatitudes from second to third
person piural. See J. Weiss, Predigt Jesu, 179-187.

3 Or seven (as eg, 4 Esd. 7 78-99, where seven woes follow), if
5 rod (=534) is supposed to mean a fresh start. It is quite
fanciful to see a counterpart to the decalogue in ten beatitudes
{Delitzsch, Edersheim). On Mt.53, with its secondary form,
cp Kiopper, ZW7°, 1894, pp. 175-191, with the essay of Kabisch
in St. Kr. (1896) 195-215; on the general superiority of Lk.'s
report, Adeney, Z.zfos. sth ser. 2 361-376,

4 The alternative order (meek, mourners), even if better
attested, would not affect this point.

5 There was a reasonable ground for anticipating persecution,
although Mt. either ignores or fails to emphasise it, in the recent
arrest of Jesus master (Mt. 4 το), as well as in the conflict
which had taken place between Jesus and the religious
authorities (Jesus, 88 227). The Sermon by no means portrays
the flush of an absolute Galilazan succe: ee ὃ ὁ, n. r

6 Lk.'s fundamental idea is (cp Feine, 25-35) that no satis-
faction will he got in the present age, such are its contradictions
and oppressive manners; Mt.'s view is, no satisfaction will be
got în this or any age of the world, since the inner needs of the
soul cannot be satisfied outside of God. Lk.'s report suits the
original situation better. But Mt.'s istruer to the central teach-
ing of Jesus; his beatitudes give rich and vigorous expression
to the purest ideal of the Christian consciousness, even although,

4383

SERMON ON THE MOUNT

doubt, language such as that preserved by ΤᾺ. would appear
ambiguous and unsatisfactory to those who had lost touch with
the primitive situation in which the words were spoken, or who
had not the same intellectual sympathies. Mt.'s version, figura
tive and traditional în its use of language hallowed by religious
associations, would appeal to a larger circle.

(5) The attitude of Jesus to the Jewish law would
naturally form a cardinal topic in any such inaugural
address, especially as popular curiosity
must have been already whetted and
misunderstanding created by the con-
flicts between Jesus and the religious authorities. ‘The
prospect of a revolutionary attitude upon his part towards
the law must have stirred hopes and fears alike un-
founded. But the original form of the passage in Q
seems to have been expanded by Mt. and abbreviated
by Lk. The latter had an obvious motive for omitting
anti-legal polemic from his narrative as unsuitable and
irrelevant to his audience ; his familiarity with most of
the logia underlying Mt, 13-16 17-20 21-48 is proved by
his reproduction of several elsewhere in more or less apt
situations (see above, $8/£). Mt. 521-24 27. 31-48, there-
fore, is in all likelihood substantially reproduced from
Q, filled cut by the incorporation of two logia from other
places (257 29f)! From this passage in his edition
of Q, Lk. has merely taken the climax? {z.e., the super-
seding of retaliation by unstinted love), in order to pre-
serve the distinctive assertion of the new law. The
linguistic variations seldom affect the sense of the parallel
passages materially. Nor does the catechetical form of
Mt.'s version with its careful structure, reproduced from
the church catechism of Q, imply that Jesus did not use
such a method of instruction. He taught as a rabbi.
The apostolie churches arranged and used his sayings
for catechetical purposes, but în this Jesus bad to some
degree anticipated them ; the five commandments of the
lawgiver in Mt. Bar 7 may well be a specimen of the
preaching which Jesus already practised in the syna-
gogues,? where part of the service consisted in the read-
ing of OT scriptures from the law and the prophets,
followed by comments (Lk.417, cp Acts 1315; Schiir.
Hist. ii. 263 f. 81), Cp SYNAGOGUE, 88 8755

The transition from the beatitudes into the relation of
Jesus to the law was probably mediated in Q by logia

corresponding to those substantially
12. Mt 51316. (COTE τὸ Mt B15-16 17 20) apon che
sphere and function of those whose character had just
been described, as well as upon the personal attitude
assumed by their leader to the conventional religion.
‘Whether 5 13-16 in whole or part belonged to the original
Sermon is doubtful. Were the Sermon addressed to the
Twelve (so, eg, Hahn, Resch, and [Lk.] O. Holtz-
mann), the passage would be quite in line with 104,
where the Twelve are also prophets (cp 512 and 513).
Even with an audience of many disciples, as Mt, and
Lk. both describe the scene, the appropriateness of
the passage is defensible (the prophets as in Jas. 510/.).
The connection of 512 (Lk.623) and 517 is excellent;
but the intervening sentences may have been an aside

11. Jesus
and the law.

upon critical grounds, they may not justify their claim to be
regarded as the prelude to the historical Sermon.

Possibly 7.23 are also foreign to their context, as that
stood in the original Sermon. The superior position of δ πο at
199 might, but does not necessarily, involve that 5 31 / did not
belong to îts Sermonie context. The omission of 5.47 (with ly
Ss.) would conttibute to the terseness of the context.

2 Thus failing in the Sermon to establish (with Mt.) the his.
torical continuity of Jesus with the religious tradition of the
past. He had done this already and otherwise (4 16/). But
with Lk. the disciples of Jesus within Judaism have ‘somewhat
to become’ rather than ‘somewhat to'cast off, in taking their
course of obedience to him.

3 On the significance of this early ministry among the syna-
gogues of Galilee (Lk. 415 444= Mk. 139 Mt. 423), which was
interrupted and checked by the scribes, see Bruce, 7744 Ozen
Face, 0-16 (1896). ‘ Great temporary popularity, little perma.
nent fruit’ sums up its effects; but, as the Sermon indicates, il
enabled Jesus to come to an issue with the current legal religion,
besides inducing him to turn his attention specially to the sus-
ceptible disciples (μαθηταῷ who showed some capacity of mind
and soul for the new teaching.

4384

SERMON ON THE MOUNT

{for which Mt. has prepared by the words τοὺς πρὸ
ὑμῶν), after which Jesus resumed the tenor of his speech.
Funetion depends on character, and privilege implies
responsibility ; the disciples are an Israel within Israel,
whose raîsoz d'étre is to permeate the people as a whole,
instead of preaching an esoteric piety or an Essene-like
retirement. The horizon of Jesus was primarily Judaism
at this period (Rom.157-9); with a high and devout
consciousness of his mission, which was partly to be
achieved through his adherents, he sets himself and
them (in these logia) to the regeneration of Judaism.3
Whatever be the origin* of 142, the logia 13 and τὴς
(15-16) may quite well have lain side by side {otherwise
GosrELS, $ 134) in the original (cp the Roman proverb,
nil sale et sole utilius), though not exactly in their present
form. The traces of editorial handling, however, do not
affect the substance of the passage ; its parts fit in here
at least as well as, if not better than, în their arrangement
by Mk. and Lk.; and as a whole this didactic piece
vindicates its position in the Sermon. If any ‘definite
historical situation' (Weizs.) needs to be sought for the
passage, its present site affords a motif of sufficient
psychological and historical importance.
Whilst 517 20 is not only an authentic saying but also
in its proper place as a vindication of Jesus against the
suspicion of laxity and undue mildness
13. Mt.517-20. rrised4 by his free, daring attitude to
the law, 518 7. is widely accepted as representing a
Jewish-Christian gloss which evidently (cp its partial
retention in sharper form by Lk. 1617, Mt.'s ἰῶτα being
secondary, Dalman 4-5) belonged not merely to πὲ
but to Q. See GosPiLSs, $$ 342, 1126, 128€; Feine,
Pp. 25-35; also Moffatt, Historical New Testament
(0) 1901, pp. 645£).

The aim of the OT religion, as expressed by the phrase ‘the
law or the prophets,'S was to be realised by Jesus in the higher
Christian ‘righteousness' (δικαιοσύνη), not (as τ Κ᾽ imply)through
the permanent validity of the Mosaic code with its stafutory and
ritual elements, although the more conservative circles of Jewish
Christianity believed that the latter was not merely legitimate
but essential to the new faith. It is one thing to say that the law
contained a divinerevelation ; it would have been quite another
thing for Jesus to say that the Mosaic law (Leviticus and all) with
its injunctions had still a future and a »4/. The very qualifica-
tions and repudiations of 5 21-44 indicate the irrelevance of 5 18,
to the original context.8 On ‘he other hand, 5 17 20 define not

1 514, with an instance of Mt.'s partiality for ‘the world® (ὁ
κόσμος», reflects (as it stands) the universalism which forms one
trait of Mt. Originally in Aramaic the logion had a range con-
sonant with the historical situation of Jesus and the disciples (so
γῆς, 13=land, not earth). Cp Dalman's Worte Zesw, 1136 144.
The selection of the twelve shows that Jesus already contem-
plated a vocation on the part of his disciples, which was not
confined, of course, to the Twelve (cp Lk.839 ΜΚ. 938), Un.
fortonately Mt., who preserves the logion on vocation, omits to
narrate beforehand the incident which helps to elucidate its
aptness,

2 It is needless, therefore, to regard 513-16 (with Réville,
2128-130) as a patriotic address to the Jewish people idealiy
represented by the crowd, whom Jesus exhorts to be falthfal to
their historical vocation and to show themselves worthy of their
religious superiority to the surrounding world. Nodirect preach-
ing as yet (except for the Twelve? Mk.117=Mt. 419); only
the expression of an upright and exceptionaliy pious life. Cp
Titius, 12-17.

3 The Oxyrh. Logion 7 (‘a city built upon a high hill and
established cannot either fall or be hidden') blends 5 146 and
724 Δ, and 514-16 was known to the author of the Pastorals
(1 Tim. 6.25) as well as to Justin (4404 116).

4 Perhaps already in his younger brother James, who appears
in tradition (cp von Dobschitz, Die wrchristlichen Genteinden,
112./ 272 f. {1902]) as an austere and strict Jewish Christian ἢ
certainly in the Scribes and Pharisees, who felt themselves re-
sponsibie for defending the faith against unsettling tendenci
Even the disciples may already have needed a warning of this
Kind against rash inferences from sayings like Mk. 2 226.

5 Unless (Wernie) ‘or the prophets'( τοὺς προφήτας) be an
editorial gloss (om. Clem. Hom. 8 51). But if Paul could appeal
from “the law” to ‘the law and the prophets’ for anticipations of
that 'righteousness of God’ which was realised in the gospel
(Rom. 821 7), surely Jesus could have done the same. Chry-
sostom's discovery of ἃ certain reserve and guarded tone în 517
(οἰκονομία λόγων) is imaginary. On ‘the righteousness of
Christ's kingdom * (Mt. 5 17,£), cp Dods, Eos. gth ser. 970
161 fi, also Gardner's Zx$/or. Evangelica, 192f

8 Asit stands, however, 5 17-20 reflects Mt.'s apologetic temper,
especially in its effort to show the Jews of the Diaspora the

4385

SERMON ON THE MOUNT

merely the theme of the Sermon but the permanent attitude of
Tesus towards possible abuses and misunderstanding of his gospel
{cp Kispper, ΖῚΡ 7° 1896, pp. 1-23). The critical attitude ΣΥΝΕ
reformer finds it necessary to assume towards orthodox opinion
and habit in order to clear the road for positive and healthy pro»
gress, is generally mistaken for mere iconoclasm ; he is impugned
as a mover cf old landmarks, and one of his first and hardest
duties is to show that valid change and advance in religion only
knit the bonds of moral claim more tightly on the conscience.

(ε) The abruptness with which the nove /ex is intro-
duced in Lk. (8627-36) contrasts unfavourably with the
fine climax of Mt, (543-48).1 which comes
14. The am hand οἱ ies of anti
new law, After a smooth and clear series of anti-
© theses to the traditional legislation (21-42).
In Mt. δ 43:48, which Mt, has correctly preserved as the
kernel of the Sermon, the new ‘righteousness’ already sketched
is elucidated with respect to (i.) murder and anger (21-24); see
Raca and SynEDRIUM.2 The form of denunciation (ἔνοχος with
gen. of punishment or punishment's source, in ΜΕ. 829 of the
Grime) is said to de common in iuscriptions against guilty persons
in Asia Minor (Rams. Βα. 7710 55/2) 17. 237 reflect Palestinian
Christianity previous to 70 A.D. and emphasise the duty of recon-
ciliation as paramount, supersedìng even the claim of sacrifice.
Cp Epici. Disc. Zro, “ you go and blame your brother, I tell
you, you have forgotten who you are and what you are called *
, a brother), ‘The same inwardness breathes în the treatment
of adultery and divorceS (27/ 31/0); cp Gospets, $ 14545
Marrrace, $ 6. (iii.) Laxity în oaths (33-37), as well as in
marriage, had already been checked by the Essenes, and 347
is a Jewish commonplace (cp, besides Wetstein, ad /oc., Charles
on Slav. En. 49 1, also Harnack or Conybeare on Aete A4/0/or.
6). A remarkable parallel from a pagan inscription of the Kata-
kaumene is cited by Rams. £x9.7°10109, and Doughty ἐάν.
Des. 1 264-269) notes the frivalous, lavish use of caths among the
Arabs. (iv.) ‘Retaliation superseded by beneficence’ (38-42) ἰδ
put in characteristically Oriental and paradoxical form, though
pictetus also (Diss. 3:22) teaches the cynic to practise forbear-
ance, and when fogged to love those that flog hin., even yield»
ing his body to the free pleasure of anybody. (v.) Love to one's
enemies (43-48), with prayer for them, constitutes the distinctive
spirit of the new reign (cp e. 5ὸ with 2. 46 7); the divine ideal is
magnanimity, which Jesus inculcates on his adherents as their
duty; in short a ‘love imperturbable' (Beyschlag), which is not
deterred from serving other people by their ingratitude or active
opposition,4 but finds its motive in ardent desire to be like God,
and its method in instinctive activity, not în punetilious per-
formance of set duties. See LoviNGKINDNESS, $ 4, and
NeigHbove.

Lk.'s indifference to the critical attitude of Jesus,
which dictated his omission of the logia corresponding
to Mt. 5 21-48, leaves him with a report of the ove /ex (6

27-36) which is, upon the whole, less admirably arranged 5

spiritua] continuity between esteem for the Law as an ethical code
and devotion to Jesus its ‘end’ (τέλος); see Wernle, Ζ ΖΗ,
1900, p. 477. This tendency has led_Mt. to preserve traditions
and logia which often seem rather alien to the catholic spirit of
hisown mind. See Manchot, Prof. Monafsb., 1902, pp. 211-227.

1 ‘This is not by any means an ideal such ἐς could be derived
from the hopes of the future cherished by the Jews, or from their
law ; it is in the truest sense the possession of Jesus alone’ (O.
Holizmann, Ledex /esw, 192). While this istrine of ὃ 48, 544 fi
is not unparalleled; cp, e.g., Seneca (de Benef. 426, ‘si deos
imitaris, da et ingratis beneficia ; nam et sceleratis sol oritur, et

iratis patent maria °), and, earlier still in Judaism, Ecclus, 4 τὸ
‘ Be as a father to the fatherless. . . . So shalt thou be as a son
of the most High'), See O. Holtzmann, Neuzest. Zeitgesch.
(1805) 226%, Lightfoot, PA/2Apians, 283-287, and AC161-62214f

7 On 522, Field's Otiunz Norvic. (pars tertia, 1899), 3-5; and
for Lk. 635, i2i4., 59. The opprobrious terms of Mil may
have been actually thrown at Jesus by the Pharisees and their
followers in the heat of controversy,

3 When these are treated separately, the antitheses against
the Scribes fall into two sets οἱ inte (GarZazfi3r fi; 33/ 38£
43,5), followed by three anti-Pharisaic in 61/57 167, followed
by three othersin ὕτ 47 τῷ. It is doubtfui whether this trim
scheme was present to the mind of the editor of Mt. ; but even if
it was, the arrangement seemsartificial rather than spontaneously
natural, and forms one reason for doubting whether the con-
nection of 61-18 with what precedes is anything more than
literary. The last-named passage is certainty less spontaneous
than, e.g., Mk. 1124 / 21822. But the methods of Christ's
teaching were versatile, and whilst the passage is misplaced and
possibly edited, it seems hardly safe to argue back to ‘ecclesi-
astical piety' as its basis (Carpenter, First Three Gospels0ì,
1800, p. 356).

Another genuine reflection of this evangelie tradition occurs
in the nwo logia (preserved by Jerome) οἱ the ‘Gospel to the
Hebrews': (a) et nunquam lati sitis, nisi cum fratrem vestram
videritis in caritate, (δ) inter maxima ponitur crimina, qui fratris
sui spiritum contristaverit. Jesus left it to common sense to
apply the logion on indiscriminate charity ; the necessary quali.
fication is explicitly appended în /Did.16.

δ᾽ Resch suggests for 840 a place in the address at the Last
Supper (after Mt, 2028 Mk. 1045). At any rate 639 is irrele»

4386

SERMON ON THE MOUNT

and less definite in content (cp, e.g., sinmers for pagans
and zax-gatherers, χρηστός [635] for Mt. 545, sons of
most High! for Mt. 5 48, the omission of 5.38 ἡ 4:43). He
has taken Mt.544a (in its logia form), expanded it
(627-282), and reproduced Mt. 5448-47 in his own style,
substituting for 45 logia (6297) roughiy answering to
Mt. 5394-40 42. Starting afresh from 5442 he expands
it independently, though Mt.'s climax? (348) becomes
with him a transition to what follows (636/), and love
is not thrown into relief against the background of
formalism. The variations in expression are seldom
significant; the main alteration of colour is robbery
(Lk. 629) for legal proceedings {Mt. 5.40} as an oppor-
tunity for displaying the habitual mood of disinterested
Jove.®
The law of unflinching love carries with it, as a
corollary, abstinence from censoriousness {Mt.7x-5
Lk. 6377 μα} Mt, however, has in-
15, Mt. 61-18 terpolated two long sections at this poin!
1934 (i) an exposure of the Pharisaic praxis
(61-18, incorporating unchronologically the Lord's
Prayer; see Lorp's PRAYER and Cary, 174-120),
which is undoubtedly genuine but misplaced, and (ii.)
an appeal against worldly anxiety (6 25-34), which Lk.
{indifferent to the former) has preserved elsewhere in a
superior context (1222-31 /), where it is followed by the
more positive logion on heavenly treasures (1233£ =
Mt. 619-21) used by Mt.* rather aptly to connect 618
and 625.5 The catechism (i.) upon a Christian’s duty
to his neighbour, his God, and himself {expressed în
rbythmic form, 62-45 16-18), which has a title,® 61,
and a logion, 67-94, introductory to the specimen
prayer, 6g8-13 (14), describes the trinity of normal
religious practices for an early Christian, —alms (ALMS,
$ 4; COMMUNITY ΟΕ Goobs, $ 5; cp GASm. HG 634},
prayer? (see PRAYER, $$ 6-7), and fasting (FASTING,
$ 4)—the two latter combined in Did. 8 and Test. /os.
3, etc. (ii.) The following counsel* of idealism formed
ἃ unity in Q (Lk. 1222-34= Mt. 619-34). The significant
element in the material peculiar to Lk. is μὴ uerewpl-
ἔσθε (EV. ' Be not of doubtful mind': 1229), the more

vantly introduced ; its logia are correctly placed by Mt. (1514=
Lk. 6.39, 10247 =1k,6 τῶν Iris difficali ὦ discover (with Hal)
seven commaridments in 627-38, or four parables în 6 39-49.

I On this term see Che. Οἷς. 837, Dalman, 162.5; H/C1 342.

2 The supposed originals pby or =vph, of which τέλειος and
οἰκτίρμων are held to be variant translations, do not seem con-
vincing. On Lk.'s superior connection in 636 37 see Bonsset 827

3 The original form of the beatitudes, the presence of traits
denoting social oppression and an atmosphere of strain, even of
worldly perplexity, together with the absence of Mt. 6 25-34 from
the Sermon, render it impossible to regard it as the echo of a
Galilzean idyll with pastoral charm, although Mt. lends itself to
this impression of summer teaching among the hills. On the
real state of Galilee and its population, see GALILEE, ἢ 6, Schîir.
Hist.ii.13-5. It is remarkable that the polemic of the Sermon
omits any reference to the Sabbath question, upon which the
bitter enmity of the Pharisees had already come to a head against
Jesus (Mk.36 Lk. 611), Mt. prefers to postpone the Sabbath
disputes unhistorically (12 1-8 9-14).

4 The real treasure(8 4 6 18) is secured, not by ostentation, but
by inwardness and single-minded devotion to God. Unfeigned
and undivided desire for heavenly wealih (619-24) is sure of
satisfaction (cp Ja. 1 5-8), whatever else fails.

δ᾽ The gap is further filled up by means of logia (622-24)
which_to judge from their erratic and less happy situation

11 34-36 16-13) In Lie, =scem to have had no historical setting in

. See Ev (col. 1453), also Wernle, Sywogrische Frage (1899),
74, and O, Holtzmann's Leben: Jest (280.2), Mt.624 fs echoed
in'1 Cor, 1020 /,, and cited in 2 Clem. 61, Orig. c. Ces. 815.

6 The possible interpretation of ‘righteousness’ (δικατοστήνη}
as ‘alms’ (ἐλεημοσύνη : 2 Cor.997= Ps. 1129) would make 61
specifically part of 62-4.

7 “The house of God abhors much speaking. Pray thou
with a loving heart; the petitions of all are in secret. He will
do thy business, He will hear that which thou sayest, and accept
thine offerings (from the Ani papyrus, £x#.7 6 537). Prayer,
fasting, and alms in Tobir128.

8 Epictetus, in urging the same trust în providence, adduces
the odd considerazion rhat runaway slaves (not birds or flowers)
get a livelibood somehow (/.ss. 19325). It is one trace of a
certain historic fitness în the evangelic sources or their editors,
that figures drawn from the vine (Judaa's characteristic plant)
are confined to the Judzean ministry, whilst the corn fiourishes
naturally enough in the Galilecan tradition, See Bousset 44.

4387

SERMON ON THE MOUNT

accurate because simpler form of 31 (= Mt. 633), and 32
(originally between Mt. 633 and 34). Upon the other
hand, 1233 is Lucan, generalised in order to introduce
what follows ; 26 is possibly editorial (om. D); while
Mt, has preserved 634 and the truer Zia/4er in 626.

ΟΣ these two pieces (i.) is less certainly than (ii.) foreign to
the original Sermon; 61:6 16-18 might 16 conceivabty between
the anti-Pharisaic 5 21-48 and 71.5 (so, e.g., Neander, Keim,
Weiss, Feine, Bruce), but it has all the appearance of an inde»

endent piece. And 7 1-5 flows readily out of 5 43:48- 50, ἔχιν

esch after Keim, who regards 6 19-34 as the nucleus of the
inaugural popular Sermon (also 7 24-27) which he strangely sees
combined with a fater sermon to disciples on the Law.

In 637-42 Lk.'s expansion of Mt. 722 is secondary
and his insertion of 639/11 (between 38c= Mt. 724 and
41= Mt. 7 3) only confuses the original context. Other-
wise this injunction to pursue a quiet, inoffensive life (cp
Test. Issack. 3)? lies visibly enough behind the sub-
ordinate linguistic variations of the two reports, and in
Mt. closer to the original. Jesus speaks in the figura-
tive and proverbial language of popular wit against the
vice of censoriousness, suggested by the Pharisaic type
of character. Lk. thinks rather of the inner life of the
churches, and applies the warning specially to niggardli.
ness or lack of ‘charity’ in the narrower sense of the
word (Ecclus. 2910 f. ete.).

The loose series of sententious aphorisms in Mt.
171-143 has no connection with the Sermon; 76 is
evidently an erratic boulder (possibly apostolic), 77-11
should follow 69/7 {as Lk.119£) or 6337, and 712
connects with 54: {as Lk 631: Holtzmann, Wendt})
better than with 71-5 (Weiss), although as it lies it is
meant to round off 517. Similarly 713 belongs to a
later context (Lk. 1323 Α); Mt. has inserted it here for
dramatic reasons as a logion4 suitable for an opening
address, adding some expansions (ἢ ἀπάγ. εἰς τὴν
ἀπώλειαν, ἡ ἀπάγ. εἰς τ. ζωήν) to bring out his customary
eschatological interest (cp Dalman, 130 1}.

(Δ) The finale of the Sermon, a warning against
spurious forms of discipleship (Mt. 7 168-27= Lk. 643-49),

16. The 25 been expanded by Mt's insertion of

. Puo i i inst false prophets®

finale, © apostolie logion against false propl

(715, which 164 connects with what follows)

and another logion (7 21-23) presented by Lk. in its true
setting (13267). The later, which represents Jesus as
Messianic arbiter of human lives, is plainly proleptic
and cannot have been uttered before 1616}; like
several other passages of the kind, if not apostolic (cp.
2 Ti. 219, εἰς.) it is an unhistorical anticipation (at
least in its present form, for ‘lord’ [xdpee] etc. in Lk. 646
may represent some Aramaic or Hebrew term for
‘master '), Cp GospELs, 8 20 (iv.). On the other hand,
Lk. 845 is not specially homogeneous with its context
(cp Mt. 1235}, and Mt.'s opening (7164-18) is superior.
‘The identity and outline of the closing parable 5 are quite

1 Neubauer quotes a Galilazan proverb similar to 6.39 (Studia
Biblica, 152, n. 3). 642 corresponds to Oxyrh. Logia τ, and
637 echoes a saying of Hillel. No doubt many of these say-
ings were suggested to Jesus by what he had heard on the lips
of Galilasan neighbours and during his recent tour throughout
the synagogues.

2 LA Jas. 4117 On Lk.641 Cheyne quotes from a satirical

πὶ în the Arabian Hamdisa 5 37: “I indeed see in thine eyea

eam set across, and thou marvellest if thou beholdest in mine
eye a mote’ (£2.7 4402)

3 Resch groups 76 with a later set of logia on the service ‘of
the kingdom, following the agraphon ‘be ye wise bankers'
(γίνεσθε δόκιμοι τραπεξῖται : cp 1 Thess. 5210) and 1 Thess.
5214-22. The lapidary style of Mt.7 r-14 represents one char-
acteristic method of Jesus as a teacher, derived from the gnomic
literature of Judaism and practised by most rabbis of his day.
The other method, resembling that of the prophets, was a longer
impassioned harangue, with sustained appeal and thrust, These,
with the dialogue method, represent the characteristic styles
adopted by Jesus, the Sermon being a combination of the first
two.

4 For instances of this famous figure în the first century, cp
Test. Asher 1, Test. Abrah. 11, and Epict. Diss. 211 8225
for the roads of Galilee, GASm, H/G 4257

5 Lk-'s sole mention of ‘false prophets’ (ψευδοπροφῆται : 6-26)
tefers to the past; in keeping with the ‘ political’ or social ten-
dency of his eschatology, he omits this trait in describing the
apocalypse of Jesus (Mt. 2424 Mk. 18 22).

8 According to the Talmud (Neub. Géog. du Talm. 185,

4388

SERMON ON THE MOUNT

recognisable under the characteristic style of each editor,
Mt.'s version being superior in accuracy, ‘The im-
pression of originality and authority produced by the
Sermon (Mt. 7 28 £ ) naturally corresponds to the weight
and length of it in Mt., who has transferred to this
piace what Mk. {122} and ΤᾺ. (432) narrate as the
result of Jesus' earlier teaching in the synagogue.
Much of the discussion upon the audience of the
Sermon is misplaced, The dual nature of its contents
- —now touching disciples specifically,
17. Audience. row broadening ont to the public—-
together with the deliberately dual description of its
hearers (which is not the result of composite tradition),
may serve to indicate that too rigid a distinction is
usually drawn between teaching (διδαχή) and preaching
(κήρυγμα) at this early period of Jesus' ministry. ‘The
alternative ‘disciples or crowd' is as imaginary as the
harmonising expedients are unsatisfactory. A solution of
the problem is visible when the collocation of crowds
(ὄχλοι, ὄχλος) and ‘disciples’ (μαθηταί) in the description
of the audience (Mt, 51 fi 728f Lk. 619f 71) is held to
imply that in Q the ‘disciples’ were not the restricted
inner circle of the twelve, whose election preceded the
Sermon, but a wider circle of adherents more or less
devoted to the new prophet. His instructions they
followed, and to his teaching they professed attention
and obedience. This ordinary sense of ‘disciples’
(pa@nris; cp Mt. 1024 Acts 62 etc.), as employed
if not retained by Mt! and Lk., would cover people of
varied enthusiasm and position (cp Μί. 1042 Jn.666),
and even men with extremely imperfect ideas οἵ what
their new faith involved (Acts 19 1-3). The characteristic
which distinguished them in general from the ordinary
multitude was sympathy with the propaganda of Jesus
—due in many cases to gratitude for the healing re-
ceived from him—as well as a disposition to favour the
new religious leader, —Naturally the line between
*disciples' and ‘crowd' would not be rigid; although
there had been a certain sifting which helped to define
the groups more clearly, they did not always lie notice-
ably apart as yet, like oil and water. Among the
crowd there were usually some who were attracted by
‘other motives than mere curiosity or the desire to range
themselves behind a fresh and promising and popular
guide ; these Jesus in the Sermon and elsewhere?
designed to reach and win.® Particularly among the
*quiet in the land,' susceptible and devout souls un-
spoiled by the hot fanaticism of Galilee with its semi-
political zeal for God, or by the chilling formalities of

Stud, Bibl, 1 52), Galilazans were noted as wandering preachers
who excelled in expositions of the biblical text, couched in
parabolic form. Soho Lk."s access to a Jerusalem-cycle of
traditions or even sources enables him to give Jerusalem a con-
siderable ròle in the account of Jesus” early days, as indeed
suited bis literary predilections, Με, singularly ignores the
capital. So far as Mt. is concerned, Jesus had never been
there when he delivered the Sermon; bis ministry had been
purely Galilzan. Jerusalem in Mt.1-4(cp 45) is merely in
different if not antipathetic to Jesus (2 3), though susceptibie to
John (8 5, from Mk. 15).

1 Mt.'s characteristic ‘to disciple' (μαθητεύειν τ elsewhere in
NT only in Acts 14 21) includes (28 16-20) Instruction in the words
of Jesus (e.g., 5 21/5) as the norm of life (cp 62x-24); in 2757
the word is substituted for ‘awaiting the reign of God,’ in the
description of Joseph of Arimatheca, and the important logion
of Mt. 18.52 indicates the continuity and advance of Jesus'
teaching (Dalman, 57). Thus the conception of discipleship,
especially in Mt., corresponds to the aim of the Sermon (as in
Mt. 5-7); it means adherence to the teaching of Jesus as the
consummation of Judaism and the independent rule of a new
faith. See further 1. Weiss, Nack/0/ge Christi (1805) 2-13.

2 Cp Mt. 231 and Mk.8 34 (Lk. 923, yet Mt. 16 τ, although
theatter allusion to the crowd has its own difficulties (Carpenter,
227, Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnisin den Evangelier, 1901, ppi
1387). The less determinate conditions of Jesus' actual
ministry may, of course, have been somewhat sharpened în the
process of tradition.

3 Even although Jesus is proleptically represented in the
Sermon as Messianic judge, the fidelity of the evangelic sources
appears in the fact that as yet the adherents or disciples are
pointed not to himself but to God as the supreme object of
imitation (cp Xen. Mem.i. 63, ὥφπερ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἔργων οἱ
διδάσκαλοι τοὺς μαθητὰς μιμητὰς ἑαυτῶν ἀποδεικνύουσιν).

4389

SERMON ON THE MOUNT

the Pharisaic legalism, Jesus seems to have found
congenial spirits.

This unobtrusive piety of the ‘meek' (0%y, or Dip) is
sketched în Enoch 108 7-10, and its resigned semi-ascetic temper
breathed through circles of pre-Christian Judaism outside Es-
senism ; see Ps. Sol, ὅ 13 £, the τοινοηϑέϊο, Mosîs, the character
of Simeon and Anna in Lk.2 and of Nathanael in Jn. 145-49
(Rhees, /22, 1898, pp. 21-30), and the later sransweti et guies-
centes of 4 Esd, (11 42), with the suffering lower classes of James
( 927, εἰς, ; Spitta on Ja.2 5). The picture of poor and needy
ones sketched in the earlier wisdom-literature and apocalypses
of Judaism reveals a disposition which had certain affinities with
that of Jesus and yet was capable of development under his
hands. His patient endurance, as taught to these people in
the Sermon, was equally devout, but more cheerful ; alert rather
than resigned. With the quietists, as with the Essenes, Jesus
stood in evident if partial sympathy; they were the Goffes-
reunde of the age. ‘Affinities, however, do not imply alliance or
dependence, and the data of the gospels referring to the Gali-
laean period show that Jesus ἄγεν adherents from all classes,
particularly from the poor, but not to the exclusion of that
middle class which, as, Graetz argues (Mistory of Jews, ET
21517), was not conspicuously lacking in piety or morals and
might have echoed honestly the young ruler’s apologia (cp also
Mk. 1232-34). See NAZARETH, $ 2, Poor, $ 2.

At any rate, the Sermon assumes most of the funda-
mental principles of the religious consciousness ; it was
not addressed to a people ‘sitting in darkness," much
less to the twelve. Neither esoteric, nor official, ner a
call to repentance, it may be presumed to have reached
an audience of people morally disposed (owing partly to
temperament and circumstances, partly to his preaching)
to start on the new road, if they had not already started,
people whose cardinal need was encouragement and
instruction upon the differenzia of their new course.
That Jesus taught the contents of the sermon during the
course of several days (JESUS, $ 12), is not impossible.
The real Sermon, however, is short enough to have been
delivered upon one occasion, and the gospels plainly
intend to convey this impression of a single address,
although the indefiniteness of Q and the evident absence
of supplementary oral tradition did not permit them to
sketch any concrete situation for it in time or place.

Perhaps the outstanding features of the address, from
the point of view of historical and ethical progress în

sstevioni Judaism and primitive Christianity

μ᾿ Historical (ISRAEL, $ 93), are {2} the close union
gni “ between the mutual love of man and
man, and the devout aspiration of the soul towards
God ; (3) the genial tenderness with which the con-
ception of God is developed, free from rabbinic
intellectualism or mere nationalism; and (c) ‘the
spiritual nomism' (Toy), which conserves the moral
essence of the Law and at the same time frees it from
legal dryness (Jesus, $$ 11-13, 177). The last-named
point is of cardinal importance to the historian, as the
pivot upon which the relation of Jesus to Judaism finally
turned. ‘The expansion of the law quantitatively
amounts,' as Baur remarked, ‘to a qualitative differ-
ence.' There is no reason to doubt that even during
the Galilcan period Jesus was conscious of issues in
his message which transcended the current and tra-
ditional environment of religion among the Jews. But
revelation, like nature, is never brusque. As yet the
transition had not become so acute as it did at a later
stage, and one main concern of Jesus in the Sermon,
while defining and urging the new revelation with
perfect decisiveness (Brandt, Die Evangelische Geschichte
u. der Ursprung des Christenthums, 1893, Pp. 449-
455), is to avoid needless misunderstanding and prevent
his freer views from being abused to the detriment of
morality.! Both in the apocalyptic and in the nomistic

1 Cp L. Jacob, Jesw Stellung aum mosaischen Gesetz (1893).
The sensitiveness of Jesus upon this point has been already
noticed (see above, $ 13). Max Nordau quotes Mt. 5 17 asthe last
word în his exposure of modern Degezeration (ET 1898, p. 500);
it is to him a profoundly penetrating maxim upon the truth that
‘ whoever preaches absence of discipline is an enemy of progress.”

e preservation of such logia în Me and Lk, was necessary in
view of their audiences in the Diaspora and the outside empire,
to whom the Law was an ethical ancient code. Now that the
Pauline strife had pussed, the later generation (cp 1 Tim.18./)

4390

SBRON

tendencies of the age he found support.! Neither of
these wholly anticipated his genius, and to neither did
he yield himself; yet in each material lay ready for the
new reconstruction of religion to which, in ‘the Sermon
on the Mount, Jesus is represented as having for the
first time seriously addressed himself,
In addition to the essays and monographs already cited, con.
sult the critical editors on Με, (especially Weiss, Das MaztAdus.
. evang. u. seine Lukasparallelen, 1876, pp.
19. Literature. 130. Vi 202,55, also in Meyer's comm, (9) 1898;
and Die vier Evangelien im berichtigien
Text, 1900; Schanz, Komm. ber des Ev. des heitig. Mt., 1879,
pp. 156-246: Balion, Cone. 06 het Ev. van Mt, 1900), or Lk
(Schanz, Aonim. aber das Evg. des heilig, Lucas, 1883; Godet,
Comm. sur Iévangile de δ. Luc,8) 1888; Colin E mpbell
Crit. Studies in St. Luke's Gospel, 1890, pp. τοῦ ΚΑ; Hahn,
Das Eug. des Lukas, 1[1892} 414; 1. Weiss în Meyer's
Comm.,i8) 1892; A. Wright, St Lukes Gospel [1900]), or both
(de Wette, £reg. Handbuch zum NT 166-113 2 53:58; Holtz-
mann, #C vol. 1.8) 1gor; Bruce, Ex/es. Οἱ. Test, vol. i.; G.
L. Cary, /aternat. Hibks. to NT [1900], 195-138), besides the
patristic annotators of whom Augustine (de serzzone Domini în
monte ? Bened. ed, tom. ii.) and Euthymius Zigabenys are the
most penetrating. The subject is handled by most writers
tipon ihe biography of Jesus_eg., Reim, Jesu von Nasara
(ET) 8 12-39 281-335; Neander, Life e/ Christ, 1837 (ET), pp.
240-256; Didon, /#sus C4rist, 1. 316-330; Renan, Vie de Jesus,
ch, 10; A. Reville, J6sus de Nazareth (1897), 229-603 Weiss,
Leben Jesu (ET 3 130-162); and O. Holtzmann, Leben Jesu
{t907), 185-193. On the religion and ethics of the Sermon, see
Baur's Das Christenthum τες die Christliche Kirche der drei
ersten Jahrhunderte (1853), ET la7-36; Harnack, Dogmen-
geschichte (ET 1154/); Weizsickers Das apost. Zeitaltert

(ET), 1354 3.467, 55/; Ritschl, Die a/thatholische Kirche |

(1957), 57/7; R. Mackintosh, Christ and the Jewish Law
(1886), 84108; Wellh. Skescd af Zist. of Israel (8, 1891),
20753 Ὁ. H. Toy, Judaism and Christianity (1890), 415/.}
Denney on ‘Law in NT' (Hastings Ὁ 8 8 75.83}} besides Écce
Homo, chs.10-13; Edersheim's Le and Times of Jesus the
Messiah, 1, ch. 183 Plleiderer, Das Urchristenthuv (1887),

489-501, cp 432-435} Tolstol's famous 47y Redigion, chs. 1-8
(1884), and Havet, Le Christianisme et ses origines (3884),
442.0. On the critical question add especially Holtzmann,

Die Synopt. Evang, (1863), 174-178, and Neulestamentliche
Theologîe (1897), 1 150-160; Bovon, Neutest. Thdologie (1893),
2377; Briggs, Messiah of Gospels (1894), 171f.; Bruce, 7%e
Kingdom of God((), 1893), 1-12 ef passio Bartlet on Matthew"s
gospel, Hastings® 283296-305} Robinson, Sevisur in Newer
Light/®) 1898, 92% 146/; Wernle, Die Anfinge unserer
Religion (1901), 23-69 et ῥατεῖπε; Wendt, Die Lehve Jesu
(ὦν, 1901; and generaliy the essays by Schirer (Die Prediet
Jesu in ihrem Verhaitniss sum AT, 1882), Bousset (/esu
Predigt in ihrem Gegensata cum Judenthun, 1892), Balden-
sperger (Das Selbstbowusstsein Jess), 1892, pp. 128), Burton
CEckical Texching of Jesus in relation to Ethics of Pharisees
and OT,’ διδί, World; 1897, pp. 198-208), and J. Weiss (Die
Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes,(2) 1900). Special monographs
by Jebnichen (1786), Pott (1789), Tholuck (0), 1872), Achells
1875), Steinmeyer (1885), Ibleken ((, 1890), H. Weiss (1893),
Gore (1897), Heinrici (Beitrdge zur Gesch. τ. Erklarung des
NT: È, dis Bergpredigi, 1890); and F. Grawert (Die Bergpredi
nach Matthius aufihre dussere u. innere Einheît, etc., 1900).
On the Sermon in the later literature of the age see GOSPELS,
88 83-107, JamES (EeistLE), $ 34, and the patristic citations
collected by Resch in his ParzZle/- Texte. Prof. B. W. Bacon's
thorough monograph, 7%e Sermeox ox the Mount: its didactie
purpose and literary structure (1902), and A. Wabmitz's essay
on the Mount of the Sermon, Revwe de 7'heol. et quest. vel,
1902, p. 285 were published since this article was written.
1. Mo.

SERON, the commander of the Syrian army belonging
to Antiochus Epiphanes, who was defeated by Judas the
Maccabee at Beth-horon 166 B.C. (τ Macc. 3 13-24,
cHpwn [ANV], cp Jos. Ar xii. 73, So [Pesh.],
seron [V8g.]).

SERPENT. Serpents abound in Palestine, as well
as în Egypt, in the Sinaitic peninsula, and in the Arabian
1, Names, desert (Doughty, Ar. Des. 1328). The OT

. "writers use eleven different words for serpents
of one kind or another. It is often difficult to determine
which species of the order Ophidia is meant, and yet

could regard the Law with equanimity, and, indeed, ît was
advisable to emphasise Jesus’ positive approval of it to avoid
misconceptions,

l The apocalyptic was not_wholly destitute of a legal basis,
for a right to the, Messianic bliss frequently was traced back to
loyalty to the Law. Nor, on the other hand, did the Law
entirely reject a Messianic outlook. 50 Ehrhardt (377) τί μεν,
as against Baldensperger's thesis. See further W. Mackintosh,
The Natural History of the Christian Religion (2894), 133°
205, and Caird's Evolution of Religion, 288/137 £

4391

SERPENT

clearness requires that we should vary our renderings,
and not translate all these eleven words ‘ serpents.'

1. nyDit, ‘2044 (ὄφις Job 2016; ἀσπίδες, Is. 306;
βασιλίσκος [Aq. ἔχιδνα, Sym. Th. ἀσπίς], Is. 595 +), EV
VIPER, which is also the rendering of ἔχιδνα in NT.
The root of the Hebrew word (and [15 cognate in Arabic)
means to utter a groaning or hissing sound: the verb
nys occurs once in OT (Is. 4214) in reference to the

groaning of one in pain! That 'ep#ek as well as Ar.
afa means the ‘ viper,’ was shown long ago by Bochart
(Hieroz., Bk. ἢν, chap. 2); the deadiy nature of the
viper's poison well suits the allusion in Job 2016.
Objection has been taken to the mention of a viper
issuing from an egg (Is. 595%): but it is to be re-
membered (τὴ that vipers are in a sense oviparous, the
young being hatched at the moment of birth, and (2)
that such Hebrew words as ‘04 eà are not like scientific
terms for genera and species, and may easily be extended
from the animals they properly denote to others which
externally resemble them.

4. Zohale 'ἀρλᾶν, “my ‘oni (Dt. 8224t), and e. ’#es,
pur νηὶ (Mi. 7174), ‘they that glide on, or into, the
earth '-—a phrase which needs no comment. ΟΡ
ZOHELETEH.

3. nahas, dn (many times: & everywhere ὄφις,
except Job 2613 Amos 93, where δράκων), EV * serpent'
— the most general word (probably used also in Ecclus.
25 :s, where the Greek translator has so strangely taken
the wrong meaning of γὔβ---' head' should be ' venom'
[see GALL])

Its connection with the verb vm (Gen. 80.27 445 r5 Lev. 1926
1K. 20 33 etc.), which means ‘to divine by omens;' is obscure :2
a plausible theory is that of Boch. (/ie02, 1 3), that the verb has
obtained this meaning because of the belief, widespread în
antiquity, that the serpent possessed the power of such divination,
‘and that chis power could be gained through contact with serpents
{as in the case of Helenus and Cassandra) or by partaking of
their flesh, Against this it is urged by Robertson ἐπὶ (Journ.
Phil. 14 115) that the noun #444f is confined to Heb., whilst the
verb is common to all the Semitic dialects (cp Barth, £S, 48).
In any case, considering the common use of the root in Arabic
and Syriuc (45. 113 £.), we cannot suppose, as has been held (eg.
by Lag. Uzbers. 188), that the verb isa denominative from μά ἢ
and so referred primarily to whispered incantation, connected
with the idea of the serpent's 4its.3 See DIVINATION, 8 3 [3].

We find ndbaf combined with other terms in the
phrases (a) πᾷξαν sardph, now πᾳ (ὄφις θανατῶν, Nu.
216; ὄφις δάκνων, Dt. 815), ‘fiery serpent*; see below,
9; (δ) τ. ddridh, nia ny (Job 2613 δράκων ἀποστάτης
15. 271 ὄφις φεύγων), AV | piercing serpent,' RV ‘swift
serpent’; and (c) π. ᾿ἄξαλαέλδα, finbpy vini (15. 27 τ, ὄφις
σκολιδε), ‘crooked (RV®8 ‘winding') serpent.' Both
epithets are applied to the mythical Leviathan in Is. 271;4
the reference in Job is similar. See LEVIATHAN,

4. 3ussy, ‘4425 (Ps. 1403[4],t ἀσπίδες, cp Rom. 813
[Aq. probably βασιλίσκος]), ‘adders.' This word, which
in form resembles the word w»35p, ‘spider, seems in
the Mishna to denote a kind of spider, perhaps the
tarantula (Lewysohn, Zool des Ta/muds, 309; Levy,
NH WB, s.v.), and was so understood by Rashi in the
single instance where it oceurs in the OT. But the
authority of nearly all ancient versions {the Arabic
renders ‘vipers') and of the NT citation (Rom. 313)
is in favour of the rendering *adders’; and, as Bochart
has shown (ero. 35), this rendering harmonises with
its probable derivation from the root represented by Ar.

1 In Syr. the verb is used for the bleating of sheep. Na

2 nahs is the Ar. term for snfusstus; but whether it is
legitimate to connect this with wi is doubtful. See We.
Heid.(1) 247, n. 1.

S Lag. (41414. 12305 cp Barth, 25 48) identifies ΤΠ with Ar.
hana$. This seems very plausible, though 4anaf is used for
flies and worms as well as serpents (cp We. Heid.t8) 152). A
shiny black serpent (Zamenis carbonaria) of Palestine, often
carried about in bags by dervish serpent-charmers, is called
4and5(PEFO, Jan. 1894, p. 29/7).

4 Smend (447774253) thinks that two different creatures
(δράκων and ὄφις) are meant, This seems unlikely.

4392

SERPENT

“akasa, to ‘invert’ or ‘turn round,’ as describing the
motion of a serpent.!

5. np, peffen (doris, Di. 8233 [Aq. βασιλίσκοε], Job
2014 Ps. 684[5] Is. 118; δράκων [Aq., Sym., Th. ἀσπίς]
Job2016; βασιλίσκος [Sym. probably ἀσπίς], Ps.9113t?),
EV ‘asp'or ‘adder.' The word evidently denotes ἃ
highly poisonous snake, perhaps of the cobra kind (cp
Arab. dathan ; ForskÈl, Descriftiones Animalium, 15).

The particular sort intended cannot be determined. There is
no ground for connécting the name (Boch. 8 5) with Greck πύθων.

6. yns, sépha' (15. 1429,t ἔκγονα ἀσπίδων) AV
‘cockatrice,’ RV ‘basilisk,' EV®& ‘adder.' From Is.
1429 it appears that εόῤῥαὶ denotes a more deadly
‘animal than 24445 though itself less formidabile than
Saraph (see Dillm. ad doc.), The Vg. renders regulus,
‘and it is possible that the fabled ‘ basilisk' is intended ;
but the ‘asps’ brood' of the LXX seems equally likely.

7. "ups, siph'oni (ἔκγονα ἀσπίδων, Is. 118; ἀσπίδες,
Is. 595; κεράστης, EV ‘adder,’ RV®8 *basilisk,' Pr.
2332; ‘4 οὔ), ὄφεις [cp no. 3] θανατοῦντες [EV], Jer.
81734), AV ‘cockatrice;’ ΕΝ ‘basilisk,' EVS ‘or
adder’ except in Pr. 2332 where ‘adder’ is in the text.
Perhaps, as Tristram (42 275) and Cheyne suggest, a
large viper like Daboia xanthina (EFP 147) is intended
by both sip#'oz7and the kindred s6940°. CpCocKATRICE.

The eggs mentioned in Is. 595 are an objection to this
identification. Hence the cat-snake (A#lurofhis viver, now
called 7'ardophis fallax) bas been suggested by Furrer (771782)
14232); and this, it is true, may formerly have extended
5. ofN. Syria’ The eggs of the monitor lizard Vararnzs
riloticus (still eaten) would produce creatures fairly like vipers.

8. risp, ξέῤῥοε, (ἐχῖνος, Is. 3415), AV ‘great owl.’
Ar. Zafaza means ‘to spring," and Ar. #a/fis (=n5p}
and its fem. Zafiza are both quoted (P. Smith, 7es.
Syr. 1375, Lag. Uebers., 89) as meaning a kind of
serpent. The etymology would suggest some rapidly
springing snake, such ‘as £ryx Juculus (FFP 146);
though the 45945 cannot be either this or (ΕΝ Bochatt,
Ges., etc.) the ‘arrowsnake’ (ἀκοντίας : cp Lucan, 6675
*Arabum volucer serpens’ and 9822 ‘jucu/um vocat
Africa’), since only pythons “hatch” (Is. Z.c.).

The context of Is. S4r5 would be appropriate to any ovi-
parous species; but there are no pythons now in Palestine or
Babylon, nor are they known to have lived in Persia or Meso-
potamia in historical times, being confined, with one exception,
to the Paleeotropic and Australian regions (cp Houghton).

& and most ancient interpreters confused £54902 with £15/54 ;
but etymology and context show them to be distinct. -AV'S
“great owl'js not supported by etymology or ancient tradition
{see Boch, ii. 311); but there is force in the contention that a
bird îs suggested by the description (Houghton, Acad., 1886,
1292/.; Post, Hastings' 198 8 637).

9. γνῷ, Sardph (Nu. 218), nie vm (Nu. 216 Dt. 815),
and θῖν mé (Is. 1429 306). The rendering ‘ fiery
serpent' of EV is due to the derivation from mp, ‘to
burn” which still remains the most probable explanation
of the name.

The name thus refers either to the fiery appearance of the
serpent and especially of its eyes4 or to the inflammation
caused by its venom. On the relation of the saràphs to the
seraphim of Is. 626, see below, $ 3 (e).

10, Wiphiphon (ἐγκαθήμενος, Gen, 49 17 1), EV
renders ‘adder,' AVms. <arrowsnake,” Ε τις. «homed
snake,’ the Cerastes {see 8 2 [3]), cp Ar. sit:

11. pon, fezzin (Ex. 79 10 12), RV®8 ‘Any large
reptile'; Ps. 9113 RV, AV ‘dragon’; Deut. 3233 (EV
‘dragon’; Dr. ‘reptiles’); cp DRAGON.

As we have seen, snakes are no rarity in Palestine, a

1 For final ἢ cp Ar. #a'/a8= "ya, 'fox*; see Suaatanpna.

2 [In Ps.9113 we may doubt the combination ‘lion’ (nd)
and ‘adder,' ‘young lion ‘(©°29) and ‘dragon. (θ΄ ἐπ’ ἀσπίδα
presupposes 5ni (cp 2 above), and in Job410 ®'s δρακόντων (for
ΠΡ ἘΞ) presupposes ΙΒ, an otherwise unknown word for ‘asp
(Syr. brofa) tx. c.]

3 Here Aq. seems to render p‘)ypy in one edition by βασιλέσ-
xoys, and in another by grorevavras; Sym. by πονηρούς.

4 An Arabian poet (Tarafa, Mu'al?. 83) speaks of the ‘fiery
head of the serpent'[G. Jacob, A/teras. Paralelen, 10); cp also
Verg. Aen. 2210, Ardertisque oculos suffecti sanguine et igni.

4393

SERPENT

| country which, by climate, soil, and geographical position,

iswelladapted tosustaina large ophidian fauna, Tristram
5 enumerates thirty-three species, of which
2. Species. the most venomous are:—(2) The Naja
kaje, or Egyptian Cobra, found in Southern Palestine
and common in Egypt. [15 habit of swelling and
fiattening its neck when irritated, and gliding along with
its posterior two-thirds on the ground, its head and
neck being erect, are well known, It usually forms
part of the stock in trade of snake charmers, and it is
said that the cobra is readily thrown into a rigid or
mesmeric condition, which G. St. Hilaire says is induced
by pressure applied to the neck. The remaining
venomous snakes all belong to the family Viperidze.
They are (6) Cerastes cornutus (hasselquistit), the horned
viper, which is exceptionally poisonous ; it frequents
the sandy deserts of South Palestine, and hides in the
sand or in the hollow caused by a horse's or camel’s
foot (Gen, 4917), It is an object of great terror to
horses, and is thought by some to be the asp of
Cleopatra. (c) Vipera lebetina, syns. V. euphratica
and Daboia xanthina. (4) V. ammodytes, be long-
nosed or sand-viper, mainly nocturnal and found on
hills. (4) Ec4is carinatus, syns. E. arenicola, found in
the desert near the Dead Sea. It is said to produce a
characteristic hissing or grating sound by rubbing its
serrated scales together. A. E. S. N. M.
{a) ‘The art of serpent-charming, still practised in
Egypt, Palestine, and India, was known to the ancient
Hebrews (see Ps. 5847. Jer. 817 Eccles.

3. Magie,
101: Ecclus. 1213 Ja. 37), who, how-
folk-lore, and i si "
mythology. ever, like the dervish snake-charmers

of to-day, found venomous serpents
deaf to incantations (cp PEZQ Jan. 1894, p. 29 7}.
In Ex. 79-12 (P) we hear of Moses and Aaron turning
their rods (by the divine power) into serpents, and the
Egyptian magicians {did the original story say, ‘the
magicians of Misrim'?—see Moses, $ 6} performing
the same feat. The converse of this (serpents stiffened
into rods) is still common (see above on the cobra) with
Eastern jugglers. Τ however, so far as we know, only
told of Moses turning his rod into a serpent (see Ex. 43);
its supernatural power must surely (in the oldest form
of the tradition) have excluded the competition of the
Egyptian sorcerers, though it is true that in the end,
according to P, ‘Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods.
Cp PLAGUES (TEN), $ 4.

(3) Another element in Hebrew folk-lore was probably
a veneration for the supernatural character of certain
serpents. ΟΥ̓ course we need not credit the Israelites
with the full Arabian superstition respecting serpents.
On the other hand, we can well imagine that much was
popularly believed in Israel which has found no record
in the OT {the names Dragon's Well, Serpent's Pool
[Jos.], and Zoheleth confirm us in this view; see
DRAGON, $ 4). Those who regard the narrative in
Gen. 3 as of native Palestinian or even Jerahmeelite origin
(see $ 4) may therefore be excused if they look for
illustrations of it in Arabian folk -lore. The most
accessible sources of information are Robertson Smith's
Rel. Sem. (see 120, 133, 168 n. 3, 172), and Well
hausen's Reste Arab. Heid.) 152 ff

In the light of these facts it becomes very natura] that the
serpent in Gen. 8 (or rather the δαίμων within it) should know
the qualities of the fruit of the sacred tree, He might indeed
conceivably have been regarded as the spirit of the tree, for such
a spirit would become visible in serpent form. Or until lately we
might plausibly have held that he was originally thought of
as the protective δαίμων of the Havvah-clan (serpent-clan ; on
Wellhausen's theory as to Eve, compare Eve, Hivites, and
PARADISE, $ 12), The present writer now regards this theory
(once so natural) as definitely set aside. Not Jess certainly may
we affirm that the serpent of the Paradise story was neither a
shaitan nor the Satan—s.e., neither one of the pernicious snake-

demons called shaitins nor the Jewish-Christian Satan who is
the shaitàn dar eacellence?

1 According to Sprenger, Goldziber, and van Vloten (in Feest-
bundel aan Prof. de Gorje, x891, p. 38 7) shaitàn is an old
Arabic word. This is extgemely plausibile, but ir is possible
that corrections have been iitroduced into old texts by Mobam-

4394

SERPENT

(6) The belief (implied in Nu. 219) in the power of a
serpent of brass to check the ravages of venomous
serpents can also be illustrated from Arabic sources.
Kazwini (2373) tells of a golden locust which guaranteed
a certain town from a plague of locusts, and of two
brazen oxen which checked a murrain among cattle.!
More remote is the consideration that the serpent was
the symbol of the divine power of healing, and sacred
therefore to Asklepios.

(4) The belief în the special wickedness of a_ person
who has died from a serpent's bite, ascribed to the
‘barbarous’ people of Melita in Acts283-6, is well
illustrated from the experience of Doughty in Arabia
(Ar. Des. 1313 5}.

{e) On the flying saraphs of Is. 1429 306 much need
not be said. We find them again in the dragons of
Arabia mentioned in 4 Esd. 1529, where their wings are
apparently represented figuratively as chariots, and their
hissing (so RV, reading sibi/atus for sic fatus, with
Bensly} is said to be borne over the earth. They are
among those fancy creatures with which folk-lore peoples
desert regions where, as Afur-bani-pal says, ‘the birds
of heaven fly not, and wild asses and gazelles do not
feed' (X82221). To this day the folk-lore of the
fellahîn of Palestine recognises such creatures (PEFO,
1894, p. 30)—as indeed Herodotus (275), giving credence
to travellers’ tales, had long ago recognised them in
Arabia. Delitzsch remarks (Ger. 99) that the ‘flying
seraphs’ have their counterparts in the SERAPHIM,
with which Wellhausen agrees (47. Zeid.) 153).

(7) The serpent (γᾷ) at the bottom of the sea,
mentioned by Amos (93), might also until lately have
been explained from Arabic sources. ‘The legendary
sea-serpent or fizziz (=Heb. tarnzn) of the Arabs is
described in such a way as to show that the waterspout is
the phenomenon referred to? (Mas'idî 12667 ; Kazwini
1:32/; Damiril186/). Recent investigations, how-
ever, leave the present writer no doubt that the ‘ serpent'
of Amos is a pale reflection of Tiamat, the famous mythic
enemy of the Light-god* (see CREATION, DRAGON). It
need only be added here that the Babylonian Tiàmat is
represented in two forms: (1) as a composite monster,
with tail, horns, claws, and wings (‘like the mediaeval
devil,” Sayce),4and (2) as a serpent, and that, according
to Fr. Delitzsch,° the serpent form considerabiy pre-
dominated. As early as 1500 Β.6. we find Tiamat
described in a Babylonian inscription as a ‘raging
serpent' 8—evidently the conception is similar to that of
the serpent-myth which had almost faded away for a
time when Amos wrote, and when unknown narrators
produced the story of the brazen serpent in the wilderness
as an explanation of the so-called NEHUSHTAN (g.v.).

In conclusion we have to speak briefly of certain
other serpent myths, and to return to the subject of
the narrative in Gen. 3. Such myths were specially
abundant in Egypt and Babylonia. Among guardian
serpents in Egypt may be classed the urseus (οὐραῖος,
Egypt. ‘ar’<#; asp or cobra), represented on the crowns
of the gods and of the Pharaohs, which was endowed
with a mysterious vitality, and was supposed to vomit
flames when angry ;7 also those which were kept in
shrines in temples® and were the embodiments of the

rnedan scholars. We. (eid.@ 158) compares che substitution
of ΕἸ and Basheth for Baal—a theory, which, however, seems to
need some qualification.

Ὁ, Jacob, Alfareb, Parallelen sum AT (1897), Ῥ. τα.

2 WRS (RS 176, n. 3) comparing Ps. 148 7, ‘Ve dragons, and
all deeps,’ where “dragons’ is in the Hebrew fansinzon. But
the reference here seems rather to be to a class of animals
(Gen. 121, AV ‘whalesy' RV better ‘sea-monsters’).

3 Observe that j'39, which in Ezek. 293 is fitly rendered
"dragon, is used by P as a synonym for JE's WM1. Cp Fx.
Τὸ 10 12 (δράκων) with 715 43 (ὄφις).

4 Smith.Sayce, C4aldean Genesis, 113.

5 Wellschéffungsepos, 126.

8 AB il. 1145. ᾿

7 See the ode to Thotmes III. (2.9), Brugsch, GA 354;
<p Maspero, Dews g/ Civilisation, 265. °

8 Cp the Hebrew seraphim, Time second of the two hiero.

4395

SERPENT

tutelary deities, and open-air sacred serpents protective
of districts,! besides the fairy-tale serpents which
mariners professed to have seen in the Fortunate Isles,?

Besides these, we hear of the sacred Sata-serpent of the other
world, which describes itself in these terms, “1 am the serpent
of many years; 1 am buried and born (again) continually ; lam
the serpent at the utmost ends of the world ; 1 am buried and
born ; l renew myself, I make myself young continually.'8 Of
the evil serpent Apopi enough has been said elsewhere (sce
Dragon),

In Babylonia it is sufficient to mention the symbolic
serpent of Ea (the god of the deep and the atmosphere),
who was early connected with. Babylon and the
Euphrates—itself called the ‘river of the snake.” This
is an example of the beneficent serpent. But there was
also an ‘evil serpent'—the ‘serpent of darkness ' and ‘of
the sea '—and it would not be unnatural if this serpent
of darkness were often identified with the dragon Tiamat.4

We now return to Gen. 3, 15 it sufficient to explain
the part played by the serpent (x444?) from the war
4. Serpent in with hurtfal creatures naturally peferred

Paradise, ‘0 iN an imaginative picture of man's
* early state? Surely not. In the story
on which Gen. 8 is based (it is no doubt only a very pale
reflection of it whicfi we possess) the serpent must have
been a mythological one. The facts of Arabian folk-
lore (see $ 3 δ) are favourable to this view, and Jensen
(&osmo?. 227) finds a suggestion of it in the Babylonian
Flood-story, which makes Pir-napistim give a fragment
of the sacred plant (called “In old age the man becomes
young’) to GilgameS, from whom it is taken by a
serpent. Here, however, the serpent (representing the
jealous-minded gods) grudges the man the attainment
of immortality ;5 the connection with the serpent of
Gen. 3, suggested by Jensen, is surely as precarious as
the theory of the late George Smith (Cka/dean Genesis,
ed. Sayce, 88), energetically opposed by Oppert, Halévy,
and Tiele, that the temptation was represented on a
certain Babylonian cylinder. Indeed, though the ‘tree
of life in Gen. 2 3 (which must be the original sacred
tree [cp Rev. 222] of the Hebrew legend) is of Baby-
lonian and not Iranian origin,® it by no means follows
that the story of the serpent tempting the woman comes
from Babylonia. We have as yet no evidence that the
Babylonians had a moralised Paradise-story, and it is
conceivable that the writer of Gen. 245-324 (one of the
later Yahwists) may have drawn from different sources.
‘What these sources are, may now, with some confidence,
be conjectured. See PARADISE, $ 6.

The immediate source of the Paradise-story, including the chief
details about the serpent, was most probably Jerahmeelite—i.e.,
the N. Arabian kinsfolk of the Israelites, a part of whom had
entered Canaan before the Israelites, while a part remained in
N. Arabia and in the Negeb, where they became to a large ex-
tent the religious tutors of the Israelites(see Moses, $$ 6 7), had
Ὁ Paradise-story upon which the Israelitish tale is based, It is
no doubt true that the Pheenicians (influenced, as Philo of Byblus
rightly states, from Egypt) recognised the serpent as the symbol
of wisdom and immortality ;7 but this does not warrant che
theory of a Pheenician or Canaanitish origin of our narrative.
And îf an ultimate Babylonian origin for the detail of the serpent
(es a friendly adviser, not as a tempier) be thought probable,

ret we need not [ook to the Babylonian Paradise for its germ.

‘a, the god who formed and was specially interested in man,
and who was also the lord of wisdom and bringer of culture to
Babylonia, was imagined, not only as a fish (cp the culture
bringer Oannes8 in Berossus), but sometimes as a serpent.

A primitive form of culture-myth may have reached

glyphic papyri from Tanis (ed. Petrie; Zgyst. Fund, 1889) con
tains a list of all the sacred titles of agathodamon serpents in
the larger Egyptian temples.

1 See the illustration in Maspero, Daw, 120.

2 See the tale of the shipwrecked mariner (Maspero, Con/es,

13329).
Brugsch, My. τι. Rel. der alten Aegybter, 180, cp 103.

4 See Sayce, I755. Lects. 282 ff.

5 Maspero, Dawn of Cia. Ὁ. 587.

€ Gaokerena, the Iranian ‘îree of life may perhaps be
ultimately of Babylonian origin.

7 Eus. Pref, Er.11030 (on the serpent called Agatho-
demon); τὸ ζῶον τὸ πνευματικώτατον πάντων τῶν ἑρπετῶν is one
of Philo's phrases,

8 The name Oannes probably conceals the name Ea (so
Ticle).

4396

SERPENT, BRAZEN

N. Arabia in which this divine serpent brought the
knowledge of useful arts, and out of this crude material
Hebrew moralists may have constructed the episode of
the serpent in Gen, 3. It was natural that the sea-
serpent (Ea) should become a land-snake, and that its
divine character should disappear.

At any rate, the serpent is not to be identified with
the pernicious serpent called by the Jranians Azi-Dahéka,
which ‘sprang like a snake out of the sky down to the
earth to blight (Ahuramazda's) creation,’ nor of course
with the serpent Ahi or Vritra, which is a pure nature-
myth of the ancient Aryas of India. We must not
therefore illustrate the saying in Gen. 315 by the tempta-
tion of Krishna in the Bhagavata Purana, which winds
up with the overthrow of the great serpent, or by the
slaying of Azi-Dahaka by Keresaspa.! It is a similar
distortion of the sense which identifies the shrewd and
friendly serpent of Gen. 3 with the Babyionian dragon
of chaos, overcome by the light-god, but allowed to
work ruin for a time in the latter days (Rev. 129; cp
Dracon).® The curse pronounced upon the serpent
(Gen. 314 f.) is of course quite separate from the main
story. When the divine or semi-divine serpent of the
old myth had suffered partial degradation, it was natural
to connect the action by which (undesignedly) it had
injured the first men with a new cetiological myth to
account for the physical peculiarities of ordinary serpenis
and the truceless war between serpents and men. In
doing so, however, the narrator clearly implies that
originally the serpent had been erect ; this was a survival
from the time when it was thought to be divine.®

What then was the serpent's offence? It consisted
not in ill-will to God's noblest creature, man, but in
exciting inteliectual pride—ze., in aspiring to the
possession of divine wisdom and of that eternal life
which goes together with the highest wisdom. It is this
pride which is abased in the serpent. Man on his part
îs to keep up the war against temptation to pride as
vigorously as he prosecutes his war against the serpent,
now become his deadly foe.£ Such was the moral
meaning of the serpent-story suggested by the original
narrator. The unfortunatè corruption of the text
indicated and perhaps not unplausibly healed elsewhere
{PARADISE, $ 11) is responsible for the jungle growth
of inconsistent interpolations which has gathered round

the fairly simple story of Gen. 31-24.

On the symbolism of the serpent, see Bau Stud. Sem.
Rel. 1257292; on Serpent-clans, WRS /. PXil. 999; and
cp Gray, HPN οἵ, 114, and NEBUSHTAN, See also Toy,
‘Analysis of Gen. 2,3, 82, 1891, pp. 1,7 ; the OT Theologies
of Schultz and Smend, and PARADISE, $$ τι, 13. On the
natural history consult O. Giinther, Die Reptile με, Amphibien
von Syrien, Pal. wu. Cypern, 1880.

81} N. MA. Ε. 8.; 83}. τ κα

BERPENT, BRAZEN. See NEHUSHTAN.

SERPENT, THE OLD. For Rev. 129 see APOCA-
ΤΥ͂ΡΒΕ, $ 41, SATAN, 88 6 (9) 7.

SERUG (2°: cepoyy [BAEL], -p [L in Ch];
in Lk. 335 cepoyx [Ti. ΝῊ], AV SarucH) b. Reu, in
P's genealogy connecting Shem and Abraham (Gen.
1120-23 1 Ch, 126), is the well-known district and city

1 See Padlavi Texts (SBE), \17, and cp Zend-Avesta, 261.
Azi Dahaka is said to have been bound to Με, Damavend,
where he is to stay till the end of the world, when he will be let
foose, and then killed by Keresispa. Cp Rev. 20.

2 Zahn (£îr6, 2600) connects the mention of the serpent as
the symbol of the evil one (Rev. 129 202; cp 2 Cor. 113) with
the reference to Pergamum in Rev.212-17. The serpent was
the symbol of Asklepios, the god of healing, who was specially
worshipped at Pergamum, and whose commonest epithet was

(also ὁ σωτήρ, and σωτὴρ τῶν ὅλων To the Christians

this might appear a diabolical caricature of the true σωτὴρ τοῦ |

κόσμου:

3 Del. Weltscha$fungsepos, 128.

4 “Eating dust‘ (cp Mic. 7 17) need not be taken literally. It
may be a conventional expression for the deepest humiliation as
in Am, Tab. L 4235, ‘May our enemies see it and eat dust’
(Wi. A0F 1291). The gloss in Is. 6525 (see 5807, ‘lsa.)
seems to misunderstand the passage in Gen.s. Dust is also
said to be the food of the shades (Descent φῇ /3tar, obv. 1. 8);
this too may be a hyperbole.

4397

SERVANT OF THE LORD

Sardg, between Zirejik on the Euphrates, N. of Car-
chemish, and the two cities just NE. (Urfa, z.e., Edessa),
and SE. (Harràn) from it, both on the river Balîh {cp
Di. Gen., loc. cit., and reff.). Glaser and Hommel
(AHT 209) connect the name with the Aram. district
Birta (foriress) fa saraglti (cp AB Dio 6). ΟΣ, Β.

SERVANT. The words are :— i

1. T9Y, ed (παῖς, παιδάριον, οἰκέτης, θεράπων, δοῦλος); (4)
slave, Gen. 1216 3917 Ἐχ. 3] 5.3.0, εἴς, ; (5) with reference to a
king, a royal official, Gen. 4020 2 5, 102 4, or even a common
soldier, 2 5.212, 82287.

2. VIE, sabir (μισθωτός, μέσθιος) ‘hired servant,' Ex. 1245
Lk. 151719; ‘hireling, Job71/ 146 Mal.83 Ecclus.720 Jn.
1012/

3. WI, nd'ar (παῖς, παιδάριον, θεράπων, δοῦλος), properly
‘boy,’ ‘lad’; hence “attendant,' ‘retainer’ (BDE); see Nu,
2222 1 5.25 5 25.214, εἴς.

4 DI mesarità (λειτονυργός, διάκονος, θεράπων), better
rendered ‘minister’ 9 5.8 176 2 K.443, also Joellg 217
(of the pries

s. nin (Aram.] (λειτουργός), Ezra 7 24.

EV weakens the sense of πεν and δοῦλος by constantly
rendering ‘ servant.‘ Only six times is the word ‘ slave*
found in EV. In four passages it renders δοῦλος, viz.,
Judith 521 1413 18 1 Mace. 841. In Jer. 214 ‘home-born
slave’ is given for ma τὸν, and in Rev. 1813 ‘slaves’ for
σώματα.

The use of παῖς and παιδάριον for 33y hardly needs
comment; it is a natural extension of the meaning of
terms which are more strictly equivalent to sp. In

Mt, 89 we find δοῦλος, but in vv. 6 8 13 παῖς ; similarly
in Lk.77, cp v. 3. ΟΥ̓ special interest are Acts427 30
because AV there renders παῖς by ‘child’ in spite of
the undoubted reference to passages in 11. Isaiah where
the ‘Servant of the Lord’ is spoken of in @ by the
title παῖς, corresponding to mp RV correctly sub-
stitutes ‘Servant'; the phrase is 'thy holy Servant
Jesus.' See SERVANT ΟΕ THE Lorp. lt is also note-
worthy that where ‘Servant' (137) is used to express

the special relation of Moses (Ex. 143: Nu. 1277) and
of Job (Job18[A; but BN παῖε] 23) to the true God,
& renders by θεράπων ---α more honorific term than
δοῦλος. Nevertheless, in a similar case the translator
of Isaiah, as we have seen, adopts a different course.
Note also that Joshua, the mgn{Ex. 2413, EV ‘minister’)
of Moses, is called in & ὁ παρεστηκὼς αὐτῷς On
διάκονος and λειτουργός see DEACON, MINISTER.

SERVANT OF THE LORD

Use of title ($ 1). State of text (8 5).
In Jer., Ezek., II. Isa. ($2/). Jerahmeelite theory (8 δ).
In Is. 42 49 50.53 ( 4) iterature ($ 7).

The phrase ‘servant (servants) of Yahwè' (or ‘of
God’) is applied to various persons and groups of

persons.
It is applied to Abraham (Dt. 927 Ps. 1056 42); to Isaac and
Jacob (Dt. 927); to Moses (Dt. 84 5 Josh. 11 1 Ch. 6 49 2 Ch. 249
Neh, 10.29 Dan. 911}; to Joshua (Josh. 24 29

1. Use of title. Judg. 23); to David (Ps. 18 and 86: titles); to
the prophets (Jer.725 254 etc.); to Isaiah,

(Is. 203); to Job(Job18 23 428), and even to Nebuchadrezzar,

(er. [259] 276 4310); of the usage in passages of Ezekiel and

Îs. 40-55 and in cognate passages of Jeremiah we shall speak
presently ($ 2).

That the phrase is honorific and not disparaging, is
obvious. Precisely so, Mohammed in the Koran (Sur.
231) is called ‘our (God's) servant’; plainly the highest
honour is thereby supposed to be conferred upon him.
There is, however, a lower degree of this honourable
estate. A 'servant’ of God is primarily a worshipper
of God. By sacrifice, members of the clan or the
people were brought into the family of the protecting

1 [Upon the theory (sce Crif. 852.) that the geography of the
Hebrew documents was to a large extent misunderstood and
misstated by the redactors, ‘Serug’ will represent a clan or place
of residence, not în the N., but in the far S. Just as by trans-

ition “LrInylk] seems to have become Heres (and, in MT of

5. 19 18, Heres), so ‘Geshur' (the southern ‘Geshur ') may have
become *Serug.'—T. K. c.]

4398

SERVANT OF THE LORD

God, and a relation was established which might
almost equally well be called that of servants! and of
sons (cp 2 K. 167 Mal. 317, and note, with Moziey, the
sense of ownership which pervades Abraham's conduet
to Isaac in Gen. 22). To be advanced to a higher
degree of service, a worshipper of Yahwè must receive
from him some special mission. This could also be the
lot of a whole people. A time was doubtless coming
when all mankind would become the worshipping
servants of the true God; but there would still be one
people which was Vahwè's servant by election for a
special object (cp Is. 491-6), viz. IsraeL In the olden
time, the people of Israel was God's servant only
through its highest representatives—patriarchs (typi-
cally), prophets, and the idealised David. But in the
post-exilic age the noblest portions of the people
assimilated more and more the elevating idea that
Israel itself was in the highest sense Yahwè's servant.
See IsA1AH ii., $ 18; cp MESSIAH, 88 3 7
None of the passages containing the phrase ‘ed
Yahwè (Servant of Vahwè) presents any special diffi-
culty except Jer. [259] 276 4310, and
2. Jer.276 4310. come of those in Is 40-55. These
passages we have now to considér. (4) As to those in
Jer. relative to Nebuchadrezzar (the phrase in 259 has
been interpolated),* there is of course nothing peculiar
in the idea that the movements of the great conquerors
known to the Israelites were fore-ordained by Yahwè
(cp Is. 105 £ 15 3726). There is, however, some strange-
ness in Nebuchadrezzar's being called by Vahwè ‘my
servant,' considering that whatever else the phrase
‘Yahwè's servant’ may mean in any special case, it
means everywhere, except apparently in these passages
of Jer., Yahwè's worshipper. It is possible for moderns
to find good points in Nebuchadrezzar ;3 but there is
no evidence that the ‘Israelites were ever tempted to do
so, and în particular that they ever looked forward (cp
Is. 4536) to Nebuchadrezzar's becoming a convinced
worshipper of Yahwè; indeed, the narratives of Daniel
and of Judith appear to make this king a symbol of
the opponent of the God of the Jews, Antiochus
Epiphanes. Besides this, it is probabile that when Jer.
27 (in its present form) and 48 were written, the title
“my servant’ was already a standing appendage to
Israel’ {cp Jer. 3010 4627). Are we prepared to
reconcile the double assignment of this title to Nebuchad-
rezzar and to Israel by the assumption of Duhm that
the title ‘my servant’ was conferred, according to
Hebrew thinkers, on Nebuchadrezzar for the period
during which Israel's claim to be Vahwè's earthly repre-
sentative was in abeyance? There surely ought to be
some more satisfying theory than this.4
(4) As regards the passages, Ezek. 2825 3725? Jer.
3010 4627 15,418 42197 4810 441 f 21 454 4820,
there is no doubt that the title ‘my

3 Cogne te servant' is here applied to the people
Le Seno of Israel(Is. 418 441) or—the synony-
Ὁ, Jer.,

Το amous term—Jacob (Ezek. Jer. Is.
and IL Isaiah. 14, / 454 4820). It is also plain
from the passages in Is, 40-55 that the title suggested
this idea—that Israel was not only devoted to the
worship of Yahwè, but also ‘chosen’ by God to receive
certain unique marks of favour (Il “na, 15. 4320 464%
‘called’ *formed,' ‘made’ are also used), beginning
with the deliverance from Egypt and the journey under
divine guidance into Canaan and closing with the

1 On the use of Obed or Ebed in Hebrew, and ‘Abd in

Arabic în the formation of proper names, cp NAMES, 8.37)

We. Heid (927

2 See Giesebrecht's commentary,

8 See Rogers, Bady/onia and Assyria, 2352 fi;
OPs. 280.

4 See Crit. Bi. on Jer.276.

© In the same passage occurs the phrase ‘my servant David”
(£e., the first of a new line of Davidic rulers, as 3423).

€ So în 6591522 ὝΠΙ is a synonym for 737. Cp Sellin,
Studien zur Entst.-gesch. αἰ. jd, Gemeinde, 181

4399

Che.

SERVANT OF THE LORD

deliverance from Babylon (?) and the wonderful events
which were to follow. Did the title also suggest the
idea of a mission entrusted to Israel? It is true that in
41 11-16 Israel is described as a conqueror ; that in 443-5
it is promised that Vahwé's spirit (744) shall be poured
out upon Israel’s offspring, and that even foreigners
shall aspire to become adopted members of Israel, also
that in 4310 f the servants of Yahwè whom he has
chosen (read +13p) are called upon to act as witnesses to

the prophetic veracity of their God. But these state-
ments can only be said to contain germs which might
develop into the idea of Israel's mission; upon the
whole the Israel of these passages (and of the cognate
ones in Ezek. and Jer.} has to manifest Yahwé's glory
{cp Is. 437) rather by being than by doing, and to re-
ceive God's blessing for itself rather than to make them
fruitful for other peoples, though certainly the thre=:
passages, 4111-16 4310 / and 443-5, if read in the light
of other passages, seem to suggest that a second stage
in Israel's renewed life may be preparing, characterised
by earnest activity and the exercise of moral influence.

Israel, then, as it passes out of the furnace of
captivity, recelves honourable titles from its God. We
must not, however, exaggerate the merits of the bearers
of these high titles. Israel is highly favoured ; but the
description of Israel in Is. 40-55 is by no means
altogether idealistic. First, as regards the past. It
will be necessary to leave out of account the strong
statement in 42248,

“Was it not Yahwè—he agaînst whom we sinned,

And in whose ways they would not walk,

‘And to whose law they were not obedient,”
and also the stern, dammatory clauses of chap. 48,
inasmuch as all these are certainly later interpolations,
and are therefore only interesting for the history of the
expansion of the prophetic writing. But we may and
must refer to 402 4224 4323-28 476 501 5117, as
implying grievous failures on the part of Israei, In
fact, the prophet of consolation could only carry out his
object by making the calamities of Israel iutelligible—
i.6., by reminding Israel of its earlier infidelity towards
its righteous God.

Nor is this description idealistic as regards the present.
According to the Second Isaiah, it is weakness of faith
that is Israel's chief fault, and since faith is the stretched-
out hand which receives God's blessings, it is necessary
for the heralds of deliverance to arouse men out of the
torpor of despondency by rebuking their distrust of
God. To Israel at large ‘it seemed as if Vahw&s
recent action had been aimless, as if he had begun by
spending great pains on the education of Israel, and
then forgotten Israel’s right to protection (4027 4914
6312-14), and as if the source either of Yahwè's com-
passion or of his heroic deeds had been dried up, so
that he tamely *gave his glory to another god” (428
481x 6325)!" Kindly and persuasive instructions were
therefore essential to prepare the exiled Israelites for
their high destiny. Idealism was permissible in pictures
of future salvation, but not in descriptions of the state
of Yahwè's people either in the past or in the present.

It may be doubted, however, whether such kindly
persuasiveness would have been consistent with calling
the whole body of exiled Israelites ‘blind’ and ‘deaf.’
The commentators seem here to have fallen into error.
They tell us that the words (4218-20, RV),—

‘Hear, ye deaf; and look, ye blind, that ye may see. Who
is blind, but my servant? or deaf, as my messenger that I send ?
who is blind as he that is at peace [with me], and blind as the

Lord's servant? Thon seest many things, but thou observest
not; his ears are open, but he heareth not, —

refer to the Israelites, whom Yahwéè reproaches for their
spiritual insensibility (chap. 3918. And this is
supposed to be confirmed by 438, where we read
(EV),—

Bring forth the blind people that have eyes, and the deaf that
have ears,—

1 Intr, Is. 243.
4400

SERVANT OF THE LORD

a difficult passage certainly, as the differences of the
commentators show. It must be remarked, however,
that in 4216 the Israelites are called ‘blind’ in quite
another sense; what is meant there is simply (to use
Skinner's words) that the travellers cannot see their
path. It is surely not very likely that the Second
Isaiah would have applied the same epithet to the same
people in two different senses within a few lines,

It has been lately pointed out (S207' ‘Isa.’ [Heb.]
1317.) that 4219 forms, properly speaking, no part of
the discourse, but is a gloss on the words ‘deaf' and
‘blind’ in v. 18. But the text still appears to require
some criticism in the light of fresh researches into the
history of the Exile. Very probably the gloss or glosses
already recognised should run thus :—

Who is blind but the Arabian, and deaf as the Jerahmeelite?
Who is blind but the Ishmaelite, and deaf as the Arabian?

These glosses are not merely an attempt to save the
credit of the Israelites; they involve a correcîi inter-
pretation of v. 18. The persons addressed are most
probably the N. Arabian captors and oppressors of the
Israelites (cp PROPHET, $ 27) together with those false
Jews who had gone over to their side, and the pro-
phetic writer bids them learn the right lesson from the
history of Israel—viz., that those who disobey Yahwè's
law (one of the chief parts of which was a prohibition of
idolatry—cp Ὁ. 17) are on the way to ruin. As for 438,
a comparison of Ps. 1155. 13516 suggests that the
* blind people that haveeyes,'etc. is anironical description
of the idols of Israel's oppressors, which the speaker com-
mands to be brought up to the tribuna] in order that
their claims may be considered (cp 4121). ὙΠῸ peoples
referred to in 489 are probably (as in the former case,
and in 41121) those of N. Arabia. But we will not
omit to warn the reader that these criticisms form part
of a connected radical revision of the text which is here
made use of under the pressure of grave exegetical
difficulty.

It is only necessary to add that the strange word DIWD
GnièSultaz), rendered variously in RV ‘he thatis at peace [with
me], ‘made perfect,’ and ‘recompensed,’ occurs as a proper
name în 2 K. 223 and elsewhere, and has already been recog-
nised as adistortion of the Hebrew ethnic meaning ‘ Ishmaelite'
(see MESHULLAM)

(c) We now turn to another group of passages

[15. 421-4 491-6 504-9 5213-5312) in which, according to
some critics, the interpretation of the

4 (The four __ phrase ‘ Servant of Valiwè ' as a title of
great Bervant- }. 161 is inapplicabile, or, if applicable
cenci at all, only in a restricted sense with
Bud vii reference to the true Israel, These

critics are of opinion that the char-
acteristics of the personage called the Servant in these
passages differ in some important respects from those
of the Servant (ἐν σι, Israel} spoken of in the passages
already considered, Some of them go so far as to hold
that the Servant of Yahwè being sometimes apparently
distinguished from Israel, and sometimes, especially in
5213-53 12, being described as only an individual could
be, we have to Ἰοοῖς into history for some great religious
hero who might conceivably be intended in these striking
descriptions. Sellin, Winckler,® and Kittel® have
selected Zerubbabel ; but Sellin has himself abandoned
Zerubbabel, and substituted the exiled king Jehoiachin
(cp Rothstein, Die Geneal d. Jehoiachin), whilst
Bertholet 4 explains 581-112 with reference to the
martyred scribe Eleazar (2 Mace. 618-3r). Duhm, how-
ever (/es. 377; 2 367), holds that the problem which
engages the critics is insoluble, and that Jewish history
{so far as it exists) knows nothing of such ‘an individual.

1 Serubbabel (1898), See ZERUBBABEL.

2 AOF2452.

8 Zur Theologie des AT (1899) 2, ‘Jesaja 53 und der leidende
Messias im AT.

4 Zu Jesaja 53; cin Erklarungsversuck (1899). Bertholet's
theory is that the passage 5213-53 12 îs made up of two small
poems of different origin, (a) 5213-18 58 11612, in which the

typical teacher of the T'arih is giorified, and (δ) 581-114, which
refers to Eleazar.

4401

SERVANT OF THE LORD

But, he adds, this is much less surprising than that it
tells us nothing of an Amos, an Hosea, or a Micah,
and that we do not know the name of the Second
Isaiah. His own view is that the hero of the group of
passages referred to was a teacher of the Torah, who
lived probably (not certainly) between the Exile and the
arrival of Ezra at Jerusalem, and devoted himself to
true pastoral work among his people, but was seized by
a terrible sickness, and after death shared the igno-
minious burial of criminals.!

It may be noted in passing that, according to Ibn Ezra,
Saadia interpreted the whole section 52 13-53 12 of Jeremiah, ἃ
hypothesis which Ibn Ezra finds attractive (Driver and Neu
bauer, The #I/iy-third Chapter of Isaia, ‘Translations, 43),
while not a few moderns suppose that the colouring, at least,
was derived from the idealised life of Jeremiah. Aiso that
Kraetzschmar thinks that Ezekiel may be che historic model of
the suffering and glorified servant, referring to Ezek. 4, where
Ezekiel, by divine command, bears the guilt of his sinful people,
and suffers grievously in consequence (Der /esdende Gottes-
Knecht, 1899). The present writer has supposed that the last of
the passages în question was 'largely modelled on the Book of
Job' (/esvisk Relig. Life, 1898, p. 162).2

It will be clear that, from the point of view repre-
sented above, the passages in question differ in essential
respects from the other passages of Is. 40-55 relative to
the ‘Servant of Vahwéè.” If this is a fact, it is alike
important for the criticism and exegesis of II, Isaiah
and for the history of religion. Of late, however, there
have been signs of a growing reaction against Duhm,
whose theory had at first won considerable favour.
Fisewhere (ISAIAH [BooK], $ 18, col. 2205), a view
has been taken akin to that of this able critic. But
fairness requires us now to take account of an earnest
protest (.fizoritàts-votum) raised by Budde® against
Duhm's theory—a protest with which Marti in his
commentary, Giesebrecht {Der Aneck? Jahves), and
Kénig (7Τῆε Exiles Book of Consolation) more or less
completely agree, It will then be our duty to inquire
whether there is any way of approaching the subject
which will enable us to remove some of the chief causes
of perplexity in earlier investigations.

1. 15, 421-. The Servant is here entrusted with a
mission to the heathen world. The method which he
employs {so Duhm expounds τ. 2) is radically different
from that of the prophets ; he is even unlike the Second
Isaiah in his avoidance of loud, emphatic, exciting
declarations. His task 15 simply to expound the Law
of Yahwé to all who seek it, whether Jews or heathen,
in the school or the private chamber, at Jerusalem,
especially 10 those who are bowed by trouble. He is
destined to become a recognised international authority,
and as such his highest aim will be the establishment of
the true religion on the whole earth. Duhm thinks
that in order to be just to this description we must
suppose the poet to refer to an individual, the greatest
and most infiuential of the teachers of the Torah.
With this result, Sellin {though he differs from Duhm
in important details) agrees, in so far as the reference
to an individual is concerned. Budde, however, pro-
tests: ‘We ask in vain how such things could be
stated of an individual; 1s.22-4 alone is sufficient
evidence of the existence of the conception that Israel
has a mission of instruction to the heathen.” Budde
thinks, too, that the following verses (425-7) confirm
this interpretation,

For, however we explain the difficult pp n53 (EV ‘a covenant
of the people ἢ in g. 64 it is plain that ît can only apply to the
people not to an individual, and in spite of Duhm8 few will

1 Das Buch Jesaia, ‘Eial.' xviii.

2 Seinecke, De Evangelist des AT (3879), and Hockstra,
T4.T, 1871, pp. 1-56, invert the relation. Cp Kuenen, 7%.7)
1873, pp. 492-542; Davidson, Book ef Job (1884), Introd.
pp. ἴχνὶ x; Che. Prog&. [5.8] (1884), pp. 265-268.

5 ‘The so-called Ebed-Yahweh Songs, and the Meaning of
the Term ‘Servant of Yahweh ” in Jsaiah, chaps, 40-55,’ Amrer.
7. ef Theol., 1899, pp. 499-540. (Also published in a German
form, whence the phrase quoted above.)

4 See Dillm. Ki. SBO7 (Heb. 200 (46), and Marti, ad ἦρε.

5 Dubm's explanation of pmi ἫΝ in 426 as=‘a pattern of the
other states, has not found supporters. [During the correction of

4402

SERVANT OF THE LORD

doubt that the phrase in the parallel line, puma mk, ‘a light of
the nations,’ also refers to the Jewish people as a teacher, as in
496 514. ἴε should be observed that 42 5.7 and 514 are, on
Duhm's own showing, the work of the Second Isaiah. How,
then, can ît be said that there are in 15. 40-55 two inconsistent
views of the Servant, which must have come from different
writers, one much deeper religiously than the other? Such is
Budde's argument.

2. 15, 491-6. The Servant of Israel summons the dis-
tant peoples to hear something in which they are specially
concerned. From his very birth he has been singled
out and endowed with a sharp, incisive speech, such as
befits the expounder of Yahwè's word {cp Jer. 2329).
‘Till the right moment for his appearance shall come, he
has been carefully hidden from the world that he may
ripen in seclusion. Such was the honour put upon
him; such the strength which was at his disposal as
Yahwè's Servant. But his recent experience has been
so sad that he has seemed to himself to have lived in
vain and to be near his end. But whenever these
thoughts have plagued him,! tokens have come to him
from above that his God both justifies and is rewarding
him. And now a fresh revelation visits him. The
God who had originally given him a mission to Israel
alone, now extends that mission to the Gentile world.
It is Yahwè's purpose, not only to restore Israel as a
people, but also to save or deliver the other peoples
through the Servant's instrumentality. The restoration
of the twelve Tribes will be the work of Yahwè, but
not a purely miraculous work (as the Second Isaiah 3
thought), and the Servant of Yahwè can co-operate
with him by persuading as many Jews as possible to
migrate to the Holy Land. And the illumination or
instruction of the ‘ peoples’ devolves upon the Servant.
They are to be saved from destruction by becoming
converted to the true religion—that of Yahwè, ‘This is
the highest function of the Servant (note the significant
bp). and it is entirely hist—except, of course, that
Vahwè himself has trained and equipped his servant for
‘his noble work.

There are two points in Duhm's ‘ extended discussion '
of this passage to which Budde takes special exception :
(1) the omission of ‘ Israel' in ©. 3 as an interpolation,*
and (2) the explanation of 3mw (Ὁ. 5) as meaning a
spiritual bringing-back of the Israelites to God by in-
struction, exhortation, consolation. On the first point,
Budde remarks that ‘the Servant is here addressing the
heathen (v. χα), to whom he is under obligation to state
his name, as would not be the case were he an Israelite,
addressing his own people’; Sp% ἰδ therefore simply
the second predicate of ang.£ On the second, he points
out that in Ezek. 3927 Jer. 5019 3nw means the physical
restoration of Israel from exile, precisely as gn. He
also emphasises the fact that the active and the passive
conceptions of the Servant are combined in this mono-
logue of the Servant, just as they are in the undisputed
work of II. Isaiah. It is a mistake to say that the
Servant in II. Isaiah plays only a passive, and in
the ‘Songs of the Servant’ only an active part. 4947
shows that the Servant in the ‘Songs’ was not and
could not be free from a ‘wise passiveness’ ; he had to
wait for Yahwè to recompense him, and his restoration
to his home was to be Yahwè's work. And not less
clear is it from 4977, where Vahwè informs the
Servant (i.e., unquestionably, Israel) of the honour
which he shall receive as the result of his successful
mission to the nations,

the proofs appeared Duhm's second edition, în which he comes
over to the more natural view, that the phrase means ‘a teacher
of the nations.’ The parallel phrase, he thinks, is ny mi5, ‘a
redemption of the (Jewish) people.’ See, however, $ 5 (1).]

1 According to Duhm, v. 42 is the protasis to τ. 44. Most,
however, e.g., Budde, suppose the meaning to be that the
Servant had been attacked by despondency, which he overcame
by calling to mind the faithfulness of Yahwè (cp 40 τοῦ}.

2 Duhm quotes 15. 485,7 49 22,

8 Marti also retains the word.

4 Budde not only keeps Sg“ here, but inserts ppy* and
bin» in 42 τ from ® (533).

4403

SERVANT OF THE LORD

3. Is.504-9. The Servant (whose title, however, is
not expressìy mentioned) describes the persecution which
he has suffered, and his sure confidence that Yahwè will
soon appear to put down his enemies. In the preface
to this monologue he represents himself as one who
expounds Yahwé's word (i.e., the Torah?) to the weary,
in accordance with the revelations which come to him
afresh every morning. The collectivistic interpretation
appears to Duhm plainly impossible.

To this Budde answers that what the Servant says of
himself in 507-9 agrees with what Yahwè utters in 517 f°
as an encouragement to the $eo/e, while, he might have
added, the language of ©. 62 resembles that in 5123
Ps. 1293. And even if the monologue of the Servant
makes no mention of a mission to the heathen, who are
indeed, so far as they are enemies of Israel, to be
destroyed, yet the experiences described in 504/ are
just those which would be necessary for mission work
among the heathen, The passage is, therefore, not
inconsistent with the other passages, and Ley and Laue
do wrong to omit it from the series of passages.

4. Is. 5213-5312. Wondrous is the contrast between
the Servant's future exaltation and his past humiliation.
See the kings paying reverence to him whose distorted
visage once struck all observers with horror! But who
can believe! the marvels revealed to us? Only those
who can see the invisible operation of God in history
(53:). Mean were the circumstances in which the
Servant grew up, nor had his person any external
attractions. For society apart from his daily vocation
he cared not (cp Jer. 157); he was despised and, as ît
would seem, in the latter part of his life afflicted with
sickness and with pain. It was the punishment for sin,
and the sufferer not only knew it but inwardly gave full
assent and consent to it. He himself was innocent ; no
sins of speech or of act could justly be imputed to him,
But his fellow-Jews (including the poet) assumed that
such sins he must have committed, for was not
sickness the punishment of sin? And this man's
affliction was nothing less than leprosy (7. sa is meta-
phorical); how great, then, must his sin have been!
But the strange truth was that for high reasons the
punishment deserved by the Jews in general was diverted
to this willing substitute. Before this, afflictions may
have fallen on those guilty ones ; but they had no moral
effect. The time came, however, when the eyes of
men's understandings were opened to the meaning of
the sufferings of the innocent one, and so ‘by his
stripes we were healed.” But while the sad spectacle
was before them, the poet and his companions confess
that they lived purely selfish lives, like wandering sheep.
‘The sufferer, too, was like a sheep, but in another
sense—he bore his lot without a murmur, even though
by the manifest judgment of God he was cut of. His
dishonoured body was laid apart with the wicked and
the deceivers,? but he himself was graciously released—
‘taken’ by God to some unknown place of sojourn.
For very different in this case were God's thoughts from
those of man. For the servant himself, those sufferings
were a purification. He was to come back to the
world, to reach a good old age (cp Job 42:27), and
see his children prolonging their days. Having had
his innocence recognised, he should live in the light of
joy and prosperity.8 As a reward for his atoning work
he should ‘inherit among the great, and divide spoil
with the strong'—a proverbial phrase meaning ‘he
shall hold intercourse as an equal with the mighty ones
of the earth.’

1 ΝΠ Ὁ; Duhm, ‘who can believe?" The imperfect was

impossible; it would have denied that anyone would believe.
Marti, mote plausibly, ‘Who would bave believed' (cp

Shp Ἢρ, Gen. 217). See also Giesebrecht, Beitrage zur Jesaia-
Rritik (3890), p. 159, and cp Dr. Tenses,(8) 19.

ἃ Duhm reads the Aramaising p'5Y for the difficalt Ὑῶψ.

3 Duhm's radical corrections are partly based on @*5 καὶ κύριος
βούλεται καθαρίσαι αὗτόν and δεῖξαι αὐτῷ φῶς.

4404

SERVANT OF THE LORD

To this exegesis Budde objects that ît covers over the
variety of espressions in the picture of the Servant's
sufferings. Asin the case of certain psalms, this variety
seems rather to point to a metaphorical description of
the distress of the nation in exilic or post-exilic times.
Still more conclusive is the statement in vv. 87. of the
death and revivification of the Servant. Such state-
ments are common in the later literature, beginning with
Ezek. 37. On the other hand, if we try to make the
description fit the case of an individual, we shall find
ourselves hopelessly baffled. Who, for instance, are
the long-lived descendants (yn) whom the revivified

martyr, himself very old, is to see? Are they literal or
spiritual children?? Both solutions have insuperable
difficulties. Surely the children are those of the nation
personified. It is true, the atoning character ascribed
to the sufferings of the martyr seems to most to imply
that the martyr is to be distinguished from the mass of
the Jewish people. Budde, however, affirms this to be
impossible. With Hitzig.? Giesebrecht* (especially),
Wellhausen, Kònig,® Marti, and [in 1899, but not in
1893] Smend, he takes up the tradition of rabbis such
as Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Kimbi, that the confession in chap.
58 is uttered by the ‘nations’ referred to in 5215; the
martyr, therefore, both can and must be the people of
Israel, One important part of his argument may be
quoted here; he is meeting Dillmann's objection to
Giesebrecht's view that II. Isaiah always makes the sin
of Israel the cause of its sufferings {4224 f. 4827 /. 476
501: cp 4213 4925/ 51523, ete.).

‘Whatever justifying g70%x4s Yahwè may have had for the
chastisement of Israel, as respects the heathen, who are here the
speakers, not these grounds, but Yahwè's purpose, comes into
consideration. Though Israel may have sinned, yet in the con.
science of the heathen the only worshipper of the true God
appears as the cale innocent one. But, further than that, it is
a well-known fact that, compared with other prophets, 11. Isaiah
lays very lictle stress upon Israel’s trespass, that the tone of
sympathy predominates throughout and strongly. Nor does he
fail to state expressly that Israel has suffered more punishment
than its sins have deserved. He begins his entire book with the
statement [402] that his people, that Jerusalem, has received a
double retribution for its sins. This is not, as Duhm thinks,4
an allusion to Jer. 1618, where a doubling of the prnishment is
announced, only, however, for renewed offences. On the con-
trary, II. Isaiah distinctly says that half of the punishment is
undeserved, and on the basis of general prophetic premises we
have a right to ask what may have been the occasion of this
second undeserved portion; and when we find the figure of
Yahwè's Servant already introduced in 418, and his mission—
that of carrying the true religion to the heathent—stated in 421,
we cannot avoid the conclusion that even here the prophet already
has reference to the suffering which was indispensable to the
fulfilment of that mission. The problem of theodicy is for the
entire century the really vital one, The people solve it, not
without a feeling of bitterness, by applying the doctrine of suffer-
ing for the sins of the fathers—z.e., for the sins of Manassch
(Ezek. 182 etc.-—while Ezekiel tries to solve it by enormously
exaggerating his accusations in an endeavour to balance guilt
and punishment. II Isaiah alone finds a really satisfying solu-
tion by associating with the cause of the punishment its purpose,
and we can understand all the more readily that this solution
was beyond the comprehension of the masses of the people, as
well as of most of its leading spirits, because his hopes and pre-
dictions were not realised. The glorious restoration of his
people did not come to pass, neither were its sufferings or its
teachings able to lead the heathen to Yahwè,'5

Itis a part of Budde's theory that the ‘we' in chap. 58
is not a collection of individual men but or individual
nations. This, according to him, makes the marked
individualisation of the people of Israel more intelligible ;
the same individualisation of peoples underlies the ‘ we.'
It is no doubt at first sight fatal to his theory that in
538 we find the phrase ‘by y

my people’ (which Kimhi has to explain as referring to

1 See Di-Ki. Jes. 456 (cp 461, foot), ‘such as are brought by
him to righteousness' (v. 11 60.21), ‘the numerous citizens of the
new Zion’ (δὲ τ 4919,/.).

2 Hitzig and Ksnig, however, assign 581 to the prophetic
“writer.

3 Boitrage, 146 1: Knecht Vahves, 59 72

NAZ AE SEL (ρον, p. 141)
Duhm mmaintains that the writer of Jer. 16.18 lived long after
II. Isaiah.

5 Amer. Jour. ef Theol., 1899, p. 509

41 4405

ὑπ, ‘for the rebellion οἵ

SERVANT OF THE LORD

each of the nations which will unite in this confession) ;
but Budde has a remedy—he cleverty emends the text.!
It may be added that he also emends the text of 5213,
where for. ba » he proposes to read δ 2 ‘behold,
Israel my servant.'

According to Budde, then, there are points of con-
tact between 5213-5312 and the undisputed II. Isaiah
which forbid the assertion that two different views of the
Servant are represented in these two writings, and the
individualistic interpretation of the Servant is hardly more
tenable in chap. 53 than in other parts of the prophecy.

See also Giesebrecht, Beifrage sur Jesaiakritik (1890), τ46 2",
a ‘fundamental work (Budde), and his Der Kweckf Vakvesi
Konig, Ze Exiles' Book of Consolation (1899), 54-56 et
Smend, 47° Rel.-gesch.(2) 3553 and, against the ndlicnalisiio
theory, Sellin, Siudien sw” Entstehunesgeschichte der jud.
Gemeinde (190), 1347; Smend, 47 Rel.-gesch.0) 257 £

The differences of interpretation which we have been
considering are largely due to the manifold obscurities

δ. Text, of the text, not only of the four passages,

" "5 Ῥυΐ α]50 of many other parts οἵ Is. 40-66.
These obscurities may in turn be traced, not so much
to /acune in the Hebrew lexicon or to the disturbing
effect of the grandeur and novelty of the ideas on the
mind of the writers, as to corruption. In the four
passages corruption is, according to Duhm, specially
marked in 504 52:4 53107. Budde also fully grants
that ‘the second half of chap. 53 has suffered serious
corruption of text'; but this critic impairs the value of
this concession by the statement that ‘the only corrup-
tion which interferes with a proper interpretation is the
τὸν (‘my people’) in v.8'; this, he says, ‘admits of no
explanation whatever" (510). Itis to be feared that any
considerable approach to agreement among critics will
be impossible as long as this comparative confidence in
the MT continues, and as long as sounder principles of
textual criticism are not recognised both in theory and
in practice. It is not that a large number of acute
exegetical suggestions have not been made, but a
decision of the important points at issue seems out of
the question until a more thorough and more methodical
examination of the text of the whole of Is. 40-66 has
been carried through.

We have perhaps been so long accustomed to read
Isaiah in the light of commentaries that real obscurities
may not always strike us.

τ, Who that reads Is. 421-4 with a fresh mind will say
tbat this passage is easy? What is the meaning of ‘he
shall not cry nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard
without® (v. 2)? W. E. Barnes® explains the first part,
‘ he shall not cry (his war-cry}, nor lift up (his battle-
shout)"; G. A. Smith 4 thinks that the prophet ' cannot
be referring to the means and art of the service, but
rather to the tone and character of the Servant'; Sellin
{.Stzdien, 185) 5865 an allusion to the loud publication
of royal edicts; Duhm, to the vehement demeanour of
prophets; Marti, however, finds the renunciation on
Israel’s part of a political ròle among the nations, Not
less obscure is the next statement (v. 3},

The broken reed he breaks not off,

The failing wick he quenches not.
We all know how this is explained; the commentaries
with one voice refer to the Christian ideal of the pastoral
office. But what place has this here? and why did not
the poet express himself distinctly? And why should
any reference be made in 7.4 to the circumstance that

1 Reading 1°pY/ Y was dittographed ; 12 became 5, and *
was transposed. Giesebrecht’s emendation (cp G. A. Smith, /sa.
2 349) is less plausible,

? Marti approves. But an emendation at once more obvious
and more favoured by parallelism is moby», ‘shall have success.
Duhm (/es-(8) unfortunately adheres to DI,

3 Exp.T 8 (1896) 29; the whole passage is applied to Cyrus.
Sellin, however (Sfxdi2n, 186), thinks it a designed contrast τὸ
the description in 412 7, which is usually applied to Cyrus.

4 /5.2.303 (so Deliizsch, Dillmann, Marti) Against this,
however, see Sellin, οὗ, ci. 84.

4406

SERVANT OF THE LORD

the Servant himself will never pass through the sad
experience of the persons described in v. 3?

With regard to 426, the difficult py nma (EV ‘a covenant of
the people *) should almost certainly be ΠΡ . - «Ὁ the uncertain
word which begins the phrase should most probably be nxpnò ;
thus the line becomes, “for an ornament (glory) of the peoples,
for a light of the nations’; cp 13 18 4613 62 SR Bee Cole Bibo

2. În 495 what is the meaning ot ‘to bring back Jacob
unto him'? Why ‘unto him'? And how can ‘ Israel”
(v. 3) have been ‘formed’ to bring back Israel? And
how can the restoration of Israel be referred to with
equal elaborateness twice over in successive stanzas?
Budde (521) proposes, as an explanation of v. 5, ‘iti that
he brought Jacob again {out of Egypt) to him, and drew
Israel to him (into the desert)’ This at any rate is
better than omitting the words altogether as Giese-
brecht does, It is difficult, however, to interpret
295 (‘to bring back') differently, so far as grammar

goes, from avgab in τ. 5, and the reference to Egypt

and the desert, if intended, would surely have becn at
least hinted. The grammatical objection also applies
to Marti's rendering of 7, 5a, ‘but now has Yahwè
resolved, ete., to bring back Jacob to himself, and Israel
will Igather.' Next, why this extraordinary side remark,
‘and I was honoured {pointing 1296) in the eyes of
Yahwè, and my God became my strength’? The words
are clear enough, but not their sense in this context.
Lastly, what is the meaning of * too insignificant for thy
being to me a Servant'? (sap "Ὁ animp 5p3) A most
awkward and improbable construction! To excise ‘nn
τν "Ὁ as a gioss, is hazardous. So-called glosses often
arise out of genuine readings of the original text.

3. In 504-9 the difficulty is almost entirely confined
to v. 4 f., where neither the language nor the thought is
at all clear. At first we seem to catch a glimpse of a
beautiful thought, and the phrase ‘he wakens mine ear '
pleases the fancy. But the plural ‘disciples’ (numb) is
strange, and the phrase so pleasing to fancy becomes
insecure through the manifold disorder of the text and
the obviously corrupt my. Above all, the opening
stanza, which refers apparently to the vocation of a
prophet, is not a satisfactory preface to the description
of persecution which follows.

4. In 5212-5313 the easy passages are the exception,
not the rule, Emendation of the text has been tried,
not without excellent results. But the passage as a
whole, even as explained by Marti, is not clear. There
is, perhaps, no better proof of the extreme corruptness
of the text than the obscurity of 58 τὰ as the context at
present stands, and the vehement controversy which it
has called forth, In spite of all the acuteness of Budde
and {especially} Giesebrecht, it remains highly improb-
able that a Hebrew poet of the late exilic or early post-
exilic period should have accounted for the sufferings of
Israel on the ground that they were the atonement for
the sins of the heathen.

As Skinner justly remarks : “That the idea of Israel suffering
for the good of the world is foreign to the OT is not perhaps a
decisive argument against it, for there îs a truth in the idea (see
Rom. 11117)... But the insuperable objection to this ex-
planation is the unnaturalness of the assumption that the speakers
in 531% are the heathen. There is nothing in the language to

suggest this ; and the religions attitude expressed in these verses
is such as no prophet could have attributed to the heathen world."1

If another proof of deep-seated textual corruption
is required, we may justly refer to 7,9. The theory that
the great sufferer is an individual rests ultimately (putting
aside 531) on this passage, and the difference between
critics is perhaps simply this—that while some say, the
burial so emphatically stated in .9 proves that an
individual is meant, others.say, v.9 cannot mean what
it at first sight apears to mean, because the more natural
explanation {viz., that in chap. 53, as elsewhere,? ‘Servant
of Yahwè is a title of Israel) presents no difficulty apart

2 Is. 40-66 (Cambr. Bible), 234.
2 To assume that the nationalistie interpretation has been
proved for the three preceding passages on the Servant.

4497

SERVANT OF THE LORD

from this passage. It may be doubted, however, whether
either position is sound. On the one hand, very little
importance can be attached to the traditional text of any
part of vw. 8-11 (Or 12) because of the manifold obscurities
and the more than probabie corruption of this passage.
And on the other, the parallelism between 5392 and
Ezek. 37 12 f. is incomplete, In 18. 539 (if correct) the
point is not so much the burial of the Servant as his
burial with the wicked ; but in Ezek. 8712. the phrase,
‘cause you to come up out of your graves’ 15 simply an
equivalent for ‘cause you to come up out of Shéol.' 1

We have said ‘apart from v. τ,’ because since (as we
have seen} the confession in the following verses cannot
be assigned to the heathen nations, and since the
parallelism between the chief expressions in the con-
fessions and a number of psalms which cannot reasonably
be made to refer to an individual forbids us to adopt
Duhm's theory, it follows that the speakers in 5317
must be the Israel within IsraeL This theory is indeed
impossible, according to Budde, who thinks that the
whole of Israel suffered equally, and that the exaltation
of the Israel within Israel could not make an impression
on the heathen world. A fuller consideration, however,
of this theory in the light of a keener criticism of the
later history of Israel, shows that the whole of Israel
did not share the same lot, and so removes the apparent
ground for Budde's objection. We have therefore a
right to set aside 531, and to refer to v.9 as the only
solid textual basis for the individualistic interpretation
of the Servant in this notable passage.

How, then, shall we proceed in order to restore a text
sufficiently correct to admit of large exegetica] inferences ἢ
8. Jerah: ‘The methods of the most progressive textual

moelite eriticism are good enough for ur purpose;

theory but there are many textual possibilities to
* which we could not open our eyes without
the clue furnished by a critical examination of a very
large group of passages outside of 11. Isaiah. In
fact, it is only the ‘Jerahmeelite theory’ which will
enable us to detect the readings that underliè many
ebscure and some apparentiy clear passages of Il,
Isaiah. The result of a renewed investigation of the
text of II. Isaiah closely resembles that to which we are
perhaps being driven by the textual phenomena of other
prophetic writings (see PROPHET, $$ 35-45) —£.e., the
original text in many passages had a different historical
and geographical setting from that which now appears,
and our exegetical results are correspondingly modified.
The truth is, according to this theory, that the
influence of N. Arabia on Jewish history has been
greatly under-estimated. In particular, it was in N.
er NW. Arabia that the mass of the Jewish exiles
languished, and even after the fall of the Babylonian
power (commonly supposed to be the great source of
trouble to the Jews) N. Arabian oppression continued
to be the chief subject of complaint to Jewish poets.

The four passages on the Servant, in their original form,
would seem to have lacked almost all that we are wont
to admire in the adaptation of them which both M'T and
@ present to us, The ardent universalism which dis-
tinguishes them in their present form is due to a later
editor, who had before him a text which was already
corrupt, and which, apart from this, did not answer to
his own spiritual aspirations, Let us continue to read
them as they stand in MT and @ as monuments of the
loftiest pre-Christian Jewish piety. When such a purely
academic thinker as Vatke can say that ‘the intuition of
the sufferings and glorification of the Servant of Jehovah
forms the most remarkable presentiment of redemption
in the OT, and so is a prophecy, not a prediction, of
Christ, academic critics who would fain be also men of
the people may surely use the same expressions, for the
people see in chap. 63 a prophecy of the Jesus of the

1 Cp Ezek. 82227 On the close connection between the con-
ception of Sheol arid that of a burial-place, see EScHATOLOGY,
$ 10; Smend, 47 Rel.gesch.0) 152

4408

SBRVANT OF THE LORD

evangelic tradition, and we would gladly go with the
people, as one of them, so far as we may. Nor need
we—from this point of view—any longer trouble ourselves
to translate these passages with an extreme exaciness,

An exact translation is in fact often difficult and sometimes
impossible, owing to the fact that the old Jewish editor has had
to work upon an already existing corrupt text. But let us also be
just 10 the claims of critical history, the results of which, when
fully mature, must be for the good GF the religion of the many
as well as of the few. This requires us to trace out, so far as we
can, the original form of these familiar but, in parts, very obscure
passages, and of the rest of Is, 40.66, not as a mere exercise of
ingenuity, but for this important reason—that if we can but read
this work as a monument of its own special time or times, we
shall understand the course of Jewish history as we could never
have done before. This need not make us nnappreciative of
those pious and most unselfish editors of old time, who ventured
to treat their Bible as a living plant, still capable of sending out
fresh shoots, and of putting forth undreamed-of flowers, and who,
me will say, almost transfigured the original conception of
the Servant οὐ Yalwè.

For the original text (see Criz. BiZ., ‘Isa.') gave a much
less advanced conception of the Servant of Yahwè. The
title here is a personification of the body of Jewish exiles
in N. Arabia, who were by no means semi-Christians,
but had higher religious ideas and ideals, and cor-
respondingly greater material and moral hardships to
bear, than their brethren in Palestine, ‘The poet looks
forward to the time when these exiles will be delivered
from their miseries and privations and become the
recognised leaders of the regenerated Jewish people.
He calls (491) on the Arabians and Jerahmeelites to
take warning while there is yet time (cp Ps. 210, emended
text). Like some, at least, of the psalmists, he has no
desire that all Jerahmeclites should be blotted out of
existence, but wishes that under Jewish rule and in the
practice of the true religion they may still live în the
expanded land of Israel, and be saved from the judicial
destruction which will fall upon all irreclaimable foes of
Vahwè. At present, the Servant still suffers persecu-
tion; he has borne it without a cry or a murmur as
God's appointment. But he knows that his ‘justifica-
tion’ or redress is at hand (508); indeed, before now,
under prophetic inspiration, he has announced (5213-15)
the coming change in his fortunes—an announcement
which his kinsmen in Palestine (those ‘ rebellious ones '
of whom the poet speaks) received with contemptuous
incredulity (531). He can already imagine those un-
worthy Israelires confessing their blindness and folly,
their wickedness and selfishness (532-9). And again a
prophetic vision comes to him. He 8665 exiled Israel
rescued from its oppressors, according to that earlier
prophecy. The light of joy—a joy in the establishment
of the divine rule with Îsrael for its earthly organ (cp
421-4), the sight of an offspring ‘ prolonging its days,”
and enjoying the inheritance of Jerahmeel and Ishmael
—these are the varied but closely connected rewards
granted to him (5810-12).

Into the changes of critical positions which this view
necessitates this is not the place to enter. Nor need
the reader be assured that no claim to an immunity from
error is put forward by the present writer. Details may
doubtless be improved; but the general theory, when
fully assimilated, will be found to stand the test of pro-
longed consideration, Would that the spade of the
explorer might bring to light some hidden record of an
age so little known and so largely misinterpreted by
legend !

Besides the works named în col. 2207 /, the following recent
treatises on the criticism and exegesis of Is. 42 1-4 491.6 504-9

and 5213-5312 (or some one of these passages
7.Literature, separately) may be here mentioned: Schian,
Die Ebed-fahave-Liederin Jes, x1.-Ixvi. (1895);

Laue, Die E]. Lieder în If. Theil des Jesaia ezegetisch
kritisch und biblisch-theologisch untersuchi (1898); Follkrug,
Dev Gottesknecht d. Dt.-Jes. (899); Laue and Follkrag have a
certain similarity în that both maintain the Servant to be an
individual; Fillkrug, however, does not, like Laue, identify
the Servant with the Messiah, and he does not separate the four
‘songs’ from the Prophecy of Restoration ; Kraeteschmar, Der
Ieidende Gottesknecht (x899): Ezekiel the historic model of the
suffering and glorified Servant, see chap. 4. Bertholet, x
Jes. Hit; Budde, The So-called Ebed.Vahweh Songs, etc.;

4409

SETH

Kittel, Zu» Theologie des AT) see $4; 1. Ley, ‘ Die Bedeutong
des Ebed-Jahwe im ten ‘Theil des Proph. Jevaja, in Sfuz, τ
Krit., 1899, pp. 1637; Sellin, Seruslabel (1898), 96/2 1443
Studien 2uy Entstebungsgesch. der γῆ, Gemeinde: 1. Der

Knecht Gottes bei Dt.jes. (1901); Giesebrecht, Der Anecht d.
Di.jes. (c902; the Servant-passages originally meditations
written down for disciples by the second Micah; the Servant
himself, a personification of Israel); Rethstein, Lie Genralogie
αἰ Kom. Jehotachin (1902; appendix on the Messianic reference
of the Servant); C. H. H. Wright, ‘The Pre-Christian Jewish
Interpretation of Is 5 53, E.xpositor, 3rd ser., (1888) 364,7
4017); Dalman, /esaia 53 das Prafhetemwort voni Sihnleiden
des Heilsmittlers,®) (x891); cp also Kosters, 74.7) 1896,

PP. 591 τὶ κι,
SESIS (ceceic [B]), 1 Esd. 934= Ezra 1040 SHASHAI.

SESTHEL (cecoHA [BA]), 1 Esd. 93:= Ezra 1030,
BEZALEFL, 2,

SETH, rather SkETH (NW; cHO; SE7A), son of
Adam, father of Enos, and grandfather of Cainan or
Kenan, according to the Sethite genealogy (Gen. 3:8
{P}}. with which, so far as his relation to Enosh is con-
cerned, Gen. 426 (}) entirely agrees. In Gen. 425 (Jr),
it is stated that ‘Adam knew his wife again, and she
bore a son, and called his name Sheth ; for (she said)
God has set for me another seed instead of Abel, for
Cain killed him." 685, however, does not recognise «ip,
‘again,' and inserts mp), ‘and she conceived,” which
suggests the possibility that in an earlier form of the
text the birth of Sheth was related without reference to
the existence of Cain. Budde (Urgesc&. 154 7) thinks
that the text originally ran, ‘and Adam knew his wife,
and she bore a son, and named him Sheth, for ‘‘ God
has set for me a seed."'! There are, however, three
difficulties in this view; (1) the unnatural use of né,
‘ posuit*; (2) the use of mabx, ‘Elohim,’ instead Cf
aim, ' Yahwè' (contrast Gen. 41, though here © has διὰ
τοῦ Θεοῦ); and (3) the improbability that Adam'’s
grandson should have been called Enosh, ‘man,’ or ‘ fraii
man‘ (cp Enos), assuming, of course, that ‘ Adam" and
‘Enosh’ are the two familiar Hebrew terms for ‘man.'
There is only one way of surmounting these difficulties,
viz., to criticise the traditional readings of the names.
ix (ddam) or pren (Ad-ddam) and mn {Azunvah) have
probably arisen out of Saonv (Jerahmeel) and mn
(Harità)=nbxomv (Jerahmeelith) respectively. Cp
PARADISE, 8 12(c). These parallels suggest that * Sheth"
and ‘Enosh’ are also corruptions of ethnic names. ‘The
conjecture that wnx (Enosh) is a fragment of bappg*
will surprise no one who has had experience of the
shifting phases of ‘Ishmael' and other ethnic names,
and it is only slightly less probable that nw (Sheth ??)
is a fragment of Skng (= Eshtaol), which the narrator
connected with 5:ng, ‘plant, shoot' so that «Ong îs
miswritten, by metathesis, for Sng. It is a part of
this theory that ning and ame together represent Swnny.?
The passage will then become, ‘And Jerahmeel knew
his wife, and she bore a son, and named him Shetha6l,
for (he is) a shoot (s#&45/) of Jcrahmeel® And
Shèth401 in turn begot a son, and named him Ishmael;
it was he who began to cali upon the name of Yahwè"
(see Exos). Shéthasl is possibly the eponym of the
population called in MT EsHTAOL and ESHTAULITES,4
whose seat was certainly not confined to the lowlands 6f
Judah. The etymology is, of course, quite ‘ popular’;
8. truer connection may perhaps be supposed with the
widely-spread clan-name Sigg, Sha'ùl (see SauL).
Even if the explanation here given of the strange name
Sheth be in some degree doubiful, the discovery of the
true name of Sheth's son at any rate appears on

1 So Stade (ZATIW, 1804, p. 565.4), Holzinger (A°#/C ‘Gen."
57.π808}} Gunkel (HK ‘Gen 49 [1901]).

2 To these corruptions there are ‘abundant parallels through-
out the OT literature, "ἢ

# yer îs here taken to bean însertion of Jr necessitated by the

corrupt readings, already in existence, “στην and "IN.

4 In 1Ch.253 the Eshtaulites are connected with Kirjath.
jearim—i.4, not improbably Kirjath-jerahmeel.

44τὸ

SETHITES

critical grounds to be nearly certain. Thus understood,
the name supplies another beautifui Israelitish com-
mentaty on the name Ishmael (cp Gen. 1611). Itis as
if the narrator told us that the first prayer was as great
an epoch in the history of man as the building of a city.
See SETHITES.

Later post-canonical writers knew much more about Seth.
His wife's name was Azarà (Jubilees, 411; ed. Charies, 32}.
Both he and his descendants, who were extremely good, had
that heavenly wisdom specially connected with the name of
Enocu [9.2.1]; see Jos. Axt.i.23 (88 68-71). On the gnostic
sect of the Sethians see Hippol. Pisdoseshwmena, 519:
Epiphan. Adv. ker. xxxix.j Lips. Der Grosticismes, sein
Wesen, Ursprung und Entwickelungogang (1860), 154; Smith-
Wace, Dick. of Christian Biography, 487 /

We have ventured to reject the plausible conjecture of
Frd. Delitzsch and Fritz Homme! referred to in the next article.
That the theory connecting Sheth with Suteh, ‘the god of the
Hyksos,' no longer needs criticism, îs obvious; see Lenormant,
Les origines, 1 [1880] 217,7, and on the other side, Κῦ. PREGI
163. For the facts relative to Set and Suteb see EcvPT, $ 52,
n. 2, and cp 8 26.

On the gradual transference of the functions and achievements
οἵ Enoch to Seth, as a consequence of the later tradition making
the Sethites the representatives of goodness and the Cainites of
wickedness, see Charles's note on Jubilees, 415. = -T. K. C.

SETHITES, the name given to the descendants of
Seth mentioned in Gen. 5 (P). We shall deal with this
subject almost entirely as one belonging to the history
of early Hebrew beliefs respecting primitive bumanity ;
the intricate study of the later exegesis on Gen.5 f., to
which R. H. Charles has recently made such valuable
contributions, lies too much apart to be treated here.
1. Term We venture to begin with a criticism of

iticiseg, the term ' Sethites' which presupposes
eriticised. at there are two separate genealogies
of the patriarchst—ie., of the heroes of the primitive
age. Now, we may readily grant that, as the text now
stands, this presupposition is not destitute of plausibility.
Gen. 425/. is obviously the link between two genca-
logies (Gen.417-24 and 5), one of which, as it now
stands, staris from a son of Adam named Cain, the
other from Adam and a son of Adam named Seth or
Sheth (ng, 020) The two linking verses, in their
present form, appear to account for the double genealogy
by stating that Seth was born to fill the place of Abel.
When, however, we look into the genealogies we
quickly see that there is a strong affinity between them,
and a critical examination of the two ‘linking verses*
shows that the passage is no longer in its original form,
but has undergone both corruption and editorial expan-
sion, We have also found reason elsewhere to suspect
that the story of Cain and Abel and the Cainite
genealogy came from separate traditional sources (see
Cain, $ 4; CAINITES, $ 2}; if this is correct, the
Vahwist (7) cannot have represented Seth as a substitute
for the murdered Abel. Instead of ‘Cainites’ and
‘Sethites,’ therefore, it would be better to speak of the
members of the two parallel genealogies due respectively
to J and to P.

lt is the genealogy in Gen.5 that is mainly to

occupy us. We may assume that it is parallel to, and

2.01 in its present form later than, the
gone: alogr: genealogy in Gen.4. We may also
ite origin. regard Stade's view (Akad. Reden, 247)

as fairly probable, that in its original
form the genealogy in Gen, 4 was Sethite as well as Cainite,
that 7. 25 fin a simpler form, including the words, ‘and
Enos begot a son, and called his name Cain,’! once
stood before 4:7, also that in the original Yahwistic
genealogy, of which we possess only an extract, the
tenth place was occupied by Noah.? "If this be so, the

1 It may be presumed that this represents Stade's meaning,
though he only says that ‘425,7 once stood before 4 17/7"

2 Stade's reconstruction of the genealogy, however, which
makes it begin with Enos and close with Jabal and Noah, has
this against ît—-that there are very strong reasons for holding
that “Adam’ (rather ἀπε ἄτη) and ‘Enos’ are not the forms
which originally stood in the genealogy, and therefore not to he
treated as synonyms meaning ‘man,’ or, as Stade expressed it,
that Adam and Enos are ‘doppelganger.”

44ττ

SETHITES

Israelitish circles represented by J had a genealogy of
primitive heroes which agreed in all essentials with the
geoealogy given by P. We may put the two lists,
harmonised as proposed in CAINITES, $ 12, and without
any attempted emendation of the names, over against
each other.

Adam P. Adam
Sheth Sheth
Enosh Enosh
Cain Kenan
Enoch Mabajalel
Irad διὰ
Mehujael noch
Methushael Methuselah
Lamech Lamech
Noah Noah

Even if we doubt whether the genealogy of the
Yahwist in its original form contained as many as ten
names, it is a fact that that of the Priestly Writer (P)
has come down to us with ten, and it is natural (when we
consider that P, as often as he can, uses old material)
to connect this with the fact that Bérossus places ten
antediluvian kings at the head of the history of Baby-
lonia. The names of these kings (see Miller, Fragze.
Hist. Gr.24g9f.) are "ANwpos, ᾿Αλάπαρος, ᾿Αμήλων,
"Αμμένων, MeydAapos, Δάωνος, Ἐὐεδώραχος, ᾿Αμεμψινύς,
᾿Ὦτιάρτης, Ξίσουθρος. Now the solidarity of the early
Oriental culture, under Babylonian influence, was such
that we could not be surprised to find some of the
names given by Bèrossus, in their original forms (when
these forms can be traced), underlying names in the two
Hebrew genealogies which lie before us. The idea is
suggested by the coincidence of number between P's
list and that of Bérossus, but, of course, we have to
compare the names in both the Hebrew lists, so far as
they seem to be akin.

It is remarkable, however, how extremely few of the Hebrew
names can even plausibly be connected with names in the
Berossian list. To compare ᾿Αμήλων with #3, ‘ Enosh* (60
Delitzsch, Hommel, and even Gunkel) seems plainly wrong,
(1) because such a name as ‘man,’ as the proper name of a
primaeval hero, is in the highest degree improbable ; (2) because,
if pu is correct, and means ‘man,’ it is not likely that another
name in the list ‘also means ‘man’; and (3) because, if "AuyAwr
is correct, analogy justifies us in supposing that it is a mutilated
theophorous name (Amil-+). But we may at least provisionally
compare (1) ᾿Αμήλων with Mahalalel (= Mehujael), assuming the
final syllable δὲ (6x) to represent some Babylonian divine name,
and @) ᾿Αμεμψινός (=Amil.Sin, ‘liegeman of Sin??) with
Methutelah (=Methuzael), assuming Selah (nb) to be a
Hebraised form of ἑαγάμ, which is an epithet of various Baby-
lonian gods (see Ass. 7.5 6904, CAINITES, $ 7). Two names
out of ten în the respective lists, plausibly but not certainly
combined, are perhaps scarcely a sufficient basis for a theory
that the Hebrew list în its earliest form was borrowed from
Babylonia.!

It is, however, still important to ascertain, if possible,
whether statements made in either of the Hebrew lists
respecting any one of the primitive heroes are derived
from Babylonian lore. That Noah who, as the text
stands {both in } and in P passages), is the hero of the
Hebrew Deluge-story is, in virtue of his connection with
that story, parallel to Xisuthrus, cannot be doubted.
Zimmern (Beiérége, 116, n. 2) and Gunkel (Ger. 121 Δ},
however, add a comparison of Enoch, who * walked'
with God and was taken to God, with the EVeddpayos
of Παντίβιβλα {=Sippar) in Berossus—i.e., En-me-
dur-anki,? a mythic king of Sippar, to whom the guild
of Babylonian 3ér7-priests traced its origin. This
king is designated ‘the favourite of Anu, Bel, and Ea."
and said to have been ‘called (?) by the gods Samas
and Adad into their fellowship,’ also to have been
initiated into the ‘secrets of heaven and earth ' (Ritual.
tablet, no. 24). Now ît is true that both Enoch and
Ἑιυὐεδώραχος occupy the seventh place in the respective
lists. This, however, is not important; in J's list, as

1 Gunkel (ΑΚ ‘Gen.' 121) omits Methuselah but includes
Kenan (=Cain), which, with Delitzsch and Hommel, he regards
as a translation of {pR=Bab. τερεγργσετε (cp Ges.019) sim. ]BR).

The number two therefore remains. o
2 Dur-anki is the name of a mythic locality (Zimimemn); cp
Jastrow, REA 539.

4412

SETHITES

it now stands, Enoch comes third, and even in the
hypothetical expanded form of the list given above he
only fills the fifth place. In opposition to Zimmern's
learned and ingenious theory we would point out (τὴ
that the initiation of Enmeduranki into the ‘secrets of
heaven and earth’ is by no means as distinctive a feature
as the deliverance of Xisuthrus from the perils of the
Deluge. For other mythic personages besides Enme-
duranki enjoyed this initiation, and among them Xisu-
thrus himself, as his name (Atra-basis, ‘the very wise')
implies, and as his fortunes also sufficiently indicate. It
was, in fact, the highest form that the divine favour
could assume, and it is only natural that the feature or
‘ motive' of temporary or permanent translation to the
abode of the gods should characterise different myths
both in Babylonia itself and in the various countries
where Babylonian mythic germs were deposited. And
(2), we may further remark that probably Enoch, not
Noah, was the hero of the Hebrew Deluge-story as
written by J (see ὃ 3, and cp NOAH, $ I, DELUGE, $ 17).
If this be so, there is scarcely even ἃ superficial appro-
priateness in the comparison of Enmedurankt with the
Hebrew Enoch.

Whilst therefore we do not deny the possibility that
those who (at some Hebrew sanctuary?) shaped or re-
shaped the Hebrew story of the primitive heroes may
have been led to reckon them as ten (P certainly made
ten, and J, too, may perhaps have done so) under
Babylonian influence, we cannot say that there is any
strong necessity for such a view, and all must admit
that it is much more important to comprehend the
statements of the Hebrew narrators. One of the chief
obstacles to such a comprehension is the apparent
duality of some of the heroes mentioned. At first sight,
there seem to be two Cains, two Lamechs, two Noahs;
and if Budde's theory respecting Gen. 417 (see col. 623,
n. 3) be correct, two Enochs.

The grounds for supposing that there are two incon-
sistent pictures of Cain, or in other words, two Cains,!
are given elsewhere (CAN, $ 2) It

3 puality is clear that the passage, Gen. 42-160,
o tech, which accounts for the custom of exacting
Lameri blood for blood, implies that Cain is a

nomad, and with this the statement in
v. 165 partly agrees, for it states that Cain (after hearing
the divine sentence) dwelt “in the land of wandering
{Nod}, castward of Eden." In Gen. 417, however, this
hero is represented as a city-builder, in other words,
as a leading promoter of a settled form of life and of
civilisation, and if we criticise the text of v. τόδ in
accordance with the results attained elsewhere {see
PARADISE, $ 6) we shall have to correct the enigmatical
Hebrew text of MT and (δ, so as to read ‘and [Cain]
dwelt in the land of Eden-jerahmeel' (ny pasa [pp] an
Saonv)—the district in which as we have seen Gen. 112

places us, We need not, however, deny (cp CAINITES,
$ 3) that even in 417 ‘Cain’ (pp) is the eponym of the
Kenites (pp *»p); there were both more and less ad-
vanced branches of the Kenites and Jerahmeelites ; hence
sometimes these tribes are spoken of as nomads, some-
times as having ‘cities’ {1 5, 3029).

Are there also two Lamechs? There is a song
ascribed to Lamech, in which the far-reaching sweep of
tribal vengeance for blood is eulogised ? (Gen. 423 f.).
But we find his three sons taking important steps
forward in civilisation; can they possibly have been
represented as the offspring of a fierce nomad? The
truth is, however {as comparative textual criticism
justifies us in holding), that ‘Lamech' (00) is one of
the popular distortions of ‘Jerahmeei.’ Lamech is

1 Gunkel (Ger. 49) actually makes four Cains : (1) the son
of the first man, (2) the brother and murderer of Abel, (3) the
father of Enoch and city-builder, and (4) the eponym of the
Kenites.

2 See Camrres, 8 8: Nestle, Mare. 50.

4413

SETHITES

therefore a tribal eponym,! and represents both the
more and the less advanced sections of the Jerahmeelite
race. It is remarkable that in P's genealogy Lamech
appears as the father of Noah, who, not less than Jabal
and his brothers, is a ‘hero of culture’ (see NOAH).

For certainly there are two Noahs—there is Noah
the first vine-planter, and there is Noah the head of the
one family that was rescued from the Deluge, at least if
we are content to follow the traditional Hebrew text,
‘That the unpleasing story of what happened to Noah
the vine-planter was ever told of Noah the hero of the
Deluge, whose earthly history was bound to cease with
his marvellous deliverance, is incredible {see NOAH),
though certainly it can hardly be called very probable
that it was said of two of the traditional Hebrew heroes
that they ‘walked’ or had close converse ‘with the
Godhead' (Gen. 522 24 69).

How to remove this difficuliy we have seen already
($ 2), and before the end of thîs section we shall return

sn 10 the subject. At present we would
‘ LI sporadie sex to account for the singular fact
abyloniam chat there i distinctively Bab
influence? at there is no distinctively Baby-
lonian material in the account of the
primeeval heroes (after Adam) except in connection with
Enoch and Noah. It will be observed that while Enoch
the city-builder and Noah the vine-planter are certainly
tribal heroes (Noah should probably be om or 1525
DJ) οὐ 158}, cp vpr, Gen. ὅσο, and Enoch [Ἠἄποκ]
appears as a son of Midian, Gen. 254 1Ch.133),? 188
hero of the Deluge-story în its present form is obviously
not a mere hero ; he is in the fullest sense an individual,
How is this to be accounted for?

To understand the beariags of this question we must
remember that, with the possible exceptions of Mahalalel
and the latter half of Methuselah (see CAINITES, $ 7),
all the names in the genealogies of J and P are de-
monstrably of non-Babylonian origin, and with the
increase of evidence for the great frequency of references
to N. Arabian ethnics in the OT it becomes possible
and even highly probable that ‘ Mahalalel' is a corrup-
tion of ‘‘Jerahmeel' and ‘Methuselah' of ‘Ishmael.'
Thus the names in the Sethite and Cainite genealogy,?
when restored to their original form, become—

Jerahmeel (bxono)
Eshtaol (D&BDR)

Ishmaei μον
Kain= Kenites (}"?)
Handch (gin
Arvad (ἼΝ τε ὙΠ}: Ἴ} Ὁ
Jerahmeel (Ὁ ΠῚ)
ΠΡ)
Jerabmeei Gromo)
Nahman (OM)

The probability of most of these restorations is very
high. Both P and the Chronicler in their lists often
repeat the same nane in different forms. Even if one
‘or two of the restorations be doubiful, the present writer
cannot doubt that the Sethite-Cainite names have a N.
Arabian reference. How, then, came the notices of
Enoch and (?) Noah to be enriched with Babylonian

1 It îs of course very possible that the tribe called Lamech
or Jerahmeel really t00k its name from a deity. This deity was
probably the moon-god Jarham (ny with the Arabic ‘mima-
tion) The non-Semitic divine title Lamga (doubtfully referred
to.in col. 626) need not be relied upon.

3 Enoch also appears as the eldest son of Reuben (Gen. 469
Ex. 614 Nu. 265 1Ch.53). But we can hardly doubt that
Reuben was originally a 5. Palestinian tribe.

ἢ If we prefer to hold that Lamech-Jerahmeel's son in J's
version was originally Tuball-cain], we are still constrained to
admit that the last member of the list bears a N. Arabian ethnic
name. ‘Jabal' and ‘Jubal,' like ‘ Abel,’ are perhaps also most
naturally viewed as corruptions of the widely-spread ethnic name
*Jerahmeel.® “Zillah’ (154) may come from χὸμ (Halisah)
=1bpy (Ziklag); Na‘amah, of course,=Na‘ami or Na'amani,
| Adab (70) is obscure ; perhaps it may come from ΠΤ NY.

4414

SETHITES

material, as 1f they were individuals? What claim had
Enoch and Noah to be treated with more respect than
other N. Arabian tribal heroes, and raised to the rank
of individuals, whose wonderful fortunes gave them a
place by themselves which only Elijah ìn a later age was
privileged to share with them? ‘The question is greatly
simplified if we identify Enoch and the greater of the
two Noahs as proposed already (CAINITES,$6; NoaH)-
i.e., if we read in Gen. 68 (J), ‘But Enoch (n) had
found grace in the eyes of Yahwè,' and in 69 (P),
«Enoch was a righteous man . . ., and Enoch walked
with God.' -
The theory here maintained is that the Hebrew legend
of primzeval times, as told by the writer or writers known
as ],, had no Deluge—de., they accepted the Jerah-
meelite legend as their basis, but without a Deluge-
story.! When, however, the Deluge-story was adopted
from the Jerabmeelites, and converted (under direct
Babylonian influence?) into the story of the universal
Deluge, it had to be provided with a hero who was
not a mere tribal eponym, and (for a reason suggested
below) ‘ Enoch’ was selected to be converted into an
individual, and even to assume something of the appear-
ance of a solar hero, as was fitting for the hero of a
stoty which in its origin was most probably an ether-
myth (DELUGE, 8 18). But a misfortune happened to
him. Αἴ δὴ early period (perhaps) after the Deluge-story

SETHITES

probably is that the Enoch.tribe was a branch of the Jerah.
meelites, and like the Jerahmoelites had a high reputation for
wisdom. From Ezek. 28 (see Crit. 214.) we gather that <Jerah-
meel’ was supposed to have derived his wisdom from Elohim,
in whose sacred garden he had dwelt; now from Ezek. 1414 20
we learn that Noah (ἡ. 6., Enoch), Daniel (i.e., Jerahmee!), and
Job were classed together for their extraordinary righteousness.
This exceptional goodness implies exceptional wisdom. ‘The
first Jerahmeelite is commonly known to us as Adam (see
PARADISE, $ 12), but it is very possible that the first Jerahmeelite
was also în some sanctuaries spoken of as Enoch (Hanòk), and
that his wisdom (cp Job 1577) was specially eulogised în the
legend.

If P does not tell us much about the fortunes of the

patriarchs—‘the youthful world's gray fathers’ {H.
Vaughan) —he is at least full

5. The mumbere. Mono with their ages ΤῊΝ
chronological principle which underlies the numbers in
P's genealogy has not, however, been found. There
is much that is very peculiar about them. The Baby-
lonian tradition only gives the number of years that each
king reigned ; e.g. the first king Alorus reigned for six
sari= 36,000 years, and so on. The enormous numbers
assigned arise from the astronomical training of the
scholars of Babylon. The Hebrew system in P gives
the years of the life of each hero, first those which he
lived before, and then those which he lived after the
birth of his eldest son. Unfortunately, the three great
authorities, the Hebrew, the Samaritan, and the. (85

MT Sam, LXX
Adam» . Β 130 | 8οο 930 130 ! 800 930 230 700 930
Seth . . . 108 | 807 912 105 | 807 912 205 707 912
Enosh , . . 90 | 815 905 90 | 815 905 190 735 905
Kenan . Ὁ. zo | 840 | 910 70 | 840 | 910 170 740 | gio
Mahalalel - 5 65 | 830 895 65 | 830 895 165 730 895
Jared . . . 162 | 800 962 62 | 785 847 162 800 962
Enoch . . . 65 | 300 365 65 | 300 365 165 200 365
Methuselah . .| 187 782 | 969 671 653 | 720 187 782 | 969
(1, 167) | (L 802)

Lamech . . . 182 | τ95 777 531 600 653 τ88 565 753
Noah... -| 590 (950) | 500 (959) 500 (950)

To the food . .| ἴοο 100 ! 100

Total 1656 1307 2262

(L 2242)

had been committed to writing, pn became corrupted
into in, which in turn was editorially altered (under the
influence of a desire ? to work the story of Noah the vine-
planter into the legend) into n {Noah) or πὲ " (Naham ?).
Thus Enoch lost his connection with the Deluge, unless
indeed we care to recognise the statement of Jubilees 423
that Enoch, in Paradise, wrote down all the wickedness
of men, on account of which God brought the waters of
the flood upon ali the iand of Eden.’ But at any rate
he retained his superhuman wisdom, and in later years
attracted to himself more and more mythical elements
(see EwocH, $ 2). Nor were the earlier traditionists
unfair to him. When the list of ten heroes was tcon-
structed, he was ‘placed (probably) at the end of the
first pentad, while Noah or Naham, his supplanter in
the Deluge-story, was placed at the end of the second.
The reason why Enoch—alone among the Hebrew heroes—
was raised to the rank of an individual whose fortunes were
such as to mark him off from all the rest of mankind, is plain.
It is not enough to point to the fact that che Hebrew root of
Enoch (qn) means ‘to train, instruct, initiate.’ 4 The real reason

1 It has been already pointed out (DELUGE, $ 12) that accord-
ing to @ the duration of the Deluge was 365 days (a solar year),
corresponding to the 365 years of the life of Enoch.

2 Sce Budde, Urgesch, ; cp Noan.

3 Nahum (pini) probably belongs te the same group of names
(see Cri. Bid),

4 There is no allusion to this in the fragments of the Hebrew
legend preserved to 8. Gen. 68, if we may replace <n for mi

4415

texts differ considerably, as the accompanying table
will show, 1

It will be noticed that @ agrees with MT, except in
the case of Lamech (where (δ and Sam. show an affinity),
in the totals of the several ages, but differs from
MT (except as to Jared, Methuselah, and —almost—
Lamech) as regards the age of the heroes at the birth
of their first sons. @ is peculiar at Methuselah.
The result is that in @ the Deluge is given as in the
year of the world 2262 (@% 2242), but in MT as in
1656. It can hardly be doubted any longer that MT
is nearer to the original than @.

Geiger has expended great learning and earnestness în behalf
of the numbers of MT. But most critics, since Bertheav, agree
in preferring the Sam. numbers (with which /udi/ees agrees)
even to those of MT, as the calculation is simpler, and the
deviations of the texts are more easily explained on the hypo-
thesis of the priority of Sam. See especially Budde, U/rgescA.
190

Comparing the Sam. numbers with those of MT we
find that for the first five patriarchs they agree. After
that Sam. partly adopts much smaller numbers, bring-
ing the Deluge into the year of the world 1307. Budde
thinks that we may draw detailed inferences from the

(see above), possibly alludes to a popular etymology connecting
n with jN, ‘favour' (Philo actually explains the name as χάρις
σου, cp OS 164 49). ᾿

1 The first column on the left gives the age of the patriarch
at the birth of the first son; the second, the number of his
remaining years; the third, the total.

4416

SETHUR

numbers of Sam. For instance, Jared, Methuselah,

and Lamech die in the year 1307, #.e., probably, not |

in the τῇ months of this year before the flood, but in
the flood ; therefore they are sinners. Enoch is trans-
lated in 887, because he walked with God—i.e., was not
a sinner, The age of the first five patriarchs and of
Noah is about 900; the earlier deaths of Jared,
Methuselah, and Lamech are punishments for wicked-
ness,
God' in the midst of sinners, is due to P's religious
optimism. It is also noteworthy that in Sam. all the
earlier patriarchs are witnesses of the translation of
Enoch. Budde even finds this theory confirmed by the
names of the patriarchs, at least so far as Mahalalel,
Jared, Methuselah, and perhaps Lamech are concerned ;
but in this he goes too far. He also conjectures that
the numbers of MT (according to which only Methuselah
dies in the Deluge) were substituted for the original ones
from the presupposition that the Sethites were the holy
line, which represented the theocratic tradition, as
opposed to the Cainite. These glimpses at possible
speculations in Jewish schools (from P onwards ὃ), which
are somewhat in the style of the Book of Jubilees,! are
of great interest, From a text-critica] point of view the
evidence supplied by Sam. of the late date at which
alterations were made in the Hebrew text is even more
striking.

See Bertheau, 7/27 236577; Budde, Urgeschichte, 89-116;
the commentaries of Dillmami, Holzinger, anà Gunkel ; ‘Kloster:
mann, Neue Kirchi. Zt. δ το8 ὅτ, Dillmann, ‘ Beitràge aus dem
B. der Jubilzen zur Kritik des Pentateuch-Textes' (5.43, 1883,
pp- 3237); and for specimens of Jewish speculative additions
to the biblica] traditions, Charles on Jubilees, chap. 4, in his com-
mentary (1902). τκς

SETHUR (0ÎND, $ 56; see also below; ca@oyp
[RAF], @acovyp [L]), an Asherite spy; Nu,1313 [14]

ἔλα" or [L] Thesur may come from ‘Pathros’ (ono),
which is most probably a corruption of ‘Zarephath' (non), a
place.name of the Negeb (cp PATHRUSIM). Sethur's father is
Micnaei.e,, Jerahmeel. Cp Sithri (ZITARI]. | 1. K.C.

SETTLE, meaning in English a seat, bench, or ledge,
is employed in Ezek. 43 τα, etc., to render MD, ‘dzdrdA,
which in the prophet's description seems to denote the
two ledges, ‘the smaller” and ‘the larger,” between the
base ‘and the hearth. See SBOT ‘Ezek.',
doc.

SEVEN. See NUMBER, $ 5, OATH, $ τ, and cp |

BEERSHEBA, 8 3, and Wi. G/2221.

SEVENEH (11010), Ezek. 29 το 306, ΕΝ, AV, RVne.
SYENE.

SEVEN STARS. See STARS, $ 36.

SEXTARIUS (ZectHc), Mk. 74 AVPE;
See WEIGRTS AND MEASURES, $ 3.

SHAALBIM (D'55bY a corrupt place-name, see
below). A site in the territory of Dan, mentioned
(Josh. 19 42) between Beth-shemesh and Aijalon.

Judg.1 35(ἐν ᾧ [οὗ] αἱ ἀλώπεκες [ΒΡ- vid. AL], ἐν ᾧ αἱ ἀλώπηκες ὃ
(ΒἾ, and θαλαβεῖν [Β΄ ; om. AL], a comuprion of gf oa. Ag, Sym,
Theod.]. See Moore, ad ἦγ). Κ ἃ ope [Β], ἐν
σαλαβειμ [A], Garage [L}, but în Ir oa ‘ghaalabbin
(121%, σα[αλαβειν [BL], -uew [A]); whence the patronymic
Shaalbonite CIDbUS 2 5. 2932, σαλαβωνειτης [BA], σαλαβανι
[L]; 1 Ch. 1133, σαλαβωνε [AL], duer [B], σωμει [x]. See
Haswew),

Some (including Conder and Steuernagel) identify

1 Cp /udilees, 430, ‘And he (Adam) lacked seventy years of
one thoitsand years ; for one thousand years are as one day .
and therefore was it written conceming the tree of knowledge,
‘On the day that ye eat thereof ye will die.” For this reason
he did not complete the years of chis day, for he died during it."

3 From mir rendering it bas been inferred that Heb. like Ar.
had a noun 35y1 (=fox) as well as μην. So evidently W. R.
Smith (7. Pil. 992) who compares the Ar. tribe-name Tha'laba,
Τὰ is worth considering, however, whether, even if we assume
that & read p‘a5ypy, we cught not to explain ἀλώπεκες on the

analogy of Gen. 17 4 where DNTAR apparently=]iD3 DE.

4417

EV ‘pot.’

That two men—Enoch and Noah—' walked with |

Eng. ad |

SHACKLES

with Sa/bit, 3 hrs. SE. from Ramleh towards Yalo
(Aijalon); the situation suîts, but not the phonetic
phenomena (see Kampfimeyer's article, ZDPV 15/.).
As in the case of MAKAZ [g.v.], between which piace
and Beth-shemesh Shaalbim is mentioned in Kings,
corruption is highly probabile. We have the place
names Sha'ul {in Gibeath-sha'ul), Shu'al, Sha/alim, and
Shalisha, and it is difficult not to class Sbaalbim with
these. In r Κ. 49 685 gives βηθαλαμει, which may
have arisen, not out of a misapprehension of 2 in pabye
(which @4 takes as a preposition), but out of a true
sense that the name began with n». Π, as the present
writer thinks, Beth-shemesh, wherever it occurs, is a
distortion of Beth-cushim {=a Cushite settlement ’), it
is reasonable to explain Shaalbim, not as ‘place of
foxes,' but as Beth-sha'alim (‘ place of Sha'alim'), or
Beth-yishme"elim (‘place of Ishmaelites ')—surely a
better explanation. τι κι.

SHAALIM (Ὁ ΩΡ Ὑ Ὁ), 15.94 RV, AV 5βάτιμ
{φιυ.}.
ΒΉΔΑΡΗ (PW; carae [Β], -γὰφ [A], οδὰφ [11]

occurs twice in the Calebite gencalogy : (1) as name of ἃ son of
Tahdai (3 Ch. 247), and (2) as name of a son of Maacah (r Ch.
249). În the latter passage he is calied father of Madmarnali.

SHAARAIM, AV Sharaim (Ὁ, as if ‘two
gates,’ or ‘place of a gate’); see NAMES, $ 107, and
| the expanded ethnic SHEARIAH.

A city in the lowland of Judah (Josh. 1536,
σακαρειμ [E], σαργαρ. [A], σεβαρ. [L]), which Conder,
o n the assumption that it is mentioned in 1 8. 17 52 (so

, Dri. [?], H. P. Smith; but @BAL σῶν πυλῶν) and
was therefore situated W. of Socoh and Azekah (see
1 5.171}, has identified with Tell Zakary&, a huge
conica] hill ‘which must be passed by any one escaping
to Gath.' The site of GATH (g.v.) bas yet to be
determined, however, and the names have no re-
semblance (but cp 858). Perhaps Shaaraim has arisen
by mistake; 1S.1752 should close with ‘and the
mortally wounded of the Philistines fell in the way' (the
rest is dittographed). See £x2.7, Aug. 1899, and cp

SocoH. H. P. Smith, however, retains ‘Shaaraim,'
2, See SHARUHEN, T. K.C.
SHAASHGAZ (Ἰ3}}}}}), Esth. 214. See HecaL.

SHABBETHAI (*‘N3V, cp Sin. *NIV (Eut. 370),
Palm: nom sog and mp; σαββᾳ, Jos Art xv. Το, σαββαιας,
15. xili. 8.4, and βαρισάββας [see Dalman, για, ῥα ᾶτέ, Gram.

, n. 10}; a Babylonian name Sabbat'a is reported from
Nippur by Hilprecht, sth century nc,

ἊΣ the vame stands, it might mean ‘one born on the Sabbath
872). [Most probably, however, Shabbethai, like SuaPHAT and

HEFHATIAH, ‘is a modification of the' ethnic Zephathi,
‘Zephathite' (=Zarephathi, ‘Zarephathite.') _Meshullam and
Jozabad, with which the name Sbabbethai is combined, both
originate in ethnics (Che.).]

1. A Levite who helped Ezra in the matter of the foreign
marriages, Fzra 10 15 (σαβίβΊαθαι [BNL], καββ. [A))=1 Esd.9 14
‘Levis and Sabpatneus' (ἘΝ SABBATEUS; Aeulelis, κας
σαββαταιος ἰσαββεθ. L]). He is probably the same as the
Shabbethai who was present at the reading of the Law under
Ezra (Neh.87; BXA om., σαβαθθαιος [L]): in τ Esd.948
Sanateas, ἘΝ ϑαβατευβ (αβταιος [8], σαββαταίας [A],
σαββαθαιος [1.}).

2. ‘Of the chief of the Levites,' an overseer, possibly identical
with no. 1 (Neh. 1116; om. BRA, σοββαθαιος [Kca. mg. sup.j
σαθθαιος [1.}).

SHACHIA mob [B&., Ginsb.]; Pilo
or 892, also may and mag; the last form, f.e., Shabla,

is favoured by @54: cafia [B], σεβια [A], {but GL σεχια],
and is perhaps to δὲ preferred; perhaps ‘Yahwè has for:

gotten,” cp ®N33%, Sab. SHIA and see NAMES, $ 31, though

names of this type may quite well be expanded ethnics [Che.].
Paskr rende Καὶ Ὡς E Or), 5 name în a pencalogy of BENJAMIN
(9.0.8 9 iL. 8); 1 Ch.$10%. See /OR 11107, 86.

SHACKLES (3%), Jer. 2926 ΕΝ, RV®8 COLLAR
(gv. 3).

some edd.

4418

SHADDAI

SHADDAI ("1 ; for renderings, see NAMES, $ 117},

a divine name of disputed interpretation, given in

Wta, RV®S. wherever ZE/ Skeddai (EV ‘God
1. Biblical Almighty') occurs in MT, and also în Is.
USAE® 186 [0611 τς (EV ‘ Almighty').1

In MT Shaddai occurs more frequently than it does in RVmg.
—viz., in Gen. 171 283 3511 48 1 (all P), Ex. 63 (P), Gen. 4314
(E), 4925 (Blessing of Jacob), Nu. 24416 (Balaam), Ezek. 124
105 Ruthì2021 (A 6815 [14] 911 Job517 (and thirty times:
besides). In the first six passages and in Ezek. 10 5 ΕἸ (God) is

refixed ; γῇ 5x should also be read in Gen. 4925 (Ges., Ew.,

i., Kau., Ball, with Sam., Pesh., Vg., and some MSS).

ÎE we examine these passages, we shall find that only
two of them are commonly regarded by critics as pre-
exilic ?-—viz., Gen. 4925, and Nu, 24416 (originally no
doubt vv. 4 and 16 were identicalj—and of the remain-
ing references all but those in Ps.9l: and the four
prophetic passages (where the text is disputed 8) may be
accounted for by an archaising tendency in the writers ;
e.g., the author of Job means to describe a primeval as
well as a non-Israelitish society, and takes the divine
name vg from P (in its present form). ‘To ascertain
the original meaning of Shaddai we must therefore con-
fine our attention to the two pre-exilic passages. In
Gen. 4925, which is more certainly pre-exilic than Nu.
24416, Εἰ Shaddai (?) is evidently the God of the land
of Israel, viewed especially as the giver of fertility ; in
Nu. 244 16 (see v. 16) he is, in addition, [ΕἸ] Elyon, ‘the

most high God,' who compels a foreign soothsayer 10 |

bless Israel, and will make Israel victorious over its
foes. What sense can "e bear, so as to make it a
suitable name in these contexts? We must of course
remember that the oracles of Balaam are Israelitish
poems.

Passing over plainly inadequate explanations (see
NAMES, $ 117), we may mention three as at any rate not

2.Thr unplausible ; it is the third which seems

lavi ®® to the present writer preferable. (2) A
plausible ex-.onnection was suggested by Frd. Delitzsch

planations. (7/03» Lang. 48) with Jada=%2k8, ‘to
be high' (see 5 R. 28, 82 h), and sadz, Sadda,
‘mountain.’ Delitzsch also quoted the phrase, 2e/
Sadi rabà ('Bel the great rock'), and Zi Sadz'a,
‘God my rock.‘ In Pro/. οὔ, retaining MT's point-
ing, he suggests the meaning ‘the exceedingly high *
(cp ( in Psalms); but the sense now given by Delitzsch
to the divine title Jada rada (see Ass HWB 642),
viz., ‘great lord,'4 is apparently more defensible, and
certainly more suitable to the biblical passages. It
may be possible that fa4Z in the sense of ‘lord’ {or
‘mountain’ ?) is cognate with the Hebrew divine name
Shàd (?), ‘ Lord,’ Shadi (?), ‘my Lord." Frd. Delitzsch
in Job renders vg * Allherr' {All-lord). (6) However,
it is not less possible, with Néldeke and G. Hoffmann
(see NAMES, col. 3325, n. 2), to read ‘up, 347, still
rendering ‘my Lord'; the pronoun would refer to the
people worshipping the divine ‘ Lord’; cp Baali (Hos.
2:6 [18]). (6) Lastly, it is possible and (in conformity
with the present writer's estimate of P's proper names
elsewhere) even probabile, that ‘1g is corrupt. ΤῸ restore
the true name with certainty is impossible; but it is
plausible to correct “ig (MT Skaddai) into Sx ‘Israel’
(cp Gen. 4925, me ba ll van), We may suppose that
this was originally written by the Priestly Writer “am,

1 & omits în Gen., Ex. unless the genit. of the pers. pron. is
taken to represent it (once ὁ ἐμός, Gen, 49 25), θεός in Nu, 2416
Is. 136; in Joel 115 δα reads τῷ for my; in Ruth120£ ὁ ἱκανός
(L omits in 7. 20, A in τ, 21), in Ezek.124 620 om., GA ἱκανός
(0 Theod. in O), 105 σαῦδαι ; in Ps 6815 è ἐπουράνιος, Ir, ὁ
ϑεὺς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ; in Job κύριος nine times, παντοκράτωρ sixteen
times, e. πάντ, once, ixavds three times, ὁ rà πάντα ποιήσας once.

2 The pre-exilic date, however, of the oracles of Balaam is
questioned by Diehl and von Gall.

è On Ps.91 τ (and 6815) see Che, 25.19 In 15.186 Joellis
mn 27 should, in the opinion of the present writer, most prob-
ably be baynw» 175, “like destruction wrought by Ishmael.”
In Ezek. 124 10.5 also the present writer believes that ‘ig comes
from Bagme» (in 124 ᾿ pieni 2, Sapri). See Crit. 215.

4 Cp Homme}, 4 110, The word sad has come now and
then to mean Med or ‘ commander.”*

4419

SHAHARAIM

| and that an editor misunderstood this, and corrected it
into e. That in all the passages where νη occurs the
writer is directly dependent on our P, is a perfectly
defensible proposition. It is equally plausible to hold
that El-elyon at any rate in Gen, 141922 (see SoDoM,
ὃ 6 [c]) and El-'olam in Gen, 2133 are corruptions of
El.jerahmeel, ‘the God of Jerahmeel.' Cp also El-bethel
(Gen. 3113 357), originaliy perhaps El-tubal; TusAL
(g.0.) îs an ethnic and place-name of the Negeb.

The names supposed to be compounded with Shaddai are
vaennp, mezz, and “gens. It is doubrful, however, whether
this widely accepted theory is correct. See ShepEUK, Ζύκι-
SHADDAI.

Hommel (ART 109 2.) confirms the second view given above

by comparing the Babylonian names Ammi-satana, Samiu-
satana (dynasty of Hammurabi), and the Assyrian names
Marduk-tadia, Bel.sadùa, Bel-Harran-Sadia. That «na in the
two former words is the first plur. suffix seems highly probable
(Jensen compares Old Bab. suduràna). T.K.C.

SHADES (D°XD1), see DEAD, ὃ 3, and REPHAIM.

SHADOW OF DEATH moda; σκιὰ BANATOY |
umbra mortis), or, as ἘΝ, ‘deep darkness,' a title of
SHEOL (g.v.) in the Book of Job (eg., 102: f ‘the
land of the Shadow of Death," 6 γνοῴερος and run
CKOTOYC ἀιωνιου; 8817, ‘the Gates of the [city of
the] Shadow of Death," 6 myAwpol ἀδογ). Prob-
ably, too, passages like Job 35 2417 (cp ©) Ps. 4419 [20]
should also be classed with these passages, and, by
probable correction of the text, Ps. 9417 11517 (see
below). The didactic explanation ‘shadow of death”
proceeds from a very old but probably incorrect tradition,
I suits the preceding passages, however. Elsewhere
(eg, Am. 58 [6 σκιάν without θανάτου] Job 85 Ps. 107
10 14 Is.9x[2]) ‘deep darkness,’ or rather *gloom’ is
perhaps more favoured by the context.

On the pointing nds, or ΠΡΟΣ, see Barth, ΔΒ 2596: on
the traditional reading mods, N6ld. CGA [1867] 456: ΖΑ͂ ΤῊ
17 [1897] 182 7 On the emendation MDBs for NOI (con-
jecturally rendered ‘silence’) in Ps. 94 17 115 17, see Che, P'5.(2)

SHADBACH (DT ceApay [@BAOT Theod.]}
and Meshach (129; mIelicay [&BQI Theod.]-cax
[A]}), names given at Babylon to two of Daniel's Jewish
companions, otherwise called Hananiah and Mishael
{Dan.17 249 81 7) Very un-Babylonian-looking
names. The termination can hardly be Aku, a name
of the moon-god (so Frd. Del, formerly, but see now
Calwer BL 575 δ), but might be the Elamite name Sutruk
{Lenormant ; Jensen}, If, however, we admit that the
story of Daniel, like so many others in the OT, has been
altered by a redactor, and that the scene of part of it
at least lay in the land of Jerahmeel, we may conjecture
that Shadrach is a distortion of Asshur, Meshach of
Cusham, and for completeness let us add, comparing
Rab-shakeh from ‘Arab-cush, and Rab-saris from ‘Arab-

asshur, Abed-nego from ‘Arab-negeb—i.e., the Arabia

of the Negeb. Cp NisROCH. T.K.C.
SHAFT. Ἢ, γάγξξ, lit. ‘thigh’; kayAoc=

Ex. 2531 3717 AV; Nu.84 ‘base’ ΕΥ̓͂. See CANDLESTICK,

2
2. MD, fandh, καλαμίσκος, Ex. 2531 8717 RV; ‘branch’
AV, see CANDLESTICK, $ 2.
3. |M 425, βέλος ; Is.492.

SHAGE (MIU, var. NA: cooAa [BN] carn [A]
camala [L]), 1 Ch.1134t. See JONATHAN (5) and
SHAMMAH (4),

SHAHARAIM (D'N?; caapÒà [Β], -pum [A],
cewpein [L]). a Benjamite name (1 Ch. 884). Either
a cormption, through Ahishahar, from Aher (so Marq.,
see BENJAMIN, 8 9, ii. 2, 3} or, much more probably, a
corruption, equally with Ahishahar, of Ashhur, a name
which, modified as Asshur, designates the N. Arabian
population of the Negeb. Cp SHInoR. Shaharaim's

Sce Wearons, $ 2.

1 The present writer, however, believes that “na again and
again represents Syispras, ' Jerahmeel.*

4420

SHAHAZIMAH

home was in ‘the field [highland] of Moab,’ or rather
‘of Missur'; his wives are named Hushim and Baara—
i.e., Cushim and ‘Arab. T.K.C.

SHAHAZIMAR (MO*YNV, Kr., but MOTSMY, Ktb.,
whence RV Shahazumah}, a place on the border of
Issachar towards the Jordan—if the text is correct
(Josh. 1922; cadeim Kata BaAaccan [Β], cacer-
mao x. 0. [A]. cacerma [L]; sebesimza [Vg.]; sasima,
saasim [OS® 3018 1522r]).

Dillmann supposes a place-name Shahazim, which îs usually
connected with pn, ‘to be high'(Ges-Bu.08; cp Gray,

ΡΝ 95). Analogy, however, favours the view that either ‘9
δ ἃ. miswritten form οὗ the following werd pbp ma, or epg in

'a is a corruption of the name which underlies ‘ng. Now
ῥοῦ în MT is sometimes a corruption of DE3 or D'YI (eg,

probably Ps. 725 1216), mp of was (Ps 76716), and DDD of
D'#AI (Is. 6620, Criz. Βὲδ.). D'SNW may therefore come from
j35, either directly (N=2), or through the form mb.

Similarly Beth-shemesh comes from ‘Beth.cushim'; in τ. 38
it isgronped with Migdal-el and Horem, both of which names
come îrom ‘ Jerahmeel' (virtually a synonym of *Cush'). Old
Cushite or Jeralmeelite settlements are meant. ὀ ὀ Τὶ Κὶ C.

SHALEM (DÒ@; eic coAHM [ADEL]; so Pesh.,
Vg.; Jub. 30: gives ‘to Salem. in peace’;
Sam,, DI; ‘in peace' RV), Gen. 3318, Accepting
the MT and AV's rendering, we must look for a place
called Shalem near Shechem, where in fact Robinson
found a village called Salim, in the billy region to the E.
of the Vale of Shechem. No such place, however, is
mentioned elsewhere, and many prefer to render ' safe
and sound’ (Tgg., Saad., Rashi, Ges., Di., Del. ; cp
Sam.). The truth, however, is quite different. It is
probable that the geography of the original narrative has
been altered by the redactor. See SHECHEM, 2.

‘Came in peace' is not natural. Wellbausen (0 ΑΥ (6) 317),
Kautzsch-Socin (Gex. 78), and Ball suspect corruption. nor,
however, is not a plausible emendation of οὗν). T.K.C,

SHALIM, RV Shaalim, Land of (DIP, tHC

rHe eacakem [Β], 7. r. canAeim (AI, THC γης
radài της πόλεως ceradeim [L]), 1 8.941. Ac-
cording o Ewald (2/54 319), Wellhausen (7.5 70),
Driver, and Léhr, ‘Sha'alim’ should rather be ‘ Shaal-
abbim ' {a Danite place). The account of Saul's route is,
however, by no means clear, and ‘Sha'alim’ may be a
corruption either of Shalishah or of Shaul (with which
SHUAL [y.v,] may also be connected ; cp H. P. Smith);
in this case the second clause in v. 4 disappears.
T, Κι C.

SHALISHA(B), LAND ΟΣ (Ng “x; tue Fuc
ceAya [BL], τ᾿ pr. caAicca [A]). mentioned in the
description of the route taken by Saul, after leaving his
home, to the “land of Zuph' sn the hill-country of
Ephraim (15.94).

The name Shalisha(h) also occurs in the compound place-
name BAAL-sHALISHA and possibly underlies the corrupt words
ZELAH and ZELZAH (99.7), BARZILLAI (see MEPHIBOSHETH),
and also Laisk and LAIsHAR ; on the affinities of the name cp
ASHER, ἢ 4, îi., end.

The district referred to in 15.94 would seem to be
that in which the headquarters of Saul’s clan were
situated-—?.e., probably Beth-gallim (cp GALLIM) or
Beth-gilgal, or (originally) Beth-jerahmeel.1! It must
also have contained the place called Gibeah of Saul,
which might probably with equal accuracy be called
Gibeah of Shalisha, the names of Saul (Shaul) and
Shalisha being perhaps connected {see SAUL, $ 1,
MEPHIBOSHETH). If, therefore, ‘Gibeah of Saul’ is
rightly identified with Tell el-Ful, 2% m. N. of Jeru-
salem, we know the situation of the Land of Shalisha.

The geography of 15,94 has caused much perplexity. The

difficulty lies not only in the position of the clause, “And he
passed through the hill country of Ephraim, but also in the

final clause referring to 2). fav (ΕΓ, ‘the land of the Ben-
jamites"), 9 Ὧ) ΓΝ must be taken together with 99 WR in
25.201. In both passages «is very probably a corruption of

1 In explanation, see MePHIBOSHETH, ROGELIM, ZELZAH.
4421

SHALLUM

«Sim», and the last member of the sentence in 1$. 94 is to be
regarded as a correction of the carelessly written first clause, so
that the whole verse becomes (cp SHaLix) ‘And he passed
through the Jerahmeelite land (ἡ, ., the district of Beth-Jerah-
mecl), but they found them not, and passed through the land of
Shalisha (£.e., the district of Gibeah of Saul), but they found
them not’ For a parallel to the emendation of pmsamn in
clause 1, see Josh. 2433, and cp PHinEHAS; and for another
view, see Marg. Axxd. 12, n. 1,

BAAL-SHALISHA (2 K. 442) has been considered else-
where, and the identification mentioned will still perhaps
be the most plausible one, even if we explain the
second part of the name and also the ‘Gilgal’ in 2 K.
4381 on the analogy of the 'Gilgal' and ‘Gallim’
disclosed to us in 28.94/ 1727 1952, and the
‘Shalisha' of 15.94 We may also provisionally
hold that Shalisha is a less correct form than Shaul
{cp SAUL, $ 1). T.K.C.

SHALLECHETH, GATE OF mobi), apparently
one of the gates of the temple, 1 Ch.26x6t. See
HosaH ii. That it is a synonym for the ‘dung-
gate’ (cp ΝΕ), is very unlikely. Cp, however,
Thenius on 2 Ki. 2616.

SHALLUM (DID, either from a clan-name akin to
Ishmael, or='retribution [of God], cp $ 56 and see

MESHULLAM; analogous are mbe mbe, and

Pa. Dbe, Dina, pbwn, palm. RISE [caXmac]

and |P, the Nab. Y9bP and Sab. DOD, ete., cp
Berger in Rev, d'Assyriol, et d'Archéol. 1895, p. 75;

ceMovym [BAL]).

1, Son of Jabesh (EV), or rather ‘a Jabeshite ' {see
ΟἸΝΑΤΗ), who killed Zechariah b. Jeroboam, the last of
the dynasty of Jehu, in IBLEAM {g.v.] and usurped the
throne of Israel. After one month's reign he was killed
by Menahem (2 K.15 10-15; σελλημ [L]}, M'‘Curdy
(PM 1357) sees a reference to this in the statement of
Zech. 11 8 that Yahwè ‘ cut off the three shepherds in one
month.’ It is difficult, bowever, to justify this theory
(which is that of Hitzig and Ewald) in all points from
the Hebrew records, and the view that Zech. 9-11 is pre-
exilic is unsatisfactory (see ZECHARIAH [B0oK], $ 5).
It has been thought that Shallum's bold deed may be
referred to in Hos. 1014 (see BETH-ARBEL, but cp
SALMAH),

2. b. Tekoa (MT Tixvan, g.v.), s.e., a Tekoite, ‘keeper of
the wardrobe,' and husband (&84 ‘son’) of the prophetess
Huldah (2 K. 2214 σελλὴμ [BL] 2 Ch. 84 22 σελλημ [BAL}); see
delos, τὰν

Ἢ. Sismai, a descendant of Sheshan (1 Ch.2 407) σαλζλ]ουμ.
DBÀLÌ. ἈΠΟ (S807 ad loc.) ilustrates the combination τὲ
Ἰοὺ and pÒw by (σεσμαος) molo] 15 Dbpbya in a Ph, inscrip
tion from Larnax Lapethus (CS1 95); but cp Stsmar,

4 b. Josiah (Fer. 2211, σελλημ, 1 Ch. 315 caAlAlova [BA],
generali known as JEHOAHAZ [2.2].

5. b. Shaul, of ΘΙΜΕΟΝ (ὃ 9), 1 Ch. 425 (σαλεμ [BA] σελλημ
ul; sellum (Vg.)).

Ὁ. Zadok, in the genealogical list connecting Eleazar with
Esa, x Ch. το 1536/1] (σαλωμ [B], Ezra 2, σαλουμ [B])=
1 Esd. 81 (Saro, ἈΝ SALEM σαλημον [BA] 2 diminutive)=
4 Esd.11 Sapamias, RV SaLemas. In 1Ch.95r Neb. 1 τα
his name appears as MESHULLAM (g.2., no. 7).

7. db. NaPHTALI (δ 6), 1Ch.7 13 (σαλωμων {B], σελλημ [1.}}.
He and his brother are called ‘the sons of Bilhah' (the mother of
Napbtali and Dan); possibly some of these were Danites (see
Be. Chron. ad loc.). According to L BaAaay (for Bilhah) was
the son of Shallum., The name appears also under the form
Suinrem 2 (Gen. 46 24, σνλλημ, mòg Sam. Nu. 2649, mig Sam.
σελλὴ [B], σελλημ [AF] osa aa ILD, whence the family of the
Shillemites (Nu. /oc. cit. mbe Sam. è σελλημ[ςεῖι
[BAFL].

8. The b'ne Shallum were one of the six groups
‘children of the doorkeepers. (Ezra 243 σαλονμ LB] ΝΕ. Τάς,
σαλουμ {BR]) in 1 Esd. 5 28SaLtm (gaAovu [A] [B om.]). Of
these, three (Shallum, Akkub, and Talmon) are mentioned as
individuals în a list of doorkeepers (1 Ch. 9 17, σαλωμ [B twice,
A once], σαλλωμ [A once]). In Neh. 12 25 his name appears as
MesWuttam (g.2., no. zo, and see below, no. 11). ‘Door

of_the

1 On δ᾽ reading, see Rackel's Serutcare.
2 As the versions show (here and în nos. 4 and 10), D5Y and
Cbt are very closely related, cp MesnuLLAMOTA (1)

4422

SHALLUN

Keepeis' în Ezra 242 Neh. 7 45 should probably be ‘Asshurites,"
another N. Arabian ethnic (Che.).

9. Shallum the Korahite (1 Ch 9 19, σαλωμὼν [B], σαλωμ’ [A]),
see MESMELEMIAH.

το. An Ephraimite (α Ch. 28 το σελλημ [BA] «esp {L}).

τις A door-keeper (or Asshurite? Che.), Ezra 1024 (γελλημ'
18], γαιλλειμ {K], σολλημ [A], e, [L])=1 Esd. 925 SALLUMUS
ἰσαλλουμὸς [Β" ΒΑ], «nov [Rat c#}). From the fact that Telem
(cp Talmon) occurs alongside his name, it is probable that he is
to be identified with no. 8, above.

12. One of the b. Bani, Ezra 1042 (σαλουμ [BR)=SamatuS
1 Esd. 9 34 (caparos [BA

13. ὃ. HaLtonesn (Ni5M), one of the repairers of the wall at
Jerusalem (Neh. 3 12 σαλίλ]ουμ [BA], οαλουμ [#]).

14. The father of Hanameel and uncle (3jm) of Jeremiah (Jer.
32 [® 89]7, σαλωμ [BAG], σαλμὼν [κ΄], azzot. εἰρηνη (Que),
possibly the same as 2 (above).

15. l'ather of Maaseiah (Jer. 86 [(5 42]4 σελωμ [ΒΑ], σιλωμ,
In*] σαι [νς.8]}.

SHALLUN (Ὁ 8), b. Cor-nozex (g.2.), raler of the
district of Mizpah, who repaired the fountain-gate and
part of the pool of Shiloah (Neh.3r5; @5PN4 om.,
emmwon [L]).

SHALMAI (AV in Neh.748= Ezra 24; code
{=Sacma: în RV] in Neh. with no vary. [except capari (n)
against σαλαμει (B), cedue (A), σελεμει (1)], and in Ezra, Kr.
[Βᾶ, ; the usual text being ‘979, cp σελαμίεν (AL); ‘bi in
Ezra, Kt, (Ba. ; the usual text being *299 = SuamLa1 (RV),
σαμααν (B)]), only in the phrase ‘the children of Salmai,’ a
family of the NETHINIM (see Ezrail, $ 107) The name

suggests a foreign origin. In τ Ἐβά. ὅ 30 the corresponding
name is Susat (σνβαει [ΒΑ], σέλαμει (LI). Cp SHELUMIEL.

SHALMAN (Hos. 1014).

SHALMANESER("D&Yb%; CAMENNACAp: CAda-
manaccap [B]; caAmanacap [A], camanaccap
[Avi, in 2 K. 189]; caAmanaccap [L]: in Tob.
1213157, Enemessar, enemeccapoc, -ap [BNA];
in 4 Esd. 1340 SALMANASAR, Sa/marassar), named
as king of Assyria in 2 K.173-6 189-11, is obviously
the king who succeeded Tiglath-pileser and preceded

Sargon. Hence he must be identified with SulmAnu-
aSarid IV., successor and possibly son of Tiglath-
pileser III He was king of Assyria, 727-722 B.C. He
seems to have left no monuments, probably because
his reign was so short. He was succeeded by Sargon II.,
who appears to have founded a new dynasty. Very
little is known of him. The Babylonian Chronicle,
ΑΒ 2276, narrates that ‘he sat on the throne, 2sth
of Tebétu [727 B.c.3 The city Samara'in (or
Sabara'in) he destroyed (cp SAMARITANS, $ 2).
In his fifth year ‘SulmAnu-afarid, in Tebétu, met his
fate. Five years had Sulmanu-aSarid reigned in Assyria.'
The existing copies of the eponym canons give the
names of the eponyms for the five years of his reign,
and the additional information that in the first two
years there was no military expedition, but that there
was one in each of the years 725-722 BC. Un
fortunately the objective of these expeditions ἰ not
known. Some of the standard lion weights found at
Kalah bear this king's name, A2 2337 A boundary
stone inscription, published by Peiser (Aei/iuschrifiliche
Actenstiiche, 7 7}, refers to private transactions in the
second year of this reign, at Dùr-ili, which town was
then under his rule. For another private transaction of
this reign, in or near Nineveh (9), see AB 4108. Sargon,
in one of his inscriptions, accuses Shalmaneser of forcibly
dispossessing the old capital ASSur of its ancient rights
and immunities (see Wi. 40714027) It seems
certain also that, before he camme to the throne, his
father (?) Tiglath-pileser had placed him as bis lieutenant
over the city and district of Simirra, conquered in 738
Βια. {see Wi 40724) That he actually took
Samaria is rendered doubtful by Sargon's claim to have
done so, see SAMARITANS, ὃ 2. See HosEA for his
relations with that monarch.

The Shalman of Hos. 1014 has been identified (eg.
by Wellbausen, who regards τ. 10 as an interpolationi

4423

See BETH-ARBEL.

SHAMGAR

with Shalmaneser IV. ; against this see BETH-ARBEI., and Crif.
Bibi C.H. W.J.

SHAMA (Ὁ, camaga [BN]. camma [AL]), Ὁ.
Hothan the Aroerite, one of David”s heroes (1 Ch. 11 44).
Cp Elishama—;.e., probably Ishmael (Che.). His
brother is Jeiel—.e., Jerahmeel [Che.] (see JEIEL, 2).

SHAMARIAH (Mot), 2Ch. 1119). See SHE-
MARIAH (2).

SHAMBLES (Old Eng. sceme, from the late Lat.
scamellum, a small bench), though now generally used
in the sense of a slaughter-house, formerly signified a
bench or stall on which goods, and particularly meat,
were exposed for sale, and then a meat or flesh-market
(κρεοπώλιον). In this sense shambles is used in
our later English versions to render μάκελλον (1 Cor.
1025), the Lat. τραρείζωηα," or provision- market, for
wbich earlier translators have ‘market’ (‘Tindale) or
‘fieshe market’ (Coverdale and others). ‘Shambles’ first
appears in the Rheims version of 1582. ‘The Roman
colonists who founded the Corinth of Paul's day (see
CORINTH) in all probability brought the name with
them.* The salesmen were named weece/larii and dealt
not only in the fiesh of domestic animals but also in
venison and other game, as well as in the various
secondary articles of diet classed by the ancients under
the head of ὄψον, odsoria (references in Marg. Das
Privatleben d. Rimer, 450 [1879]).

Dio Cassius defines τὸ μάκελλον as τὴν ἀγορὰν τῶν ὄψων
(61 18). "In Athens the provision-:market (ὀψοπωλία) was divided
into sections, termed κύκλος (circles), and named after the special
vare offered for sale, εἰς τὸ ὄψον, εἰς τὸν οἶνον, etc. (Poll. 947

29).

Tn 1 Cor. 1025 the Corinthian Christians are advised
to purchase whatever is offered for sale in the provision-
market of the city, asking no question on the score of
conscience, ‘for the earth is the Lord's and the fulness
thereof.’ Α. ΚΕ. 5. Κὶ

SHAMED, RV SHEMED (ἼΦ), Ὁ. ELPAAL (φ'υ.),
in a genealogy of ΒΕΝΙΑΜΙΝ (g.v., 8 9, ii. 8), 1 Ch.812;
perbaps same as Ishmerai in ©, 18, see /0£ 11103, $ 1.
Recent editions (Bi., Ginsb.) read ww, in preference to
“vv {final 4, not final r); the latter, however, is followed
by ordinary Hebrew Bibles, Pesh. and & (onump [B].
σεμμ. [A], σαμαιηὰλ [L]).

SHAME, SHAMEFUL THING (NWA0), Hos. 910
Jer.324 1113. See IDOL, 8 3.

SHAMER (19), Ch. 734, AV SteMER (2 and 3).

SHAMGAR (MIDP; camarap [B]. came- [L, and
BA in Judg. 56]; Jos. casrapoc, camarapoci on
1. Judg.33: the addition in some MSS of @ after

τ Sudg.931 Fuag. 1631, see Moore, ‘Judges,’ SBO7"
[Heb.], 59). An early Israelitish hero, Judg. 831 56;
or, as others think, a foreign oppressor of Israel or of
some part of Israel whom the writer of Judg. 3.31, through
a misunderstanding of the allusion in Judg. 56, mistook
for a patriotic warrior. The notice in Judg. 331, how-
ever, is, according to the most recent commentators, a
very late insertion, later not only than the deuteronomistic
elements in Judges, but also than the editor to whom the
chronological system of Judges în its present form is due.
Tt stands altogether outside that system, and is evidently
unknown to the author of Judg.41, which connects the
oppression of Jabin with the death of Ehud. ‘The author
of the notice was poorly provided with suitable details
for a fictitious story ; he takes a hint (it may perhaps be
held) from Judg.1514 f, where a similar exploit is

1 {For other references see Lehmann, ‘ Menander u. Josephos
Ὧν. Salmanassar IV. pt. i.," Beifrdge zur Alten Geschichte,
2 125-140 (1902).] i

2 Macelium was also adopted into the Hebrew of the Talmud
and Midrash under the forms }i5pt, γ᾽, etc. (see the lexi-
cons.of Levy and Jastrow). ᾿

For the reacellz of Rome sce art. macellum in Smitb's Dich
φᾷ. and Rom. Antig.®)

4424

SHAMGAR

assigned to Samson.! When we consider that the legend
(25.231 Δ} of Shammah ben Agee, one of David's
heroes, has also been influenced by the Samson-story,
such license would not be surprising. Note also that
all these names begin with se (54-22). The chief object
of the insertion of Judg. 331 would be to explain the
ohscure phrase ‘in the days of Shamgar ben Anath' in
Judg. 56.

This critical theory can only be right in part? Certainly
Shamgar ben Anath comes from the song in Judg. 5 (in a corrupt
form, so far as Ὁ. 6 is concerned), But the late writer of 331
ventured on no account of ‘Shamgar's* exploits. Unless our
experience elsewhere is altogether illusory, the passage (331)
has suffered both by corruption and by editoria) manipulation:
On the analogy of similarly corrupt passages, we have t0 restore
it thus: ‘And after him arose Shamgar ben Anach ; he smote
the Pelistim [Ishmaelites, Jerahmeelites}; he also delivered
Israel” The corrector of the MS evidently felt that ‘ PeliStim'
occurred t00 early ; he wrote in the margin ‘Ishmaelites,’ ‘ Jerah-
meelites,' as alternative corrections for ‘ Peli$tim.® ‘Ishmaclites’
seems to be the right word ; the preceding narrative in its original
form probably closed with the words, ‘and the land had rest
from the Ishmaelites, just as the narrative of Jabin or Sisera
probably closed with the words, ‘and the land had rest from the
Arabians.’3

But who was the true ‘Shamgar' (Judg. 56)? Moore
(Judges, 106) and Marquart (fund. 3) have suggested
that he may have been a Hittite king.
2. Judg.56. sangara was the name of a (Hittite) king
ΟΥ̓ Carchemish in the time of ASur-nasir-pal and Shal-
maneser II. Moore also refers, in illustration of ‘ Sisera,”
to the numerous Hittite names in -sira (e.g., Htàsira,
WMM 4s. « Eur. 332), whilst Marquart compares the
name Pi-siri(5), borne by the last king of Carchemish
{cp Del. Par. 270), and Ball‘ refers (for ' ben Anath ')
to Bur-anati, the name of the king of Yasbuk whom
Shalmaneser II. mentions as an ally of Sangara (18
1159; cp ISHBAK}, The song, however, is so ofien
corrupt that the question of the names Shamgar and
Sisera needs to be re-examined in connection with a
thorough critical revision of the text of Judg, 5. The
main historical result of such a revision appears to the
present writer to be that the foes by whom the Israelites
were oppressed were N. Arabians, variotusly called Jerah-
meelites, Ishmaelites, Cushites, Asshurites, and Keniz-

zites, and that v. 6 should run thus;

In the days of Jerahmeel son of Anak,5
In the days of Cusham and Ishmael.

me, ‘Shamgar' (?), is in fact a scribe's mixture of
Sayoe and danm», and the scribe himself corrected his
error,8 while ΚΘ is a corruption of the ethnic name
mex, ‘Asshur,' a collateral form of which was probably
“g3, ‘Geshur’ (see GESHUR, 2). Now perhaps we can
see how ‘Jabin' and ' Sisera" both appear în the story.
“Jabin' (&4, twice Jamin) is one of the corruptions of
«Jerahmeel,' so that the king of Kenaz (np, not 1.55},
whose capital was Kadesh[-barnea], might equally well
be called ‘Jerahmeel' and ‘Asshur.’ That ‘Sisera'
represents a N. Arabian ethnic name may also be pre-
sumed from its occurrence in the list of the families of

1 Moore points out (SBO7, 1.2.) that in some forms of (5. the
notice of Shamgar stands after the story of Samson, and con-
jectures that this was the original place of the brief account.

2 Winckler (G/2 124), too, expresses dissatisfaction with the
current theory ; but he has no light to throw either on 3 31 or
on 56,

3 There are quite sufficient parallels for these and the preced-
ing emendations. pg frequently springs cut of beppe, and
ebronological statements have several times (e.g., Nu. 14 33 Am.
2 τὸ 5.25) arisen out of misread ethnic names. See MosES, $ 11,
The difficulties arising out of p%m (cp 65), and out of the six
hundred men, who “have always taxed the credulity of the com-
mentators' (Moore; cp Wade, 0/2 Test. History, 198, n. 1),
now disappear.

4 Smith's 229, sw. ‘Ishbak.® ‘Bur’ may have been taken
by the scribe to be τε ἼΞ (‘son’); cp the reading proposed in
col. 163, n. 1.

5 nand p confounded. But cp ANATH.

6 τυ» in bys ve represents Spini: ; p stands for pe. Therest
of ‘n was expelled by the following word 1ban which resembles

my. _Line 2 now appears în a much altered form in 2. 76, See
Crit. Bib.

4425

SHAMMOTH

the Nethinim (=Ethanim, ‘men of Ethan'—a N.
Arabian region). See SISERA, and Crit. Θεό.

Cp G. F. Moore, /weges, 105 Δ, 142 7, and ‘Shamgar,and
Sisera, in Jowrn. Arm Or. Soc. 19 b:39 Δ; Wi. GI 2124 (Sem
gér, two divine names), τι κι΄.

SHAMEDTE (MIMO), : Ch. 278;
SHAMMAH (5).

SHAMIR (HOW). τ. a city in the highlands of
Judah (Josh.1548; cameip [8], cageip [AL]). It
may possibly be identified with Uzzre Somerak, 2000 ft.
above sea level, 2 m. N. from ‘Anab (cp ©. 50) and ς hrs.
SW. from Hebron. So Gugrin, Conder, Buhl. But
note rage of GAL,

2. A place in Mt. Ephraim, the seat of the clan of
Tola, in Issachar, see IssacHAR, $ 7 (Judg. 101 f.;
σαμειρ [Β], capapera [AI.].! A site to the extreme
N. of the hill-country seems possible {Moore). But see
‘ToLA, where it is suggested that we should transfer the
tradition of ‘Tola to the Negeb. Observe, too, that
Shimron (g.0.) is both a name of Issachar, and, accord-
ing to the present writers theory of Josh. 111 and
Am. 89, etc., the Negeb. T.K.C.

SHAMIR (OY, Ktb, NOW), b. Uzziel, a Levite
{τ Ch. 2424; camuHp [BA], cemmup [L]).

SHLAMILAI (‘IU Kt; "97, Kr.; camaan [B],
ceAamleli [AL]), Ezra 246= Neh. 5,48, SALMAI,

SHAMMA (K?80), Ὁ. Zophah, in a genealogy of

ASHER(9.v.,$ 4, ii.), 1Ch.737(cem[mla [BL], camma
[A].

SHAMMAH {ΠΡ $ s1 ; abbrev. from SHEMAIAH),

1. Son of Reuel Ὁ. Esau, and a ‘duke' or ‘clan’ (ἢ) of Edomi
Gen. 36 13 17 1 Ch.137 (σομε [BADELI, but 1 Ch.137 coupe
[A], σαμμα [L}, and Gen. 8617 σομαι {2}. See EDOM, $ 4.

2. Son of Jesse (see Davio, $ 1a, n.); (15.169, σαμα [B],
cappa (A), σαμαα [L}); but 1 Ch.213 RV (AV Shiwa), 207
Sinuza (4059); 2 5.185 cauaa [BAL]; 2 S.2121, Kr. ΒΗΙΜΕΛΗ
(yen); i Kib, and ἘΝ Βητμει, ‘YDg, σεμεει [BA] σαμαα
(LD. Hissons were Jonanapand JonATHAX {σις}. See no. 5,

ow.

3. b. Acee [9.w.], one of David's ‘first three* (9 $.2811/;
σάμαια [Β], σαμμεας {A}, σαμαιας [L]), a HARARITE [{.0.] or

rhaps an ARCHITE (9.2.1, for GA calls him ὁ dpovyatos, GL
ὃ ἀραχι. Ths exploit attributed to him în 2S. is, with slight
variations, assigned in 1 Ch. 11 13, to Eleazar, another of David's
“first three," tn L he appears ὅς ‘son of Ela which may implyy
identifying him with Shimei, son of Ela(1 K.418 ἘΝ see ELAH,
6). He had a son named Jonathan. See JONATHAN (ben Shage}
and SHaMcar, $ 1.

4. A Hararite (σαμναν [B*b], σαμνας [Ba vid. A]; σαμαα (LL;
see also JoxaTHAN Ὁ. Shage), Who appears in 2 5. 2833 as one
of David's thirty, and as a distinct person both from Shammah
b. Agee the Hararite one of the ‘first three,’ and from Shammah
the Harodite also one of David's thirty, is really τὸ be identified
with Shammah Ὁ. Αβεδ, and comes into the list in 25. 2333
merely as father of JoxaTHuAN (ὁ ben Shage”) [9.2.}.

5. The HarobItE (9.2.1 another of David'S thirty ( 5. 2325 ;
σαϊμα (B), σαμμαι [A], σαμαιας [1.}}. In 1Ch. 1127 the name
is Suammora (Nibg ; σαμαωθ [BR], σαμωθ [A], σαμμωθ [L)), the

Harorite ("î1%, è adi [ΒΕ], 628 [A], apwpi [LD ; and in 1 Ch.
278 SHAMNUTH (MIMOY ; σαλαωθ (B], σαμαωθ [AL]) the ‘Izrab-
ite," which, according to Marquart (Fwx4. 19), stands for
“Tr? na mane, ‘Shambuth, the Harodite, belonging to the
Zerahites': see ZERAH (1).

SHAMMAI (3 Ὁ), ὃ 52; cp SHEMAIAH).

1. A Jerahmeelite; rCh.22832 (cana: [B]; ἀχείσαμας for
‘brother of Shammai,' ©. 32 [BÌ, ἀχισαμμα [A]; cappa: [A]
σεμεει [L]). See JERAHMEEL, $ 2.

2. “Son” of RekeM (9.7.) b. Hebron, and ‘father' of Maon,
‘father "of Beth-zur; 1 Ch. 2 44/ (capa: [Bonly once L], σαμμαι
LA oncel).

3. Son of Merep fg.7.] of Judah, by his ‘Egyptian* (more
probably * Misrite') wife; 1 Ch. 417,5 ἴσεμεν [B], σεμμαι (A),
σαμι (1.

SHAMMOTH (ΓΙ 90), 1 Ch. 1127=25. 2325, SHAM-
MAH (5).

in 2 S. 2825

1 The fortress Sanor, with which some have identified
BeTKuLIA {g.z.), has been thought of by Schwarz for Shamir,
but can hardly have come within Issachar. Cp Moore, ad ἴδε.

4426

SHAMMUA

SHAMMUA (υ θυ, perhaps ‘heard,’ $ 56, but cp
SHEMAIAR, which might be an expanded clan name).

1. A chief of Reusen, $ 13, end: Nu.184 (σαμονηλ [B],
σαμαλιηλ [A], σαμμου [F], σαχαμεηλ [L]).

2. Son of David (1 Ch. 144); see SHImea (2). In 25.514
SHAMMUAH (AV).

3. A Levite; Neh. 11 17 (apovlel [BN*A], σαμμονε [R0-3?]),
ἐπα Ch. 9 16 called SHEMAIAH,

4. A priest, contemporary with Joiakim, Jeshua's successor }
Neh. 12 18 (om, BR*A, ovapove [ca me. [ΠΕ], gapove [L]).

SHAMSHERAI (*PDW, icmacapia [B], camo.
[A]. camwaia [L]), b. JEROHAM in a genealogy of
BENJAMIN (g.v., $ 9, i. 8} (τ Ch. 8261). Should the
name be SHIMSHAI (g.v.)? Shehariah {cp Shihor,
Ashhur} follows. τ΄ Κι GC.

SHAPHAM (DD? ; caBat [Β], capam [AI -N
[L]}. a Gadite, τ Ch. δ τοῦ. Perhaps originally a name
of the Negeb, (where Gad once dwelt); see SHAPHAT,
SIFHMOTH (Che. ).

SHAPHAN (}bY, cither an animal name, or the name
of a district, borne originally by a clan and subsequently
by individuals [see below]; capan [BAL], but in 2 Καὶ.
22 ca@@an [BA]), Ὁ. Azaliah Ὁ. Meshullam, a seribe,
temp. Josiah, who was sent to take an account of the
expenses for the repair of the temple (2 K. 2237; ©. 3
σεφφὰν [A], 2. 14 cap@ad [B] =2 Ch. 3487;
v. 1553 aca@ [A]) It was on this occasion (the
eighteenth year of Josiah’s reign) that Hilkiah the
priest gave him the newly-discovered ‘book of the law '
which he read before the king; see JosiAH, and cp
DEUTERONOMY, $ 2 end. Shaphan was probably
aged, since he was soon after displaced in favour of
Elishama {Jer. 3612). There is no valid reason why he
should be kept distinct from Shaphan the father of
Ahikam {2 K. 2212, cp Jer. 26 [& 33] 24). who, in turn,
was the father of the well-known GEDALIAH [g.v.} (2 K.
2522 Jer.39 [46] 14 40 [47] 5 [#5. gr: BNAQ om.]
41 [48] è [ragar (Q"8-, BNA om.}], 48 [50] 6 (ΒΑΘ
om.}]), also of a prominent personage called ELASAH,
mentioned together with Gemariah b. Hilkiah (Jer.293),
and possibly of the JAAZANIAH [g.v.] mentioned in
Ezek. 811 {but see Kraetzschmar, ad /oc.).
Ezck. 811,77 is such a remarkable passage for the history of
Jewish religion, and the name ‘Shaphan” (în ‘ Jaazaniah son of
haphan *) has been brought into such close relation to the extra-
ordinary religious rite described, that we shall give a brief con.
sideration to it from the point of view of onomatology. (1) The

recedence among theories îs due to the totemistic. ..R. Smith
Νὰ Phil.997/, ορ Kia. zor) sees in the passage ‘an account
of Gentile or family idolatry in which the head of each house
acted as priest. And the family images which are the object of
the cult are those of unclean reptiles and quadrupeds [v, 10].
The last point is important. The word ppy is, in the Levitical
law, the technical term for a creature that must not be used as
food. That such prohibitions are associated with the totem
system of animal-worship is well known. . . . Thus in the fact
that the animals worshipped were wnc/eaz, in the Levitical sense,
we gain an additional argument that the worship was of the totem
type. And finally, to clinch the whole matter, we find that
among the worshippers Ezekiel recognised Jaazaniah the son of
Shaphan—that is, of the rock badger, which ἦς one of the unclean
quadrupeds (De. 147 Lev. 115), and must therefore have been

ared on the wall as his sarticular stock-god and animal
ancestor. It so happens that the totem character of the
shaphan, or, as the Arabs call him, the 2227, is certified by a
quite independent piece of testimony. The Arabs of the Sinai
peninsula to this day refuse to eat the flesh of the 0adr, whom
they call “man's brother,” and suppose to be a human being
transformed. Were a man to break his rule he could never look
on his father and mother again (Palmer, Desert af the Exodus,
198). To this G. B. Gray (72 1037) replies that even if
with W. R. Smith we see in the Shaphan of Ezek. the name of
a still existing totem clan, this only explains the clan-name
Shaphan, and leaves personal names of the same period Huldah
(weasel), Achbor (mouse), and Shaphan itself în 2 K.223 un-
accounted for: ‘So far as the evidence of the names goes the
occurrence at this time of three namesat least which are certainly
personal, and but one at most of which is tribal, does not favour
the view that totem clans were then în existence. On the other
hhinnd, Ezek.8 11 testifies to the worship of unciean animals atabout
this period ; and in this Robertson Smith saw, not without good
reason, the survival—perhaps rather che revival—of superstitious
practices originally derived from totem belief and organisation.’

. B. Gray, therefore, with Davidson (£ze4. 56) and Cheyne
(ntr Is. 368/.), gives only a partial assent to W. R. Smith's

4427

SHAPHAT

theory. He grants that în the late regal period superstitious
practices which were originally derived from totemism revived,
‘and that this accounts for the three strange personal names re-
ferred to; this is all. Jos. Jacobs (Studies ix βιδί, Archeol.
8442) anà Zaplcta] (Der Totemismus und die Relig: Israel;
1901, Ὁ. 73) take a different view of the name Shaphan, which,
especially in Ezek. 8 11, is pronounced to be a contemptuous in-
vention (as if ‘ Jaazaniah ben shaphan ‘ meant ‘Yahwè hears ben
rock-badger ), ‘indicating, with a bitter irony, the discrepancy
between those bad practices and Ilsrael's true religion, The
director of the ceremony is named after Yahwè, and yet he can
bring himself to offer worship to the figure of an animal; the
prophet, therefore, calls him a ‘dex sa/kax,' as one might say
ben Kemo8—i.e., a worshipper of Chemosh. | All these scholars
presuppose the ordinary text and the usual explanation of names
ending in π᾿, Of the inconsistency of supposing that a man
whose family cultivated totemistic superstitions with such ardour
as to call some of its members by the name of the totem, and
others by names which not only contain (as 15 held) the name of
Yah or Yahwè, but even express a true mora} conception of the
nature of the Deity, they appear to have no satisfactory explana-
tion. (2) A second theory (the present writer's) demands a more
searching criticism of the text of the passages containing these
three names Shaphan, Achbor, Huldah, in connection with a
thorough textual revision of other parts of the OT. The result
is (@) that not only the history but also the geographical and
personal names of the OT are found to be monuments of long.
continued N. Arabian influences. From the time (probably)
of the Amarna Tablets there was (we may suppose) a large
Jerahmeelite element în the population of Palestine, especially
in the S., and at the close of the regal period (and afterwards)
the danger to Judah from che side Gf N. Arabia was so great
that numbers of Jews fell away to N. Arabian heathenism.
(©) What Ezckiel saw on the wall of the chamber in the temple
precincts was ‘the form of every idol (lit. abomination) of the
house of Ishmael' (5kyng n'3 γηρ 5 man mam);1 the
material on which the current theories as to the cult of the
worshippers are based is simply due to a late editor, who had
perforce to make some sense of a corrupily transmitted text,
“Ishmael, ‘Jerahmeel,' and ‘Misrim’ (cp Ezek. 207 /, ‘991
D‘s0, ‘theidols of Misrim,' not DID ‘9, ‘the idols of Egypt).
The worshippers who thus profaned the temple of Yahwè were
religious men; but their true names were devoid of religious
significance. “Jaazaniah' is merely an expansion of Azani, which
also underlies the Rechabite name ‘Jaazaniah' (Jer. 853), and
the Jerahmeelite-Levite name ‘Azaniah' (Neh.109, cp Ezra
240), The final x îs simply formative; the initial » may be
editorial. ‘Azan" (ra) is probably a place-name (cp 7» {1
also Negeb place-names). ‘Shaphan’ seems to be a modification
of ‘Zaphan' (54), which can be shown to be the name of a N.
Arabian district, and appears în personal Hebrew names such
as [nlupy (see ΖΕΡΗΛΝΊΛΗ, 2-4); cp may, Joel 220, εἴς,
Similarly ‘Azaliah’ and ‘Meshullam, the father and grand-
father of Shaphan in 2 K. 22 3, probably come sespectively from
Agali (5s8), ‘a man of Azal,' and Ishmael (btyor*); El'asah
may also come from ‘Ishmael,' and ‘Ahikam' from ‘ Jerahmeel."
Thus the Shaphan connections are accounted for. “. For _com-
pleteness’ sake, it may be added that from this point of view
*Huldah' (ΟΠ) is miswritten for br,? and that br (Rachel,
‘Sheep') and «1297 (Achbor, ‘mouse’ are early popular distor-
tions of Sypny. But the reader will not forget the warning
πάντα δὲ δοκιμάξετε, τὸ καλὺν κατέχετε (1 Thess. 521). ΟΡ
Νάμεσ, $ 68, and last section.

To treat this-subject with completeness would require
us to consider the right interpretation of Is. 654 66317.
It must suffice, however, to say that all these passages
are beyond question deeply corrupt, but that the re-
dactor has proceeded so methodically that it is easy for
any one who knows the redactor's methods to restore
the true text. In this text the Jerahmeelites are clearly
mentioned as the enemies of the Jews, and no reference
is made to unclean animals. Cp SWINE, and see
Crit. Bib. T.K.C.

SHAPHAT (DDY; a corruption of some tribal or
place name ; most naturally [cp 1] of NBY=Zephatht—
i.e, DOIY, ZAREPHATH [g.v.]). The names ELISHA-
PHAT, JEHOSHAPHAT, and SHEPHATIAH (mb), would
seem, therefore, to be modifications of a traditional older
name.

1. A Simeonite, Ὁ, Hori, one of the ‘spies’ (Nu.
185} [P]: cagar vos σουρ[εἼς [ΒΑ]. -av ul. e. [ΕἸ
σαφαθ vi. σουδρι [L]). ‘Hori’ may mean ‘Horite,'

1 po probably comes from Sappi (written too soon), nonni
and perhaps "570 (if this îs not a gloss on pre) from Sion (a
variant to Sgyny').

3 Cp υτὸπ, Zech. 610, br, 2-14; both τε μη" (Crif. BIZ.)

4428

SHAPHER

but almost more probably comes from Jerahme'eli; a
similar origin for Shaphat then becomes plausible.

2. The father of ELISHA [g.v.]}(1t K.191619t, σαφαθ,
cagar [8 vs. 19; AL]). His residence, Abel-meholah,
is usually thought to have been in Issachar. But if the
arrangement in MT is correct, it was when Elijah
‘departed #4exce' (z.e., from Horeb) that he ‘found
Elisha b. Shaphat' (1 K.1919). The reader will prob-
ably be aware (see Kinus [BooK], $ 8) that critics
have been inclining to the belief that MT's arrangement
is not correct, and Kittel, in his commentary (HA 154),
gives a blank space between Ὁ, 18 and ©. τὸ to indicate
that a section of the narrative has been omitted. The
matter, however, is not so clear as to require no recon-
sideration. We know that Elijah had a close con-
nection with the far S. of Canaan (see PROPHET, $ 6).
It is plausible, therefore, to suppose that Elisha was
originally called, not “Ὁ, Shaphat,' but either "Ὁ.
Séfath'—£.e., a Zephathite, or ‘b. Sefathi'—;.e., the
son of a Zephathite. In the former case Elisha, in the
latter Elisha's father (a more probable view), was re-
presented as a man of Zephath or Zarephath who
had established himself at Abel-meholah—:.e., Abel-
jerahmeel (cp MEHOLATHITE}. The site of this Jerab-
meelite place (cp 15.3029) we do not know, The site
of Zephath {or probably Zarephath} has probably been

identified : see ZAREPHATH,
3. A_late descendant of David (1 Ch.822t; σαφαθ [BI],
cagar [AL}). The name was presumabiy suggested by SHE:

PRATIAII I,

. A Gadite, in Bashan (1 Ch.512t; @, however [Iavew] ὁ
γραμματεύς [B], [ἐαναι] ὁ yp. [A]; [μωανε] ὁ yp. καὶ σαφαν [1,}}.
Here è γραμματεύς -- ἼΒδ[Π], a variant to BW. The common
original of both readings is *n59s, ‘a Zarephathite' The list

originally referred to the Negeb and j3 was originally pena
(Cushan).1

5. The overseer of David's herds în ‘the valleys’ (1 Ch.
2729: σωφαν [B], σωῴατ [A], cagar [L])., He is called È
Adlai ; but +5y is possibly a corruption of nb7y (Adullam).
Zephathite or Zarephathite (f Shaphat = Sephathi) might δ οἷν
be a native of Adullam—z.e., Jerahmeel (for David's connection
with which cp again 15. 80 20), T.K.C.

SHAPHER, ΕΝ Shepher, Mount (ἼΒΙ ἼΠ, ‘mount
of glitter’? see SAPRIR), a stage in the wandering in
the wilderness (Nu. 3323/t; capap [BL]. apcapap,
SARCAPAR [A]: apcapa@ [ΕἸ}. Ifthe wanderings were

. Arabia, and if (as has been rendered probable)
Pi is apt to make up lists by combining various corrupt
variants of the same name, the neighbourhood of
several (probable) corrupt forms of Jerahmeel suggests
that spy (Shepher) comes from ΠΡῸΣ ἢ Cp opa Sn mso

{τὸ Zarephath, mount Jerahmeel' ?) in Gen. 1031, Cp
SEPHAR. See WILDERNESS OF WANDERINGS.
T.K.C.

SHAPHIR (Mic. 111), ΕΝ, AV SAPHIR.

SHARAI cu; capioy [Β], apoy [A]. capoye
[N], -a [L]), b. Bani, a layman, temp. Ezra; Ezra104o
{| x Esd. 934 probably ezwpa [BA]. capoya [L], see
EzorA, MACHNADEBAI), Cp SHEARIAH.

SHARAIM (DM), Josh. 1536 AV, ΕΝ SHAARAIM,

SHARAR (©), the HARARITE, the father of AHIAM

{gg.2.] (28.2333t [elapai [Β], [clapaA [A], notice
that γιοῦ precedes, capayco apepima [L] for capay
o apepi). In 1 Ch. 1135 his name appears as SACAR
([claxap [BRA]: iccayap [L]; cp ISSACHAR, $ 6, end).
Some of these readings suggest mp (see SERAH) as the
original; Marg. (Fd. 21), however, thinks of 135 (see
SHOBAR). T.K.C.

è? 1 Ch.5 11-17 is a record of the settlement of Gadites in the
Negeb, for which the Chronicler (+. 17) claims the authority of a
list made in the days of Jotham and Jeroboam II. τ. ir places
their home ‘in the land of Cushan as far as Halusah” (? see
ZikLac); 2. 16, “in Gilead [the southern Gilead], in Cushan,
and in its towns, and in all the suburbs(?) of Sharhon (see
SHiaron, SHARUHEN), to the point where they end.”

4429

I

SHAREZER
SHARE (NWINO, WAN), an implement mentioned

in 18.18 202; in τῷ, βού 214 (where it is rendered ‘mattock >
That it was ἃ dividing instrument of some kind appears from
the etymology ; EV seems to suggest a ploughshare, but this is
represented here by #44 (N), ‘coulter,’ elsewhere rendered
‘ploughshare.' @R θέριστρον... θερίζειν (GA wanting, θερισ-

nipior ... . θερέζειν [L]) scems to suggest some reaping implement.
See AGRICULTURE, 83

SHAREZER, or, more correctly, SAREZER ONE.
so Ba. cp Del. Complut. Var. 16; ‘. . . protect
the king'; cp NERGAL-SHAREZER).

1, An Assyrian, perhaps a son of Sennacherib, who,
with Adrammelech (perhaps his brother), slew that king
(@ K.1937 15. 3738; caparap [BAO], capara [LRAQ]}.
It is urged elsewhere (SENNACHERIB, $ 5), that in the
admittedly composite narrative of the peril from ‘Sen-
nacherib'’ two different invasions have been mixed up,
and that parts of the existing narrative relate to the one
and parts to the other. The one invasion was, it is
held, the well-known Assyrian invasion of Sennacherib,
the other an invasion of a N. Arabian people sometimes
called Asshur, but perhaps more correctly Ashhur (ngt).

Whether we can say that each of the accounts which
have been welded together relates solely and entirely to
one of the two invasions, is doubtful; but it is at any
rate very possible that the passage 2 K.1936 f=1s.
837 37 /. refers to the death of the king of the N. Arabian
Asshur, who was said (we may reasonably hold) to have
perished in the house of his god Nimrod, by the sword
of ‘Jerahmeel, a prince of Asshur' (read max ἪΡ danny

for “so beve) ; observe that in 2 K. γι, ‘his sons

is omitted. “Upon this theory the form Sarezer i is due to
the editor, who supposed only one invasion, viz., the
Assyrian, to be meant, and sought to adjust the geo-
graphicai and personal names accordingly. Still, apart
from this, the existing name Sar-ezer inevitably suggests
comparison with the Ass. $2r-wsw», ‘ protect the king.”
Commonly, but not always, we find this form preceded
by some divine name such as Bel, Nergal, etc. (see
Schr. Die Ass.-Bab. Keilinischr., 156). It has been
noticed already (see ADRAMMELECH) that Abydenus in
Eus. Armen. Chron. (Schoene, 135) mentions a Nergilus
as the successor of Sennacherib. By some ingenious
combinations, Hitzig (Zegrif der Krifik, 194 7; [1831])
identified Sarezer with this Nergilus (supposing the full
name to have been Nergal-Sarezer [-far-usur]. This
view, however, though supported by A. v. Gutschmid
and Schrader (447 330), is inadmissible, not
because it conflicts with the theory mentioned above,
but because (see Wi. ZA, 1887, pp. 392 25) the words
of Abydenus, 'Deinceps autem post eum (Sinecheribum)
Nergilus regnavit,’ are misplaced, and refer properly to
Nergal-uSizib, who was a Babylonian king, set up by

< an Elamite invader in 694-3 B.C.

We might, of course, suppose that the Hebrew writer had a
confused recollection of the murderer and successor of Evil-
merodach who was called Nergal-farezer, or, with W. M. Miller

| (ZATIWI 333), that the name Sarezer is a mere guess, due to

an early editor who was struck by the un-Assyrian character of
the name Adrammelech and determined as well as he could to
Assyrianise it. Winckler, however (407258), thinks that
Sarezer may be a distorted form of the historical name Saritir-
A$ur. This name was borne by a person who seems to have
claimed royal rank; Winckler supposes him to have been the
brother whom EsaRHADDON [9.2.1 drove from Babylon into the
NW. of the Assyrian kingdom. Cp £x9.7°9 429 [1898].

2. AV SHEREZER. A contemporary of Zechariah,
Zech. 72 (capacap [BNAQT]). The name, if correctly
read, seems to be incomplete. Siegfr.-Stade would read
Bel-sarezer, whilst Marti (in Καὶ, 75) prefers El.
Sarezer ; that is to say, Siegfr.-Stade think that ‘ag dama

: is an arbitrary expansion of ‘i d3, and Marti renders the

text ‘the house (i.e., family) of El-sarezer (‘n by) sent.”
If, however, we are right in explaining REGEM-MELECH
(= Raamiah) as a corruption of Jerahmeel, the question
arises whether bam may not be a corruption of bn

(the N. Arabian Tubal). In this case we can hardly read
4430

SHARON

asine bi. mesi at the end of the clause should perhaps
be ngn, "and Jeshua' (a corruption of Shua or Sheba).
Render, therefore, ‘ Tubal, and . . ., and Jerahmee!,
and Jeshua! (Sheba) sent saying,’ etc. But what is the
name underlying Sarezer? We see from Zechariah's
answer (Zech. 75) that he was in some way a leader
and representative οἵ the people. Wellhausen (47, Pr.)
suspects that he may have been Zerubbabel, ‘This
cannot be correct ; elsewhere Zechariah calls the governor
by his usual name. It has therefore been suggested (col.
574) that [Bel-]sarezer may be the same as Belsar (an
impossible name till we add -eser= Bab. uszr), one of
the twelve (?) ‘heads' of the Jews of Judzea {see GOVERN-
MENT, $ 26), according to a well-attested reading (on
Ezra 22 Neh.77 see BiLsHAN). Plausible as this view
is {cp MELZAR), the conjecture reached elsewhere that
the principal captivity was really a N. Arabian and not
a Babylonian one, makes it prudent to revise it. Just
as SISERA [7.v.] comes most probably from Asshur, so
Sarezer may be a corruption of Asshur or Asshuri. A
later editor, imperfectly informed, may well have
Assyrianised it, as W. M. Muller supposes an editor to
have Assyrianised ‘ Adrammelech.' On the objects of
the deputation to Zechariah, see Nowack, and cp /ew.
Rel. Life, 10, 17. See also REGEM-MELECH.
ΜΝ T.K.C
SHARON (ΣΦ ΠῚ with art.; 15.889 0 caPWwnN

(Bs®bAQ9], ἀσαρων [R*], 0 Zaapwy (ΟἽ, Sarca; 15. 3526 om,

Saron; Is. 6510 ἐν τῷ δρυμῷ (BNAQI], campestria; 1Ch, 2729
ἐν τῷ Ασειδων [B], σαρὼν [A], ἀσαρων [L]; Cant. 21 τοῦ πεδίον

[BACI], campi; Acts935, τὸν σαρωνα; gentilic ‘BN, è
σαρων[ελιτης [BA], ὁ acap. [L], the Sharonite).

A plain of Palestine, extending from the Nahr ez-
Zerka, 44 m. southward to the mouth of the Nahr
Ribîn, by which and by the Ramleh Hills (Abi
Shisheh, 756 ft. in height} it is divided from the
Philistian Plain. It was famous for its pastures {1 Ch.
2729 Is. 6510) and for its luxuriant vegetation (15, 352,
Cant. 21). [π΄ describing the desolation of fudah a
prophet of woe exclaims, 'Sharon is like a desert’ {Is,
339). ‘The name Sharon signifies ‘level country,' but
this only implies the absence of conspicuous heights (cp
ΝΆΜΕΞΒ, 8 99 [5]). Undulating hilis occur over a large
part of Sharon, Some are well wooded, and there isa
lofig extent of park-like scenery in the neighbour-
hood of Mukhalid in the very N., ‘where groups of
sindian, the ordinary cak of Palestine (Quercus in-
fectoria; see TEREBINTH) are dotted over the rolling
plateau of red semi-consolidated sand'{Conder, PEFO,
1875. p. 92). These groups of oaks are the representa-
tives of large cak groves. There is Egyptological
evidence ? for a forest in Sharon, and only an extensive
woodland would justify the phrase in Is. 352, ‘the
magnificence (171) of Carmel and Sharon.’ The other-
wise strange expression of & in 15. 6510 (ὁ δρυμός τ---
{t/a}, which agrees with the phraseology of Greek
writers, including Josephus,5 is thus to be accounted
for. Nor must we overlook the statement of the
Itinerary of King Richard (414) respecting the forest
of Assur, S. of the Salt River, through which the
Crusaders passed in 1191 A.D. to meet Saladin in
battle.4

The ‘ Plain of Sharon' is divided into three distinct
river basins—those of the Nahr Zerka (with its wild
moorland and marshtand), the Nahr el-Mufjir, and the
Nahr Iskanderiineh {the Crusaders’ Salt River). The
southernmost portion, which receives the Wadys Budrus
and Salman, is the most cultivated and attractive; the

‘echariah's answer ‘to the priests.”

1 See Ezra 22, and note
tudes . « » dédites ἃ ΠΗ͂. le Dr. C.

2 See paper by Masp.
Leemans (1885).

8 See Strabo, 16, δρυμὸς μέγας τὶς; and especially Jos. Anf.
xiv.133, Δρυμοὶ δὲ τὸ χωρίον καλεῖται; BIL 132, τὸν xados
μενον Δρυμὸν «.. τὸ χωρίον. Josephus (Ant. xvi.52) also
speaks of a fine grove (ἄλσος) near Antipatris.

4 Cp Archer, 7%e Crusade of King Richard, 146.

4431

SHASHAR

view of it which the traveller obtains in springtime from
the Tower of Ramleh is highly enjoyable. Spring,
indeed, works a miracle in the aspect of this region.
The richest grass and the brightest fiowers adorn the
landscape. Even in the marshlands the tall and graceful
papyrus (with which Friedr. Delitzsch too boldiy identi-
fies the Rose of Sharon) is, in its autumnal flowering
time, pleasant to behold. There can be no doubt that
but for the encroaching sand the Plain of Sharòn would
give a rich reward to the agriculturist, and the words of
Is. 6510 would be verified, ‘Sharon shall be a fold for
flocks.'

Eusebius and Jerome describe our Sharon as extending from
Cxsarea on the sea-coast to Joppa; they give it the name of
geporas. They also mention a Sharon between Tabor and
Tiberias, which they imagine to be referred to in 1s,339 (OS
2966, 1546). Later writers have supposed references to this
NE. Sharon in Josh. 12 18 (see Lastaron) and Cant, 21 (see 2).

2, A district between Mt. Tabor and Tiberias, as Delitzsch
and Oettli think (Cant. 2 1, ‘rose of Sharon '), but erroneously,
though the name Sarsna, attached to a village in the region
called Ard el-Hamma (see Rob. ΔΑ’ 2227), confirms the state-
ment of Onozz. (see 1) that a second Sharon really existed.
Delitzsch's view is connected with the theory that the bride in
Cant. was a Galilzan maiden (see CANTICLES, ὃ 6) Well
hausen decides against it because the ‘rose’ (ste ROSE, 1) îs
mentioned in Is. 86 1£ as blooming in the better-known Sharon
(see Che. Progh, Is., ad loc.), ‘Rose of Sharon' was appar
ently a proverbial phrase.

3. A region(?) on the E. of Jordan, occupied by the b'ne Gap
(8 15, begin.), 1Ch. δ τοῖ, GAL gapur, but (68 yepiau, whence
Kite? (5.80 7᾽ ‘Chron.) deduces [τῷ το ἡ αν, Sirion. Stanley,
G. A. Smith, and Bahi, however, suppose that the TO or table»
land of Gilead generally (Josh.1391721) is meant. A place
called pz is mentioned in Mesha's inscription (ὦ 13). But that,

as Néldeke points out,1 was probably farther to the 5. The
trth, however, probably is that 1Ch.511-17 comes from a
document relating to the Negeb, so that jmy may very well
represent pinsy (miswritten SHARUHEN). τι K. C.

SHARUBEN.({MMW ἢ 01 Arpo: ayron [BAL]), a
Simeonite city in Judah (Josh. 196), generally thought
to be the SuiLHIM (ΠΡ; can [B]. ceAeeim
[AL}), and Siaaram (DM; Sam, [17 5] τῶν
TYAwn [BAL]; Ch. cewperm [BA], caapim [L}) of
the corresponding lists in Josh. 1532 (not 36) and 1 Ch.
431. It is plausible to suppose that Sharuhen, not
Hebron,? is the place opposite which, on a hill-top,
Samson, according to legend, deposited the doors and
posts of one of the gates of Gaza (Judg. 163). Certainiya
spot in the SW. of Palestine is more likely than Hebron,
and Sharuhen has this recommendation : it had for a
second name (if 1Ch. Ze. is correct) Shaaraim—i.e.,
‘the place of a gate" The legend was perhaps to
account for the name. We cannot point out the locality
intended ; but it is tempting to identify Sharuben (}img,
Sharhén ?) with Sarahan, a name which, in the Egyptian
inscriptions, designates a fortress of some importance on
the road from Egypt to Gaza. For a time Sarahan
was occupied by the Hyksos, and that brave warrior
Aahmes, whose tomb has furnished an account of the
war of liberation, took part in the siege of it (RZ 68,
Renouf; Brugsch, G-4 232, cp 255). The place is also
mentioned in the Annals of Thotmes III., at the opening
of the campaign, which was distinguished by the great
battle of Megiddo (WMM, 4s. κι Eur. 158f; in RP
238 the names are wrongly read). Cp SHARON, 3.

See also WMM, A£VG, 1898 (‘ Studien zur vorderas. Gesch."),
Ῥ. 33. τ. Κ' C.

SHASHAI (Ὁ, 558; cecer [BNA], cenceip [L]).

b. Bani, a layman, temp. Ezra (Ezra1040) In rEsd.934,
SEsts (σεσίσ)εις [BA], σέσεει [L]). Parallels suggest tracing

this name to ‘33, Cushite.

SHASHAK (PU, $ 58; cwenk [A], cicay [1]:
οωκηλ TB, 2.14), co@iHk [B, v. 25]). A Benjamite
clan-name, 1 Ch. 81425 {see ΒΕΝΙΑΜΙΝ, 9, ii. δ; ΧΟ

1 Die Inschrift des Kin. Mesa, 1870, Ῥ. 29.

2 The letters of {my were misarranged, and an ill-written gr

confounded with or altered into 3. Cp Ezek.2225 gun) for
um

4432

SHAUL

11:03 8 1). Perhaps a distortion of ngis, Cusham, which

suîts the related names. Cp Hushim {Cusham}, son of
Aber (Jerahmeel) in 1 Ch, 7 12. τ, κὶ ον

SBAUL (Din
(φ.ν.).

1. Name of a clan of Simzox ($ 9), Shaulites (πρὶ Dany
‘paga, σαουλίε). [BAFL]), Nu, 20 13, where the equivalence οἵ

“son and ‘clan’ is evident, Tu Gen. 4610 Ex,615 τ Ch.424,
Shaul is Simeon's son ; the two former passages add, by a woman
of Canaan (σαμουηλ υἱὸς τῆς Χανανίτιδος [ADI, σάουλ vi. τ. x.
1211, Gen. 46 10; ὁ ἐκ τῆς Φοινίσσης [ΒΑ ΕἸ, σαουλ oi ἐκ 7. d.

[1, Ex.6 15}, or rather perhaps of Kenaz (ΠΡ for [Y12, as in

Judg.42, cp Shiamcar, $ 2, and often) The name is S.
Conaanitish ‘and N. Arabian (cp Savi, SHALISHA), ΒΗΙΜΕΙ
and Saul are both Benjamite names, and another ‘son’ of
Simeon is Jamin (one of the best established modifications of
‘ Jerahmeel ' [Che.]).

A Kohathite, and ancestor of Samuel, 1Ch. 8 24 [9].
1 Ch. 6 36 [20] the name is JOEL.

3. (Gen. 36.37, 1Ch. 148/21). See SauL, 2.

SHAVEH, VALE OF (M@ POP; τὴν KorAada
ΤῊΝ cayHn [A]. . . cayH [DL]), the place where
the king of Sodom met Abraham after the latter's
victory over CHEDORLAOMER (g.7.), Gen. 1417. An
appended notice explains it as ‘the king's vale' (see
MELCHIZEDEK, $ 3). Shaveh can hardly mean ‘the
level’ or ‘plain’ (on τ. 5, where @4EL' again gives
Tav, see SITAVEH-KIRIATHAIM), Hommel(447 151,
n. 1) would amend mg into img. The Vale of Shaveh
then becomes the Vale of the King (Ass.-Bab. Sarri).!
More probably we should read παρ mp, ‘the highland
οἵ Maacath,' and the following gloss, ‘that is, Maacath-
jerahmeel.” ΟΡ SopoMm. τ΄ Κι C.

SHAVEH-KIRIATHAIM (D'N"P MP; en cayH
TH πολεῖ [AEI.]), generally explained (e.g., EV®E)
* plain of Kiriathaim' (see KIRJATHAIM), ὅεη. 14 5.
It was the residence of the EMIM (g.v.). mg, however,
occurs again only in Gen. 1417, where it is corrupt (see
SHAVEH, VALLEY OF), Ὁ, J. Ball (Ger. 118) suggests

1 caoyÀ), the same name as SAUL

In

here Read probably “mam , ‘the highland
of the Rehobothite,' See Sopom. T.K.C
SHAVSHA (NWI. $ 58; 1Ch.18:6; iNcoYc

[Β], covs [x], σουσα [AL}) also called, less correctly, SHIsHA
ἃ K.43, RUW; σαβα [Β], σεισα [A], BL, however, ragar),
and SÒÙeva (2 5, 2025, NW Kt, DA Kr.; moovs [B], ἐσοὺυς

TA], covra [L]), and SeralaH (MP, Ἵ being inserted in the
form my, 2 8. 817, ασα [B]).

Shavsha was David's seribe or secretary. His name is
either = Bab. savsu=sems%, ‘sun,'? so that Babylonian
scribes were still in request (Marg. Fd. 22) or (cp
SHESHAI) is a corruption of mo (final & as in aa
Zisa). Driver, Wellhausen, and others agree in reject-
ing Seraiah, The question is of some historical import-
ance ; which country influenced David most—Babylonia
or N. Arabia? T.K.C

SHAWL, ἘΝ for NNBDD, AV ‘wimple,” Is. 822.
See MANTLE, $ 2 [3], VeiL.

SHEAL bat; carovia [BK], caaA[AL.]}, b. Bani,

a layman, temp. Ezra; Ezra 1029=1 Esd, 930 (ασαηλος [BA],
ἀσσαηλ [L]), EV ζάβαξι, ΕΥ̓͂ JasaLUS.

SBEALTIEL (bimbi [but in Haglrzu 22

Lienbii], as if ‘I have asked God," 88 34, 56, 79, but
this is doubtful, since 9N in names formed on this
model may be formative; we expect, according to
this theory, a gentilic, and ‘Eshtauli' [see ESHTAOL]
suggests itself as the genuine name instead of Shealtiel ;

1 Wellbausen (785 202) suggests mogag, Asherah, as the
origin; he connects this view with a very difficult explanation
of 2 8. 18.18, where he makes Absalom take ‘the pillar (of che
Asherah) in the King's Vale, and set it up in his own behalf.

2 Cp in an old Aram. bilingual gig (CIS 2 65)-: Ass. #1

samas.

4433

SHEBA

cara@iHnA), Ὁ. Jeconiah ‘the captive' (see ASSIR),
or perhaps Asshur (mix; see CriA 856.), according to
τ Ch. 317 7. the uncle, but e]sewhere the father, of ZERUR-
BABEL [g.v.] (Ezra 32 [®* om.] 8 52 Hag. 11, ete.).

In accordance with & the name is spelt SaLaTHIEL by EV
in x Esd. 554856 02, and by AV in τ Ch.817 Mt,l12 and
Lk. 827. In Lk. he is called ‘the son of Neri, on which
see GENEaLOGIRS ii, 8 3. In 2 Esd.5r6 SaLarnie, RV
PHALTIEL, the * capiain of the people," is an uncertain readin,
Pesh. reads ‘ Psaltiel.' See, further, Ball, Var. Afoc. (ad loc

T. K. C.
capara [BA], capia [BNA],

ina genealogy of BENJAMIN(g.2. $ 9,
On the name cp SHaArAM,

SHEARIAH (1°
capra, canpia [1|}), b'A
ii. 9); 1 Ch. 8 382044.

SHEARING HOUSE (92! N23), 2 K. 101214; Heb.
BETH-EKED (g.v.).

SHEAR-JASHUB (IU ne, ‘a remnant shall
return,’ $ 23). One of Isaiah’s sons (15.7.3). Sec
ISAIAH, PROPHET, $ 4.

SHEBA (3; camaa [Β], caBee [A], caBe [L]}.
a Simeonitish town, Josh, 192 (Simon, β 10),

It is omitted in a very few MSS, and in the parallel passage,
1 Ch. 42%. Its inclusica makes the reckonibg in Josh. 106

inaccurate, unless for ΠῚ Ἢ we there read {ai with ® (sec
SuarusEN) For a possible way out of the difficulty see
Jesuua.

SHEBA (19%, perhaps from Elisheba [8 50]; other-
wise explained as a clan-name= Shema [SoLomon,
$ 2]; or a name of the moon-god {Wi, G/ 2221]; cp
D3IYNI, BaTh-sHEBA, and perhaps Nab. VW, C/S
2115; but cp SOLOMON, $ 2; cabee).

1. Called b. Bikri (Bichri)—i.e., a member (like Saul
probably} of the Benjamite clan BECHER {cp ΒΕΝΙΑΜΙΝ,

sii
ὃ ΕΝ ta story of his revolt see 2 S.20 (αβεε [A, 22. 1, 7];
L σαβεε vids βεδδαδι ἀνὴρ apuyer [Archite ?1)).

David was on his return to Jerusalem after Absalom's
death, ard a fierce quarrel had arisen between the men
of Judah and the men of Israel. Sheba who ‘ happened*
to be near, saw his opportunity, and called upon the
latter to secede from David and claim their inde-
pendence, The spark burst into a flame, AIl Israel
took the side of Sheba; ‘but the men of Judah from
Jordan ® as far as Jerusalem clave to their king.” There
is reason, however, to think that the description is
influenced by that of the great secession under Jeroboam
{x K.12:6). Sheba's revolt was, no doubt, the result
of some of the disintegrating influences which afterwards
had such disastrous effect, but David who had just made
his peace with Israel and Judah would surely have been
able to prevent a revolt on such a large scale as 2 S.
202 indicates (see 1941-43 [42-44])." - Unless we adopt a
conjecture made elsewhere (SAUL, $ 1), the statement
of νυ. 14-22 (where BERITES [g.2.] should certainly be
emended into ‘ Bikrites ') shows that the original opening
of the narrative has been lost. What we know for
certain is that Sheba, a kinsman of Saul, supported by
his clan, made a bold attempt to revive the Israelitish
kingdom, He sought in vain to stir up the northern
tribes, and was besieged in the ancient city of ABEL-
BETH-MAACAH (g.v.) by Joab. The walls were on the
point of giving way to thé attacks of the besiegers when
a ‘wise woman (cp Eccles. 9147) made an arrange
ment with Joab, and saved the city. Sheba's head was

1 [Most probably +, like the proper names mg and “me
in 1 Ch., and “van (cp @4 in 3 8.9.1), comes from baemi.—
T.K.C.]

2 From the context, the S. border of Judah must be intended.
It îs probable that we should take 77} here to be the maga?

Mizrim (see Eowr, forex on, andcp Wi. G/1174; A0F134,
Fune

᾿ς ἘΝ fn Pica Sheba, just as in a similar revolt the

Benjamites joined Abner (cp 225). The passage (20 14), how

ever, is in some disorder. | Perhaps we should read (transposin,
a and è), “and all the Bikrites assembled and came after him, an

they passed through' ΘἼΖ5")), etc.
4434

SHEBA

cut off and thrown out to Joab.!

crushed.

Cheyne, however, maintains (SauL, $ 1) that ‘Abel-beth-
maacah' is an editorial attempt to make sense of a corrupt
passage, and that the true text of 2 8. 20-14 £ only states that

Sheba passed on to Beth-jerahme'cl,' and was there besieged
by Joab.2 Beth-jerahme'ei (=Beth-giigal) is, on his theory,
the ‘centre of Saul's clan, where Sheba, like Mephibosheth,
naturally sought refuge in distress.

The story of the revoli is contained in 2 5.201}
67. 14-22. Verse 3 seems to be a parenthesis, introduced

Thus the revolt was

to connect the story more closely with the episode of |

Absalom. It is just possible, however, that this connec-
tion is a mistake, and that Sheba's revolt and that of
Absalom happened in different parts of the reign of David
{similarly Wi. G/1173 2 192). Verses 4/ 8-13 contain
a confused account of AMASA [g.v., 1], interspersed
with notices of the pursuit of Sheba (cp χοῦ, 134 with 76).
The precise relation between the stories of Amasa and
Sheba is not clearly indicated ° and it is not at all certain
that the account of Amasa's death formed part of the
earliest narrative.
2. A Gadite, 1 Ch. 5 13 (σεβεε [BI], σοβαθε [A]).
SAC.

SHEBA (ΝΞ), usually caBa [BNA, etc., L], once
or twice σαβαν [BAQEL], σαβαν [E], σαβευ [A], σαβαι [B]; în
Job 619 rafwv[BK*C], areBwy [Avid.], ἐσεβὼν [Rca]; in Ps. 7215
τῆς ἀραβίας [BRRT]; on Joblrs, see below; Syr. σἀεδᾶ;
Ar. saba, în Sabaean inscriptions wyp, Assyr. sad'4; name of
people D'N2%, Joel38 [49}—unless with Merx we follow &,
αἰχμαλωσίαν [BRA] in reading ‘39, ‘captivity").6

One of the sons of Joktan, Gen. 1028 [12], x Ch. 122.
He is the eponym of the well-known Sabseans (in SW.
Arabia) who are mentioned also, with different genea-
logical connections, in Gen. 107 [P] and 253 [JE?]=
1 Ch.1932. Whether Jokshan be the same 85" Joktan
or not {see JOKSHAN), we need not suppose two Shebas,
a N. and S. Arabian, connected or distinct, still less
three {so Knobel}, as the three ethnographical classifica
tions (Gen. 107 1028 253) are probably drawn from
three, certainly from two sources. It is doubtless these
Sabzeans from whom Tiglath-pileser III. reports that he
received tribute, and to some of whose settlements
Sargon refers as being tributary (MATO 1455). Their
queen came to visit Solomon, with camels, gold, and
precious stones (τ K.10x41013= 2 Ch. 913912); cp
‘kings éf Sheba and Seba,” Ps. 7210 (65 ἀράβων, but cp
Che. ὦ) ad /oc.); in Is.606 ‘they from Sheba' bring
gold and incense, cp Jer. 620; in Job 619 they appear
in caravans, and in Ezek. 2722 (50 2, 23, but Co. with
& omits) they are traders in spices, jewels, and gold, cp
Ezek. 38 13 Ps. 72 τὸ Is. 606 {burdened with a gloss, see
SBOT). In Joel38 [48] they (plur. ora) are 'a
people far off," to which the sons and daughters of Tyre
and Sidon are to be sold by Judah, în judgment. Job
1 το represents them as plunderers ;5 but elsewhere they
are unknown in this character, It is to this people that
the Sabeean inscriptions are due; the name is gap in
Sabean {cp CUSH, 2).

©n the recent discoveries of Glaser, and his historical infer-

ences, see his own account, Skizze, 2357 #7; Sayce, Crit. Mom.
395; Sprenger, ZDMG, 1890, sor On the story of the

1 This story has scarcely a mythological basis în spite of
Winckler (672249) and Stucken (Asfra/mytzen, 67); cp
Winckler's theory (above) of the meaning of ‘ Sheba.”

2 Winckler also (G/2 240) thinks it strange that Sheba should
flee as far as Abel-beth-maacah.

3 GL in 2,7 (καὶ παρήγγειλεν ὀπίσω αὐτοῦ A. τῷ λαῷ) might
suggest that Amasa, when ordered to collect the warriors of
Judah, took a number of men, and threw in his lot with Sheba.
Otherwise we might assume that his death was simply the result
οἵα private feud between him and Joab. The wording of ev. ro 12
reminds us of that of 2 S. 2 23 (murder of Asahel), ΕῸΓ ἃ criticism
of the whole narrative see 4/52 16 166-169 (1900).

4 On the name cp WMM, ‘Die Sabier in hieroglyph. Texten,*
MYGO, 1898, pp. ἃς δὲ

3 ᾧ and Pesh., however, find no proper name here (alypa-

λωτεύοντες [BA], αἰχμαλωτεύσαντες [N], μωαλς); cp above
on Joel 38.

4435

SHEBNA

Queen of Sheba cp Stade, GV/1300, n. 2; Ki. 275542189;
Wi. ΟἽ 22665; Keane, Ze Gold of Ophir, si2f © F.B.

SHEBAH, ΕΝ 5ΒΙΒΑῊ (NUR, ‘seven’; perhaps
taken as equivalent to ΠΡ ΞΡ}, ‘ocath'), the original

name of Beer-sheba according to J (Gen. 26 33; opKkoc
[ADEL]). See BrERSHEBA.

SHEBAM (DIP), Nu. 323, RV ‘Sebam’; in Ὁ. 38
SIBMAH.

SHEBANIAH (mag and 2 either for ἡ θ᾽,
‘Yahwè has brought me back'1: see NAMES, $ 39; or
an early error, found also on seals [cp PEZO, 1902,
pp. 263 /.] for SHECANIAH).

1. ALevite(Neh.94/; BAOM., σεχενιας [L]—i.e., Shecaniah;
in 2. 5 the σαβανιας of L' (but σεχενίας occurs as well) seems to
represent rather HASHAUNIAH [g.0.]).

2. Priestly signatory to the covenant (see Ezra i., 87); Neh.

104[5][w]eBavet [B], [r]aBaver [N° 864), σεβανε [A], βαναιας [L]),

cp 1214, σεχελίον [NY®ME- INS om, BN*A], σεχενία [L], and see
SHECANIAH (1) ᾿
3,4 Two names occurring among the signatory Levites

(Neh. 1010 gafava [B], σεβανια [NA], σεχενιας [L], 2.12
σεβανια [BNA] σαβανιας [L)).

5. A priest of the time of David (1 Ch. 1524, 37322, counia
[Β], σοβνεια [N], σωβενια [A], cafarca [L]).

SHEBARIM (DMIWN; Selarim) The point to
which (-y) the Israelites were chased from the gate of

Ai (Josh. 75). Apparently it was not far from Ai, for
it is added that they were 'smitten on the slope
(descent)’ RVs gives ‘the quarries’; ‘the frag-
ments {of rock)” might be better (Di.). But surely there
must be an error in the text. 48᾽5 συνέτριψαν αὐτούς
{similarly Pesh., Tg.) presupposes naz; cp Bennett in
SBOT. Griitz. suggests pmezarina Spi vanbb mami.
*and they chased those who were left from before the
gate.’ But cp SHEBER. T.K. C

SHEBAT (02w), Zech. 17, AV SEBAT; see MONTH.
SHEBER (MAY; cagep [8], ce. [A], caBap [L]).

one of the sons of ΘΑ ΕΒ (7...) b. Hezron by his concubine

Maacah (1 Ch. 2 48). Cp SHEREBIAH, which may be an ex-

prnsion of Shirbi=Shibri, and may be a Negeb name (see A/SZ
435).

SHEBNA (N33, 8 51 [but MW, 2 K. 1818 96,
where RV has SHEBNAH], possibly Aramaic [Di., Ki.,
ete.], or rather for miaz= πον [Del.]; comnac, but
coBnac [B] in Is. 363]), a chief secretary or chancellor
under Hezekiah (2 K. 1818 192 15, 863 22 372). Tradi
tion identified him with the σδξξη, or ‘high officer '?
{AV *treasurer,' ΕΝ ‘steward'—both renderings are
guesses), whose arrogance is so severely denounced by
Isaiah in the only passage of personal invective which
has come down to us (Is. 2215-19 cp Am. 71617). The
fact that the last five words of Is. 22 το have demonstrably
been inserted by a later hand renders this identification
doubtful. So at least Duhm puts the matter, But the
strong probability is that 122 (so read) or ma and 390
both come from ἮΡΞ, ‘Cushanite.’ Shebna was certainly

a foreigner, and most likely a N. Arabian. Hezekiah
seems to have sent an embassy to Pir'u, king of the N.

‘È Arabian Musri, to whom Hanunu, king of Gaza, had

fled for refuge. It may be conjectured that MII
‘this Cushanite,' as Isaiah disparagingly calls him,
came to Jerusalem in connection with these negotiations.
Isaiah predicts his punishment. He was bound to fall
at last; but, according to the traditional theory, he only
fell to a lower post in the king's service—that of chief
secretary. This is certainly not inconceivable. Though
the man had no family connections at Jerusalem, he may
have been too useful to his party to be neglected, and
the Arabian party may have been still powerful enough
to dictate the choice of a chancellor. (See, however,

1 In this case one would expect the Hiphil ‘33°

2 A Pheenician inscription (CZS1 5, p. 25) speal
the new city—£.e., Tyre.

of'a skin of

4436

SHEBUEL

.«A7JSL 5443.) The next point to mention is one on
which, until quite lately, critics have been agreed. If
Is, 2220-25 is the work of Isaiah, it follows that the
prophet hoped great things from a change in the grand
viziership. The day when a king would reign righteously
and princes would rule justly (Is. 32 1)! seemed, if we
accept this view, about to dawn. ‘Hence the strong
language, almost Messianic in its tone, with which Isaiah
hails in spirit the elevation of his disciple Eliakim.' ?

Further criticism has convinced the present writer that
Is. 2220-25 is a late addition, or rather, vv. 20-23 form an
additional passage, and φῦ. 24 25 another. The second
of these insertions is in the highest decree prosaic, and
even the first is both in tone and in style un-Isaianie.
The writer of vv. 20-23 probably knew no more than we
know ; he built upon the very scanty material contained
in 15. 363 and the related passages. That Isaiah pre-
sumed to nominate a grand vizier is improbable ; that
he would have expected great things from a change in
the viziership is, to those who have followed recent
eriticism of other parts of Is. 1-33, still more improbable.
Lastly, that Eliakim's career was cut short in the way
described in the second insertion, is, though possible
enough (cp Che. Prop. /s., on Is.2225), neither
attirmed nor contradicted by any evidence such as a
historian can receive. Cp Nowack, Zed. Arcà. 1308
n. 3, and on the Shebna question, Kamphausen, ‘Isaiab’s
Prophecy against the Major Domo," 4/SZ, Jan. 1901;
Cheyne, #824., July 1901. T.K.C.

SHEBUEL IETIA $ 31; coyBaWA), a Gershonite
( Ch. 23 16, σουβιηλ [10]: 2624, ιωηλ [B], σωβζηλ [L}); also a son
of Heman (1 Ch. 254), reads covfani—i.e., SHIN, SHUBAEL

2).

SHECANIAH (so RV; and AV in 1 Ch, 241 2 Ch.
3115, MID, and twice 30097, perhaps [see $ 35]
‘Yahwè dwells [among his worshippers],‘ or, if n[whence
incorrectly in] is formative, a gentilie, by transposition
from 05" [Cushanite], so Che, [see SHEBNA]; cey-
enialc] generally).

1. A priestly clan in post-exilic times (Neh.123 cena {x"],
exev. [xc-4]), whose name appears incorrectly as SHEBANIAH,
2.14 (om. BN*A,geyeAcov [Nc.a mg. inf.) cp 204), with Joseph at
its head, The Chronicler transfers him to the times of David,
when he holds the tenth priestly course (1 Ch. 2411, coyavta [B],
σεκενια [A]); he appears again in the times of Hezekiah (2 Ch.
8115: inn ceyovtas [BA]). It is noticeable that the three
names Shecaniah, Mijamin, and Jeshua are common to the three
lists in x Ch. 247-182 Ch.3115, and Neh.121-7. Hisname should
probably be read in Neh.10t, in place of ZEDEKIAH (7.2.5).

2. A descendant of Zerubbabel (τ Ch.321 Δ cp Ezra83
[σαναχια B, σαχανια A] 1 Esd. 829 [B om.], SECHENTAS); sce
HATTUSH.

3. b. JaHAZIEL (5), of the sons of Ζαττῦ (Ezra85, om. B,
σέχονιας [A], gexevsov [L]=1 Esd. 832, SECHENIAS). Ὁ

0 Tchicl, Si the Une Elam, wko encouraged Ezra in his
marriage reforms (Ezra 102); in 1 Esd.892 [80], his name is
given as JECHONIAS (iexovias [ΒΑ], gexercas [1.). The differ-
ence in the readings rests on a substitution of + for y, which îs
conceivable in an older alphabet.

5. The father of SHEMAIAK [σιν] (Neh. 829, ἐχενια [Β]},

6. b. Arah (2), father-in-law of ΤΌΒΙΑΗ (Neh. 618).

SHECHEM (ΣΦ᾽; cyyem [esp. in B] cikima fesp.
in AL]; Sickem), now Ndb/us, a city of Palestine.
serotinn Eleven hours from Jerusalem on the

1. Identification prent north road the traveller finds
n himself in the broad upland plain of
Mabna (1600 feet above the sea), with Mount Gerizim
on his left; skirting the base of the mountain he
reaches the traditional well of Jacob (see SYCHAR}.
Here the road divides : the caravan route to Damascus
continues northward by the village of ‘Askar {Sychar),
and so to Beisin (Beth-shan) and Tiberias ; but the
way to Samaria turns westward into a fertile and well-
watered side-valley between Gerizim (2849 ft.) on the S.
and Ebal (3077 ft.) on the N. This îs the Vale of
Shechem or Nablus; it is in fact an easy pass between

1 Qn the authorship of this prophecy, see IsataK [ΒΟΟΚ], $ 10.
2 Che. Prodk. £s48) 1:38; cp GASm, Zsaia4, 1318.
3 [A study of the names with which Shecaniah is connected in
the lists will confirm this.]

142 4437

SHECHEM

the Mediterranean and jordan basins, and at the water-
shed (1870 fî.), where the city stands, 13 m. from Jacob's
Well, is not more than 100 yds. wide, Thus Shechem
commands both branches of the great north road, and
several routes from the coast also converge here and
connect with the ancient road from Shechem eastward
to Kerawa (Archelais) and es-Salt, the capital of the
Βεϊκᾶ. Cp EPHRAIM, $ 4. The name of Shechem
{shoulder, back) accords with the position of the town
on the watershed, and the native name in Josephus's
time. {Mabortha [Naber] or Mabartha [Niese] 8/ iv.
81; [Pliny, ΙΝ 56:, has Mamortha] means simply ‘ the
pass.') ἘΠ situation of Shechem at the crossing of so
many great roads must have given it importance at a
very early date, and it is still a busy town of some 20,000
inhabitants, with soap manufactures and considerable
trade. On the other hand, the position is equally
favourable under weak governments for brigandage. It
was about their practice of brigandage that the Shechem-
ites fell out with ABIMELECH (Judg. 925), who, however,
with his own mercenaries proved too strong for his
adversaries (cp GAAL). Canaanite Shechem was utterly
destroyed ; its place was taken by a Hebrew city, and
the Canaanite sanctuary of El-berith was transformed
into a holy place of the God of Israel. The great stone
under the famous sacred tree! at the sanctuary {see
MorEH, MEONENIM) was said to have been set up by
Joshua (Josh. 2426; in Josh. 2425 6554 has Σηλω), and
Joseph's grave was shown there.? All this indicates
that Shechem was once the chief sanetuary of Joseph,
and so we understand why Rehoboam went to Shechem
to be crowned king of Northern Israel and why [if the
traditional text is correct—see $ 2] Jeroboam at first
made it his royal residence (1 K.1225, & τὴν σικιμα).
Politically Shechem was supplanted by Samaria; but
it appears to have been still a sanctuary în the time
of Hosea (69). It survived the fall of Ephraiîm (Jer.
415) and ultimately became the religious centre of the
SAMARITANS (g.v.); cp Ecclus. 5026, which runs, ac-
cording to the Hebrew text, ‘ The inhabitants of Seir
and Philistia, and the foolish nation that dwelleth in
Shechem.'

The Greek name Neapolis, known to Josephus, indicates the
building of a new town, which, according to Eusebius and
Jerome, was a little way from the old Shechem, or at least did
not include the traditiona! holy sites. The coins give the form
Flavia Neapolis. Neapolis was the birth-place of Justin
Martyr, and became the seat of a bishopric. Five Chtistian
churches destroyed by the Samaritans in the time of Anastasius
were rebuilt by Justinian (Procop. De 4. ν. 7). Remains of
ene of these seem to survive in the crusaders' church of the
Passion and Resurrection (1167), now the great mosque. Nea-
polis had much to suffer în the crusades ; it was finally lost to
the Christians soon after Saladin’s great victory at Hattin,

Shechem (Nablus) is highly favoured by nature. Nest-
ling between the two sacred mountains, EBAL and
GerizIim, and embowered in luxuriant vegetation, it
cannot fail to charm the traveller approaching it from
the S. The atmosphere too is more pleasant; all
forms of life rejoice in the best natural ' gift of God' in
the Fast-—running water. Truly it was not in search
of fountains that any woman of Shechem would come
to Jacob's well, for ‘ fountains seem to break out in all
directions, and water from some of them runs through
the streets of the city’ (Robinson, Later Researches, 131).
A map of the Shechem valley, with topographical details,
etc., will be found in PEA, vol. ii.

There has been much resultless discussion of that
singular narrative in Gen. 34, which usually serves as

Μ A an authority for the early history of

2. Discussion Shechem. "The whole story (even if
°. distributed between two writers) is so

improbable that to extract a historical element from it 15
just as difficuit as to suppose it to be a pure fiction.
The problems raised by critics(see DINAH) are, however,

1 Eus, gives the tree (terebinthus) of Gen. 35 4 (σηκέμοις [E])
a place în Ox07x.; and from it probably the bishop Terebinthius
in Procop. De -É4.57 had his name.

2 In Josh.2432 Kue. and Di. read inv for the difficult um.

4438

SHECHEM

not insoluble ; they settle themselves as soon as we
apply a methodical criticism to the téxt,. The whole
story of the circumeision has arisen, as in the case of
the Gibeath μᾶ- ἄγαϊσιῃ 1 (Josh. 53), from an early cor-
ruption of the text. That a city was attacked and
plundered by the Simeon and Levi clans, may be ad-
mitted; but the name of the city was probably not
Shechem but Cusham-Jerahmeel, i.e. —it was one of the
chief cities of the Jerahmeelite portion of the N.
Arabian territory called CUSH or CUSHAN (= CUSHAM}
—not improbably Halùsah (see ZIKLAG), if it is right to
identify this city with the ’ Laish' of Judg.1827, which
afterwards (for a time) went by the name of Dan.?

We can now explain two obscure ges in Genesis, viz.,
(@) Gen. 4822, where Jacob says, “1 have given to thee one
portion Cana ποψ; © σίκεμα ἐξαίρετον, Ὁ ]n. 4.9) above thy

rethren, which I took out of the hand of the Amorite with πὶ:
sword and with my bow.' This should almost certainly be, ‘
give thee Cusham-jerahmeel, which thou shalt take from the
hand of the Jerahmeelite Here we have a divine promise of
Siccess (to Sifneon and Levi)in thewar agninst the Jerbmeelites,
for which no place could be found în the transformed story now
foundin Gen. 84,8 (δ) 495, where n'e probably means ‘hyenas,'
and the second line should run, ‘They have rent (19m, cp Ass.
ak&lu) Cusban-jerahmeel. Cp Sworb.

It is true, there was another form of the legend of
the acquisition of Cusham-jerahmeel. It is preserved

in Gen. 88 18-20, where it is possible

ΗΝ that 2. 18 originally ran, ‘and Jacob came

references, 1° Hallsah (corrupted into med, and then
into ον τε ον), a city of Cusham, which
is in the land of the Kenizzite, [when he came from
Harran,] and encamped before the city, and Zoug&! the
piece of ground, ete., of Cusham-jerahmeel for a mina
of Carchemish ; and he erected a massebah there, and
called it Bethel of the Jerahmeelites.' Cp KESITAH,
Luz, ZikLaG. For a slightly different form of the
emendation see Crif. 255.

There are yet two other cases in which Shechem has
inereased its reputation at the expense of the almost
forgotten city of Haltisah in ‘Cusham.’ The first is
in the history of Rehoboam's accession {see REHOBOAM).
The second, in that of Jeroboam, who, as MT suggests
(see $ 1), made Shechem his royal residence. There is
evidence, however (see JEROBOAM, $ 1), that his usual
residence was at ‘Tirzah’ (see TIRZAH), and it does
not seem likely that he moved for a time to Shechem.
In fact, 1 K. 1225 does not fit in at all well with ver
36-33.

Probably (see Crif. B:5. ) the original reading was as follows,
—And Jeroboam built Cusham in the highlands of Jerahmeel,
and offered sacrifices, and the children of Israel presented them-
selves (there), And he made two golden calves, and said,
Enough of your going up to Jerusalem: behold thy deity, O
Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Misrim. And
he set them in Bethel of the Jerahmeelites [in Dan of the Jerah-
meelites]. And this thing became a sin, for the people went to
commit adultery (115) evento Dan” Cp Am.$14, ‘ Those that
swear by the sin of Shimron (OY NEUNI), and say, As thy
god, O Dan, liveth ; and, As thy rwser (either ἩΥῚ or 7IMB),
Ὁ Beersheba, liveth,' etc., and see further Crif. 24.

It was not with Shechem, therefore, but with Cusham
that Jeroboam's name is linked in true history, and

1 The true name was doubtless Gibeath-j&rahmdelim. | The
second part of this compound name became ‘475427, owing to
the effacement of part of the original word. Parallels are the
erroneous reading ‘uncircumcised (*%relim) Philistines’ (for
* Jerahmeelites Philistines,' where one of the two words îs a
gloss on the other), and the strange stories in Ex. 424-26 and
1 8. 1825-27 (see Mosrs, 8 7, with m. 2).

2 The theory is that Haluseh was first attacked by the
Danites, who, however, sank into the condition of a protected
clan (Gen.8431, ‘as a harlot'; cp Josh. 214, Rahab the harlot),
and tultimately became extinet. The disappearance of the
Danites is thus expressed in the most probable form of the text
of Gen. 858, ‘And Dinah, Jacob's eldest daughter, died, and
wasburied below Bethel'; the southern Bethel is meant, another
name for which was Dan (this supplies the key to x K.1229, sce
ZiktaG). ‘Dinah’ is a collateral fem. torm to Dan.

8 “1 took* ΠΡΌ) is clearly wrong, for how could Jacob say
that he had conquiered the city in the persons of his sons Simeon
and Levi? Holzinger (Gen. 255) acotely remarks that v. 22
*refers to a lost version of the legend, of which E gives a trans-
formation in Gen, 34

4439

SHEBEP

Cusham may mean Halùsah {or Dan} and Bethel, Bethel
with its sanctuary and citadel being of course adjacent
to the city of Halîsah, ‘The Negeb, therefore, or at
‘any rate the greater part of it, cannot either in Jeroboam's
time or in that of Amos have been in the possession of
the kingdom of Judah.

Nor can we even venture to assert that Shechem was
the place where the great national assembly was held
which determined the fate of the people of Israel for all
time. It was only afterwards through the Samaritans
that it advanced a claim to be the religious centre of
the land. We may regret these results; but at least
the reader will admit that if the fame of Shechem has
here been curtailed, an almost forgotten place in the
true Holy Land of the Israelites (see PROPHET, $ 6) has
been restored to its ancient dignity.

See Vogelstein, ‘Shechem and Bethel," 7ΟΑ 4, 1892, 193

W.R, ST. Κ᾿ Οἱ, 8 τ; Τ᾿ Κι, 8 2 7

SHECHEM, TOWER OF (03 Sap, Migdal-
shechem), As the story of Abimelech now stands,
Migdal-shechem was an unwalled town in the neighbour-
hood of Shechem, which owed its name perhaps to a
tower (migdal) that stood there, and would appear to
have had a temple dedicated to El-berith (Judg.9.46 1 49).
But the original story, in which Abimelech's_ city
was probably not Shechem but Cusham, may, it
seems, very possibly have had, not pag ‘mn but
[3] ΕῬπΟπτν-ττῦ. σ., ‘Jerabmeelites {gloss, Cushites].'
Observe that in the MT of vr, 6 and 20 the "men of
Shechem' and the ‘house of Millo' (see MILLO) are
co-ordinated.

The original story probably had in lieu of these corrupt
phrases “the men of Cusham' and ‘the house of Jerabmeel';
the latter phrase is equivalent to ‘Jerahmeelites' in Judg.
9467 49. “The house of El.berith* (= Baal-berith) has perhaps
come from ‘the house of El-rehoboth® (i.e., of the divinity of
Rehoboth); it was probably very near Cusham or Haltisah, just
as Penuel was close to Succoth (Gip£on, $ 2). See SHECHEM.

TEC

SHEDEUR (ἜΝ, cedioyp [BFL]. edioyp
[A]), father of the Reubenite ‘prince' Elizur: Nu. 15.
210 730 (edicoyp [B*], cedicoyp [ΒΡ], eAicoyp
[Α1}, 3s (cedioyp [A and in 1018]); all P. See
PEDAHZUR.

Apparently compounded of the divine name +19 (Shaddai)
and “ip, ‘fire’ (3 43; Νά. ZDMG 15 [1860] 809, n. 1; Nestle,

Eigenn. 36); Frd. Delitzsch (ProZ 96) explains ‘daybreak,
from Ass. ἐπα uri, but improbably. Rather perhaps miswritten

for bang, ‘Suriel' a varianti τὸ 9s, ‘Suriel' (see Zur,
NAMES WITH), τ΄ Κι C.

SHEEP. The large part played by this animal in
the life of the people of Palestine is evinced by the very
.._ many references to it contained în their
1. Species. tirerature. The sheep was domesticated
later than the ox. Mariette found no trace of sheep
amongst the Egyptians during the fifth dynasty, when
oxen were common, ‘The avenue of rams at Karnak is
attributed to the eighteenth dynasty, about 1700 R.C.,
by which time they were probably domesticated.! The
origin of the domestic variety of sheep, usually known
as Ovis aries, whether ‘from any one of the existing
wild species, or from the crossing of several, or from
some now extinct species, ἰ8 quite a matter of con-
jecture.”. The sheep of Palestine at the present day are,
according to Tristram, usually pie-bald or skew-bald.?
They fall into two different breeds, of which by far the
commonest and în many places the only one, is the
>broad-tailed sheep (var. /aficaudata). ‘This remarkable
animal is distinguished by an enormous deposit of fat in
the tail (mbe, Fx. 2922 Lev. 39 etc. ; for 1 S, 924 see

Dr.), which sometimes accumulates to such an extent

1 The question of the introduction of sheep into Egypt las
been recently advanced through the fesearches of Thilenius
(Maspero, Rec. de Travawx,22199-212), and, more especially,
of Diirst and Gaillard (09. ci4. 24 44-76)

2 White as snow, eg. Ps. 14716; brown, Gen. 8033 (cp
Corovas, 8 8); fiecked and speckled, v. 32 (16, $ 12).

4440

SHEEP

that the appendage has to be provided with a small
sledge on which it is borne. Such tails have been
known to exceed 50 lbs. in weight, and are esteemed
a delicacy by the Arabs.! In N. Palestine a horned
variety similar to the Merino is now found; but it
is not certain whether it was there in the time of
the Israelites. On the sheep of Arabia see Palgrave,
EB® 22425, Doughty, Ar. Des. 1426.

From a consideration of the various names for sheep (cp below,

$ 2), Homme! (Saugetiere ὁ, d. Sem. Volk. 250 f. SA e ncludes
ἐπ among the earliest Semites the sheep did not occupy so
di ortant a position as the goat, that it does not belong to their

lest domesticated animals, and that it came to them from
Geol Asia by way of Mesopotamia. In this connection it is
interesting to observe that among the Indo-Germanic races, on
the other hand, the sheep appears to have been the first animal
to be domesticated, and that its position is more important than
that held by other ‘cattle (O. Schrader, Iudogerm. Altertumsk.
sv, ‘Schaf")

The Hebrew words which have to be recorded are:

1. gdr (rx), coll. for small cattle, sheep, and

2. Terms. goats: (5 ποίμνιον, cp below no. 16.

2. seh (av), Dt 14 4 eto., any single member of
the above. The Egyptian derivative appears to be used of the
fat-taîled sheep, Z DAG 41629.

3. dyil (5g), ‘ram,’ as opposed to 45y4/ HART (9.9) ; on the
two words see esp. OZZ, 1900, col. 208,5

4. ah! (rm), Gen. 81388215 15. 58), Cant. 6 st, ‘ewe,” the
Ar. rakhi!l, rikk! (mod, r6khal, Doughty, Ar. Des.1 429) i is
used of the lamb.

5. Zar (12), Dt. 8214, 15. 161 οἷς, (6 ἀρνός, ἔριφος), ‘young
lamb,' perhaps from idea of skipping or dancing. Also ‘batter:
ing-ram,' see SIEGE?

6. Aeteb (3 nab2, also #33 πὶ
two years, esp. used with reference to sacrifices,
words see Hommel, 27. crt. 235 n. 2 433.

5. tale (bu), 15. 4011 6525 (& apròs), an older lamb (mod,
tully, a yearling, see Doughty, 1429 2269) ; see TALITHA.

ἐν the sake of completeness we should add —

3p3, whence ρόδα: a sheep- valser or x dealer, 2.K.84 Am,
li ἌΣ 14 with We., Now., Dr.) nabad, ‘a kind of
small sheep with very abundant eri Bon and see ΜΈΒΗΑ,
col. 3042, ἢ, 7.

9. “or, ‘lamb,’ known in B. Aram. (Ezra 7 17), Ar., Ass., and
Pheen. (C/S 1 165, e.g.—the Marseilles sacrifici ταῦ} ποι in
Heb. Pheen. also is

το. 37% (C/S 16.), the Canaanite equivalent of the common
Aram, ‘erdà ‘sheep, lamb.

ἀπ, ‘lambs of the fiock," Ecclus.473 σα αν lit. ‘sons of
Bashan” (ἄρνασι προβάτων [BRA]); cp Dt.3214, and see
BASHAN, ὃ 2 end.

12. kisitah, Gen, 8319 (AVmg. ‘lamb); see KESITAR

The Greek words are familiar ;

13. ἀμνός, Jn. 120, etc. ; used in (5 esp. for nos. 4, 6.

τὰ. ἀρήν", Lk. 103, eto.

15. ἀρνίον, Rev. 86 etc. ; used in ὧδ for no. 6.

τὸ, πρόβατον, Mt. 9 36, etc. ; in 45 esp. for nos. rand 2. _

The wealth of a pastoral and nomadie people consists
largely of their flocks, and the very large number of

3. Detaila. sheep which the ancient Hebrews possessed

- + is shown by the numbers, perhaps exagger-
ated, which the Hagrites (1 Ch. 521) and Midianites
(Nu. 8132) are reported to have lost în their contests
with Israel, and by the prodigious numbers which were
sacrificed at the dedication of the Temple and on other
occasions {1 K. 863, ete.). See SACRIFICE, $$ 33, εἴ,
Except on such occasions the sheep were seldom
slaughtered to provide food, though a lamb or kid was
the usual dish offered for the entertainment of a stranger
{cp Foob, $$ 8, 14 Δ, CATTLE, $ 8). The best pastures
were în S. Palestine (the Negeb, Carmel {x S. 25],
Gerar [Gen. 10:24], Timnath [:8. 38 13], and the plain io
the E. of Jordan; see CATTLE, $ 3, and cp GOLAN,
col. 1748).8 The sheep were valucd chiefiy for the wool,
the shearing of which was the occasion of an annual
festival (see WooL).3 The ewe's milk was also con-

1 Cp Doughty, 4. Des. 1 502, Herod. 3113, with Rawlinson's
notes; and above, col. τότε; n. 2. According to Thilenius (0A.
cit. 203), it was introduced into Upper Egypt from Asia by the
twelfth dynasty.

® Other references are to Shechem (Gen. 8428), the ‘sons of
the East’ (5. 2927), Uz(Job 13, 4212), and Egypt (Gen. 1216

93)

8 Sheep-shearing, it may be noted, does not go back to primi-
tive times ; the earlier custom is to pluck the wool with the hands
(Ὁ. Schrader, 5.0, ‘Schaf,” Hehn, Awltur4ffanzen und Haus
thiere,8) xs),

22), a lamb of one or
On the Heb.

4441

‘* sumed (see MILK).

SHEKEL

The horns of the Syrian ram are
Ἀ5 a rule large and curved backward; they were used
as musical instruments (Josh. 64) and as receptacles for
vil, ete. (τ 5.161}; cp Horn. The skins were also
used as coverings for tents, εἰς, (see TENT) and prob-
ably for clothing (Heb, 1137). The sheep were con-
stantly moved about in search for new pasture, and it îs
customary in the East for the shepherd to lead his fock
(Jn. 103 £) and to know, and often name, every member
of it.? At night the sheep are gathered into natural or
roughly-made folds (see CATTLE, ὃ 5 Δ, GOAT, $ 3).
Sheep-dogs are used less for herding than as a protection
against wild animals (DOG, $ 1).
οἷοι further general remarks on small cattle, see CATTLE,

(0AT.

For Sheep: -fold, see CATTLE, $ s, and for Sheep-gate (Jn.
De 2 AV ‘sheep-market*), see JERUSALEM, $$ 24 (col. 2424 end),

3° or Shepherd, see CATTLE, $ 6; on the figurative use of the
word (‘ pastor "= bishop), see MiwistRY, $$ 396, 476; and for the
non-canonical ‘Shepherd of Hermas,' see CANON, $$ ὅς, 72,
Propnemic Lir., $ 31, and SHEPHERD ΟΡ HERMAS.
A. E, S.S. A. €.

SHEERAB (ΠΝ), 1 Ch 724 RV, AV SuERANH

{g.0.).
SHEET. 1. }"1D,sddi», Judg.1412. See MANTLE, 4,

2. pinne, vti/f4hath, Ruth 815 AVmg. See MANTLE, 3.
3. ὀθόνη, Acts 1011115. See Linen, 1 and 9.

SHEHARIAH (NY; capala [BL]: caapia [A]),
». Jeroham in a genealogy of BENJAMIN (g.v.,8 9, 11. f),
τ Ch. 826.

The name may mean either ‘Vahwè is the dawn' (88 35, 44)
or ‘the Shahrite Parallel is ZERAHIAN [9.2.]. “ny occurs as
a place-name in Josh. 133, etc. (see Sk1HoR), and, with x pre-
fixed, as a clan-name in 1 Ch. 224 45. Of the latter form
(Ashhur) AWiszaHaR may be a late and artificial expansion,
Just as Shehariah is a late and artificial expansion of Shahri.

Ὧν also HopEsH (=Shahar, Ashhur) in 1 ΟΝ. 8.9, and the non-
biblical Hebrew name Sheharhor (see ΖΕΡΗΛΝΊΛΗ, 2-4), All

these names are southern. T. K.C.
ΒΗΈΚΕΙ," (Dpr, cp Jiza/, «to weigh"; cikAoc,
cirAoc) signifies either a weight or a coin. As the

5 invention of coinage dates from the
seventh century B.C., and no coins were
issued in districts from which they
wotld be likely to penetrate to Palestine before the
time of Darius Hystaspis (522-485 B.c.), all biblical
references to shekels or any kind of money before the
return from the exile must be understood of uncoined
metal, for which the scales were ‘used {cp Gen. 2316).
The metal was usually cast in ingots {cp the meaning
of #ikkar, a round, cake-like disc} or bars, of a fixed
weight {cp τ 8. 98), or may have taken the form of
ornaments of which the weight was known (eg.,
Rebekah's ornaments, Gen. 2422). Any such piece of
metal, if stamped with the recognised mark of the
govemment, guaranteeing its quality and weight, so
that the scales could be dispensed with, would rightly
be called a coîn; but the custom of stamping the smaller
pieces of precious metal in this way and for purposes
of exchange was not, so far as we know, systematised
before the date mentioned,
Of the many weight-systemsemployed in antiquity, only
three can seriously claim to have been in use in Pales-
tine in early times (see WEIGHTS AND
2 Palestinian MEASURES, $ 4). These are known
as the gold-shekel standard (Ridge-
way's ox-standard), the Babylonian,
and the Pheenician respectively, the Phoenician being a

1 Gr. μηλωτή, which in OT renders nom, sce DeEss, $ 8.

2 On the shepherd's life cp also Doughty, 1 428 ‘there is none
will take up the herdsman's life, but it be of bare necessity.”

The statement în Gen. 4634 is not directly supported by the
evidence of the monuments, “but the keepers of oxen and swine
were considered in Egypt to follow a degrading occupation,
They are depicted as dirty, unshaven, poorly clad, and even as
darte and deformed' (Driver, pt rity and Archeology,

1) Δ list of the passages where the word occurs is given by
Madden (see below, $ 7), 15.

4442

SHEKEL

derivative of the Babylonian. The chief denominations
were the talent (τάλαντον, 192, κέγχαρ, Jos. «ἀπέ. ili. 67),
the mina (urî mo, MANEH gv], cp Ezek. 4512; trans-
lated ‘pound' in 1 Καὶ 1017 Ezra 269 Neh.771 f; the
word ‘pound’ is also used for λίτρα, the Roman ἐϊόγα
of 5053.3 grs. troy, in Jn. 123 1939), and the shekel.!
For ordinary purposes the talent was divided into 60
minas, and the mina into 60 shekels; but for weighing
gold a mina of only 50 shekels and a talent of 3000
instead of 3600 shekels were used, The shekel was the
same in both. Further, payments to the royal treasury
in Babylonia were calculated on a slightly higher scale
(the “royal norm’) than ordinary payments (for which
the ‘common norm' was used), (This difference is
probably alluded to in 2 5. 1426: Absaion's hair weighed
*two hundred shekels after the king*s weight." Schrader
[KAT 142) supposes that the trade-shekel weighed
more than the money-shekel, and that the heavier is
here referred to; but there seems to be no reason for
identifying the trade-norm with the royal-norm.) Next,
since it was desirable to be able to exchange a round
number of shekels (minas, talents} of silver against a
shekel (mina, talent) of gold, and since the ratio of
value between gold and silver was inconveniently 134 : 1,
a new shekel (mina, talent) had to be established for
the weighing of the less precious metal. Finally, there
were two systems, the heavy and the light, in the former
of which the denominations weighed twice as much as
in the latter.

The evidence of extant Babylonian weights, checked
by the weights of coins struck in later times on derived
standards, enables us to obtain the following series of
weights used for the precious metals :—

| RovaL Norm. | Common Norm.

! Heavy. | Light. ; Heavy. | Light.
Il
grs. troy. I grs.troy. ἰ grs.troy. | grs, troy.
Ù t_-
Talent. .777,7809 |388,8908. ‘757,3800 [378,6904
Mina. - Ὁ] 12,963? 6.481,57 | 126230 | 631.58
Shekel‘ .) ‘25935 | "rog.dg®' 2so.st| τρῶν
Value of the i
gold shekel 1+3,4573 | 1,728.4 3,366.6 | 1,684.3
in silver | |

Le.tenpieces )

οὐ εἶναι οἱ i 340738) 76.856. 3366| 16848
Or. fifteen .

pieces ΟΥ̓ | 23067 | isa. 1 22448] cr2av
silver of .

By adopting silver units of the weights given in the last
two rows, a round number of units of silver (10 or 15)
could always be exchanged against a single unit of
gold, provided the two belonged to the same norm and
system. The standard according to which ten pieces
of silver corresponded to one of gold is known as the
Babylonian or Persic, because silver coins which agree
with this standard were struck by the Persian kings
(who adopted it from its Babylonian source) and by
their immediate subordinates; the standard reached
the Greeks overland through districts, such as Lydia,
which were under Persian influence. On the other
hand, the standard equating fifteen pieces of silver to
one of gold was adopted by the great Phoenician trading
cities, and reached the Greeks directly by sea; hence
it is known as the Phcenician standard.
What evidence, then, have we for the use of either
or both οἵ these systems in Palestine? A certain
number of extant weights {see
È Evidence WEIGHTS AND MEASURES, $ 4)
* seem to suggest that a low form of the
Babylonian shekel was in use in Palestine. On the
other hand, the literary and numismatic evidence points
to the Phoenician standard having been used, at least
in post-exilic times, side by side with the other system.

1 [Sce also, Kesiran.]
4443

SHEKEL

In the first place, we know (by calculation) from Ex,
3825 /. [P] that the Hebrew talent contained g000
shekels. Again, Josephus (Azxiv.71) equates the
mina used for weighing gold to 2& Roman pounds—
i.e., 12,633.3 grs. troy—which is very near to the
heavy gold mina of the common norm (9). The same
writer (09. cit. ili. 67) speaks of a sum of ‘100 minas,
which the Hebrews call κέγχαρ, which being trans-
lated into Greek means τάλαντον. If we take the
mina here mentioned to be the gold mina (g) of 12,623
grs. (heavy) or 6,311.5 grs. light (4), we obtain a talent
of 1,262,300 grs. (heavy) or 631,150 grs. (light). ‘The
ποῖσσ part, or shekel, of this talent would be 420.73 grs.
(heavy) or 210, 36 grs. (light). These weights are some-
what lighter than the normal weights of the heavy double
shekel and shekel (#) of the Phoenician standard (common
norm); but it is noticeable that the earliest coins (double
staters and staters) of Sidon and Tyre (issued in the
sth cent. B.C.) seldom rise to the normal weight of
448.8 grs. and 224.4 grs., the effective weight being
usually much nearer the amounts just arrived at, and
rarely rising above 426 grs. (213 grs.). Again, various
metrological authorities of ancient though late date (see
Hultsch, Metrolog. Script. Rel., Index, under τάλαντον,
17) equate the Hebrew talent to 125 Roman lbs. —i.e.,
631,665.3 grs. The shekel of this talent would be
2Io.55 grs. Finally, Josephus (4x2 ili. 82) equates
the Hebrew coin called oixAos—i.e., the silver shekel—
to four ‘Attic drachms,' ‘Attic drachm' in his day
was equivalent to the Roman denarius, which was fixed
by Nero at τὶς Ib.-i.e., 52.62 grs.; the Hebrew σέκλος
was therefore 210.48 grs. în weight.

We thus see that the Hebrew shekel weighed from
2I0 to 210.55 grs., or, on the heavy system, 420 to
421 grs. It can be nothing else than the shekel of
224.4 grs. (ἢ), or its double, in a slightly degraded
form. It is clear, therefore, that the shekel of the
Pheenician standard was in use in Palestine at a com-
paratively early period. ‘The weight of the heavy gold
shekel of the common norm {(/) being taken at 252.5
grs. troy, its value (at the present rate of £3 :17: 10%
per oz. of 480 grs. paid by the Mint for gold) would
be very nearly £2:1:0, and the light shekel would be
worth about £1:0:6. ‘The Hebrew-Phcenician silver
shekel and the Babylonic-Persic silver shekel, being
reckoned as fx and τς of the gold shekel respectively,
work out as follows:

Pheenician . 5 .
Babylonian ‘|

The values of the talent and mina of gold and silver in
all these systems are :

7

Heavy. Licut.
Talent. | Mina. | Talent. E ina,
£ sd. £ sd αὶ s.dl gsd.

Gola...» |Stso 0 o|to2 100|307s cels EEE

Pheenician silver + | 4io o 0| 61681205 col 384

Babylonian silver. | 6x5 0 0| τὸ 5°] 307 τοῦ 526

It is curious that, although the mina was known as
a weight, ît does not occur în any pre-exilic writings,
and large sums are expressed in talents and shekels
(Kennedy, 420). A parallel is afforded by the Attic
method of reckoning in talents and drachms.

Earlyin the (conventional) post-exilic period the Persian
coinage of gold and silver was introduced by Darius

4, Early Hystaspis. His gold shekel, struck on
ἄνω ἢ the royal norm (2), was known to the
Prreriod. 10 Greeks as daric (Sapenés). The deriva-

tion of this word from the king's name
has been disputed, on the ground that it could not be
formed from the Persian Darayavausk; but there is no
reason why it should not be formed in Greek fashion
from Δαρεῖος. Of other derivations, the only plausibile
one is from the Assyrian deriza, a word found in

4444

SHEKEL

contract-tablets of the time of Nabonidus and Nebu-
chadrezzar. But the evidence that this word is the
name of a weight or measure is not satisfactory ; Tall
quist (Die Spr. der Contr. Nabi-nd'ids, 66) with more
probability regards it as an agricultural product. The
word darkemon (see DRAM) has until recently been
connected by many writers with the word 4aric; but
there can be little doubt that the darZezzòn is a weight,
and possibly the same word is found in the Greek
dpaxw (see DRAM, and with the spelling puym of
the Pirzeeus inscription cp the Cretan dialectical form
dapard).

The Greek derivation of δραχμή from δράσσομαι is probably
a popular etymology. t, however, are these ‘drams’ of
gold mentioned in Chronicles.Ezra-Nehemiah? Remembering
that in the Greek system the drachma was as a rule the asyo
part of the talent, we should suppose that halfshekels were
meant by dar4ew2nim. Now the weight of the daric (4) is asa
matter of fact the half.shekel of the heavy system (7), and since
the Hebrews, in weighing both gold and silver, used the heavy
system (see the quotationis from Josephus discussed above, ἢ 3),
they would naturally regard the gold daric as a half-shekel of
the heavy system. It follows that although the words dertemos
and dazic have in all probability no etymologica! connection,
the actual pieces of gold meant by darZemdnize were as a matter
of fact darics, or pieces of the same weight as the daric.

The silver coin of Darius was known to the Greeks
as the σέγλος {gixAos) Μηδικός, and weighed 86.4 grs.,
being reaily a half-shekel of the light Babylonian system
{royal norm). The gold daric was worth twenty of
these silver coins. The value of the daric in modern
money works out at about one guinea, and that of the
siglos, accordingly, at a little over one shilling.

The Persian governors who preceded Nehemiah in
his office exacted from the people 40 shekels of silver
(Neb. 5:15). It is hardly possible to decide whether
these were σίγλοι Μη-
δικοί (which as we
have seen were really
half-shekels) or whole
shekels of 172.8 grs.;
but the probability is
in favour of the for-
mer, as being the
official coins of the
Persian Empire at
the time.

Both daric (Fig. 2) and siglos (Fig. 5) are alike in
types. On the obverse is a figure of the Great King,
wearing the Persian
head-dress (#idaris)
and robe (Zerdys),
and holding in his
right hand a spear,
in the lefta bow; the
half-Kneeling posture
is meant, according
to the convention of
early art, to represent
running. The reverse bears only the impression made
by the irregular punch used in striking the coin.

The phrase ‘shekel of the sanctuary,’ or rather

sacred shekel' (σέκλος ὁ ἅγιος, σταθμὸς ὁ &yios) is used

: in P in connection with gold, silver,

δ. Pnenician copper (?), and spices. (For this sub-

ject, besides Kennedy 422, see Zucker-

mann, Talmud. Gewichte, 4 7. 15.) In spite of the fact
that the sacred shekel was used for gold, as well as
silver, there are serious difficulties in the Way of accepting
Ridgeway's theory (Origin of Metallic Currency, 273f.)
that it was the shekel of 130-135 grs. We know
from the Mishna that sums of silver money mentioned
in the Pentateuch are to be regarded as reckoned in
*Tyrian money'—i.e., în money of the Phaenician
standard. We know further that the temple tax was
half a shekel, and the tax for fo persons could be paid
by a tetradrachm or stater {g.v.) of the Phcenician
standard {(Mt.1724 7, where the collectors of the tax
are called ol τὰ δίδραχμα λαμβάνοντες). It follows that

4445

Fic. a.

Fia. &

SHEKEL

the sacred shekel was a shekel of the heavy Phcenician
standard {common norm) of 224.4 grs. (2). This con-
elusion is confirmed by the statement (Ex. 3013, etc.}
that the shekel was twenty gerahs, which @ translates
‘zo obols.' The obol meant by @ was presumably the
Attic obol of the time ($ of the drachm of 67.28 grs.—
î.e., 11.21 grs.); and twenty of these make a weight of
224.2 grs. Any shekel of this weight, whether struck
by a foreign king, or struck by a city like Tyre, could

Fio. e

therefore be used for the payment of the tax for two
persons ; or the corresponding half-shekel (Phoenician
didrachm of 112.2 grs.) for a single person The
half-shekel here illustrated (Fig. c) was struck at Tyre
in the year 102 B.C. On the obverse is the head of
Melkarih, the Tyrian Heracles, crowned with laurel;
on the reverse an eagle standing with one foot on the
prow of a galley, and a palm-branch over its shoulder ;
in the field are a club (the symbol of Melkarth), the
numerals AK (the year 24 of the local era), and the
monogram of the official of the mint responsible for the
coin; around is the inscription ΤΎΡΟΥ IEPAC KAI
ACYAOY—i.e., '{coin) of Tyre, the sacred (city) and
inviolable.’ The weight of this specimen (106.9 grs.)
is a little under the normal (x). The name ‘sacred*
applied to the shekel of this standard is due presumably
to its being used for the temple tax, for which shekels
of any other standard were not accepted. Hence the
presence of money-changers in the outer court of the
temple. The third part of the shekel of Neh. 1032 îs
probably the third of the Pheenician shekel; the third
is indeed a more usual denomination, both in the
Phoenician and in the Babylonian standards, than the
half.

The Jews were, as a rule, content or obliged to use
silver coins of foreign origin, and the two series of
silver coins issued by them belong to
periods of revolt against their rulers.
A famous series of shekels and half-shekels issued
during a period of five years has been most usually
ascribed to the time of Simon the Hasmonzean ; the
tendency of recent criticism, however, is to give them
to the time of the first revolt against Rome (66-70 A.D.).

6. Silver coins.

Fic. d

The best summary of recent arguments about this
question, which does not properly concern us here, is
given by Kennedy, 429; still more recently, however,
Th. Reinach has stated his inclination to revert to the
older view (Mew. des diudes grecgues, 1323) A
specimen of the shekel of the fourth year is given in
fig. d. On the obverse is a chalice, above which is the
date πῶ (for 3 me, ‘year 4'); around is the inscription
bine Spy (‘Shekel of Israel') ΟἹ the reverse is a
ftowering lily and the inscription nempn oben: ('Jera-

4446

SHELAH

salem the floly'). ‘The weight of this specimen is 220

grs.

The second series of silver coins of the Jews belongs
to the second revolt; they are shekels and quarter-
shekels issued by Simon Barcochba and ‘Eleazar the
High Priest from 132-135 A.D. These coins are
really Roman denarii, or tetradrachms or drachms of
the mints of Cessarea (in Cappadocia} and Antioch (in
Syria), which have bcen used as blanks on which to
impress Jewish types (Kennedy, 430£).

Both these series are, as we have said, exceptional,
and the ordinary coinage of the Jews, from the time
of John Hyreanus, if not from that of Simon the
Hasmonaean, onwards, consists merely of bronze.

F. W. Madden, Coîns of the Jews, 1881; F. Hultsch, Gr. se.
. Rim. Metrologie2) 1882; W. Ridgeway,
7. Literature. Origin of Metallic Currency, 1892; Th.
cinach, Les monnaies juives, 1887; A. R

8. Kennedy, in Hastings' D8 24177 G.F.H.
SHELAH. 1. nbgi, a name closely resembling
SHILOH (cnAwm [BADEF], cià. [L]), the youngest
of Judah's sons by the daughter of the Canaanite Shua
(cp Stade GV71158, and see JUDAH i, $ 2; Gen,
3851114 26 [J], 4612 [P]; Nu. 2620 cHAwn [BAL, but
cm L. ©. 19], 1 Ch.23 οηλων [BL]) The clan is
associated with Chezib in the Shephelah of Judah (cp
Cozeba below, and see AcHziB [i.]}, and, apart from
Gen. 38, occurs only in post-exilic writings. The
further divisions of this clan are given in x Ch. 421-23
(cnAwn [L]). The passage is extremely. obscure
and appears to represent the attempt of a scribe to
get some meaning out of an already corrupt genealogy,
Lecah in 7. 21a may be a corruption for Lachish, but the
latter halfofthe verse is unintelligible. A reference to Bethlehem
in Ὁ. 224 is not improbable, see JASHUBI-LEHEM. The reading,
“men of Cozeba . . . had dominion in Moab,' is doubtful; that
of GEA, οἱ κατῴκησαν... (‘who dwelt. . . 3), is much more
reasonable. Netaim (g*yv)) and Gederah, 7. 23, seem to have
arisen from Etam (D9*Y) and Gedor} and the recurrence of both
names in ψ, 3 £—a list which în its present condition îs
fragmentary—makes ît probable that în 7. 3a we should read
“Shelah, the father of Etam' (correcting che difficult quer mha) 1
See Eram, 2. A pre-exilic reference may safely be rejected ;
the ‘ancient ' matters spoken of need not, from the Chronicler's
point of view, be pre-exilic The patronymic is Shelanite
Οὐὐρπ, Nu. 2620, è ogàwrlel {BAFL]), which in a list of
Judahite inhabitants of Jerusalem is twice written Shilonite
(Neh. 11 5, δηλωνε [B], ὃ-ει [x], 9A [A], στεὶ {L}; AV Suoni,
1Ch.95; "1Vwa; τῶν ondwrich, see Ezra ii., $ 5 [6], δὶ 15
{|αλ The former printing with 4 seems better (cp Be.
Ke.). Maaseiah or Asaiah, to whom the patronymic îs here
applied, appears as the representative of Shelah b. Judah, just
as Athaiah (Neh. 114) represents the Perezite division. [Cp

Crit. Bib.) S.A. C.

2. (n)g). SALAH AV in Gen. and Sara AV Lk.

835, the son of Arpachshad and father of Eber in the
old genealogy of the Hebrews (Gen. 1024 [R.?], 11:3/
[P], x Ch. 118 [B om.] 24, cada, σαλας [L in Gen. 10]).
The key to 'Shelah' is of course Arpachshad. If the
latter name contains Chaldeea, Knobel may be excused
for seeking ‘Shelah' in NE. Mesopotamia. If, how-
ever, Arpachshad comes from ‘Aràb-Kadesh or -Cush
{see UR oF THE CHALDEES], we must suppose ‘Shelah”
to represent some clan in the Negeb. In accordance
with JUDAH, $ 2, we may assume the existence of a
Jerahmeelite cian called Shelah {see SHELAH, 1), of
Kenizzite {not Canaanite) affinities, and related to Sha'ul,
of which Shelah is a modification. ‘The name Methuselah
is similarly related to Methushael; both these names
are probably modifications of Mishael = Ishmael. It
now becomes not impossible that Eber (23p) în Gen.
1024 may be miswritten for ‘Arab (mp),

To derive Shelah from ‘to send,’ and suppose ît to refer to
the de3ar#ure of a portion of the tribe of Arpachshad previous to
their ‘passing over’ (see Eser) the Tigris, is absurd. ® (in
Gen.), on which Lk. 835 is based, inserts Cainan hefore Shelah
to make Abram the tenth after Shem (see Di. Gen. 208).

T.K.C

1 psn (Ὁ, 23) may spring from Beth-rur or perhaps rather
ὨΡΙΡῪΠ (Zior lay to the SE. of Gedor).

4447

SHELUMIEL

SHELAH, POOL OF (Nb N33), Neh. 815 RV,
AV ‘ pool of SILOAH.' See SILOAM.

SHELANITES (708), Nu. 2620; see SHELAR (1).

SHELEMIAH (Προ ἢ, Amos, either compounded
with [ΠΡ τὸ ΠῚ ΠΡ, or an expanded form of a clan name
borne by an individual [Che.], see SHALLUM, SHELA-
MIEL, and note the N. Arabian character of the names
with which Shelemiah is associated. To illustrate the

later (?) view of the name, cp Palm. ΠΟΙ» fit for

ΤΟΝ ὉΣΝΦ a compound of the goddess al-Lat]; cere
MIOY). See SELEMIA.

1. b. Cushi, an ancestor of JeHuDi (9.7) Jer. 86 [66 48] 14,
ambo, σαλαμιον [A].

2. b. Abdel, one of the men sent by Jehoiakim to take Baruch
διαὶ Jeremiah iter Baruch had read the roll ia the king's presence
(er. 86 [ζ 43] 25, 3192g om. BRAQ).

3. The father of JeHvcaL or JucaL (g.0.), temp. Zedekiah
(er. 3714413 σεδεκιου [μ], 38145] 1, vambe).

4 δ. Hananiah, the father of IRIJAH I9.7.} Jer44[37] 13).

δι 1Ch. 2614; see MESHELEMIAH.

6. One of the b. Bani, Ezra 10 39 (σελεμία [Β], -εἰ [11], «vas [A],
«eva [x])=1 Esd.9 34, SkLEMIAS (σελεμίας IBA)).

7. Another of the b. Bani (Ezra 1041, Ἰπ᾿Ὅν Τν σελέμια [Β],
«as [A], ewa [ἘΠ], σαμαιας [L]), omitted în the parallel passage
in 1 Esd.934. It is interesting that the sequence of names
here, Sharai (19), Azarel, and Shelemiah îs almost identical
with the names in Jer. 56.26 Seraiah (Mb), Azriel, Shelemiah,

8. The father of HANANIAH (9.0.), Neh. 330 (σελεμίὰ [B],
cas [8], occuca FAI).

9. Α priest, a keeper of the storchouses (Neh. 13 13, σελεμία
(B*A]), cA. [BD], cedepra IR).

SHELEPH (5]}}}, in pause, ca\e@ [AEL]), a son of
Joktan (Gen. 1026, om. B 1 Ch.12ot), has not yet been
identified ; but similar names are not uncommon in S.
Arabia, Instances are Stef or Salif, a tribe in
Yemen: Osiander, ZDMG 11153 7; Sf, Hal. Me.
86; Salf[many]: Glaser, 425; cp also a district Sa/fe
Niebuhr, Aradien, 247 ; and see other reff. in Di, Gen.
[Cp SEPHAR, and on ‘Joktan,' see Cri. Βὲδ.}

Lu Ε. Β.
SHELESH ab; zemwH [Β], ceMuc [A]. cehem
[L]), a name in a genealogy of ASHER (g.v., 8 4 iì.),
1 Ch. 735}.
SHELOMI ("5b), father of Ahihud, a ‘prince’ of
Asher (Νὰ. 3427; ceAem(e)l [BAFL]). See SHELU-
MIEL, and cp ASHER, $ 1.

SHELOMITE (Nb), interchangeabie with nimbw

{see below 5]; cp the fiuctuations between Meshillemith
and Meshillemoth. The vocalisation is doubtful [cp
SOLOMON, $ 1], and the name being evidently southern,
a connection with either Ishmael or Salmah may be
assumed [Che.]}.
1, who had married an Egyptian(or, perhaps,
isrite, i.c., N. Arabian woman), and whose son was
stoned for blasphemy (Lev. 2411: σαλωμειθ [BAF], σαλαμειϑ
[Bab], σαλμιϑ [L].

2. Daughter of Zerubbabel (1 Ch. 3 19; σαλωμεθει {B], .ϑε [A],
-pi0 (L)). ;

3. A son of Rehoboam (2 Ch.1120; ἐμμωθ [B], σαλημωθ [A],
σαλωμιθ [L)). .

4. b. Josiphiah one of the b'ne Ban [g.v., 2]: read în Ezra8 10
‘And of the sons of Bani; Shelomith, son_of Josiphiah® (νἱῶν
σαλειμονθ (B], vi. βαανι σελειμμονθ [A], τῶν vi. σαλιμωθ [L]),
cp 1 Esd. 836, which gives AssaLIMoTA, ΕΥ̓͂ SALIMOTE (ασ-
σαλιμὼθ [A, the as belongs to the preceding βανι], [υἱῶν] cade
(9 [L], [βανιας] σαλειμωθ [Β]}. ᾿ ΜΝ

ong the Levites we find (5) a Shelomith b. Shimei, a
Gershonite Levite (1 Ch.239, Kt. ninbyi, RV Shelomoth,
adoley [B], σαλωμειθ [A], -μιθ IL): (6) a chief of the b'ne
Izhar, a Kohathite Levite (1 Ch.2318, σαλωμωθ [B], «0 [L],
σαλουμωθ (AJ), whose son was JAHATH (g.2.) (1 Ch. 2422,
nindi, EV SHELOMOTH, σαλωμωθ (BA), 8 IL); and (7) ἃ
Levite descended from Eliezer Ὁ. Moses (1 Ch.2625/7, RV
SHELOMOTA, σαλωμωθ [BA], «9 and σαλαμιθ [1 τ΄. 25, Kt.
προσ, and MT în 2. 26). .

SHELUMIEL (bwtob: canamima [BAFL]), b
ZURISHADDAI, a ‘prince’ of Simeon ($ 9 ii. n. : Nu.
16 212 736 (σαμαλιηλ [F]) 4: 10394 [all ΡΊ, In Judith

4448

SHEM

8: his name appears as SAMAEL,
(σαλαμιηλ [BA], σαμαμιηλ [N}).
Apparently the name means “El is my health' (48 37, 50);
really, however, it_may come from sambyi; vobgi Shalamu is
the name of a N. Arabian tribe allied to the Nabatzans (see
SALMaH, SHALMAI). T.K.C

SHEM (DU; cHMmi sez), the eldest of the three
sons of Noah, and therefore always mentioned first
(Gen. 532 610 713 918 101 1 Ch.14); the rendering of
Gen. 1021 in AV and RV®& is certainly wrong (cp
JAPHETH).

If an appellative, Shem will mean ‘name’—i.e.,
renown. In this case, if in Gen. 9 it is really equivalent

1. Name. cr noble class (cp Gen. 64 Nu.162 1 Ch
524) in antithesis to the aborigines, who are called in
Job8308, ‘sons of the impious, yea, sons of the name-
less, beaten out of the land’ (so We. CA) 13, Bu.
Urgesch. 328 f.). There is a strong presumption, how-
ever, that the name of this important patriarch has a
longer history and a more recondite meaning. In short,
the legends in the early part of Genesis being, according
to the most piausible view, Jerahmeelite (see PARADISE,
$$ 6, 9}, and ‘Ishmael’ being used as a synonym for
Jerahmeel, it is very probable that ‘Shem' is a modified
fragment of the ethnic name Ishmael.

To derive (with Goldziher) from πρὶ ‘to be high,' and explain
‘the high one’ or even the ‘ Heaven-god,' has no indication in
its favour. More probably, Shem is a shortened form of a name
like SHEMUEL (9.%.), or rather, if we suppose that pn (Ham) is a
fragment of ὈΝΌΠῚ (Jerahmeel), ny (Shem) has arisen out of
a fragment of bgyny» (Ishmael).

, ‘That the redactor, who here as elsewhere emended 339 (Kenaz)
into 139 (Canaan) supposed pp to mean ‘Israel iS possible

enough. But critically, such a view is highly improbabile. See
Gunkel (Gen.12) 74/. [2902]), whose attempt, however, to bring
what is said on Canaan in Noah's oracles into connection with
the historical situation in the second millennium p.c. seems on the
whole premature, in the absence of a thorough textual criticism.

The special blessing by which Shem was rewarded

4 is now often read thus:! ‘Biess,

2. Traditions, O Yahwè, the tenis of Shem (* 79
tg bag) | let Canaan be his servant' (Gen. 926 J}).

It is more plausible, however, to think that v. 26@
should run, Sapne: ug. The Jerahmeelites were, in
fact, (see MosEs, 8 14) the early tutors of the Israelites
in religion. Here and in 2. 27 the underlying original
text apparently spoke of Noah's eldest son as ‘ Ishmael.*
The subjugation of Kenaz (not ‘Canaan,’ as the
traditional text} refers to matters beyond our ken {cp
KENAZ). Another writer thinks to explain ‘Shem' to
his readers by identifying ‘Shem' with ‘Eber’ (Gen.
1021). Here it is necessary to transpose ὅ and », and
read'Arab: in fact, Ishmael {Shem) and ‘Arab are nearly
synonymous. On all these subjects, as well as on the
use of ‘Shem' in P (Gen. 1022 1110, cp 1 Ch. 11724)
see Crif. Bib. ‘The reference in Ecclus. 49 το is no doubt
to Shen's important genealogical position. A late
Jewish tradition (adopted by Selden and Lightfoot)
identifed Shem with MELCHIZEDEK {g.v.). Cp
SETHITES, τ. Κι C.

SHEM, NAMES WITH. Two Hebrew names have
been brought under this head—Semu'el (Samuel) and
Semida' (Shemida). The former of these is compared
by Winckler (G/1:30, n. 3) with Sumu-abi and Sumu-
la-ilu, the names of two Babylonian kings of the third
millennium n.c., whom this scholar considers to belong
to a dynasty of western Semitic or rather Canaanitish
conquerors, According to Hommel, Sumu-abi means
*Sumu is my father,’ and #«mz is a contraction of
tumhu (fumuhu)—i.e., ‘his name," a periphrasis for
*‘God' (44785 f 88). He considers that Semu'el
and Semida' may safely be explained as containing this
element miu. It seems very improbable, however,
that the periphrasis ‘name ' for ' God” should have been
οὗ such remote antiquity among the Israelites, when we

ἘΝ SALAMIEL

1 So Schorr, Grétz, and recently Ball, Holzinger, Gunkel,
4449

to Israel, it may conceivably denote the ruting .

SHEMAIAH

recall that (see NAME, $ 7) it is specially characteristic
of the latest biblical Hebrew writing, and we may
venture to follow Jastrow (782. 19 105), who is of opinion

. that ἔμ in the names quoted by Winckler and
i Hommel is an entirely different word from the Hebrew

Sem.

Perhaps a sober criticism of these ancient names, the Baby-
lonian as well as the Hebrew, may lead to the conclusion that
etymologies which have the most superficial plausibility are
generally fallacious. See, further, SHEMUEL, SHEMIDA.

T.K.C.

SHEMA (Ut; camfala [BAL]), one of the cities in
the extreme S. of Judah towards Edom (Josh. 1526:
calmaa [B]}. Cp the clan-name SHEMA, 1. It is
not included in the list of Simeonite towns either in
Josh. 191-6 or in MT of 1 Ch. 428-31 (but see τ. 28 68),
but in the former of these passages (Josh. 192) we find
SHEBA, plainiy a mere variant (σαμαα [B]; but caf[e]e
[AL]), and in @ 1 Ch. 428 we find caga [BL], -αα [A].
The connection of Shema with Simeon seems obvious.
The Sheba in Josh. 192 was probably introduced as a
supplement from 1526 after the calculation ‘ thirteen
cities’ (v. 6) had been made; RV's ‘or Sheba” is too
bold. See further JESHUA, SIMEON, $ 10.

SHEMA (PNR), $ 50). 1. A Calebite clan which, like
Korah, Tappuah, and Rekem, traced itself to Hebron,
and is represented as the ‘father' of Raham, the ‘father'
of Jorkeam, 1 Ch.243/. ίσεμαα [BA, the latter omits
in ©. 43] casa [L]) Note the accumulation of
‘ Jerahmeelite' names, and the place-name SHEMA.

2. Aclanof REUBEN (8 13); 1 Ch. 58 (capa [BA], σεμεει [L)).

b. Hushim in a acneaiony of BENJAMIN [g.2., 8 g ii. Sl;
τῶιδε gopa {BA}, φαμκα [LD οδνίουεῖν the same as Sbimei
ino. 21. See /OR xi. 1031. See SAIMEI ®).

4 Inlist ci Fara supporters (see Ezra ii., 813 [/]); Neh.

8 φ(σαμαιας [BKAL]).

SHEMAAH mona, whence AVMS- HASMAAH), a
Gibeathite, father of ARIEZER (1 Ch.123; ama [BN]
camaa [Δ], acma [L]}, see Davip, $ irc. The
Fesh. presupposes here the name of a separate hero,
*nyzan myny ᾿ Shemaiah the Gibeathite.'

SHEMAIAH (MPI9L, also IMPIA, see below,
either a religious name=‘Yahwè hears,’ or a late (?)
expansion of the old clan-name *Y9Y, SHIMEI [Che.];
note the frequency of the name among priests, Levites,
‘and prophets, whose historical connection with the
southern border-land is certain; camalalc]. It is
impossible always to differentiate accurately or (as the
case may be} to identify the various bearers of this
name.

1. A prophet temp. Rehoboam, who deprecated war
with Israel (1 K.1222=2 Ch.112 [#. wvyoe]). and
prophesied at the invasion of Judah by Shishak {2 Ch.
1257, σαμμαιας [B]}). He is mentioned as the writer
of the history of Rehoboam (ἐδ. v. 15), cp also in (88
1 K.12 (240, ed. Sw.).

2. A false prophet who for endeavouring to hinder
his work was sternly rebuked by Jeremiah {Jer. 29
[0 36) 24-32 ἴσαμεας N vv. 24, 31 fi]; cp JEREMIAH
[Boox], $ 17; inv, 24 imyor).

He is styled the Nehelamite (obra, αἰλαμειτην [B],
ἐλαμιτὴν [NAQ]), which reminds us of τὸν erAaner
applied to SHEMAIAK (1) in @&'s [B, in L ἐλαμιτὴ»]
addition to 1 K.12 (Ὁ, 240). Probably both αἰλαμειτὴν
and ἐνλαμει point to wpbn= bom ‘Jerahmeelite*
[Che.} {cp bb:n=%xemy, 2 5. 1016 [Che.]; see also
SIBRAIM). The prophet Abijah the Shilonite in 1 K.
1129, it has elsewhere (see SHILOH, 2) been suggested
by Cheyne, is most probably a man from the Negeb.
So, to, in the intention of the writer, is this Shemaiah,

3. Father of Urijah of Kitjarh-jearim, a prophet (Jer. 26 [6
33] 20, impne, μάσεον (NI).

4. Father of Delaiah, a prince temp. Jchoiakim (Jer. 86 1&
43) DI σελέμιον [BAG], σεδεκεον {N}).

5. È. Shechaniah, a descendant of Zerubbabel (1 Ch.322
σάμασ [Β" once], ceuea [L]). Thisisalsothe name of one of those
‘who repaired the temple (Neh. 320, σεμεια [μ]}.

4450

SHEMARIAH

6 |. Joel, of REUSEN (8 13)(1 Ch. 54, oeueer [BL], σεμειν [Α}}

7 Ὁ. Hasshub, a Merarite Levite (1 Ch.914 cp Neh. 1115,
σέμεειας [L]). See 13.

8. Father of Obadiah, a Levite belonging to Jeduthun
( Ch. 916, σαμεια (B] σάμιου [A], cp Neh. 11176), See 13,

9 Chief οὗ the b'ne Elizaphan. temp. David ἃ Ch se
Gapeas [N], σεμαια [A], ©. 11 σαμαι [x], σεμειαν [A]).

10. b. Nathaneel, a Levite scribe (: Ch. 246, σαμμαιας [A]).

11. δ. Obed-edom (τ Ch. 264, σαμείας [Al, 27. 6/1, σαμαι
{Bri 7], σαμεια, σεμεια [A]. Ste 13.

τα, A Levite, temp. Jehoshaphat (2 Ch. 178, σαμονας [B],
σαμονιας [Α}}.

13. A son of Jeduthun (2 Ch. 29 914, σαμείας IAD. Cp7,8,17,
and see GENEALOGIES I, $ 7 (ii. αἱ

14. A Levite house temp. Hezekiah(2 Ch. 81 15, σεμεει [BAL]),
probably the same as the name in Neh. 108 126 (BN*A om.,
σεμειας, gra mg. sup.LL), 16. 18 (B&*A om., opera, ga mg. inf L)
where Jchonathan is the head, 1235 (where ‘one Jonathan
È. Sheniaiah is named).

15. A Levite of the time of Josiah (2 Ch.859, cp perhaps
Suimer, 81 12; in both cases Cononiah precedes as the name of a
brother). Int Esd.19 SAMATAS (σαμάιας).

16. One of the b'ne Adonikam, ἃ post-exilic family who came
up to Jerusalem with Ezra, Ezra8 13 (σαμαεια [A]), in 1 Esd,
839 SAMaras.

17. A.teacher, Ezra 8 τδ(σεμεια [A], σεμεειδ[1.}). in τ Esd. 84
Maswan, RV Maasmas ίμαασμαν [BAI σεμεια [L)), repcated
in 2. 44 Mamaras, ΕΥ̓͂ Samaras (om. Γ᾽

18. One of the b'ne Harim, the priestly family of Ezra 10.21, în
1 Esd. 921 Samerus, RV SaMmevs (θαμαιος [Β], σαμαιος [Α]}.

19. One of the sons of ἩΑΝΙΜ ‘ol Israel” (Era 1031 σέμεα
[x], σαμειας [L]), in 1 Esd. 932 SABBEUS (σαββαιας [BA],
daperas [L]).

20. b. Delaiah b. Mehetabeel, a prophet temp. Neh., bribed
by Sanballat to hinder the Jews from building the wall (Neh.
610 σεμεει [BN], σεμει [A]).

21, 22, two men present at Ezra's dedication of the wall(Nch.
1234, σαραια [BR], caapacas [A] 36).

33. RV but AV ϑάμαιαβ, “the great,’ kinsman of Tobit (Tob.
5125, σέμεον [BI], σεμελιον [x], σέμειον [A], the Heb. Vs. ed.
Neubauer has n°by).

SHEMARIAH (199 and [1 Ch. 125] ἡΠ ον;
usually [$ 30] explained ‘whom Yahwé gnards,' but
probably rather a modification of the ethnic SHIMRI
[Φ..-.}; camapialcl).. 2 Ch. 1119 AV [by printer's
error ?] gives SHAMARIAH). All the occurrences

suggest N. Arabian origin. τι κι.

1. One of David’s heroes, 1 Ch.125 (σαμαραια [B)). See
Davro, 8 11, (4) fiii.), col. 10307

ὦ A'son of Rehoboam, by Mahalath (= Jerahmeelith [Che.]),
2 Ch. 1119

54 Contemporaries of Ezra, who had taken foreign wives,

Ezra 10 32 (-cca [B], -α [RA]); © 41 (eco. [BR], -ccas [A]).
SHEMEBER (MINDU), Gen. 142, See SHINAB.

SHEMED (390), 1 Ch. 812 ΕΝ, AV SHAMED,

SHEMER. τ΄ NY; cemHp. σδλληρ [Β], ce. [A],
cemmuHp [L]). According to 1 K.1624 Shemer was
the owner of the hill which Omri bought, whence the
place received the name of Samaria (jius). See
SAMARIA,

2 and 3. AV SHAMER (02:27 properly a clan-name
{see Stade, ΖΑ͂ ΤῊ 5:66), but applied to real or
supposed persons: a Levite, 1 Ch. 646 [31] (cegumo) ;
and ben Heber in a genealogy of ASHER [g.v., $ 4 il],
1 Ch. 734 (cenunp [B], σωμηρ [AL]); în v 32 he is
called SHOMER [g.v.].

SHEMIDA (ΤΌΣ, a Gileadite clan belonging to
MANASSEH (8 9) (Nu. 2632, cymaep; Josh. 172,
cymaper (DÌ cemipae[A], camidae[L]; 1 Ch. 719
AV Shemidah: cemeipa [BA]. camerda [1.}}, after
whom the Shemidaites were called (Nu, Zc. ΨΤΡΦΠ;
cymaepl[eli [BAFL]).

May we venture to hold that ny here is a divine appellation?
See NAMES, $ 43, SHEM [NAMES wirH]. The alternative is to
suppose a cormprion bayne».

SHEMINITH, UPON, ἘΝ ‘set to the Sheminith"
mamo di @8NARU in Pss. YITEP THC ογλοης
BRA in 1Ch., amaceneidi Jer. super octava [Ps. 61],
pro octava [Ps.12:]; emi THC oràone [Aq., Ps. 61],

περι της ordone [@* in : Ch., Sym.]; Tg.
‘on the lyre with eight strings’), a technical phrase

4451

SHEMUEL

relative (according to the ordinary view) to the musical
performance of certain psalms (Pss. 6 12; cp 1 Ch.

1521). ‘Ewald, Olshausen, Winckler, explain ‘in the
eighth mode, or key'; Gesenius and Delitzsch, ‘for
the bass’; Gritz agrees with the Targum. It is

admitted, however, that these explanations are pure
guesses, and the most plausible view of other psalm titles
favours the assumption that the text is corrupt. Most
probably m'ynemy is a corruption of DImrb, ‘of the

Ethanites,' or better of n'bupperb ‘of the Ishmaelites."1
We thus obtain an adequate explanation of Sheminith
in the titles of Pss. 6 and 12, and probably too of Gittith,
Neginath, and Shoshannim (see PsaLMS, Book ΟΡ, $ 26,
but cp Music, $ 9). We also find mrpemby in 1 Ch.
1521 where it seems to correspond to nivbyby at the end
of v. zo. Here, however, it is in all probability a
corruption of the name SHEMIRAMOTH (g.2.), just as
τ Azaziah," which Benzinger (AXC ed /oc.) rightly
pronounces suspicious, is virtually a misplaced repetition
of the name ‘Aziel' These two proper names occur
close by, in τ. zo.

It may also be noticed, since the commentaries give no very
defensible explanations, that πον (® τοῦ [ἐν]ισχῦσαι ; RV ‘to
lead '), which follows n'y*bein-by in 1 Ch. 15.21 should be pointed
Mah; it is a synonym of NPA, ‘continually,’ which occurs in a
similar context ; see PsaLms, Book or, ἢ 26, col. 3945, n. 4. The
other mysterious phrase npbirby (RV ‘set to Alamoth ')in 1520
gomes from ppk>, a mutilated and corrupt form of pò

‘psalteries.’ Cp Ps.2643, where pobxy is a corruption of
223, <impious. τ΄ κι,

SHEMIRAMOTH (NIDI), a Levite name, 1 Ch.
15:18 zo 165 #Ch.178 (here Kt. ninmny; variously
cemerpamw@, camaplelim., cameipam., CEMIP.,
cimip.). According to Schrader (74719 366) equiva:
lent to the Ass. name Sammuramat, which occurs as a
woman's name on the monuments, especially on the
statues of Nebo from Nimràd. G. Hoffm., however
(Syrische Acten, 137), thinks that Shemiramoth was
originally a place-name meaning ‘images of Shemiram'
(=Name of Ram or ‘the Exalted One'), just as
Anathoth may mean "images of Anath.'

*Shem-ba"al’ (name of Baal) was a name or form of Astarte
(ee Inscr. of Eshmun'azar, ὁ 48) and the story of the conquests
of Semiramis in Upper Asia is “a translation into the language
of political history of the diffusion and victories of her worship
in that region,’ The main centre of this diffusion was Bambyce
or Hierapolis (WRS, ‘Ctesias and the Semiramis legend,'
Eng. Hist. Rev., April 1887, p. 317).

But what probability is there în either of the above
explanations? None at all, if the analogy of other
Levitical names in Ch. is to be trusted. In 2 Ch. 178
it is specially plain that the names among which this
strange form occurs are ethnics (cp GENEALOGIES Î.,
8 75). It so happens too that the form which appears
in that passage suggests the true explanation, It is
not movby (Shemiramoth ?), but ning, where mano)

is presumably a corruption of a dittographed »p, and
may safely be disregarded. SHIMRI (g.v.) is a good
Levitical name, according to the Chronieler ; in 2 Ch.
2913 it occurs just before Jeuel or Jeiel, which name
(i.e. Jeîel) is apparenily ἃ mutilated form of Ja'aziel
(see 1 Ch. 1518 165). mimmo, too is, in 2 Ch.
8113, worn down into ‘Jerimoth' (=Jerahmeel). On
*Shemiramoth' in 1 Ch, 1520 7. see further SHEMINITH.
T.K. Ὁ,

SHEMUEL (ONU, camoyHA) τ. 1 Ch/633 [19]
RV SAMUEL, the prophet (see SAMUEL).

2. Ὁ. Ammihud, a chief of ΒΙΜΈΟΝ (8. 8 ili., last
note), Nu. 3420; (σαλαμιηλ).

3. Ὁ. Tola, of ISSACHAR ($ 7) (τ Ch.72; ἐσαμονὴηλ
[B. a dittographed ε}).

The name is difficult. For discussions see NAMES, $ 39,
where ‘bearing the name of God' ix suggested ; Driver, 7#S
137: (on 1 S.120, where Gesenius's explanation, ‘name of
God’ is pronounced ‘as obvious as it is natural); Hommel,

1 {1 is several times (eg. Ps.92 12) miswritten for buyoyr.
4452

SHEN

AHT, 100 (“his name is God); Jastrow, 782 19 {1900] 82
(name [-- 30] οἵ God). But is the final «el really= dx, ‘God?
See Saut, $ 1, SieBusL, where the possibility of a connection

between Sa'01 and Stma'e1, and between Sembel and SebO'el is
referred to, and two other names are indicated, belonging per-
haps to the same group, Ishmael and SHoBAL (9.7). &°s form,
however, in 2 (also=MT's SueLUMIEL [{.0.]} suggests a com-
parison with SALMAH [g.v.]. Note that * Ammihud' (see 2), or
rather Ammihur, very possibly, like the shorter form Hur, comes
from Jerahmeel. Father and son both seem to have ethnic
names. τ᾿ K. C.

SHEN (8 1}. a locality, between which and Mizpeh
Samuel set up the stone Eben-ezer (1 5. 7 το). But
]wn means merely “ἠδέ rock* and one expects to find
some ζπστυτ and specific place mentioned. BAL (τῆς
παλαιᾶ5) and Pesh. point to the reading myì (cp 2 Ch.
1319), which is accepted by Wellhausen, Driver, H.
P. Smith, and others. See JESHANAH,

SHENAZZAR [RV], or [AV] SHENAZAR (YSNI0),
a son of Jeconiah (Jehoiachin), and unele of Zerubbabel
(1 Ch, 818; σανεσαρ [BA], σανασαρ [L], sennaser,
senneser [Vg.]). His name is variously explained as a
mutilation of “yxbae1y (so Marq., see SHESHBAZZAR)
and as=Sin-usur, ' Sin (the moon-god), protect !' cp on
an Ass. seal Ἰχίσυν, Sin-Sar-usur, ‘Sin, protect the king !'!
CIS 288, where the same incorrect Assyrian pronuncia-
tion [y for p, see SANBALLAT] is presupposed. He was
plausibly identified by Howorth (Acad., 1893, p. 175),
and then by Kosters (//ersée/, 47), Ed. Meyer (Enz. des
κά. 77), Marquart (Fwrd. 55), with Sheshbazzar.
Neither of the Assyriological combinations, however, is
quite satisfactory, and the other names of sons of
Jeconiah are explained elsewhere as representing gentilics
of the Negeb. This suggests that ἼχΦ may be a cor-
ruption of ay (see SHINAR), which is itself possibly a
corruption of agi—z.e., the S. Geshur. See SHESH-
BAZZAR. τ΄ Κι.

SHENIR (2). Dt. 39 AV, RV SENIR.

SHEOL (Dix). The origin of the Hebrew term
for the world of the dead is not a mere question of
archeeology ; we cannot but expect it to throw light on
the early religion, or superstition, of the Hebrews.
Possibly, if not probably, it has an Assyrian origin.
According to Frd. Delitzsch formerly {Par, 121; Proel
47145; ZHeb, Lang. 20) the Assyrian word correspond-
ing to S801 is Su'Alu; he was followed by A. Jeremias
(Bab. -ass. Vorstell. 62) and Gunkel (Schasf 154).
Jensen, however (&osmo/ 222 77), denies the existence
of such a word as Su'àlu, and Zimmern (in Gunk,
Schòff. 154, n. 5) says that certainty has not yet been
attained. Delitzsch himself omits $u'4lu in his Ass.
HWB, and Schwally (Das Leben nach dem Tode, 89, n. 2)
assents to the decision of Jensen. A critical re-examina-
tion of the four relevant passages in Assyrian vocabularies
was urgently called for. This has been given by Jastrow
(4/SL14:657.), whocomestothe conclusionthat Jensen's
position is untenable, and interprets the Ass. #47 as
*the place of inquiry '—i.e., the place whence oracles can
be obtained.* Provisionally we may be content with
this at any rate possible explanation, remembering that
one of the Babylonian terms for ‘ priest’ is ἐδ' ἐδμ (lit.
inquirer), and that the Hebrew 44'27 is frequently used of
consulting an oracle (e.g., Judg. 1: Hos.412 Ezek.
21 21 [26], ete.). We may venture therefore to hold that
when the primitive Hebrews used the name Shé0] they
may have thought of the power of the dead in the under-
world to aid the living by answering their inquiries.
In course of time the priestly representatives of the
established religion would naturally succeed in checking
this practice. Of primitive Hebrew religion, however,

2 [The provenience of this seal is unknown. Cp also the
parallel formation τς Ἴ ὍΝ (= Αξατιξατιυξον, ἐφ, 3 50), ‘Assur,
protect the king ! cÌ

2 For Jastrow"s vi eve on the stem αὐ Gwhence both ἔμ" δε
and ἐε᾿ δ) see his article in 7.82 19 [1900], pp.

4453

SHEPHAM

we have in fact very little direct evidence ; survivals of
it may be found in later superstitious usages, and this
is nearly all that we know. Nor must we suppose that
all the dead had power to furnish oracles to the living.
This power was an element of divinity, and it was prob-
ably only heroes like Ea-bani, who appears to Gilgames
{Jensen, My/ken und Epen, 263; Jastrow, RBA s11;
Maspero, Dawn of Civ. 589), and like Samuel [χα S.
2874). who were consulted for oracles.

To the later Hebrews Shé01 appeared like a monster
which ‘enlarge its greed, and opened its mouth with-
out measure’ (15. 614; cp Hab. 25 Prov, 2720 8015 Δ).
Its Jeading characteristic is darkness (Job 1021); it
is the land of dust—-39y (‘dust’), can indeed be used

asa synonym for Sigg (58661), sce Job 1716 2011 2126

Ps. 3010[9]. Like the Babylonian Aralù it was far below
in the earth (Job 118 265, ete.), Hence οἷν, Shé61

and -z (pit) sometimes receive the epithets mnna or
nivana, “nether’ (Dt. 3222 Ps. 8613 887[6]); and heaven

and Shé61 are the farthest opposites (Is. 71: Am. 92 Ps.
1398). Silence as a rule reigns supreme (see, however,
Is. 1410). It is a land whence there is no return (Job
7 10); so too the Babylonians called it irsif ἐᾷ ri,
*the land without return’ (for other names see Jensen,
Kosmol. 215-225). Still'it was a land of order; it was
figured as a city with gates (15, 88 το Ps. 913 [14] 10718
Job 3817), and both ‘in the gospels (Mt. 1618, cp
Hapks) and in the Talmud the same conception is
found. On the state of the dwellers in Sheol, see
Dea, ESCHATOLOGY (references on col. 1390 /.), and
on the whole question see Jastrow, Religion of Bab.
and Ass., 560, 606; Charles, Eschatology ; Schwally,
Das Leben nach dem Tode, 59-66 ; A. Jeremias, Bab.-
ass. Vorstellungen vom Leben nach dem Tode, 106-126.
The following is the description of the Babylonian Hades at
the opening of the ‘ Descent of IStar' (Λ΄ 6 τ, p. 81):
‘o the land without return, the earth . ον
[Ἢ 8ει Ἴ I6tar, the daughter of Sin, her ear.
The daughter of Sin ‘set’ her ear
To the dark house, the dwelling of Irkalla,
To the house, from which he who enters never emerges,
To the way, going on which has no turning back,
To the house, into which he who enters is without light,
When dust is their nourishment, clay their food,
They see not light, they sit in darkness,
Dust (rusts) on door and bolt.

SHEPHAM (DDU, ‘a bare height'?—8$ 75, 99), 85
the text of Nu.84ro αὶ stands, is the name of a point
on the ideal eastern border of Canaan, mentioned with
HAZAR-ENAN [g.v,] and RiBLAR [4.0.]; like Riblah,
it is unmentioned in the|| passage, Ezek. 4715-18 Van
Kasteren's identification of it with Of@zi, on the upper
course of the Na47 er-Rekkdd, SE. of the lake called
Birket Rim (Bacd.!2) 266), is not one of his best (Rev.
Bibl., 1895, pp. 23-36), and his argument to prove
that the "Ap2am:iya of Sam. and Targ. Jerus. is derived
from Shepham is more ingenious than convincing.
‘This and similar names are, according to the present
writer's theory, distinctively ‘Jerahmeelite' or S. Ca-
naanitish names (Shephupham [1 Ch. 85 Shephuphan]
and Shuphamite, Nu. 2639; Siphmoth, 1S.3028;
Shuppim, one of the sons of Aher= Ahiram= Jerahmeel,
1 Ch. 712; Shiphmite, 1 Ch. 2727). ‘This confirms the
view that the geography of Nu. 8341-15 and of Ezek.
47x3-2: has been edited, with the view of expanding
the limits of the region referred to. This editing, for
which many parallels can be given (e.g., Gen. 10
Nu. 1321-25 Dt.341-3 Josh.11 25.241-9), would not
have been possible if some of the names in the
original document were not found in more than one
part of the country. A Riblah and ἃ Hamath for
instance doubtless existed in the far N., but it is not
at all likely that a Shepham was to be found there.
The real Shepham was apparently on the E. border of
the land of Kenaz (the original document must have
spoken of ‘the land of Kenaz' [tp], not ‘the land of
Canaan’ [}y12]), between Hazar-enan (Hazar-elam=

4454

SHEPHATIAH

H.-jerahmeel?) and Riblah or perhaps rather Harbel
{=the city of Jerahmeel). See RIBLAH, SHIPHMITE,
(541 in Nu. 8410£ gives σεπφαμαρ [®F in 2, 10, “μα! In
11 ap belongs 10 the following word βηλα [read ἀρβήλα] ; 2. τὸ
has been adjusted to 7. 11.) τ᾿ Κι Ὁ,

ΒΗΕΡΕΑΤΙΑΗ͂ (ΠΉΔΕΨ,, and IPB? in nos. 4, 5,
6, apparentiy ‘ Yahwè judges' [$ 36], cp DOWN: ca-
datlelia [BNAL]). [It may be safer to hold the name
to be corrupt. In 1the names of David's wives and
children being in several cases, as it seems, corruptions
of tribal names (e.g., Abigail, Absalom, Haggith, Abital,
Ithream, Fglah), and a name compounded with -iah
being quite isolated in this list, we are bound to explain
Shephatiah if possible as a tribal name. According to
analogy it may well be an expansion of may=>nos,
—i.e., ‘belonging to ZEPHATH' {see SHAPHAT). This
theory explains all the occurrences of the name. In
2 the companions of Shephatiah are of ‘ Jerahmeelite”
origin (see PASHHUR); for 4, cp the Calebite HAREPH,
and see HARIPH; and in the case of 3, 5, 6 and 9 the
names Reuel, Michael, Maachah and Mahalaleel are all
corruptions of Jerahmeel. With regard to 7, it must
be clear that, like the b'nè Arah and the b'nè Elam, the
b'nè Shephatiah were of Jerahmeelite origin; cp Neh.
114, and see PEREZ. Read ‘b'né Sefathi.” Tr. K. 0.7

1. b. David and Abital (2 5.34 1 Ch.3 ῥραβότεια (BI,
σαφαθια [A in Sam.], σαφατιας [A in Ch, and L)). See Davipy

81, n

2. b. Mattan, who with others sought to put Jeremiah in prison
(Jer. 3846] 1, σαφανιας [BRA], radar [Q*], -cas [Qmg:]).

3. AV ϑηξρηλτηιλη, b. Reuel, father of Meshullam, of
Benjamin (8 g [11.}} 1 Cb. 98.

4. A HARUPHITE [9.0.], one of David's warriors (1 Ch. 125,
imvnp, σαφατιας [L]). See Davin, $ 11, n. 6.

s. b. JEHosHarHAT, king of Judah (2 Ch. 212, in'ppe, σαφα-
πεῖας [B], -ἰας [BbAL]). The riame follows Michael (see above).

60 Maachah, a Simeonite ruler (1 Ch. 27 16, pag, σαφα-
nasì.

7. The b'né Shephatiah were a post-exilic family numbered at
372 (Ezra 24, ἀσαφ [B], Neh. 79); the record, however, in Ezra
83, wherein the b'né Shephatiah with Zebadiah at their head
amount to 80 in number, is far more plausible (see Ezra-NEHE-
ran) The name appears as SAPRAT in 1 Esd.59 (om. B,
arad [Ba.b mg.], σαφατ' [A}), and as ΘΑΡΗΑΤΙΑΒ in 1 Esd.834
(σοφοτιον [BI, A om., σαφατίου [L]). See introduction, above,

8A gronp of ‘Solomon’s servants’ (see NETHINIM) in the
great post-exilic list (see Ezra ii., $ 9); Ezra 257=Neh. 7 s9=
1 Esd. 5 33, SAPHETH, RV SAPHUTHI (σαφνει [BÌ, τυθι [A]),

9. One of the b’né Perez, a son of Mahalaleel, and ancestor of
Atbaiah (Neh, 11 4, cagariov [L]).

SHEPHELAH, THE, or LOWLAND [OF JUDAH]

moawa; see PLAIN, 7; @& has ce@nAa in 2 Ch.
2610 [AV ‘low country," RV ‘lowland'], Ob. 19[capHAa
Que, AV ‘plain’ RV ‘lowland’}, Jer. 3244 [AV * valley,’
ἘΝ ‘lowland’], 3313[om. A, AV * vale, ΕΝ ‘lowland’],
also in 1 Macc. 1238 [N*V ced. TTEÀINH, AV Shephela,
RV ‘ plain country ']}, a part of the territory of Judah,
between the hill country (see JUDAH, HILL-COUNTRY
©F), and the Mediterranean. On the geographical use
of the term see G. A, Smith (47G 202 4}, who concludes
that ‘though the name may originally have been used
to include the Maritime Plain, and this wider use may
have been occasionally revived, the Shéphélah proper
was the region of low hilis between that plain and ihe
bigh Central Range.’ The cities of the Shèphelah are
enumerated in Josh. 1533-44; ©. 45-47, which mention
Philistine towns as in the Shéphélah, are probably a later
insertion (cp Oxf£ ex. 2346). Eusebius, however
{05 29610), describes this district as the plain (redlov)
lying round Eleutheropolis, to the N. and the W., and
Clermont-Ganneau and Conder (Tenfwor£, 277) state
that they have discovered the name in its Arabic form
Sifla about Beit-Jibrin (Eleutheropolis). @ also gives
πεδίον (see Dt. 17 Josh. 112128) and ἡ πεδινὴ (see Josh.
91 1040 Judg. 19, etc.) for ni5y, and a larger use is
favoured by Dt. 17 Josh. 91 x K. 1027 2 Ch. 26 to, so that,
even if the low hills behind the maritime plain were the
most important part of the Shephélah en account of the
towns situated there, we can bardly deny that theo-

4455

SHEPHERD OF HERMAS

retically the maritime plain was included in the reference
of this geographical term (see Buhl, Pa/. 104, n. 164).

The ΕΝ has taken great pains to carry out a systematic
rendering of ské542/24 by *lowland.' Compare the following
passages: 1t.17 Josh. YI 1040 11216 (δὲς, 458, τὰ rareva,
BaL τὰ πεδινά the second time), 128 1533 Jude. 19 1K.1027
Ch, 27 28 2Ch. 115927 26102818 Jer, 1723 (GB γῆς πεδινῆς}
3244 8815 Ob. 19 Zech. 77. Perhiaps if ΕΥ̓͂ had given the
plural form ‘lowlands,’ ît might have been more illuminative to
the reader, for, as G. A. Smith (203) remarks, the Scottish low-
lands, like the Sh&phelah, are not entirely plain, but have their
groups and ranges of hills.

SEEPHER (BW), Nu. 3323 /, AV SHAPHER.

SHEPHERD OF HERMAS. Under the name of
Ποιμήν (Pastor, ‘Shepherd '), with which from an early
date the name of Hermas came to be

1. Name: da, a book of ἢ iginall
trabamission SONNECted, a book of some size, originally

of text, written in Greek, has come down to us

"from Christian antiquity, At one time

greatly read, and even for a while regarded as canonical,

it afterwards fell very much into the background with-
out, however, being wholly lost sight of,

The Greek text, though still without the concluding portion
Sim. ix. 80 3:x., was first brought to light comparatively recentiy
(856). A Latin version, the Vulgate, was published as early
25 1513 by Faber Stapulensis ; an Ethiopic by Anton d'Abbadie
in 1860, Ever since Cotelier's time (1672) the work has been
wont to be included in editions of the so-called Apostolic
Fathers. We now know the Greek text of Vis. i.-Mand.
from the Codex Sinaiticus edited by Tischendorf in 1862;
contents of the rest of the work (apart from the concludini
portion already spoken of, and certain lacuna) from the so-calle
Athos MS of which three leaves are now in the University
Library at Leipsic (since 1856) and six still remain in the
Monastery of Gregory on Mt. Athos; that of St. 27-10 42-5
from an old i papyrus now in Berlin, formerly at Fayyùm, de-
scribed by U. Wilcken în r891; that of other fragments, we
have known for a longer period from the citations of ancient
writers.

Valuable help can also be obtained throughout from two Old
Latin versions, the Vulgate and (since Dressel, 1857) the Pala
tine, as also from the Éthiopic. For the establishment of the
ori ginal text, since the edition of Anger and Dindorf, 1856, who
at first were led astray by Simonides (afierwards proved to be a
forger) but were ultimately put upon the right track by Tischen-
dorî, as he in his tum was correcied by Lipsius, specially
meritorious services have been rendered by A. Hilgenfeld,
186612), 18810), 1887; O. de Gebhardt, 1877; J. Armitage
Robinson, 4 Collation g/ the Athos Codex of the Shepherd ef
Hermas, 1888; F. X. Funk, Patres Afost., (2) 5901.

The Skepherd, in view of its contents, is usually divided
into tbree parts, entitled respectively (1) Visions, (2)

ssion Commandments, (3) Similitudes. The

2. Division. rrinted editions, in fact, all follow each
other in giving five Visions, twelve Commandments, and
ten Similitudes. This division, however, is hardly
accurate, and it would be better to say that the book
in the form in which it has come down to us consists of
Visions ('Opdres) or Revelations (᾿Αποκαλύψεις) of
which the first { Κῆρ. 1 τῇ can be regarded as an intro-
duction to those immediately following (775. 12-4) and
the last { /is. δ) as an introduction to the immediately
following series of Commandments and Similitudes (ai
ἐντολαὶ καὶ παραβολαί : Mand. 1-12, Sin, 1-8) to which
is added an appendix called ‘The rest' (rà ἕτερα;
Sim. 9) and a conclusion (.S722. 10).

So far as the form of the book is concerned, Hermas,
a former slave of a certain Rhoda in Rome to whom

his father had sold him, and who had
3. Form and sfterwards come into the service of the
“Christian church, now comes forward as
a writer, relating certain things that have happened to
him and what he has seen and heard—or, in a word,
what has been revealed to him.

As he was walking outside the city ‘to the villages, —eis
κώμας, as the Greek text hast, for which the printed editions, after
a conjecture of Dindorf, wrongly read εἰς Κούμας, ‘to Cuma:'
—he falls asleep and there appears to him the woman whose
slave he formerly had been and whom he had not been able to
seek in marriage (Vs. 11). Afterwards the church appears to
him at longer or shorter intervals (a year, or less); first in the
form of an old woman (#75. 1 2-4; Cp 3 ro-11), next with a more
youthful aspect (55.2; cp 8 SY again, as quite young (Vis.
31-10; cp 13); finally, as a maiden in wedding attire (775. 4).

She reveals to him the future and expounds with regard to it
the will of God. She gives instructions and shows visions which

4456

SHEPHERD OF HERMAS

have reference to the necessity for repentance while yet the
building of the tower, symbolising the church, is still unfinished,
‘©r rather suspended for a while—in other words while yet God
affords the opportunity to repent, an opportunity which ere long
will cease with the coming of the last great persecution, After
these revelations (5, 1-4) Hermas relates how the angel of re-
pentance appears to him in the form of a shepherd, as previously
(V25.24 8 10) in that οἵ ἃ young man, and bids him write down
“commandments and similitudes * (Vis. 5). The twelve command-
ments which follow relate to faith in God ; a life void of offence,
full of compassion, love of truth ; chastity ; long suffering’; our
attendant angels, good and bad ; the fear of the Lord ; abstinence
from all that is evil; prayer without ceasing and with unwaver-
ing confidence ; two kinds of sadness: two kinds of spirit; two
kinds of desire (Mand.1-12). The eight similitudes which follow
teach us how here we have no continuing city ; how the rich can
be helped by the prayer of the poor ; how the righteous and rhe
wicked cannot at first be discriminated, but will ultimately be
separated (Sim, 1-4); how useful fasting is ; how good itis to keep
far aloof from luxury and temptation; how indispensabile is
chastening ; how many are the varieties of saint and sinner (Si7,
5.8). Next, by way of appendix, is set forth in new images
that which the Holy Spirit that spoke with Hermas in the form
‘of the church had showed him. They are revelations vouchsafed
to him by the Shepherd, the angel of repentance, with reference
to those who are saved (5177, 9). To round off the whole, yet a
further earnest admonition is given by the angel who had sent
the shepherd ; a last exhortation to repentance in accordance
with che precepts of the now completed work (577. 10).

The form in which the whole is clothed, far from

being simple or natural, is artificial in the highest
degree. It sets out, apparently, with
4 The {OFII the intention of relating what has passed
"between two known persons, Rhoda and
Hermas. The names are reminiscent of a Christian
woman Rhoda, mentioned in Acts 1213, and of a
Christian slave at Rome, Hermas, mentioned in Rom.
1614. Here they become representatives, the one
(Rhoda) of the church in various successive forms, the
‘other as one devoted to her service, and one of her
followers and members. ‘Hermas’ soon goes on to
speak with poetic freedom like a Paul, a James, a John,
a Barnabas, a Clement, an Ignatius, a Polycarp, in the
«pistles handed down to us under their names, as if he
were the recognised elder and faithful witness addressing
himself with words of warning and admonition to his
‘house,’ his ‘children.’

The original unity of the work in its present form,
although frequently called in question since Hase (1834).
5. Unity and cannot be denied, Even less, however,

mpodition can the existence of inconsistencies and
composition. contradictions and other marks of inter-
polation, adaptation, and redaction be disputed. These
point to it having been a composite work made up
from earlier documents. Not in the sense (so Hilgen-
feld, 1881; Hausleiter, 1884; Baumgartner, 1889;
Harnack, 1897) of its being a combination, effected în
‘one way or another, of two separate works, entitled re-
spectively ‘ Visions’ and ‘ Commandments' and ‘ Simili.
tudes' by one author, or by more than one ; nor yet {so
Johnson, 1887; Spitta, 1896; von Soden, 1897;
Vélter, 1900; van Bakel, 1900) in the sense of its
being the outcome of repeated redactions of an originally
Jewish writing. Rather in the sense of being a second
edition of the original SkeAerd, a bundle of ' Command-
meuts and Similitudes’ from the pen of but one writer
who laboured on the whole independently, yet at the
same time frequently borrowed from the books which
he had before him. It is not possible to distinguish
throughout between what he borrowed from others and
‘what we ought to regard as his own.

The writer, who comes forward as if he were an older
‘Hermas, the contemporary of Clement {1 25.2.4. 3}, must

not be identified with him of Rom. 1614

8, Author. nor yet with a younger one, brother of
Pius I., bishop of Rome 140-155, who is referred to in
the Muratorian fragment. ‘The real name of the author
remained unknown. From his work it can be inferred
that he was an important member, perhaps even a ruler,
of the Christian church, probably in Rome, A practi-
cal man, No Paulinist, nor yet a Judaiser in the
Tiibingen sense, but rather a professsor, little interested

4457

SHEPHUPHAM

in the dogma of the Christianity that was already in
process of becoming Catholic, in the days when it was
grappling with the ideas and movements that had
originated with Montanus. One who attached much
value to revelations and yet was very particularly in
earnest about the need for quickening, for the spiritual
renewing of the Church, for which reason he laid peculiar
stress upon the possibility of a second conversion. This
possibility would ere long come to an end at the close of
the present period; even now many were denying it as
regarded those who once had received baptism, though
others hoped to be able continually afresh to obtain
the forgiveness of their sins. There is nothing that
indicates the merchant supposed by Harnack-Hilgenfeld.

In date the author is earlier than Fusebius, Athan-
asius, Origen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria,

7. Date, Irenzeus, but later than the apostles and
" "their first followers, the martyrs and leaders
of the church, such individuals as 'Hermas' and
*Clement' (Vis. 24 3), Later than the first great and
fiourishing time of the church (the history of which can
already be divided into different periods, and the
spiritual renovation of which, in conjunction with the
revived expectation of Christ's second coming is regarded
as imperatively needful) ; in the days when the spiritual
life of Christians was being stìrred by Montanistic
movements. Therefore, certainiy earlier than 180 A.D.;
yet not much earlier, nor yet much later, than about the
middle of the second century. Perhaps some chrono-
logical truth may underlie the tradition that ‘ Hermas'
was a “brother' of Pius I. (140-155 A.D.).

The work was from the first intended for reading
aloud at the assemblies of the church whether in larger

or in smaller circles (Vis. 24 3). Its
s_Purpose value, at first placed very high from the
"point of view of the interests of edifica-
tion, but afterwards almost wholly lost sight of in
Christian circles, has in recent years in spite of the
diffuseness of its contents come anew to be recognised.
Not to be despised as a praiseworthy production in the
field of edifying literature it is still more to be prized as
a valuable contribution to our knowledge of the Christi-
anity that was widely spread and held as orttodox
about the middie of the second century.

A, Editions.F. X. Funk, Patres Apostolici, (2) with prolego-
mena and notes,ll) rgor; alto (in shorter form) Afost. Véter,

1901; O. de Gebhard and A. Harnack,

9. Literature. Ferma Pastor (=Patr. Apost. Opera, Ἀ1.),

1877, with introduction and notes; also in
smaller edition,19) 1901. Cp above; also Canon, $$ 65, 72;
PropHETIC LITERATURE, $ 31; HERMAS.

B. 7yanslations.--Eng] Roberts, Donaldson, and
Crombie, in Agostolic Fatkers in Ante-Nicene Library, 1867 ;
Lightfoot, Afostelic Fathers, 1891. German: 1. C. Mayer,
1869. Dutch: Duker and van Manea, Oud-Ckristel. Lett:
geschriflen der ap. Vaders, with introduction and notes, i. 1871.
€. Discussions.—-In addition to those already referred τὸ, see G.
Kriiger, Gesc4. εἰ, altchr. Lit. 1895, ὃ 12, and‘ Nachtriige,’ 1897,
p.12; Th. Zabn, Der Hirt Hermas, 1868; also Find. 1. d. NT
1,2) 1900, pp. 298, 430-8, 2 104, 154; J. M. 8. Baljon, Gesc4. a. d.
55. de Ns. x901, p. 451; G. Uhihorn, σον. ‘Hermas' in PR£W
7 (1899) 714-718; Ὁ, Taylor, The Witnessof Hermas to the Four
Gospels, 1892 (cp van Manen, 74.7; 1893, pp. 180-194); A.
Hilgenfeld, ‘ Herma Pastor’ Novem Testamentum exir. Can.
rec.12) 1881, δ) 1887; P. Baumgartner, Die Einkeit des
Hermas-Bucks, 1889 (cp van Manen, 74.7, 1889, pp. 552-550);
E. Spitta, Zu» Gesch. w. Lift. d. Urchristentums, 2, 1896,
PP. 241-437; A. Harnack, Chrono! 1897, 1 257-267, 437-8(cp H.
von Soden, TZ, 1897, pp. 584-7); D.J. È. Valter, Die V'istonen
des Hermas, die Sifylle το, Cleniens von Rom, 1900; H. A, van
Bakel, De Compositie van den Pastor Her ma, 1910,

W. Οἱ v.M

SBREPHO (151), b. Shobal, Ὁ. Seir: Gen. 3623
{cw® [A], σωφὰν [DL], cwp [E])=1 Ch 140
Shephi (ἘΦ ; cuwB [B] οωφὰρ [A]. catt@e: [L])
@°l's reading in Gen. suggests comparison with
SHEPHUPHAM (-AN), Cp also SHUPPIM, SHAPHAN,

SHEPHUPHAM, AV Shupham (DDIDY : see SHE-
PHUPHAN), a son of ΒΕΝΙΑΜΙΝ (8 9 [i }) in Nu. 2639t,
with patronymic SHUPHAMITE (g.7.) MORI: cudan

4458

SHEPHUPHAN

AÒmoc 0 οωφάνει [Β}] . » | cuopani[AF] copan
. + copani [L]). ᾿

SHEPHUPHAN (ἸΒΊ ΞΡ, $ 75; Gray, ΑΙΡΙ 95, but
the suggestion ‘serpent’ may be as fallacious as that
of ‘rock-badger’ for SHAPHAN; another form is
SHEPHUPHAM]}, b. Bela, Ὁ. BENJAMIN ($ 12), 1 Ch. 85
{cwpappax [B] comano kai ἀχιρᾷ [A], cerr-
am [L]). Cp AHIRAM, SHEPHO, SHUPHAM, SHUP-
PIM, SHAPHAN.

SHERAH, or rather, as ΒΝ, SHEERAH (MY,
caapa [A]: capaa [L]i 665 [en ekeInoIC τοις
κἀτδλοιττοιο] and Pesh, connect with “NW, Niphal
‘to be left'), a ‘daughter’ of EPHRA!M ($ 12) {1 Ch.
7244) who ‘built’ the two Beth-horons and UZzEN-
SHERAH (1 Ch. 7248, MINE ΠΝ, Εν UZzEN-SHEERAH).

In τ. 245 GL gives ἡρσααδρα (for npoaapa?). 8A makes
Shera (σεηρα) and Rephah (2. 24) sons of ofav (Uzzen).

Conder suggests, as the site, Bet Sîra, a village 2 m.
SW. of the Lower Beth-horon {Mew 316). But can
we implicitly trust the name? [The name Ephraim fixed
itself not only in central but also in southern Palestine,
where it is perhaps more original, and some of the
names in the genealogy have an unmistakable N.
Arabian affinity. Sheerah may, therefore, be a corrup-
tion of Ἢ ‘Ashbur,’ which turus out to be a N.

Arabian tribe-name {cp Geshur). Heres in ‘Ir-heres”
(see HERES, MOUNT) seems to have the same origin
(Crit. Bib.)..—T.K.C.] For pix (Uzzen) we should
probably (cp €) substitute xy ‘city,’ and refer to
Judg. 135. Cp ΕΡΗΒΑΙΜ, $ 18. Beth-shemesh or Ir-
shemesh is a curiously parallel name, if ‘ shemesh' comes
from ‘ ciishim' (see SHAALBIM). See, however, NAMES,
$ 99, where ‘ear (=earlike projection) of Sheerah' is
suggested as the possible meaning of Uzzen-sheerah ; cp
AZNOTH-TABOR.

SHEREBIAH (ΠΣ), 8 39, but form seems doubtful,
gapafials)), a post-exilic priest and family (Ezra818 ἀρχήν
[ΒΑ], ἐν ἀρχῇ cupovia [11], ©. 24 gapasa [BA], Neh.8794
apaBia [B, where σαραβια represents SHEBANIAH, σαραβαια [A],
950m. G2xA, 1012 [13] ζαραβια [Β], ζαθαρια [x*vid.), 128). In
1 Esd.847 the name ‘appears as AsksEBIA, RV ASEBEBIAS
(ασεβηβιαν [BA], ἐν ἀρχῇ σαρουια [L]), cp HASHABIAH, 7; in ©.
54, EseRRIAS ἘΝ EsEREBIAS (εσερεβιαν [BA]), and τ Esd. 9 48,
SarA8IAs, gapapias [A*vid.]. Many of the companion-names on
the lists are obviously etbnics (Che.). See SHEBER.

SHERESH (VW; coypoc [B], copoc [A], Φορος
{L]), a Machirite name in a genealogy of MANASSEH
(8 9 {1.1}; 1 Ch. 7:6.t See PERESH.

SHEREZER (YNYW), Zech.72 AV, ἘΝ SHAREZER,2.

SHERIFFS (δ ΒΓ, E τοὺς ἐπ’ ἐξουσιῶν κατὰ χώραν,
οἱ ἐπ᾽ ἐξουσ. [also Theod.]}, EV's rendering of a Bibl. -
Aram. official title (such at least is the prevailing
opinion) in Dan. 32 f It has been generally connected
with the Ar. 4/fd ‘to advise' (whence the participial
‘mutfti ‘), and accordingly translated 'counsellor’ (cp
RVME:, ‘lawyers'). A Still more far-fetched suggestion
is to read ψυποπ-- ὕπατοι ‘consuls’; for the n instead of
ὦ Gritz (170 Μ7 19 347) compares panion= ψαλτήριον.
Another scholar says, ‘possibly a mutilated form of a
Pers. title in fef ‘chief’ {Bevan, Dez, 80), and
Andreas (Marti, Gram. Bibl.-Aram., Glossary) suggests
moli denpétave, ‘chiefs of religion.’ Nor does this
exhaust the list of theories.

Can no step în advance be taken? Only by those who
recognise that many narratives in the OT have been remodelled,
s0faras che geographical and historical background is concernedì,
It will become probable to any who adopt the present writer's
theory that the supposed official tittles in Dan. 3.2 are really N.
Arabian ethnics. One of these ethnics (minwn, Ashburite, mis.
written ὙΠ passed, under the editors hands, into
Lelipuwna (ee SatRAPS) — Another (‘nam Rehobothite)
appears three or four times in corrupt variants. The last
of these variants n‘nbn has probably come from gnam through
the intermediate form, which occurs earlier in MT's list,
Rm, ΑἹ the rulers of the province' is, of course, an
editorial insertion, the incorrectness of which is shown by 2. 4;

where the herald ‘addresses ‘peoples, nations, and languages.
Cp SATRAPS. T.K. C.

4459

SHESHAN

SHESHACH (©? as if ‘humiliation,' cp ]IW ‘to
crouch') is generally explained as a cypher-form of
‘Babel’ {Babylon}, which indeed is given instead of
*Sheshach' by Tg. (Jer. 2526 514). In Jer. 2526 the
whole clause, and in 514: ‘Sheshach,' is omitted in &
(Que: adds in 2526, καὶ βασιλεὺς Σησαχ πίεται ἔσχατος
αὐτῶν, and in 5141 inserts ὁ εἰσακ); Cornill follows &,
and so too Giesebrecht in 51 41, whereas în 25 26 this
scholar retains ‘Sheshach,' but regards vv. 257 as an
interpolation. But would a late glossator acquainted
with the Athbash cypher (in which g=n, πε, etc.) have
used it in interpolating a prophecy ascribed to Jeremiah ?
and what reason was there for using a cryptogram?
‘ Explication désespérée assurément' [Renan, Αἰ αῤῥογέ
annuel de la soc. asiatigue, 1871, p 26). As to 51 μι,
there can be no doubt that ‘Sheshach' should be
omitted ; it mars the beauty of the elegiac metre (see
LAMENTATION). To prove this let us put 5023 and
5141, both elegiac passages, side by side :—

(@) How is cut asunder and broken | the whole earth's

hammer! ᾿
How is become a desolation | Babylon among the

nations!
(ὦ) How is [Sheshach] taken and surprised | the whole
earth's praise |
How is become a desolation | Babylon among the
nations!

As to Jer. 2526, we must view the passage in connec-
tion with the whole list of peoples in vv. 18-26, and
carefully criticise the text. The list begins with Judah.
Next comes Misrim (so read; cp MIZRAIM), Arabia,
Zarephathim, . . . Edom, Moab, Ammon, Missur (a
repetition, hid under ' Tyre and Zidon '), Dedan, Tema,
Buz, Zarephathim, Arabia (thrice), Cushanim, Zimri
{=Zimran), Jerahmeel (Elam and Madai), Zaphon,
Jerahmeelim, Cush-jerahmeel (repetitions); then at the
close something which by editorial manipulation became
‘and the king of Sheshach (Ὁ) shall drink after them.

The view of Lauth that ‘Sheshach’ is a Hebraisation of
Siéka, a Babylonian district which gave its name (5) to an ancient
Babylonian dynasty, according to Pinches's reading (but see
Pinches himself, 754, 1881, p. 48), is untenable. Winckler
(GBA 67 f. 328: ΔΟΡῚ 275 δὴ), and Sayce (RP) 113) read
Uru-azagga. The Athbash ‘theory is equally wrong. On this
and on similar cyphers see Hal. Af6£. 245 (his theory is peculiar);
and cp LEB-KAMAL T.K.C

SHESHAI (ὙΦ, $ 58, cp SnasHaI; σεοίο]ει
[BFL]), one of the b'ne Anak, perhaps an old Hebronite
clan-name (Nu. 1322 cemei [A}. Josh. 1514 coycel
TBL], «ai [A]. Judg. 1rot γεθθι [A]); see ANAKIM.
Sayce (Crié. Mon.) 204) combines the name with Sas
οὐ ΠῸΦ (the Egyptian name for the Syrian Bedouins).
But @2L in Josh. 1514, and the fact that pio is frequently
miswritten #15, may suggest ‘Cushi’ (102); ‘Anak’
itself may come from ‘Amalek'='Jerahmeel' (Che.).
See, however, SHESHAN, JERAHMEEL, $ 2.

SHESHAN (}}, $ 58; some MSS. }?MW [Kenn.];
cmcam cocan [BI], cocan [A], cican [L]), whose
daughter married his servant JARRA (g.v.) and became
the head of an interesting genealogical list (1 Ch. 234-41).
See JERAHMEEL, $ 2. The names may contain authentic
tradition (Gray, Y7PN 234 f.); at all events, it is quite
independent of the (possibly tribal) genealogy în v2. 25-33
{cp ©. 335), where Sheshan appears as the son of Ishi and
father of Ablai (©. 31). The natural presumption that
AHLAI was his daughter has no evidence to support it.
Indeed, since it is probable that Jarha was not so
much an’ Egyptian’ as a Musrite, and since the name
Sheshan is reminiscent of the old Hebronite SHESHAI
[g.v.], it may be conjectured that we have here an
allusion to the introduction of Hebronite and Musrite
blood into the Jerahmeelites (see HeBRON).! Whether,

1 That is to say, the fact that the Jerahmeelites married into
the older inbabitants of Hebron, is expressed in genealogical
fashion by saying that Jarha married a ‘daughter of Sheshan”
(cp DaucutEr, GenEALOGIES i, $ 1). It is possible that
Sheshan (in spite of the philological difficulty) may have been

connected with sasv (V/n0d), the Egyptian designation for
Redouins (cp Epom, $ 2).

4460

SHESHBAZZAR

indeed, ‘Jarha’ was supposed to be etymologically akin ;

to Jerahneel (as a hypocoristicon) is a matter for con-
jecture. 8. A.C.

SHESHBAZZAR (ὝΝ ΞΟ, $ 83: cacaBaccapoc
(A, in Ezra 5.16 -αρἼ, cafacapns [L]; but B in Ezral8 σαβαν-
acap, 514 βαγασαρ τό. 16 σαρβαγαρ. In 1 Esd.212 15 SANA-
BASSAR, σαναμασσάρῳ, σαμανασσάρου [B], σαναβάσσαρος, σαμα.
[A], σασαβαλασσαρος [L], #6, ὃ 1820; SANABASSARUS, σαβανασ-
gapos [B in 2. 18], βασσάρῳ, σαμαβασσάρον, Β τ. 20, A, L,
σασαβαλάσσαρος, τς), the first governor of Judah under the
Persians, Ezra 1811 τα 16t.

. Van Hoonacker (Acad., Jan. 30, 1892, Nozvelles
Etudes, 94 f.) acutely explained the name as=Bab,
1. Name, Samas-bil(or -bal?)-usur—i.e., ‘O Sun-god

" * protect the son'; cp Σαοσδουχῖνος (see
ADRAMMELECH). So Che. Acad., Feb. 6, 1892, Well-
havsen (1894), and doubtfully Guthe (1899). But the
Greek forms point to the name of the Moon-god Sin as
the first element in the name. The only difficulty in
this view is the gi for Ass. 5; but this is hardly insuper-
able. Accepting &'s form Sanabassar for Sheshbazzar
we are enabled to accept the very plausible identification
of San(a)bassar with Shenazzar (1 Ch. 3.18), first proposed
by Imbert (1888-89), and accepted by Sir H. Howorth,
Renan, and Ed. Meyer (£rà des μά, 777). Upon this
hypothesis San{a)bassar was not identical with Zerub-
babel (so van Hoonacker, Wellhausen), but his uncle
and predecessor. That SANBALLAT fg.7.) and the first
governor of the Jews should have had names com-
pounded with Sin would be a striking coincidence. But
though this may have been the learned redactor’s mean-
ing, it is doubtiful whether the original narrator intended
it. The chief captivity may have been in N. Arabia.
In this case the first part of the name Sheshbazzar would
represent τὴς (Cush in N. Arabia); the second part
might possibly come from nins {Zarephath). Cp
SHENAZZAR, ZERUBBABEL.

In Ezra 18 Sheshbazzar is called loosely ‘prince of
Judah' (numb μὲ} in 514 he is called ‘governor'

2. Notices. {ans), the same title which is given to

Zerubbabel in Haggai (1114 22 21), He
is said to have received from Cyrus's official the sacred
vessels which Nebuchadrezzar had taken away with a
charge to deposit them in the temple at Jerusalem when
it had been rebuilt. In 516 TATTENAI (9.v.) mentions
that the foundations of the temple had been laid by
Sheshbazzar. Kosters (//ers%/, 33) admits that he is

probably a historical personage, and that he bears a
Babylonian name, but thinks that he was a Persian,
and that the Chronicler introduces a Shenazzar into the
genealogy of Zerubbabel from interested motives. That
Sheshbazzar brought back the sacred vessels, and laid
the foundations of the temple, Kosters denies. On the
two later points see Zar. /s. pp. xxxv, 281 f, but
bearing in mind the possibility that different views of
the land of the captivity and of the circumstances attend-
ing the gradual lightening of the burdens of the Jews
may have been taken by the narrator and the redactor
respectively. But cp Meyer, Ent. des Jud., pp. 75%;
Guthe, GV 243; Winckler, ΑΓΑ 713). 285, with refer-
ences (Sheshbazzar a son of Jehoiachin}; and see Ezra
AND NEHEMIAH [B00KS], $ 7.

The identification of Sheshbazzar and Shenazzar (Shen'assar) îs
questioned by Léhr (T4eol. Rundschaw, 1181 75), but justified
by Ed. Meyer (Z474#18343 £), who refers to the different
pronunciation of the sibilants in Assyrian and Babylonian, and

explains the differences in the reproduction of these names by
differences of pronunciation. T.K. C.

SHETH (D?, cHe). τ. Nu 24174, regarded by
AV, RVm&, @, Vg., Pesh., as a proper name, on the

assumption that Seth the son of Adam is intended ; this |

is in fact the old Jewish tradition—-the 'sons of Sheth®
are the ‘sons of men’ (Onk.), the ‘armies of Gog*
{ps.-Jon.). The assumption is untenable; but at any
rate Sheth must be a proper name. The sceptre of
Israel, we are told, ‘shall smite the temples of Moab,
and the crown of the head of all the sons of Sheth.'

4461

SHEWBREAD

‘The name might come from the Suti, the Syrian Bedouins
mentioned in the Amarna Tablets. But in the parallel
passage, Jer. 4845, we find {agi for ng, and this suggests
Jia, ‘Cushan’ (cp Cri. Bib. on Am.22). For ax
* Moab,' read probably wap, ‘ Missur' (cp MoAB, $ 14).
"The Misrites or Cushites were among Israel's chief foes.
Most, however, with Dillmann, interpret ng (na?) in
the sense of ‘tumult’ (so ΕΝ).
2. 1 Ch. lr, RV SETH (9.2). T.K.C.

SHETHAR (NY), in Esth. 114, MT, one of the
‘seven princes’ at the court of Ahasuerus. ©&'s
capcagaroc [BNLA], capecoeoc [A] seems to re-
present both SHETHAR and TARSHISH. According to
Marquart (Fur4. 69), Shethar comes from sngnp, with
which, however, compare the O. Pers. Siydlis ‘joy.
This presupposes the accepted view that the scene of
the Esther-story was always laid in Persia, and that
consequently the names may be expected to have a
Persian appearance. For another explanation see
Purim, $ 3, and cp TARSHISH.

SHETHAR-BOZNAI, ΕΝ SHETHAR-BOZENAI ("NW
*N3, cagapBoyzana: τὰν [Β], «nai; -ne [A], θὰρ-
Boyzanaroc [L]}. The name of a Persian (?) official,
mentioned with Tattenai, Ezra 536 6613 1 Esd. 63
(σαθραβουζανης [BA], -Bwt. [L]) 7 (-Bovpt. [B], -Bovt.
[A], -Beot [L]) 627 7: (-Bouf. [BA], -Buwt: [L]), AV
SATHRABUZANES. Four explanations may be men-
tioned ; the fourth assumes that underlying the present
narrative there is an earlier story of the relations between
the Jews and the N. Aradiar governors.

(1) Shethar-boznai may be a corruption of "52 ἼΠ Ξε
Μιϑθροβουζάνης, Old Pers. ‘Mithrobauzana’—i.e., ‘having
redemption through the Mithra."! (2) Marquart takes a
different view (Fund. 53 f.). He equates ang with Old
Pers Citra (‘seed,’ ‘ brilliance') and quotes names com-
pounded with this word.® (3) Winckler (Ao4zt Semizic
Studies, 34 f.), however, considers that +n> “nz may be
the title of an official (e.g., chief clerk of the chancery),
and compares the inscription on a weight from Abydos,
where abbo amp is attested as such a title. In this case,
for “ng we must read an. But the second part of the
title seems incorrectly transmitted. Winckler's reason
is that "3 ‘w is not followed, as we should have expected,
by a description of the office of the person so called,
(4) Upon the theory mentioned above, it is at any rate
possible that «ne comes from ww=n (TARSHISH [Φ.ν, 7),
the original of which may be *urig, and «ma from vgsa.

‘ Asshurite' and ‘Cushanite’ are two N. Arabian
ethnics, used perhaps as personal names. See Crit.
Bib, τ΄ K.C.

SHEVA (NV). 1. Ὁ. Caleb b. Hezron, the ‘ father”
of Mackarna (1 Ch. 249; σαου [BI, -A [A], gove [L]).
2. 2 8. 2025 (Κρ. 009); sce SERAIAH (1).

SBEWBREAD (ὉΠ DID), λέβονι hap-paniza, lit.
‘bread of the face” or ' presence-bread’ (RVM£.). See
SACRIFICE, 88 14, 346; RITUAL, $ 2; TEMPLE, $
16, and ALTAR, $ τὸ (8).

ᾧ ἄρτοι τοῦ προσώπου (1 5. 317 (6), a. [τῆς] προθέσεως (Ex.
4023 [where pnò occurs alone], 2 Ch. 410), a. 7. προσφορᾶς
GK.748), a. ἐνωπίους (Ex. 2530); VE. Sanes Propositionis.
With the exception of τ K. (ἢ 2 Ch. 4 19), and 1 S. only in P.

Other expressions are (a) ἐῴη haf-tamid, poni onb, EV
‘the continual bread’(Nu.47 [ΡῚ, οἱ ἄρτοι οἱ διὰ παντός); (8)
2 ham-ma'draketh, 1Ch.9 32 (AVmg. ‘bread of ordering’),
fheth L 2 Ch.1311 (a. τ. προθέσεως, Vg. as above); (ὦ)
Δ Fides, 1 8,215 (‘hallowed [RV “holy "1 bread’; a. ἅγιοι),

Zimmer (Beitràge zur Kenntniss der Bab. Ret, Rituals

1 So Andreas, in Marti, 5:5/-aram. Gram. 87; E. Meyer,
Ent. d. Jud. 32. Μιθροβουζάνης occurs in Arrian, i. 163, Diod.
3122.

2 In the address of the letter of ‘ Tattenai the governor beyond
the river and Shethar-boznai” (Ezra 56), the verb in MT is in
the sing., and the suffix în MMi9 is also sing. Marquari
suggests that Shethar-boznai may have come in from the
subscription.

4462

SHIBAH

tafeIn, 94) includes among the constituent parts of a Babylonian
sacrifice ‘the laying of loaves' (a#2/x) before the deity. It was
usual to present either 12 or (3X12) 36. The loaves were of
some fine meal, perhaps wheat.” They were called a&a/ meutti,
*sweet loaves'—ie., unteavened.

SHIBAH (MPIW), Gen. 2633 ΕΝ, AV StirsAn(g.2.).

SHIBBOLETE (NUDA), the word which the fugitive

Israelites mispronounced, so falling into the trap set for
them by the Gileadites (Judg. 126).

(55 renders εἰπὸν δὴ στάχυς. Being unable to reproduce the
sk în shi538leth, the translator chose στάχυς, where or was
found rather difficult to pronounce. (‘And he said, Sibboleth,'
remains untranslated.)

So the French betrayed themselves by their pro-
nunciation of ceri and ciceri in the Sicilian vespers,
13th March, 1282 (Bertheau). An analogous story is
related by Doughty (4. Des. 1155). ‘When the Druses
came on to slay Ibrahim Pasha's troops, a grace was
accorded to the Syrians in the force, ‘O man, say
Gamel.' Every Syrian answered /eme/ {] as in French,
whilst in parts of Egypt J is pronounced as G). 80 the
Damascene soldiers were saved,

On the phonetic point involved in the narrative see Marquart
ZATW 8 (1888) 1517, and cp G. A. Cooke in Hastings’
DB, εὖ.

SHIBMAH (Π032}), Nu 3238 AV, ΕΝ Sisman
(g.v.). . .

SHICRON, RV SHIKKERON ({ÎM3Y?; (e1c) σοκχωθ
[Β], (ere) akkapcona [A] (eic) σἀχὰρωνὰ [1]:
Sechrona [Vg.]), at the western end of the N. boundary
of Judah, Josh. 15 τε, apparently between Ekron (Δ Κα
κδρων) and Jabneel.

SHIELD. The most ancient defensive piece of armour
wasthe shield, buckler, roundel, or target. ‘The weapon
varied greatly in make, form, and size, therefore bore
a variety of names,

1. sinnak, πὰς (4/]33, 'preserve,' ‘protect '); most commonly
rendered #upeds, θυραῖος, but also, some five times, ὅπλον, in the

sense in which that word is used by the Greek

1, Terms. historical writers; cp ὁπλίτης; Vg. scusi, but

. also, less properly, c/y%ews This was a large

shield which is commonly found in contection with spear,

and was the shelter of heavily-armed infantry (τ 8. 177 41 etc.);

it is also used figuratively of Yahwè's favour and faithfulness.

We hear of this shield being borne în front of the warrior by a
Shield-bearer (127 NEI; 15.177 RV).

2. endgin, }ID (V}33, ‘cover, ‘defend’); most commonly
rendered ϑυρεός, but also occasionally ἀσπίς and πέλτη, scutuze.
This was a buckler, or smaller shield, which, from a similar
juxtaposition with sword, bow, and arrows, appears to have been
the defence of the light-armed infantry and of chiefs; it is used

figuratively also ofthe scalesor scutes ofleviathan ; asa metaphor
for a king or raler (Ps. 89 18 [19} Hos. 4 18 Ps. 47 9[10]), etc.

3. sokerah, mb, Ps. 914. A doubtfu! word, A second
word for “shield în the same line of the stanza is improbable,
& reads κυκλώσει--ἶνσ., 338), which Whitehouse and Che.
Ps.(2) adopt.

4 3let, ©bg. The derivation and meaning of this word are
both obscure. In 2$.87 χλίδων (reading n2p?) and în Il 1Ch.
187 κλοιός (also reading πρς ὍΣ; in 2 K. 11 τὸ τρισσός [BA],
δόρυ [L}, but in Il 2Ch. 289 ὅπλα (L δόρυ, ἄσπις, and ὅπλα);
Cant. 44 βολίδες ; Jer.51(28) 11 φαρέτρας.

5. 4idoa, ἸΥ}3. See JAVELIN, 5.

6. θυρεός, Eph. ὃ 16 (metaphorically, of faith).!

Among the Hebrews, as among other peoples at an

early stage of development {cp Evans,

2. Form, ete. inc. Sronee Implements of Gt. Brit.
343), shields were no doubt at first made of wicker-

1 [To these, according to some (Baethgen, Kirkpatrick), should
be added πὴ}, ‘igdlik. In Ps.46g[r0], where MT has
τάδ, properly ‘ waggons' [EV ‘chariots’], © has θυρεούς, and
Tg. }'by, ‘shields But in Nu. 3150 ,Ezck. 16 τῷ Dip, ᾿ἀφέῦ,
means ‘a ring,” and ît is not probable that the Psalter should
contain two words for ‘shield ‘(see 3) found nowhere else in the
OT. On the assumption that in Ps, 46 and elsewhere (see
Psatms, $ 28) the Jerahmeelites or Edomites are the foes chiefly
referred to, Cheyne (25.12) would read baom 122} comupi
forms of Ἢ" often present 2 instead of n. Cp Ps 76314], as
restored în 25,12),

He has broken the quiver of Cusham,

The shield and the sword of Jerahmeel.

4463

τι κι 61

SHIELD

work, wood, or hide. The leather coverings would vary
in thickness ; a single hide, if suitably prepared, some
times serving as well as a double. ΑἹ a later date the
wooden framework was bordered with metal. The
partial employment of metal would soon suggest the
discarding of wood almost (or quite) entirely.

In Egypt the shield ‘was most commonly covered
with bull’s hide, having the hair outwards, like the
lastion of the Grecks, sometimes strengthened by one
‘or more rims of metal, and studded with nails or metal
pins, the inner part being probably wickerwork or a
wooden frame, like many of those used by the Greeks
and Romans, which were also covered with hide’ (Wilk.
“πο. Egypt. 1198/.).

We may infer that the early Israelites--or at any
rate the Canaanites—borrowed the forms in use in
Egypt.! Their common shields would therefore be a
kind of parallelogram, broadest and arched at the top
and cut square beneath, They were of wood covered
with leather; a late prophet (Ezek. 89 9) speaks of them
as easily burned.

The sinzal was most likely what in the feudal ages
would have been called a pazise, for such occurs on the
Egyptian monuments. Sometimes such a weapon was
above 5 ft. high.® An example of an Egyptian weapon
of the kind is to be seen in Erman's picture (Life ir
“πο. Egypt, 524; see also Wilk. Anc. Egypt. 1202) of
a soldier of the Middle Empire, The body is not
protected by other armour—a fact which suggests that
in ancient times the shield was large in proportion
as other defensive armour was lacking. This shield
resembles a Gothic window in shape. Shields of such
dimensions must have been made of light material,
During a march they were, at any rate in the time
of Rameses II., hung over the soldiers' backs (see
Erman, 546). At a later date the Assyrian pikemen
carried an ‘enormous shield, sometimes round and
convex, sometimes arched at the top and square at the
bottom’ (Masp. Struggle gf the Nations, 627 f.). But
the Assyrians had shields of all sizes. Layard (Nineveh
and Babylon, p. 193 f.) found bronze shields at Nimroud.
They were ‘circular, the rim bending inwards, and
forming a deep groove round the edge. They had iron
handles, ‘fastened by six bosses or nails, the heads of
which form an ornament on the outer face of the shield.
The diameter of the largest and most perfect is 2 feet
6 inches.’

The lighter shields may perhaps have been soaked in oil
{2 S. 121, but see col. 2334, and cp Lòhr, ad /oc. , Is. 2} 5,
yet see Duhm, who keeps the text, though declining
the usual interpretation, and Cxif. 2:8., where the text
is criticised}, ‘in order that the weapons of the enemy
might the more readily glide off them' (Dr. 7.85 183).

| As to the source whence shields were procured, one

must have recourse to conjecture, It has been sug-
gested (Kitto, Cyc.) that 'hippopotamus, rbinoceros,
and elephant skin shields may have been brought from
Ethiopia, and purchased by the Israelites in the
Phcenician markets ; such small whale-skin bucklers
as are still used by Arabian swordsmen would come
from the Erythrasan Sea. In Nah.24 shields ‘made
red’ (with copper, according to Nowack) are spoken
of; but the text is too doubtful to be trusted. Among
the ‘Hittites' one of the three occupants of a chariot
bore a small shield with which he protected him-
self and the others (see CHARIOT, col. 729); on the

other hand, the single chariot-soldier of Egypt had to

1 Ina picture of a ‘Philistine’ ship of war given by Maspero
(The Struggle of the Nations, 701) the combatants carry small
round shields. In the picture of the storming of Dapura, the
fortress of the Kheta, given in Erman (Anc. £gy25, 533), shields
of various shapes and sizes are well illustrated.

Cp Hewitt, Ancient Armour in Europe: ‘‘besides the
ordinary Northern shields, we sometimes find them represented
of so large a size as t0 cover the whole person.' Hewitt points
out that the same kind of shield is to be seen in Egyptian,
Assyrian, and Indian monuments (77), and that ‘the Chinese
stili (1853) use a large round shield of cane-wicker' (ἐδ. note 72).

4464

SHIGGAION

protect himself as well as manage his chariot (Erman,
Anc. Egypt. 550). During the Assyrian and Persian
supremacy the Hebrews may have used the square,
oblong, and round shields of those nations, and may
have subsequently copied those of Greece and Rome.
High personages might have shields of precious metals
(18. 116 1 Κ' 14:7 [brass], 28.87 1K.1016f 1426;
cp 1Macc. 1424 1518 [gold]; the exaggeration in
1 Mace. 639 cannot be added ; shields partly of brass or
gold seem to be intended).

To facilitate their management the shields had a :

wooden or leathern handle, and they were often slung

over the neck by a thong. With
8. Management. ,ne larger kinds a testudo could be
formed by pressing the ranks close together; and while
the outside men kept their shields before and on the
flanks, those within raised theirs above the head, and
thus produced a kind of surface, sometimes as close and
fitted together as a pantile roof, and capable of resisting
the pressure even of a body of men marching upon it.
We learn from Erman (529 £) that when the soldiers of
the first army of Amon [Amen] pitched their camp, they
arranged their shields to form a great four-cornered
enclosure. i

To break the force of a blow, ‘bosses’ or dugaroi
were attached ; cp ἀσπίδες ὀμφαλόεσσαι (Hom. //, 448).
But whether such ‘bosses’ are really referred to in Job
1526, where MT (and consequently EV) makes ‘the
wicked man ‘run upon’ God ‘with the thick bosses of
his bucklers," VID ZI IND is, to say the least, doubtful.
The whole verse has a suspicious aspect.

Shields were hung upon the battlements of walls
(Ezek. 27 11, if the text is correct [but cp σέ, 2i8.],
Cant. 44 [?], cp 1 Macc. 4 57), and, as still occurs, chiefiy
above gates of cities by the watch and ward. In time
of peace they were covered to preserve them from the
sun, and in war uncovered; this sign was poetically
used to denote coming hostilities, as in Is. 226 etc.

Besides the works mentioned above, use has been made in a
few instances of the article ‘ Arms' in Kitto's Zid. Cycles.

M. A.C.

SHIGGAION (}î°}}}), Ps.7: (title), The traditional
Jewish view (cp Aq. ἀγνόημα, Sym., Theod. ὑπὲρ dy-
rolas) connects it with ai, ἔἄξσαλ, ‘to wander,' sup-
posing an ‘error’ of David (see IGNORANCE, SINS OF)
to be referred to,! whilst Rédiger, Ewald, Delitzsch,
and others explain it as ‘dithyramb’ on the same
etymological theory (@SR4R simply yaAu6s) More
plausible would be ‘a prophetic rhythm' {πη τε μὴν ἢ
cp Ar. saf'a, the rhyming prose of the Arabian kahins
or diviners).® Ps.7, however, is not in the Hebrew
or in the Arabian prophetic style, nor is its tone
more prophetic than that of other psalms. Zimmern
(Busspsalmen, x; cp Hal. Rev. Sém., 1894, p. 1)
connects Shiggaion with #g4, the name of a class of
Babylonian hymns; but #g4 is properly ‘vehement
lamentation’ (Del. Ass. #2), a description which
does not apply to Ps.7.

In Hab.81 the plur. Shigionoth (nì5*39, Aq, Sym. [ἐπὶ] ἀγνοη-
μάτων; Vg. [pro] ignorantiîs; AVmg. ‘variable songs or tunes ')
is plainly an error for n'yoy,? (see Siemmita, Upon). The
clever suggestions of Gràtz (ny°3) vw) and Wellbausen (my:13) (cp
ὥπνας, μετὰ 6895; also, in Ps. Sol, 17, title) fail to do justice
to the facts. Griitz neglects by: Wellhausen changes w into
ἡ, and gives mon a plur. form and a meaning to which il has no
right (See NEGINAH, but cp HasAKKUKk [Boox], $ 8).

T. K.C.

SHIBON (}}x*t), Josh. 1919 AV, RV SHION (g.7.).

SHIHOR OF EGYPT, RV Shihor [The Brook] of
Egypt (Ch. 185, DIS VIN [ἀπὸ] ὁρίων αἰγύπτου IBRAL]),

1 See the Midrash, and cp Field, Hex., ad loc.

2 See Wellh. Ar. Z/cid. 130; Hoffm. Z47W 389, and cp
ῬπΌΡΗΕΤ, # τα Hitzig on Ps.7 1 makes the above comparison,
but combines with it an arbitrary theory.

8 +) (like +) may proceed from an original p.

4465

SHIHOR OF EGYPT
or ‘Stior (RV Tur Sor), which is before [Le castward
of] Egypt” (EV, Josh. 183, DMS neh ἸΖῈ imwa, ἀπὸ τῆς
Ὁ] τῆς κατὰ πρόσωπον aiy. [BAL]), 15. 883,
nè [BNAQD, Jer.218 ("ἡπι, quov

ἀοικήτου [ine
Shihor (MY; μεταβόλων--
[BNAQ], cup [Qmg.]).

The position of the Shihor question was until lately
as follows. In Is. 233 Jer. 218 either the Nile, or more
strictly {(Frd. Del. /ar. 311) the Pelusiac arm of the
Nile, seemed evidently to be intended, which appeared
to make it probable that in 1Ch.185 Josh. 183 also
the reference was to the Nile. This required the
assumption that both the Chronicler and Rp gave an
idealistic extension to the SW. frontier of Canaan. It
was urged, on the other hand, that in Nu. 345 Josh. 154
1 K.865 2K.247 1s. 2712 the S. or SW. frontier
specified is the ovs Sn (MT), which is supposed τὸ he
the Wady el-'Aris (see EGYPT, RIVER OF), and accord-
ing to Franz Delitzsch and Kautzsch-Socin this wady is
also referred to in Gen. 1518 as the omsp 1) (MT).
Were there, then, two Shihors? Steuernagel removes
the difficulty in part by reading ouupn. ‘the desert’
instead of mn'wn, ‘the Shihor' (see (5), in Josh. 133,
and Benzinger does the same for 1 Ch. 135 by supposing
that a thoughtless scribe substituted «me for omo ὉΠ)
{cp 1K. 865)—i.e., the Wady el-'Arî. In 15.283 Jer:
2:8 the reference to the Nile has been pretty generally
‘admitted. AIl that remained was to get a probable
explanation for Shihor. The existence of the name
SHIHOR-LIBNATH in the territory of Asher seemed to
favour a Hebrew meaning; and it was thought that
* Shihor” might mean ‘the dark-coloured turbid stream,’
in allusion to the black mud of the Nile {cp the native
name of Egypt, Aémez, ‘the black land,' EGYPT, $ 1).
Hommel, however, in 1897 (4/77 244), changed the
position of the Shihor question, by showing that in all
probability there was, to the SW, of Canaan, a land of
Asshur or Shur, extending from the Wady el-'Arîi to
the region of Beersheba and Hebron, and pointed cut
the striking parallelism between ‘the Shihor which is
before pmsp' in Josh.133 and 'Shur which is before
Diso’ in Gen, 2518. He even went so far as to explain
nes (Geshur) as ‘simply a contraction of Gé-Ashèr or
Gé-Shor." The present writer's investigations are in
the main independent of those of Winckler and Hommel,
though stimulated by the earlier writings of these
scholars, He is of opinion that {πὲ true name of this
region is neither Geshur nor Asshur but Ashhur (out of
which the other forms arose), and that Shihor is a
cognate of this, also that Ashhur, Asshur, or Geshur
acquired a wider reference than Homme] has indicated.

The theory of the present writer is that this term occurs in
many passages of the as practically synonymous with
Jerahmeel, and we can well believe that the peut bm; (if this
phrase may be taken to mean ‘the wady of Misrim —z.e., of the
Arabian Musri), was also at an early period called the wady of
Ashhur, and at a later time the wady Shihor (a modification of
Ashbur, cp Suenamian); between 1 Ch. 13 5 and 1 K. 865 there
will, therefore, if these views are correct, be no inconsistency.

A fair estimate of this theory is only possible in connection
with a thorough methodical study of the OT, or ae least of the
greater part of it, from the point of view indicated at the end of

the article Name. There fs little reason to suppose (see Criz.
5:5.) that the result will be adverse to the theory.

It should also be emphasised that the critical investiga-
tion here referred to supports the view that Winckler's
explanation of the name p=sp as the N. Arabian Musri
in the pbrase ΠῚ ὉΠ), and in a large number of
passages besides those which contain this phrase, is
correct. Hommel's more recent theory that nun (L.e.,
according to him, Mosar or Masor) means Midiant—:.e.,
the NW. Arabian coast from Leukekome to 'Akabah,
is closely akin to that of Winckler, who regards Musri
as the name of a N. Arabian kingdom, in vassalage
to the more powerful Minasan kingdom, and peopled
by the race called Midian (cp 4-4 799 143).

We have stili to ascertain whether Is. 233 and Jer.
218, critically regarded, are, or are not, consistent with
the theory respecting Ashhur, Asshur, or Gesbur, stated

4466

SHIHOR-LIBNATH

above. {2) Is. 233, as it now stands, is fairly rendered
by RV:—

“And on great waters the seed of Shihor, the barvest of the
Nile (ΟΝ), was her revenue; and she was the mart (?) of
nations.’ ”

With the exception of Duhm all commentators have
admitted that Shihor here means the Nile, though Dill-
mann noticed the awkwardness of the style here and
elsewhere in the poem, which, together with the occur-
rence of ‘ Kaédim' {Chaldaeans} in τ. 13, suggested his
theory that the original work (v2. 1-13) was recast by a
later hand {cp /r# 75. 139-143). Duhm, however,
thinks that the writer means the Shihor on the S. border
of Asher {see SHIHOR-LIBNATH), ‘which, according to
Gen. 4920 (Ezek.2718), supplied Zidon with corn and
the like.”

He regards nx* (no tin ®) as an incorrect gloss. Duhm
speaks of ‘Zidon’ rather than ‘Tyre,’ because qu in e. 5 (7) 8 is,
in his opinion, miswritten for τα. Marti assents to this, but
thinks that the gloss (mkv) îs correct, and that ‘Shihor,” after
all, does mean the Nile. If, however, it is highly probable (see

ProPHET, $ 35,77) that the geographical names have been trans-
formed by an editor in very many of the prophecies, it becomes

at once probable that here, as elsewhere, Sì should be “xt, and
Τα either j130 or perhaps ἜΣ. In this case we can hardly
doubt that ἽΠιφ' (Shihor), which is not understood by @ to be
the name of a river, or even a proper name at all, should be
either ΠΟ, ‘merchants’ (so 45), or rather “anda, *Ashbur.*
wwsn in 22. 1610 has the same origin (see TARSHISH), whilst
“> presumably comes from “‘y). At any rate, the presence of
“mig and “mp Close together points to the existence of much
uncertainty as to the right reading of the word which underZies
both words.

(4) In Jer.2:8 the prophet reproaches the Jews for
being continually on the road to νην, ‘to drink the
water of Shihor," and to Asshur, ‘to drink the water of
the river." Most think that pub means ‘ Mizraim'—
i.e., Egypt—and that ‘Asshur’ îs the great kingdom
whose capital was Nineveh. But in the content (Ὁ. 16)
we only read of the ‘sons of Noph and Tahapanes.'
Either then ‘Asshur’ is superfluous, or it denotes the
same country as om. In the latter case peu must
mean the N. Arabian Musri, and pienm ἢ) (‘ Noph and
‘Tahapanes® ??) must be corrupt.! Clearly this is pre-
ferable; the quatrain in τ. 18 must not be mutilated.
* Shihor” and ‘'Asshur' are ultimately the same name,
but ‘Shihor’ has already become differentiated from
‘Asshur,’ and means the puso mn (Gen. 1518).2 That
@ in v. 18 reads γηων (Gihon) instead of ‘Shihor' is
hardly of importance for textual criticism.

It does, however, prove that the Greek translator did not
understand Shihor, and therefore substituted for it a name
which, owing to a misinterpretation of Gen. 2 r3 (where ‘Cush *
becomes ‘ Ethiopia’), he supposed to be a Hebrew name for the
Nile. It is no objection to our exegesis that in Ὁ. 36 mpg is
represented as distinct from t'iy, for in v. 18 the right reading
probably is, not ἬΝ (Asshur), but nngg (Ashbur).

The above is written independently of Hommel's later în-
vestigations (Ax/idfze, 81 [1901]) as well as of Winckler's more
recent writings. Hommel holds that in Josh. 183 and in 1 Ch.
135 ‘the Shihor' is inaccurately put for the ‘nahal Mosar.
He derives ‘Shihor' from ‘Shihon, which he identifies with
Seihàn, the Arabic name of one of the rivers of Paradise. The
“Gihon' is the ‘river’ (23) of Asshur (or as he points it,
Ashur—ze.,, Edom); this he identifies with the Wady Sirhan
(reckoned with the Euphratean stream region), the Hi
{as he thinks} of Gen. 214. Hommel's statements are criticised
unsympathetically by Kénig, Zi#nynewe arabische Landschafts-
namen im AT beleuchéet (1902). T.K.C.

SBIHOR-LIBNATE (Mab “imp; ceron [BI
cfeliwp [AL], Kai AaBana@; Sikor εἰ Labanatt),
apparently near Carme! on the 5. boundary of Asher
{Josh. 1926). The ancients, including Eusebius and
Jerome (0527523 1362), distinguished two places
called respectively Shihor and Labanath. Since, how-
ever, SHIHOR [g.7.] occurs elsewhere only as the name

1 Read bxpmy mos); see ΝΑΡΗΤΌΉΙΜ,

2 Even if the Wady of Ashhur and the Wady of Musri were,
strictly speaking, distinct, some laxîty in a Hebrew writing ἐς
intelligible.

4467

SHILOH

of a river, the moderns prefer to take Shihor-libnath as
a compound phrase meaning ‘the Shihor of Libnath.*
There may have been a place near called Libnath, and
Hommel {44/7 243) ingeniously conjectures thai the
Asherites, who originally dwelt between Egypt and
Judah (cp ASHER, $ 1), called the stream which marked
the S. boundary of their territory by the name of Shihor
in memory of the Nile, ’SHIHOR’ [g.v.], however,
does not mean the Nile. It is more probable that
just as Spia (Carmel) comes (according to the present
writers theory) from ben» (Jerahmeel), so nre
(Shihor} in Josh., as well as elsewhere, comes from
vnex (Asbhùr), and that both names indicate that the
sites called 'Carmel’ and ‘Shihor’ had been origin-
ally occupied by Jerahmeelites and Ashhurites (a dis-
tinetion without a difference ?) respectively, ‘There were
probably other places called Ashhur {Heres, for instance
[see HERES, MouNT]}; one of them was near Libnath,
or belonged to a Laban or Libnah clan. See SHIHOR.

From the earlier point of view, Dillmann's identification of
‘the [river] Shibor of Libnath' with the Nahr ez-Zerka (e,
‘the dark blue river,’ a little to the N. of Cesarea, appeared

lausible (but cp Buhl, Pa/. 105). J. D. Michaelis and Gesenius
Thes. 1393) thought of the river Belus (now Nahr Na'man, 8,
of ‘Akka), from the fine sand of which, according to Pliny, glass
(325, ‘transparence’) was made. T.K.C.

SHIKKERON (ἡ πϑο), Josh. 1511 RV, AV SHICRON
{7.:.}.

SHILBI (*12%, $ 52), apparently the name of the
father-in-law of king Jehoshaphat, 1 K. 2242 (cemeet
[B]. carada [A]. ceAeei [L in 1630], 2Ch. 2035
{caAei [BA], ceAee: [L.]), but really, as the cemeei
of &® in 1K. 2242 (from ceAeeim=SHILHIM [g.7.]}
shows, the name of the birthplace of Azubah, the king's
mother. The majority, if not all, of the names of
Jehoshaphat's brothers, together with his.own, suggest
8. family connection with the Negeb. Cp HALLOHESH.

T.E. Ὁ,

SBILHIM (Ὁ ΠΡΟ). A city of fudah ‘towards the
border of Edom,' Josh. 1532 (car [Β], ceAeeim
TAL]J). Perhaps the same as SHARUHEN (g.2.); cp
also Shaaraim (Buhl, PZ. 185). Azubah, bath SHILHI
(g.v.), was probably a native of Shilhim (see SHILHI).

Τ᾿ κι Cc.

SHILLEM (DÒ), Gen 4624, SHILLEMITES

(1927), Nu. 2649; in 1 Ch.713 SHALLUM, 7.

SHILOAH, WATERS OF mia MI), Is. 86. See
SILOAM.

SHILOH bg, Judg. 2121 Jer. 712, yi, Judg. 2119
15.124 821 Jer. 71214 269 415, but here ENO σαλημ, GA
cado, cp SALEM; Ps. 7860; f># thirteen times; σηλω, «om,
τῶν; Jos. σιλοῦς and σιλω).

A town of Ephraim, where the sanctuary of the ark
was, under the priesthood of the house of Eli (g.v.).

imita According to 1S.33 15, this sanctuary
1. Ephralmito νας not a tabernacle, but a temple with
doors. Josh.18: [P], however, has it
that the tabernacle was set up there by Joshua after the
conquest. In Judg.2119f the yearly feast at Shiloh
appears as of merely local character. | Shiloh seems to
have been destroyed by the Philistines after the disastrous
battle of Ebenezer (cp Jer.7r2 14 2669; see ISRAEL,
8 r1). The position described in Judg. 21r9 (cp OS
1521) gives certainty to the identification with the
modern Sei/zn lying some 2 m. ESE. of Lubban
{Lebonah), on the road from Bethel to Shechem.
Here there ἰδ a ruined village, with a flat, double-topped
hill bchind it, offering a strong position, which suggests
that the place was a stronghold as well as a sanctuary.
A smiling and fertile landscape surtounds the hill.
Cp PRIEST, f 2; 07/C0) 268-271; L. W. Batten, ‘The

Sanctuary at Shiloh," /EZ 19 [1900] 29-33; Graf, De fempio
Silonensi; and Aug. Kòhler, Bol Gesch 1τὸ Δ w.R.S.

4468

SHILOH

That there was a Shiloh in the territory of Ephraim,
2. Probable ! undeniable. It is probable, however,
Benjami that there was another place with at least

enjamite imile in Beniami hich w

to. a similar name, in Benjamin, which was

WILconfounded by later writers (Jer., Ps.)
with the northern Shiloh.

bw, o, and mbe, are all regarded by the present writer as
connected with 988 (Shaul) and np5y (Shalishah), names of
Edomite, or rather Jerahmeelite, origin, which were not confined
to one part of the country. He sees reason to think that the
names, both of Eli and of his two sons, connect Eli's family with
the Jerahmeelites, and there is evidence in the genealogy of
Samuel connecting his family with the same N. Arabian stock;
indeed the name of Samuel (see SAUL, $ 1) may appear identical
with the Jerahmeelite name of Saul.

It is very possible that the sanctuary of the ark was
in the Benjamite not in the Ephraimite Shiloh {or rather
Shalishah ὃ); also that in the original narrative from
which Josh.18: (cp 1951 212 229 12) is derived, the
place intended was Shalishah in Benjamin. We can
now probably understand aright the statement în Judg.
183: that the shrine containing Micah's graven image re-
mained ‘ail the time that the house of God was în mb.
Laish or Dan was not improbably the famous city of
Haltisah in the Negeb (see MIcAN, $ 2), and of course
shared the fortunes of the sanctuary in Benjamin which
contained the ark. The question also arises whether
the enigmatical statement about the ‘daughters of
Shiloh' in Judg. 21197 does not really refer to a
southern city. In SHILOH ii. it has been argued that in
all probability n5xy (EV Shiloh) in Gen. 4910 has been
corrupted out of ag (Laishah), which in turn is a

popular distortion of Halîsah. Itis possible that the
place near which, according to the narrative, the
capture of wives was effected by the Benjamites was
really Laishah—i.e., Halîisah. The transformation of
names in Judg. 2119, which this theory presupposes, is
not stranger than similar transformations which we have
assumed elsewhere. Bethel is the southern Bethel—
containing the sanciuary of Halîisah, Shechem should
b: Cusham (see SHecHeM), and Lebonah is a southern
Libnah (cp Nu. 8829 Δ). Cp also MELCHIZEDEK.

Not only the names Eli, Hophni, Phinehas, but also Ahitub,
strongly favour the view that the family of Eli was Jerahmeelite,
and to some extent make it natural to place the sanctuary of
the ark in one of the territories known as Jerahmeelite. For
ΘΗΝ (in accordance with types of corraption which we have
often conjectured)is probably from n} 2ΠῚ, ‘Rehoboth, "or Mat»
‘Rehobothite,a view which is somewhat confirmed by the famous
reading of GB in 15.421, οναιβαρχαβωθ, if we may take it
(nearly as We., col. 2144) as ri37) “it: ‘Alas, Rehoboth!* It
is, in fact, not improbable (as 18.143 [see below] shows) that
“35 «8 (Ichabod) and ion (Ahitub) are ultimately the same
name. The corruption of ΠῚ2Π into ming is not worse than
many assumed corruptions, while the other corruption 1139 *&
would be suggested by pious sentiment. Both corruptions,
it will be noticed, imply the dropping out of « from what
we may assume as the original name—ze., mam ng, {Oi
rehoboth.! May we then assume that there was a Rehoboth
close to the Shalishah in Benjamin where the sanctuary of the
ark may be best supposed to have been? It is better to hold
that ‘Rehoboth' and ‘ Jerahmeel® were used as synonyms. A
clan of N. Arabian origin might indifferently be called ‘Reho-
bethite' and ‘gerahmeelite” (see RenoBorHn) Thus an
Ephrainnite site for the sanctuary of the ark, though believed in
by later writers, becomes more and more improbable.

18.143 runs ᾽ο, 11 ὉΠ᾿ἘΓ]2 MII» ie mevis]a mos
There are many parallels for the view tnat n39 ἽΝ is a variant
to ΠΟ ΠΝῚ ἫΝ would be inserted as a link when the variant
made its way into the text. Note the warning Pasek.

T.K. C.

SHILOH (MY; on versions see below), a proper
name in EV of Gen, 49 το,

In the ' Blessing of Jacob' (Gen. 49 1-27; cp GENESIS,

$ 4, end) it îs said— between the comparison of Judah

to a lion, and the poetic description of

1. Text and τὸς fouriching vine-calture in his territory

VOrBIONS. παι «the sceptre shall not depart from

Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until

Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the

people be,' into which rendering of AV, however,

148 4469

SHILOH

RV introduces the alterations ‘the ruler's staff’ for
‘a lawgiver' (transferred to RV®&), ‘obedience’ for
* gathering, and ‘peoples' for the archaism ‘ people.”
RVm8 also gives, ‘Till he come to Shiloh, having the
obedience of the peoples,’ and records the ambiguous
reading ig The Hebrew of MT is:

pap napo no: sò
ria rap ppi
bg saro ἪΡ
(peg nom ibi
Ginsburg gives as Kre ii, which is a rare spelling of the
place-name Shilob, if it is not rather meant to signify ‘his son,”
see note.

A critical conspectus of the diverse interpretations of
this passage would require many pages (for this we may
refer to the special monographs).!” We can only give
such references to ancient or modern hypotheses as may
save the student from committing himself to untenable
or precarious views, and justify the offering of a new
interpretation based upon a critical examination of the
text, and confirmed by the study of some important
historical passages elsewhere. It is not enough to rest
in interpretations, however widely prevalent, which have
an insecure textual basis; we are bound to attempt to
lift the exegesis of this much disputed passage to a higher
level, and to free it from the uncertainties of theological
or semi-theological controversy.

The ancient renderings that chiefly concern us ar

1. ὦ (and Theod.): οὐκ ἐκλείψει ἄρχων ἐξ Ἰούδα καὶ ἡγού-
μένος ἐκ τῶν μηρῶν αὐτοῦ ἕως ἂν ἔλθῃ τὰ ἀποκείμενα αὐτῷ, καὶ
αὐτὸς προσδοκία ἐθνῶν, Several MSS have ᾧ ἀπόκειται, a few
ὃ ἀπόκειται αὐτῷ or ὃ ἀπόκειται. The rendering ἐκ τῶν μηρῶν
αὐτοῦ is one of the signs that the interpretation of the passage
was influenced by De. 2857. προσδοκία suggests the reading
Mpn. On rà ἀποκ. αὐτῷ, see below.

2. Aq. οὐκ ἀναστήσεται σκῆπτρον ἀπὸ Ἰ. καὶ ἀκριβαξόμενος
ἀπὸ μεταξὺ ποδῶν αὐτοῦ ἕως ἂν ἔλι καὶ αὐτῷ σύστημα
λαῶν. Sym. οὐ περιαιρεθήσεται ἐξουσία ἀπὸ ΝΗ

3. Pesh. (2).

e βριβϑθοο fron τ han μὸν J
suo St 3 ον hors cadi fas
fazio, (dad do
“The staff shall not depart from Judah, nor the interpreter
from between his feet, until he cometh to whom it belongs, and

for him do the peoples wait.”
(ὦ Aphraates (ed, Wright, 320) instead of last three words.

aan hiasis, odo Jhaadso
‘to whom belongs] the kingdom, and for him do the peoples
hope.”
4. Tg. Onk.
ΝΞΟ MI DI i ne Vap mv sb
OST ἘΠῚ I ἪΡ NDS ἽΨ "ΠῺΣ sn
IRIDDp ΠΡΌΣ" msi RDII2D Nn
‘The wielder of power shall not pass away from the house of
Judah, nor the scribe from his sons’ sons for ever until that the
anointed one come to whom belongs the kingdom and to him
shall the peoples submit themselves,”

We have first to ask, Can Shiloh be a proper name,

as the Reformation Versions mostly suppose?? As
Driver has well observed, ‘no ancient

2 Shiloh version, and indeed no known authority
no! AEREE for several centuries after the Christian

era, implies the Massoretic reading, or
sees in the passage a proper name. It is true that it
was generally interpreted in antiquity of the Messianic

1 Chr. Werliin, De daudibus Jude (Havnine, 1838); 5, R.

Driver, ‘Gen, 4910; an exegetical study,’ /ourx. PA
14 (1885) 1-22. The former takes Shiloh to inean ‘peace
bringer ie, Solomon ; the conclusion of the later scholar is

given in the text în his own words. These monographs may
be supplemented by the notes of Delitzsch, Dillmann, Gunkel,
and Hall in their works on Genesis. Cp also ὦ. Baur, Gescà.
der Alttest. Weiss ng (1861), 227-290.

3 Driver traces this renderifig τὸ Seb, Monster (1534), who
gives ‘quousque veniet 510. Pagninus (1528) gave ‘ Messias’;
Luther (1534), ‘der Held.”

4470

SHILOH

or ideal future of Israel; but this sense was reached in
virtue of the general context of the passage, and not
through a proper name Shiloh." Indeed, a proper
name meaning Peace-bringer (which is the sense
postulated for the proper name Shiloh) can certainly
not be derived from /mbe, ‘to be quiet, careless,
secure’; the phrase we should have required is τὴ μὴ +,
‘ prince of peace’ (cp Is. 95[6]), or, if the text of Mic.
5.45] is correct, nibg, ‘peace’ —ie., [Kénig, δένὰ 21]
‘auctor pacis.’ 1

Those who (like Delitzsch, Diltmann) defend the render-
ing, ‘until he come to Shiloh,’ see a reference to the
assembly of the tribes of Israel held, ac-
cording to P, at Shiloh(Josh. 181}, when
‘the land had been subdued before
them.' They take pag to mean, not
the royal sceptre, but the staff of the chieftaîn or leader,
exactly like ppi (if this word really means “staff of
authority’); so that the passage will mean, ‘Judah
shall continue to be the valiant leader of the tribes of
Israel, till, the peoples of Canaan having been subdued,
they can celebrate the victory by a solemn religious
assembly at Shiloh.' This, however, puts too much
into the simple phrase ‘until he comes to Shiloh,' and
v. 10d conveys the impression that the victory over the
* peoples’ is the victory, not of all the tribes, but of
Judah. Moreover, πο is not one of the recognised
ways of spelling the place-name ‘ Shiloh,’ and it îs even
doubtful whether the Massoretes intended to favour
this interpretation.?

Hence some good critics adopt the old reading bg

or νὴ (see 6). According to Driver, the rendering

ν τὴν ‘till he whose [it is] shall come' would

3. Ge penne afford an excellent sense, but is not
" reconcilable with the absence of the

subject in the relative clause, ‘ Perhaps,' he adds, ! we
should fall back upon the original LXX construction,
and render ‘Till that which (or, he that) is his shall
come, and regard the clause as an indeterminate ex-
pression of the Messianic hope, which was afterwards
defined more distinctiy.” The reading sb is also

adopted by Wellhausen (Gescà. 1375, n. 1, but cp CA
321), Stade (GVZ 1159, n. 5), Ball (doubtfully), Briggs,
v. Orelli, Holzinger, Gunkel.. It is thought to be pre-
supposed, not only by (δ, but also by the language of
Ezek. 21 32 [27], vbwen 59-ga sap, ‘until he come
whose right it i ᾿

If, however, τὰ ἀποκ, abréisa genuine rendering, îbe' cannot be

the whole of the text which the translator had before him The
present writer, therefore (7%eo/. ez. cited at end), suggested

#5 npiv or (as Rensch before him) 59 bit. Most probably, how»
ever, (δ simply made the best of the obscure reading 15%), a reading
unworthy of acceptance,3 and clearly a fragment of some longer
word. 351 iSg would, in fact, be intolerable. As to Ἐσεῖς,
21 32, it is by no means clear that the prophet was thinking of
Gen. 4910, Very possibly the reading 151? was suggested ἂν a
misleading reminiscence of EzchielA

But if the passage is, at any rate în the larger sense,
Messianic—and this is generally assumed, because of
the reference in 4 to a universal empire, —what are we

3. No reference
to the place
‘Shiloh.

1 Kanig, however (Zc.), qualifies his statement by an "at
least’ in the next sentence. There can hardly be a doubt that
the text needs emendation (see Mican [Boo], $ 5, e).

2 A favourite Jewish interpretation of my (found in Ibn
Janh and Kimhi) was ‘his son’ (cp Talm. 55w, Ar. sadiz,
Sextractus, filius); e.g., Tg. ps.-Jon. paraphrases n33 ny), ‘his
ygungest son,' an interpretation which, according to Driver, js

perhaps embodied în the Massoretic pointing.*

3 It is usual to find in 5by a deliberate affectation of mystery.
But it is more than mystery ; ît is grammatica) obscurity. Ina
solemn benediction like this, nothing but Ezek.'s usppn ibra
would be tolerable, if a veiled reference to the legitimate king of
Judah were intended.

î 4 See Volz, Die vorezil. Jahweprophetie und der Messias,
a, ns

4471

SHILOH

to read in place of nb or ποθ or ie? Matthew
Hiller (05, 1706, Ὁ. 931), Lagarde (0.50)295, OS
368), the present writer (09. cé4.), as an alternative, and
Bickell (Carmina VT metrice, 1882, p. 188), took
ni to be a contracted form of mg, ‘he whom
Judah prays for'; cp perhaps Dt. 337, where, accord-
ing to Gunkel,! ‘bring him to his people," means
‘bring the Messianic king to his people’ This is at
any rate more plausible than the idea that ny should
be nigi or nbg (Vg., ‘qui mittendus est’), with which
compare the view of Grotius (col. 1803) that Jn. 97
identifies ‘Siloam' with ‘ Shiloh." But is the passage
before us really Messianic? Critics who in our day
hold this view, generally regard Gen. 4910 as a later
insertion. ‘This is, of course, a permissible hypothesis ;
but, on different grounds from those of Gunkel, we are
comipelled to reject it. -
The truth is, we believe, that the text of the passage
in its context requires a much more thorough examination
before we can proceed to exegesis, There

δ. The re- are serious difficulties both in 7, τὸ and
stored text in 7. 1:f. Does pphp mean ‘staff of

Pa ite authority'? and, if a0% how can Ὁ
"be parallel to ît? 15 vbya pap, however
it be explained, at all natural? And is nip* a sound

reading? Then, în 7. 11, is ππὶῦ correct, and are such
expressions as these possible—‘ he washed his garments
in wine, and his clothes with the blood of grapes"? In
v. 12 îs vbrbon correct?? and is not the whole verse
superfluous ?

By a careful criticism the present writer has elsewhere
reached the following text:

mamo bb “ivratb A champion shall not depart from Judah,
PI Jap pphDI Nora marshal from between bis bands,
ngi 013 ἘΝ Until he tramples upon Laishah,
Ὁ ΚΌΠῚΣ [usw] 1 And the Jerahmeclites are obedient
unto him.8

Verse 1: may here be passed over with the remark
that it probably continues the description of the conquest
of the Negeb by Judah, and that αν 753 039 should
probably be %xyeg* va w27,, ‘he shall subdue the b'ne
Ishmael,” the proof of which is that in v. 12, which
should certainly be read San» Seynw: vin D'baemp, the
true text contained a correction of the miswritten words
in 7.10. See Crit, βιό. Laishah, considered already,
may be, as we have seen (SHILOH, 1), Halisah, one
of the most important cities of the Negeb. Who the
Jerahmeelites are, we also know; they are the same
as the Zarephathites or ‘Pelethites' (the Philis-
tines of MT) who were the chief enemies of Israel
in the days of Saul and the early period of David.
If this theory be adopted there is no reason for the
hypothesis of interpolation. Contrary to the prevalent
opinion, the whole of the blessing of Judah is continuous.
Beginning with a description of the fierce and fearless
courage of the tribe of Judah, it goes on to prophesy
that judges or champions of Judah's rights (the rights of
the strongest) wilt never be wanting till its troublesome
neighbours, the Jerahmeelites or Zarephahthites, have
been conquered,—a conquest which in the original
song was described in some detail,

The theory suggested with regard to =5w throws a
fresh light on 1 K. 1129, where (see JEROBOAM i., end}

1 Genesis, 436, (2) 424. The singular theory connected with
this interpretation cannot be here discussed.
2 Contrast Prov, 23 29.

8 For the confusion of 839 and bal, cp 25.77 1Ch.176
(parallels in We. TS 170); and for the sense ‘rufer,'‘marshal,”
sce & and Onk. Forthe correction mia cp ENSICN, $ 14(0n
5x1; Sam. here 1bI) For DI, cp SFOT on Is. 41 25. Ind
‘ne fell out through the vicinity of words (nop= 15%) cone
taining virtually all these letters, ΟΡ also JERAHMEEL, $ 4

4472

SHILONI

the true text perhaps said that Jeroboam had just come
from Misrim, or rather Ishmael, where he was ‘found '
by the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite. Was Ahijah
really an Ephraimite prophet? It is more natural to
suppose that he was of a place much nearer to the N.
Arabian land from which Jeroboam ‘had come, viz.,
of Laishah {i.e., Halùsah), a name which we have
found to have been altered by a scribe's error into
Shiloh in Gen, 4910.

‘The literature of Gen. 4910 is extensive. See the works of
Oehler, Schultz, Smend, Riehm, Delitzsch, and Briggs, on
Israclitish religion, and the commentaries of Tuch, Delitzsch,
Kalisch, Dillmann, Holzinger, Gunkel; the Genesis (Heb. text)
of Ὁ. J. Ball in SBOT; Pusty, Damicl Me Proplich, 254-256;
Cheyne, ‘A disputed prophecy in Genesis, T4eolog: Review,
12 500-306 (1879), and! Propk 75.) [1881] 3 τὸς δῆ Briggs
Messianic Probhecy, 94f (1886); and especialiy the three
discussions (Werliiri, Driver, Baur) already mentioned.

T.K. Ὁ,

SHILONI (*3DM29), τ Ch. 95. See SHELAR, 1.

SHILONITE (φῦ, ibi, and SY [neh 115]:
cHAWnlelitHe).

1. Gentilic from πὴ Shiloh, used with reference to
the prophet Ahijah (temp. Jeroboam I.), 1 K.1129
1215 1529 2 Ch. 929 1015. See SHILOH ii. (end).

2. In a post-exilic list, miswritten for vo (x Ch.
95) and τον (Neh. 25)—z.e. ‘Shelanite.' See SHELAH,

SHILSHAB (MY; careica [BA]. ceAemcan
[L]}, b, Zophah, a name in a genealogy of ASHER
(g.0., 8 4 ii), 1 Ch.73rt. Cp SBUAL, 2.

SHIMEA (NYDU, $ 51). 1. Brotherof David. See
Shaman.

2. Son of David [g.2., $ 11, #1] 1 Ch.35) σαμαν [B], σαμαα
[AL]; but 25,514, 1 Ch.144 JIDE, SHAMMUA ; σαμμονς, rauaa
[Β]; cappove, σαμμαου LA} respectively ; cauaa [L di51; 1 Ch.
Ma capa [x)).

- A_Merarite Levite; 1 Ch.630 [15] (σομεα [Β], capa [A],
σάϊ κα iL).
4 A Gershonite Levite ; 1 Ch.639 [24] (σαμαα [BALD.

SHIMEAH. 1. (UM? [eri], $ 51),
David. See SHAMMAH,

2. (FRDY), b. Mikioth in a genealogy of BeNJamun [g.0.,
ξ ἢ, 8], τ Ch.832 (oeuaa [B], σαμεα [A], σαμαα [L]), but 1 Ch.
938, Dio), Shimeam, σαμαα [BNL], caga [A] See JOR
N r10-113, $$ 10-12,

SHIMEATH (MPV [Ba. ΟἹ], cp MIN and
NAMES, $ 78, 1emovya@ [BAL]), father οἵ Jozachar
(2 K.12z2 [51]} called by the Chronicler, according to
MT and 8° (2 Ch. 2426; cama [B]; cama@ [A];
camaa@ [12], an Ammonitess {cp SHomer) In
"4, however, it is Shimeath's son that is Ammonite.
Possibly ‘ Ammonite’ stands for ‘ Jerahmeelite' (Che.),
See SILLA, SHIMRITH.

SHIMEATHITES (DNPnd;
τθεῖν [L}), 1 Ch. 255.

SHIMEI Cub, a gentilicium of fim [see WRS,
Journ. Phil996]; cemeleli). 1. b. Gera of BanURIM
(g.0.), a Benjamite of the house of Saul who cursed
David as he fied from Absalom! (2 S.165-13), On
David's return after the death of Absalom Shimei is said
to have been the foremost of the ‘house of Joseph ' to
go down (with a thousand Benjamites), to welcome the
King. In return he begged for forgiveness (2 5.
1916-23). In David's last words, however {1 K. 28 Δ),
the king charges his son to put Shimei out of the way,
as a proof of his wisdom (see DAVID, col. 1034, n. 1;
Ki. Zist. 1181, but cp Wi. GZ 2247). Upon his acces-
sion, Solomon permits Shimei to dwell at Jerusalem
©n certain conditions (see KIDRON, $ 2), which after
three years Shimei violates, ostensibly in order to
recover two slaves who had fied to Achish king of

camabieim [BA],
See JABEZ.

1 In 1 K.28, however, no mention is made of David's being a
fugitive on account of Absalom.

4473

brother of .

SHIMEON

Gath® (rather, of ReHosoTH). He is slain by Benaiah
at the royal command (1 K.236-46), The exact course
of events is not free from doubt, but this at least is
clear: Shimei was a leader of the Benjamites who was
politically dangerous, and it is likely that he really
sought to draw Nahash, king of Rehoboth, into his
schemes. Nahash may in fact very possibly have been
displeased at the c0z d’éa? which had made Solomon
his suzerain. On the ‘legend of Shimei, cp Winckler
{GZ, 6), and see below, nos. 2 and 10.

2. Shimei and Rei and the g7240r7m who belonged to
David are enumerated among those who did not join
Adonijah in his attempt on the throne (1 K.18, σαμαίας
[L}). It seems best to assume with Winckler (G/, Ze.)
that Shimei 1. is intended, while REI (g.v.) may be= Ira,
a 4dkén or perhaps Ἄὔξδη (‘“minister’) of David, mentioned
in 2 8. 2026. Stade, however (GY/ 1293, n. 1), thinks
that they were two officers of David's bodyguard ; the
fact that the two names do not occur elsewhere in 1 K.
1 only shows the fragmentariness of our knowledge of
the times. Some think that one of David's heroes,
SHAMMUAH (3) or Shimei, may be meant; Ewald's
suggestion that David's brother Shammuah (or Shimeah)
is intended is unlikely (see RADDAI).

ἅν ὃν Elah, high officer of Solomon in Benjamio (1 K.4165
om. B, σεμεει [A], σαμα IL). See SHAMMAH, 3.

4. 25.2121, σαμαα [1] AV SHIMEAH, see SHAMMAN, 2.

5. δ. Pedaiah; brother of Zerubbabel (1 Ch.319 om. B),
perhaps the same as SHEMALAHN (τ. 22),

6. Ὁ, Zaccur, of Simeon (8 9 ii.) (1 Ch. 426), who had sixteen
sons and six daughters, and is described as the father of an im-
portant clan (gers) which overtopped all others, but did not
equal the b'ne Judah (within whose territory it was settled); cp
perhaps Shemaiah, ©. 37.

7. Ὁ. Jok1, of REUSEN ($ 13), 1 Ch. 54 (σαμεε [L); cp 2. 8,
Shema ζσεμεει [L]) b, Joel.

, AV Shimbhi, a Benjamite, the father of Adaiah, Shimrath,
and Benati [9.0.1 (1 Ch.821 σαμαειθ [B], σαμαι [A], în v. 13
called SREMA [7,2x, no. 3}. See AiJALON.

9. A_Ramathite, or man of Ramah (PONI, è ἐκ ραηλ [B],
ὃ ραμαθαῖος (AL]), one of David's officers who was ‘over the
vineyards’ (1 Ch. 2727). Which of the southern Ramahs is
meant, is unknown. @'s ραηλ may spring from ‘Jerahmeel"
(Che.

to. b. Kish, a Benjamite, an ancestor of MogpECAI (Esth. 25
++. τοῦ σεμεεισν [BNL], . .. τοῦ σεμειον [AL®]); in the
apocrypha of Esther (112) σεμεειον [B], σεμειον [RL], SemEt,
ἘΝ 8Εμειλβ. Shimei is here evidently, like Kish, a clanname;
a reference to the person who ‘cursed David 15 out of the
question.

11. Shimei occurs frequently in the later writings as a son of
Gershon b. Levi (Ex.617 [AV Shimi] Nu.318, 1 Ch.617 [2}).
He appears în 1 Ch.6 as the sor of Jahath, 2. 42 (27), with
which contrast r Ch. 239 £ where he is the /azter of Jahath;
again ino. 29[14] (ropeer [Β}} Libri, who elsewhere is his brother,
appears as his son, and both are Merarite Levites, He is the
founder of the Shimites (AV) or more correctly (with ἘΝ)
Shimeites (Nu. 821: *) 5 τοῦ σεμεει [B, om. ΕἼ, ... σεμει
[AL]. What is meant by ‘the Shimeites' (so RV; AV
“Shimei,” ‘ynwn; but & and Pesh. have ‘Simeon') în Zech.
1213, Nowack p pronotnces to be unknown. Baudissin (Priester»
ἕλε, 248), however, thinks that the above-mentioned Shimeites
of Gershon are meant. [For a revision of the text of the whole
passage, without attempting which probably no single detail can
Be anderstood, see Cri. Δ 1

12. One of the sons of Jeduthun (x Ch.2517: Fo]eueer [BI],
σονρει [L]), whose name should be inserted in 2. 3 with GBA
(but GL ἐξόδρει) to make up the full number six.

13. A son of Haman (2 Ch, 2914).

A Levite, Ezra1023 (σαμου [BA], -ουδ [x]); in x Esd.923
8εμῖς, RY SEMEIS( σεμσες [8], σεμεὶς IA).

15. One of the Ὁ, Hasuum (Ezra1033); in 1 Esd,932 Semen

16. One of the b. Bani (Ezra 1038); GERA, however, for
BinNui, ΒΗΙΜΕΙ, reads ‘the sons of Shimei,' but 51, vioì βοννει
a. InxEsd. 234, Samis, RV SomEIS (σομεεις [BA]).

SA, CT E. C.

SHIMEON ({W0Y), Ezra 103x=1 Esd.932 Simon
CHosameus (cimmn Yocamaoc [B], . | . omaioc

[A]).

1 [Note that Achish îscalled ‘ben Maachah- Maachah, like
Ahiman (which 451, has instead of ‘Maoch’ in 18.272), may
plausibly be taken to be a popular corruption of Feraiimeei
Achish, then, was connected with N. Arabia. (‘Achish,’ how.
ever, should perhaps be emended into ‘Nabash.’ Sce NAHASH,2.
Tradition seems to have varied.)]

4474

SHIMMA

SHIMMA (NY?) 1 Ch.2:3 AV, ἘΝ (better)
SHimEa, See SHAMMAH.

SHIMON (}î%, cp $ 77; cemelilon [BA], cami
[L]), a name in the Judahite genealogy (τ Ch. 4zot).

SHIMEATH (NIDL, $ 78; camapa@ [ΒΑ], -pei
[L]) of ΒΕΝΙΑΜΙΝ (8 9), assigned to the b'ne SHIMEI
{1 Ch. 8214).

SHIMRI (ΣΟ; camapleli [AL]}, a N. Arabian
and S. Palestinian ethnic ; the original seat of the clan
seems to have been called Har-shimron, according to a
very necessary emendation of Am. 61, ‘Woe unto the
secure in Ishmael,} the careless in Har [mountain off
shimron ; cp PROPHETS, $ 35, SHIMRON.

1. or Simeon ($ 9 iii.) [cp MEUNIM], τ Ch. 437 (σαμαρ [B],
«ov [A]).

er (or clan?) of Jediael (from Jerahmeel?), one of
David's heroes, 1 Ch. 11 45 (capepes [BR}).

3. AV Simrt, a Merarite, eponym of one of the ‘courses’ of
thè door-keepers, 1 Ch. 2810 (φυλάσσοντες [ΒΑ], σαμαρι ᾧ. [L]).

4. A Levite, one of the sons of Elizaphan [cp ZEPHANIAH],
a Ch.2913 ζζαμβρει [Β], caufpi [AL]. See also SHomER,
SHIMRITH, T.K.C.

SHIMRITH (NY; camapiò [A] οομδιωθ
[B], camipamw@ [L]). As the text stands, the
mother of one of the murderers of Joash, described as
‘the Moabitess,' 2 Ch. 2426(muginn) 1 cp JEHOZABAD, I,
The |] 2 K. 1221 [22] has SHOMER (1). More probable
than either reading is SHIMRI (9.0. ).

Similarly read ‘3g%b37, or rather (the confusion between 3810
and ὭΣ being so frequent) ‘9593. The ‘Shimrite' clan was în
fact located în the Jerahmeelite Negeb (cp Am. 61, see SumrI,
ad init.) ®, however, reads ‘aginm, applying the title to
Jehozabad., Cp SHIMEATH. τ κα

SHIMRON (ἡ Σ᾽; cymown [Β]}, a place in
Zebulun, mentioned between Nahallal and Idalah and

. Bethlehem (2), Josh. 1915 (cempon

1, Name ὃ

παρ IO: [Α11]}. Idalah (GF cepergw—i.e., Jerah-
identifications. 1,001) may be only a variant to Beth-
lehem (i.e., Beth-jerahmeel). At any rate, if possible,
we need a site between Malùl (NAHALLAL) and Beit.
lahm (BerHLEHEM, 2. Such a site we have in
Semfniyeh, the Simonias of Josephus (δ, 24), the
Simonia of the Talmud (Neub, Géogr. 189); according
to Tomkins, the S'mAna of Thotmes III, nos. 18 and
35 (A2!54446), with one of which (35) E. Meyer
(Glossen, 73) identifies the Sambuna of Am. Tab. 2204.
As the text of Josh.111 7. now stands, we are led τὸ
assume that Shimron (couepwv [AFL]) was ancientiy a
royal city, and that its king, together with those of
Hazor, Madon, and Achshaph, was defeated by Joshua
beside the ‘ waters of MEROM.” The same royal city is
evidently referred to in Josh. 1220 as Shimron-meron
(jin [io Kr.] γον; βασιλέα συμοων, 8. μαμρωθ [Β],
8. σαμρων, B. φασγα, β. papwr [A], 8. [v]auapww [L]).

. however, does not recognise a compound name ;
certainly Meron must be wrong. Either it has simply
arisen through dittography or (S. A. Cook) it is a variant
of “Madon’ in v. 19 (see MADON) which has found its
way into the text.® Îf Josh. 111 îs to be our guide
in locating Shimron, Miihlau's identification of it with
es-Semîriyeh, about 1 hr. N. from Accho (Riehm,
HWB; Bid.-Socin) deserves attention, though the

1 ‘Ishmael'here="*Jerahmeel‘—i.e., the Jerahmeelite Negeb,
See Crit. Bib. on Am.6 1.

2 The proposal of Frd. Delitzsch (Pa, 287) and Halévy(RZ/,
1881, p. 12) to emend the name into poeny— ie, Samsi.

muruna, a place whose king îs mentioned by Sennacherib at the
head of the Canaanite tributaries (cp MENAHEW), fails to take
account of the easy development of glosses, etc.

3 [In support of this view we may refer to the treatment of
the second part of the name in & and Vg. (ΒΑ om. Madon,
2.19, and read μαμρωθ or μαρων (for Meron), 2. 20, as a separate
name. 051, and Vg. read only ‘“Shimron” in the latter verse,
and evidently found ‘Madon” ζλαμορων) in τ΄. 19. There seems
to be, therefore, an identity between ‘meron’ and ‘Madon,’
which latter name, as shown under Manon, should probably be
read with = instead of 1.—-s. A. C.]

4475

SHINAB

modern form rather suggests Shamir (Sta. ΖΑ͂ ΤῊΣ
5167).

The question, however, has been raised in Crif. 230.

whether the textual problem is not more complicated

than critics have supposed. As the result
2 Larger of a close examination of the text of Judg.
Prcolvod 45 and Josh. 11 it is there held that the

original scene of the events related was more
probably in the S. of Palestine. ‘The names throughout
having become corrupted, they were editorially emended
under the influence of a later historical view respecting
the conquest of Canaan,

Jabin, it îs held, comes from Jamin—a popular distortion
of“ Jerahmeel,' a suitabie name for any king of Hazor. ‘Canaan’
(703) în Judg. 42 5.19 (as in Gen. 106, and a number of other
passages) was originally ‘Kenaz” (139); by ‘Achshaph' (Josh.
111) was probably meant ‘Cusham’ (see Cusk, 2), and by
‘Shimron' the ‘Shimron’ referred to in Am.fi1 {see SuiMRI).
‘Madon’ or rather ‘Marom’ (Eus. papoy) can equally well be
accounted for on this hypothesis. It is the place referred to
in the phrase nimD "Db; cp main Ἢ (Judg. 519). Both these

hrases, if the scene of the war was in the S., come from

125 Ὧν» ‘waters of Migdol'(or rather [cp SHECHEM, Tower ΟΣ]
of Jerahmeel), a phrase parallel to ]g#3 ΠΣ, ‘the torrent of

Cushan. So Crit. Bi5. Cp, however, MEROM, WATERS OF.
T.K.G
SHIMRON (ΟΦ, $ 10; properly a place-name?

see, however, SHAMIR, 25 σαμ[αραμ [BAF]), one of the (four)
sons of Issacnar (8 7), Gen. 46.13 (ζαμβραμ [A], «av [DI, σαμ-
Bpa καὶ ζαμβριν (L]))= Nu. 26 24 (auBpav (AI, -μ [L])}, 1 Ch.71
(δεμερων [Ε]; σομβραν [LI [AV Shimrom, but AV of 1611

‘Shimron']). The patronymic Shimronite (tisi; σαμάρανει
[Β]» σαμραμε [Bab], σαμβραμι [F], apBpap[ek [AL]) occurs în
Nu. 2624.

SHIMSHAI (Ὁ, on meaning see below; cAMCal
[Δ1, camarac [L]), a state official (secretary} who, with
REHUM [g.v.] and others, sent a letter to Artaxerxes t0
induce him to stop the rebuilding of the temple (Ezra
48: σαμασα [Β], v. 9g: σαμεε [B], 17: σαμεαισ [Β],
23: σάμεσα [B]). In 1 Esd.217 he is called SEMEL-
LIUS, ΕΝ SAMELLIUS (σαμελλιος [B], σεμ., or σεβ., or
σαμ. [A], ραμελέος [L]; cp Jos. «πὴ xi. 21, σεμελιο5).

{A right explanation of the name would be one of the results
of a thorough critical examination of Ezra-Nehemiah. E. Meyer
(Ent. 34) claims it as Syriac. Αἱ any rate, it looks as if it were
derived from giny, ‘the sun’ (cp $ 76). But there are stiil two
possibilities. (1) ‘yy may be a Hebraised form of an Iranian
‘hwy—an abbreviation of such a Persian name as σισιμάκης or
δισάμνης (see Rawl., Be.-Rys., and cp Marti, 28/-aram.
Gloss.). (2) The forms in 1 Esd. suggest as the original either
pz or bonne, Sapone» or Sani. This view is preferable.
It may naturally be combined with the theory (see ReHum)
that the geographical and personal names in Ezra-Neh. have
been systematically altered; but independently of this theory
Marquardt (Fred. 62) decides în favour of τῶ. Rehum has
probably a similar origin. —T. x. c.]

SBINAB (NW; Sam. MI; cennaap). king of
ADMAH [yg.7.], Gen. 142. He is mentioned with SHEM-
EBER (anne i Sam. ἽΝ cvuofop[ADE]; cugop[L1),
king of ZEBOIM [g.2.]} The tokens of corruptness
are so evident that many moderns decline the attempt
to explain these names. If, however, we feel sure that
there is a historical substratum to the story, we may be
inclined to equate Shinab with Sanibu, the name of an
Ammonite king in the time of Tiglath-pileser ΠῚ, (so
Frd. Del. Par. 294; cp AAT 141; AB}, or
with the Ass. Sin-Sar-usur (cp SHENAZZAR), and Shem-
eber with the Ass. Sumu-abi (so Sayce, Ζῇ. 7 8463;
cp SHEM, NAMES wiITH). - The reading of the Sam.
suggests that an edifying comment (‘name has perished')
has taken the place of the true name; similarly the
Midrash (Ber. Rab. 42) explains Shinab as pop ame,
‘one who draws money (wherever he can),' and Shemeber
as mar ny, ‘one who makes to himself pinions (to fly
in search of treasure)" ! If, however, the narrative in
Gen. 14 only owes its appearance of historicity to an
editor who had before him a corrupt text, and if by

1 Ball's suggestions (‘Shinab’ [rather Ἴ29] -- Ar. sunzàr,
Aram. danerd, ‘cat'; ‘Shemeber” [rather ἼΠΝΦΊ Ξ ἼΣΩΝ De;
"name lost,’ a marginal gloss) lack probability.

4476

SHINAR

applying the right key we are able to restore the original
sufficiently to understand it aright, it becomes probable
that only one king was mentioned on either side of the
sontest, viz. the king of Geshur (or Ashhur) and the
king of Sodom (?), and that just as ‘ Jerahmeel' occurs
apparently no less than six times (five times in variants)
in 7. 1, so ‘Ishmael' occurs five or six times (owing to
variants) in v. 2. Among the variants referred to are
2x3 {Shinab) and -3xpw (Shemeber). See further
SODOM AND GOMORRAH. T.K.G.

SHINAR CIV). according to the prevalent view a
name of Babylon (cp GEoGRAPHY, $ 13 a). It is men-
tioned eight times in all: Gen. 1010112 1419 Josh. 7ar
Is. 11rr Zech, ὅτι Dan, 12}. In Am. Tab. 2549 we find
the king of Sanhar mentioned as an ally of the king of
Hatti, and in the Egyptian inscriptio1.s a king of Sangara
often appears (cp WMM, As. x. Ezr. 279). Ed. Meyer
{Egyptiaca, 63 f.) argues that both these forms are
equivalent to Kardunia$, the Kassite name for Baby-
lonia ;1 this, however, is not more than plausible (cp
Flinders Petrie, Syria and Egypt, 180). The older
views explaining Shinar as ‘the land of two cities”
(sani-iri, ΔΑ ΤῸΝ 34), or as=sumer in the phrase
Sumer and Accad=S. Babylonia, are untenable.?
Probably the identification of Shinar with Babylonia,
though an early theory, is erroneous, and except in
Josh. 721 Dan. 12, we should everywhere read Geshur.®
NiMroD [g.v.] was a N. Arabian, not a Babylonian,
hero ; and originally the great Tower (Gen. 111-9) was
probably placed not in Babylonia but in Jerahmeel.4

In Josh.721, however, a different emendation is necessary.
The goodiy mantle (see MANTLE, $ 2) in the spoil of Jericho,
coveted by Achan, came neither from ‘Shinar' nor from ‘Geshur.*
“Wi? (EV Shinar) is most probably a corruption of ἢ} τ᾽, ‘a coat
of mail” (see, however, MANTLE, $ 2 [5]}} this word probably
stood în the margin as a correction of the erroneous {ig5 (EV
“wedge '), for which it has been elsewhere (see σοι, 2) proposed
to read [iMy. On the other passage see Crif. Bid.

In Josh., 2c., GB gives ψιλὴν ποικέλην for Ἴρη aa, disregard.
ing now (GaFr καλήν) Vg. pallium corcineum(valde bonum),
Generaliy (δ gives σεν(νλααρ; but in Zech. 511 βαβυλων, unless
5:35 here comes from baby; cp Is. 1111 where in like manner
βαβυλωνίας may=533=5gpM (cp PATHROS), T.K.C.

SHION (δεν), a city of Issachar, Josh. 19το (ο΄ Νὰ
{B]. ceian [4], cHw [L]; Seoz (OS® 15418) în
Jerome's time was a village near Tabor, which may be
identified with the "Air Ske'7n, 4 τὰ. NW. from Tabor,
near which is a ruin called A4irde! Ska'in. There is
also a Meby Shan, NW. from Nazareth. The name
may be akin to Shunem, which occurs in Ὁ, 18.

The current AV rendering Shihon differs from that of the
edition of 1611, which, like RV, has Shion.

SHIP. The Hebrew term M°IX, driyyaZ, and the
Greek πλοῖον. are, ΟΝ somewhat loosely in OT and
in references to navigation, and
in most cases renders by the equally

and rafbs. Vigne, and often obviously too preten-
tious term, ‘ship.’ Sometimes there seems to be no
good reason for the choice of this term, as the Hebrew
adds a qualifying word to indicate what is really meant.
In Job 926 for instance, we find the phrase (elsewhere
[see ΟΒΡΕΑΥ] indicated as corrupt) παν nia, driyyoll
*#bek, ‘ships of reed' {RV®£-), but in EV ‘swift ships”
(l'as the eagle that swoopeth on the prey'); with this
Dillmann and most critics [but cp Crif 212.] com-

1. Light boats N NI, ì

1 See Rogers, Mist. of Bab, and Ass.l4r1.

2 Against the latter see Sayce, PS84, June, 1896, p. 173,
who argues that if Hammurabi=Amraphel, king of Shinar"
(Gen. 14 1), and if Hammurabi reigned in N. Babylonia, it
follows that Sumer ‘(=S. Babyionia) cannot be the biblical
Shinar.. So, too, Pat. Pal 67.

3 *Missur' is a less probabile emendation, though ît would
suit in Gen, 112, if bas in o. 9 was originally pha="ps="so
€ Bela" probabiy comes from ‘ Jerahmeel.)

4 μηρί, 2. 2, was doubtless originally dra (60 also 1827).
Cp PaRapise, $ 6.

4477

SHIP

pare Is. 182 where the expression api»b9, 444 g0me’, is

given in AV as ‘vessels of bulrushes' {see RUSHES),
but where the natural meaning is ‘ vessels [better, boats}
of papyrus' (RV). In both cases light boats or skiffs
are meant, such as those mentioned by Lucan (P%ars.
436), Pliny (42/131) and other ancient writers. ‘l'hese
were used on the Nile (Eg. name, daris; Copt. sari),
carried only one or two persons (Plin. #77}, and
were so light that where navigation was difficult or
dangerous they could be carried forward on the shonlders
(Plut. De 25. ef Osir. 18).

In their oldest and most primitive form these vessels were mere
rafts, and such rafts are not unknown in modern times (see the
description in the Mér0ire5 of the Duc de Rovigo in Che. Prosf.
4s. 2304). Speaking of the smaller boats of this kind, Erman
fire Ἐξ. 479) says, ‘these boats had no deck, they were in fact
ittle rafts formed of bundles ofreeds bound together. They were
rather broader in the middle than at the ends, the hinder part
wras generally raised up high whilst the front part lay fat on
the water.' They were propelled by poles or paddles, not with
cars. Larger boats of the same kind were used for carrying
light freights; with these îs perhaps to be compared the Assyrian
Relek or raft made of a framework of wood sug ported by inflated
skins, though these seem to have been capable of carrying con-
siderable loads (see Masp. Dawn 0/ Civ. 6157; Place, Niaive,
Da 43; cp Layard, Ninevek, 113 25; Peters, Niffur, 2340).

‘e seem to have references to some conveyance of the later
kind in OT. At least, as the text of τ K. 59 stands, the timber
for Solomon's temple was brought from Lebanon to Joppa by
sea in ‘floats’ (ι Κι δ 9, piyza; 2Ch.216, nuipon; @ in both
cases oyebia). Ini ‘has ‘rafts.' Α similar ‘statement is
made with reference to Zerubbabel's temple (x Esd. 5 55, σχεδίας
EV ‘floats’)1 Such primitive modes of navigation are alluded
to in Wisd.143/ A certain floating bridge or landing-stage at
Alexandria went by the name of Schedia (3 Macc. 411).

The papyrus boats of later times, however, were of
more elaborate construction. Light boats have often

been constructed with some kind of

2. Use of wood. framework—a keel and ribs—as well
as of papyrus or other reeds, like the bark canoes of
Australia and more especially of the American continent.
Boats of this kind may have carried a sail. As in the
case of the Madras surf-boats the wood was no doubt
fastened by thongs.

‘Vessels thus stitched together, and with an inserted frame-
work, have from a very early time been constructed in the Eastern
seas far exceeding in size anything that would be called a canoe,
and in some cases attaining to 200 tons burthen' (Α 2,0)
218046).

They were not so primitive in construction as the
Indian canoes made of a hollowed tree-trunk (Herod.
398; cp the ancient boats of the Swiss lake dwellings),
but would seem to rank between these and the wooden
boats made in picces {see below).? ‘The round 4/25 or
coracles of the Assyrians made of plaited willow (Herod.
1192; see Masp. Down gf Civ. 615) were apparently
used for short distances—as ferry-boats for crossing
rivers; they were thus an improvement on the simple
inflated skin (cp ASSYRIA, $ τὸ δ).

Larger boats were constructed entirely of wood
fastened by pegs or tree-nails. ΤῸ craft of this kind
perhaps the phrase big, drez-Hiyif, ‘row-boat’ (EV

Ὁ galley with cars '), of Is. 3821, used in connection with
streams and rivers, may be supposed to refer. Such
boats were also used on the Nile (Herod. 296; cp the
boats in use among the Polynesian islands*—the modern
nuggur). They were often of considerable size, even
under the Old Empire. They had oars for rowing (not
for paddling, as in the papyrus boats} fixed into row-
locks, or through the sides of the boat, and fastened by
a rope to prevent loss; oars were used also for steering
—one for small boats, several on either side at the stern
for larger craft.

1 [These statements are open to criticism, both on the ground
of their inherent improbability and because there are indications
that the original form of the text (already corrupt în the re-
dactor's time), was very different from that în MT, whilst the
statement in 1 Esd. is an invention suggested by the manipulated
form of the narrative of Solomon’s temple.—T. K. c.]

2 They would seem to have been heavier than the boats of
the Esquimaux, constructed of skins and whale-bone; see
Lubbock, Pre4istoric Times, 4837.

3 On Polynesian navigation cp A.
Human Species ®) (ISS), Ρ. 1912

4478

De Quatrefages, The

SHIP

At a later date boats of this build carried, in addition
to cars, ‘a rectangular square sail which was probably
made of papyrus matting' (Erman). For
the mast two pieces of wood fastened to-
gether at the top were employed ; it was
held in its place by large ropes or shrouds fastened at
the bows and stern, other ropes being attached to other
parts of the boat to give additional strength. ‘The
yard-arm rested on the point of the mast' (see Erman,
481). These were long flat boats. Having little depth,
a cabin! fitted on the deck suffices both for the ship-
master's accommodation and for a hold; in some of
the rowing-boats nearly the whole length of the deck îs
taken up by the cabin so that a sail can hardly have
been used. A cargo would, of course, have to be stowed
on deck, and boats carrying a large freight seem always
to have been towed.

A great advance is made under the Middle Empire. The
double mast gives place to a stout single one, the steering-oars
to a large rudder; the sail now has two yards, the upper one
being fastened to the mast by ropes, not, as before, fixed to the top
ofit. In the New Empire the vessels increased in size and com-

lexity,and were elaborately adorned (cp Ezek.27). In the sailing-
Boat οὐ Queen Ha'tshepsu (Gee fig. 1) the mast and sail have
assumed finge proportions, and the yards are constructed of

iwo pieces of wood, Here we get a craft to which we may
strictly apply the terim ‘ship. Something of the kind may per.

haps be meant by the 98 05, si “addi, EV ‘gallant ship," of Is,
83 21, which 15 contrasted with the ὄντε ξένε ἴπ the same passage.

8, Boats
with sails.

SHIP

inscriptions, and that there is evidence of commercial
intercourse between Babylonia and India at least as
early as the seventh century B.C. (OPHIR, $ 2), is un-
deniable. The Babylonian Deluge-story, moreover,
gives an elaborate account of an e/ipx or ship—i.e,, the
‘ark." And even the Assyrians, who were an inland
people, were by no means limited to the round £4/@s or
coracles, or to the Ze/ek or raft.

Kufas and keleks are not the only vessels represented on the
Assyrian monuments and referred to in the inscriptions. Layard's
Monuments of Nineveh (pì. 71) gives illustrations of a number
of vessels, evidentiy war-ships, having two banks of cars, and
shields along the bulwarks. “ Five have sheer prows, and sharp
beaks for ramming, and these have also a mast, a single yard,
fore and back-stays, braces, and halliards," A text (K. 4378)
published by Delitzsch (Ass. Lesesticke,t2) 86-90) enumerates
the different sorts of vessels. Masts, sails, yards, rudder, rigging,
bulwarks, prow, stern, deck, hold, and keel are ali mentione
and among the different kinds of vessels the ‘ Assyrian ship' fs
specially designated, along with those of the Babylonian cities
of Ur and Nippur,

The Assyrians, however, had no great skill in ship-
building. We are told that in 696 or 695 B.c. Senna-
cherib had ships built at Til Barsip for his expedition
against Merodach-baladan. But the carpenters were
Hatti—z.e., from the land of the West—and the sailors
were Tyrians, Sidonians, and lonians (Javndi).

The Egyptian ships mentioned above ($ 3, end) re-
sembled în shape the war-ships of a later time rather

than the merchant vessels, for whilst

δ. Merchant the war-ships (πλοῖα

Merc πολεμικά, 1 Mace. 153)
Ships in OT. vere, like these, long

(uaxpal ; navis longa). the merchant-
ships (“pio nisi, ὄπέγγσέλ sbhéir; Prov.
3114, oneraria) became round and deep
(στρογγύλαι). The increase in depth
altowed of a hold (cp the {rare and late]

ata

τα, 1.—Sailing boat οἵ Queen Ha'tshepsu (Chnemtamun). After Erman,

In Φ. 23 ‘tackdling* (0b2n, Adozioni), ‘mast’ UR, tren), and
‘sail’ (0), n25), are referred to. Nor must we overlook the fine
poetic similitude of Ezekiel (chap. 27) in which Tyre is compared
to a ship. The oars are said to have been made of oak, the
deck of ivory inlaid in cedarwood. The sail was of fine linen
with embroidered work to serve as ensign; the cabin of blue
and purple stuffs, lt has been suggested that the many-coloured
sails of the ancients may have served as distinguishing signs.
Flags, as Cornill (on Ezek, 277) seems to have conclusively
shown, were not known în antiquity.2

In a famous passage of II. Is. we find ihe phrase ‘even
the Chaldoans, in the ships of their re-

‘ chalaman joicing' (Is, 4814, RV).! That the ships
|P. of Uru on the Persian Gulf (see UR

OF THE CHALDEFS) appear prominently in very early

1 The hut or cabin seems to have been quite an ancient
feature. Dr. Budge in A Mistory of Egy#t (173/ [1c02)
gives illustrations of ships drawn from pre: st i
the British Museum, which he describes as follow:
boat contains two small huts, which are placed amidships, and
attached to one of these is a sort of mast, on the top of which is
an emblem of some kind ; in the front of the boat is placed what
Appears to be a branch or bough of a tree, and in some examples
a rope for tying up is represented under the front of the boat,
and steering poles are represented at the stern.’

2 Egyptian ships seem to have received names at quite an
early date. See L. B. Paton, T%e Zarly History of Syria
and Palestine, 7 f. Standards are found, according to Dr.
Budge (A History ef Egyt, 178), on the boats represented
upon predynastic vases, The object of the bough or mat in
these boats (see above, n. 1) ‘seems to have been to supply
to all beholders information concerning the tribe and family of
the occupant of the boat. The short mast which was attached
to the aft cabin was probably used for displaying a flag or
symbol which either referred to the country or city of the
master of the boat, or declared his rank.*

8 [So Kittel, “the text seems incurably corrupt.” Dillmann,

it is true, accepts the text, and only stumbles at the 1 before

4479

|

term ΒΡ, sephinah, in Jon, 15, from
αὔρα, ‘to cover,' and the expression
"on nor, parktthé hasséphinak, ‘ sides
of the ship'). ‘We hear in the OT ofa
special class of merchant-ship—the so-
called Tarsis ships (vp nin, oriyota
tar883, τ K. 2248). They seem to have
been ships of large build, and the expression has often
been compared to our Fast- or West-Indiamen. ‘They
were no doubt provided with oars as well as with a sail
or sails.

Elsewhere (see TArsHISH) the phrase, or rather the probable
earlier reading of the phrase, has been explained as meaning
‘galleys with cars.’ Torr (2,7), assuming with most that tarSif
is the correct reading, makes the following suggestion. ‘Among
the Greeks the cars of a ship were collectively termed /a»s0s,
and among the Hebrews ships of a certain type were known as
ships of tarsi; and Tarsos and Tarti$ were the Greek and
Hebrew names for Tarsus in Cilicia. The coincidence suggests
that tbis city was pre-eminent in farthering the use of cars upon
the Mediterranean. But of this there are no records,”

In spite of their surroundings, however, the Israelites
{see PALESTINE, PHCENICIA, GALILEE [SEA 0F], RED
ivatinn SEA, NILE, εἴς.) seem to have taken
τος θα little interest ἴῃ navigation.! Not until
Jews the Maccabzean times was the impor-
@W8° °° tance of harbours realised, and the
value of ships to some extent appreciated, whether for
the purposes of trade or for war.? Simon the Maccabee
converted Joppa into a Jewish port (1 Macc, 145), and
Herod established another harbour at Cacsarea (Jos, BY
i. 215 Ant xvii.51 xv. 96} —a harbour famous on
account of the part it plays in the story of Paul's
journeys (Acts930 1822 272). Israel's knowledge of

NC

DvD. For the present state of the question see ‘Isa.’ 5.80 7"
(Heb.), ad /oc., and Crit. Bib.]

1 Their lack of interest and ignorance in this respect îs some-
vihat surprising. Cp, however, what we leam of certain mari-
time tribes among the Esquimanx, viz., that they are ‘ignorant,
even traditionally, of the existence of a boat.'—Ross, Bafs
Bay, 170 (quoted by Lubbock, Pretistoric Times.{®! 483).

T In AV of 1 Macc. 117 2 Macc. 129 the term Navy is used.

4480

SHIP

ships, such as it was, must after the settlement have
been derived from the Phcenicians and Philistines in
whose hands were the harbours along the coast. It is
true that some of the tribes seem to figure in the early
legends as seafaring (cp Ps. 107 23-30); but, apart from
the fact that these stories are legendary, the text does not
seem to have been transmitted to us in its original form
(cp Gen. 4913 Dt. 3319 Judg. 517, and see ASHER, DAN,
ZeBuLun). The description of the ARE (9.7. ) also shows
a slight knowledge of such matters (see Now. ΓΑ 1248).
It has been pointed out, too, that when David had an
opportunity of seizing Philistine harbours it did not
occur to him to take it. Solomon's connection with
the sea—he is said to have had a ‘ Navy of Tarshish'—
seems to have been due to Hiram ; we know that his
ships were manned by Hiram's men (1K.926 5). On
the difficulties of these passages see SOLOMON, $$ 32 4.
Jehoshaphat is said to have built ‘’Tarsis-ships'; but his
naval experience was a disastrous one (1 K. 2248 2 Ch.
20 36£ ; see Ezion-GEBER). The war-ships of which we
hear in the Apocrypha (τ Macc. 826 153; cp Dan. 1130)
were no doubt similar to those in use amongst the
Greeks and Romans, See Smith's Dict under ‘navis.*
In the NT we hear of vessels on the sea of Galilee
(bit. der /. 824 1424 Mk. 437). The Greek term com-
monly employed is πλοῖον, which AV

T. Boate în NT. onslates sship' RV rendere ! boat,"
but, as has been pointed out elsewhere {Kitto, ib.
Cyel. under ‘ship’), passages in Josephus which refer
τὸ navigation on the lake (B/iii, 101; Vi4 33) suggest
that the barks on this piece of water were something

After Torr

Fic. 2.T—A merchant-ship of 186 A.D.
(Ancient Ships).

more than boats (they carried an anchor, and are called
σκάφη by Josephus). In the time of Jesus some of
these were owned by his disciples (Mt. 421 Jn. 213 Lk.
53), and the same writer points out that, having regard
to the evidence in Josephus, it is a mistake to ‘ represent
the Galilaean fishermen as of the poorest class.
The most important references, however, to ships and
navigation in the NT are found in the story of Paul's
voyage to Rome.? This narrative
8. Te {Acts 27 /.) may be best illustrated by
ships in NT. studying two representations of ancient
merchant-ships that have come down to us, în which all
{or most of) the parts mentioned are depieted. A
merchant-ship of 186 A. Ὁ.» for instance, is represented

1 There is mention also of a πλοιάριον or of πλοιάρια, especi-
allyin Jo.

? As a tent-maker Paul may also have been a sail-maker, and
may have travelled în this capacity. ΗΝ ᾿

3. Figs. 2 and 3 have been chosen for their illustrative value.

4481

SHIP

on a coin of the emperor Commodus (see fig. 2; cp
Smith, The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul, 202).
Here we see the two steering-oars (cp Acts 2740, τὰς
ζευκτηρίας τῶν πηδαλίων) at the stern (ἡ πρύμνα), which
supplied the place of the rudder of later times; in this
case it is to be noted that the upper parts of the cars are
protected from the waves by a covering—'a prolongation
of the upper waling-pieces, or something of the sort”
(Torr); and that the sails have bands of rope sewn
across to strengthen them. Such a ship wonld rely
for travelling on the large square sail which is figured
in about the centre (cp Acts 2717, τὸ σκεῦος). The small
sail at the bow was subsidiary ; the name of this foresail!
was artemon (ἀρτέμων, Acts 27 40), not dolon (δόλων), as
has sometimes been thought.

The object at the stern, which Smith takes to be a mast,
might be taken to suggest that there was also a sail at the
stern, as Pliny (Proewz. in lib. xix.; see Smith, p. 192) asserts
that there sometimes was ; but the use of such a sail would secm
to have been quite exceptional, as it does not appear to be re-
presented in the pictures that have come dcwn to us. In fig. 2
the object does not resemble a mast (as în Smith'u reproduction)
so much as an car. In any case it may he only a spare mast (or
car), or may even be an addition on the part of the original
artist.

These merchant-ships were often of considerable size.
The Alexandrian ship (πλοῖον ᾿Αλεξανδρινόν ; Acts 27 6)
in which Paul is said to have started on his voyage to
Rome carried, according to the Alexandrian MS, 276
persons (the Vatican MS, however, has 76) in addition
to its cargo (v. 37); and when this vessel was wrecked
another merchant-ship took on board all these passengers
in addition to its own freight.

In Acts 2717 we are told that when the ship was in
danger of shipwreck ‘they used helps, undergirding the

᾿ ship" (βοηθείαις ἐχρῶντο, ὑποζων-
3. Undergirdera. Spore τὸ πλοῖον} These. helps,
which are called elsewhere hypozomata (ὑποζώματα)
were cables for undergirding and strengthening the hull,
especially în bad weather. ΑΒ to the method in which
they were attached, however, there is some question.

According to Torr they were ‘fastened round the ship hori-
zontaliy ; the two ends of each cable being joined together, so
as to make it a complete girdle extending from stem to stern
along the starboard side and back from stern to stem along the

sort side.’ Smith, however, contends that the hypozomata were

sound ‘round the middle of the ship at right angles to the length,
and not parallel to it (he is followed by Ramsay, p. 329)’ He
claims that Béckh (who held the alternative view ;? p. 134 [see
$ το} has misquoted the passage on which he relies as evidence
(Vitruvius, De Architectura, x. 156). Bòckh gave as the crucial
words ‘quemadmodum navis a puppi ad proram continetur.'
Smith (0) p. 213) gives as the correct text ‘qu 274/15 navis, οἷς, ᾽
which he mairitains supports his view (‘the word ‘Inalus” is
omitted in the edition of Schneider, but is retained in the
later carefully edited edition of Poleni, Utini, 1829’). Torr's
quotation (41; n. 100), however, agrees with that of Bockh; he
adds, “this shows that the girding cables went from the stem of
a ship to the stern’ In Teubner's text (1899; ed. V. Rose) the
words are ‘ita religati quemadmodum navi a puppi ad proram’;
but in the notes "πανί is given as the common reading. The
Whole passage, moreavero stems to be ohseure. On the
strength of a passage from Isidore (Orig. 194, ‘tormentum,
funis în navibus longis qui a prora ad puppim extenditur quo
magis constringantur ; tormentum autem a tortu dicta ", Smith
admits that ‘it does appcar that ropes were occasionally ap-
plied in a longitudinal as well as in a transverse direction, to
prevent ships from straining' (p. 213). lu the passage on which
this admission is based, however, the reference may be to a
rope such as that which we see stretched amidship over posts
from stem to stern of the Egyptian ships on the relief from
Deir-el-Bahri-a rope which was designed perhaps more for
strengthening the heavily-laden mast than for holding together
the hull, round which, as a matter of fact, the ends of the rope
are fastened at right ‘angles to the length (see fig. 1), If, as
Smith affirms (ρ. 214), —speaking as one who had had practical
experience in seamanship —undergirding lengthways is ‘a mode
which must have been as impracticable as it would have been

As to the date of AcTs (g.v.) no suggestion of course is here
offered.

1 A writer în Schenkel (BL) speaks of the artemor, or top-
gallant sail, but see Smith, 1927. ‘The word has been inter
preted by various writers as meaning nearly every sail which a
vessel carries.'—R. J. Knowling, Expos. GÉ, Test. 2.535.

È So also Breusing, Die Nawtik der Alten [1886], p. 6703
see Knowling, p. 524, who also inelines to follow Béckh.

4482

SHIP

unavaîling for the purpose of strengthening the ship, the other
view seems preferable until further evidence is forthcoming.
Another interesting representation of a large merchant-
ship is that of about 200 A.D.on a relief found at Porto
near the mouth of the Tiber (sce fig. 3).

τὸ πο This picture illustrates many features in ihe
Foce ancient merchant-ships. The hull of a ship

was commonty painted, sometimes for a
special purpose—as in war, to make the vessel as little
conspicuous as possible ; but in addition to this it was
often decorated, especially at the stern. We see an
example of this decoration in the Porto relief, a group
of figures being depicted at the stern. The ornament
©n the stern-post was often a swan or goose head
(xmviexos), It figures at a very early period; it is
represented for instance on the Asiatic ship of the naval
battle of Rameses III, as represented on a bas-relief
at Medinet Habu (see Warre-Cornish, Dick eg GA

FIG, 3—A merchant ship of about 200 A.p. After Torr (Ancient S4i55).

and Rom. Antigg. under ‘navis') On the Porto-
relief waling-pieces, or wooden belts {ζωστῆρες, not to
be confused with the ὑποξιόματα) are seen to encircle
the ship horizontally. At the stern is the deck-house
or awning reserved for the use of the commander
(Acts 2717, κυβερνήτης), who might also be the owner of
the ship {ἐδέά,, vasxAnpos). ‘The stem-post usually
terminated in a carved ornament or figure-head ; but in
piace of this there was sometimes a painting on the
bow, as in the example before us. Besides this, and
distinct from it, there were statues of the patron deities
{cp Castor); here perhaps to be observed at the
stern. In this ship there are galleries projecting at the
bow and the stern; the latter contains the deck-house
{mentioned above), in that at the bow were probably
stowed the anchors and other instruments (στροφεῖα
καὶ περιαγωγεῖς, windlasses, etc. ?). At the stern are
the steering oars, here again protected by the upper
waling- pieces, The large sail in the centre has brailing-
ropes (κάλοι) and rings, and the mast is kept in
position by a number of other ropes. The rope by
which the lower corner of the sail was attached to the
side of the ship—the sheet—was called fes veli or πούς ;
in the case of a large sail, such as this, when two ropes
would be required, πούς would denote the rope which
drew it aft, whilst πρόπους (#r0$e5) designated the rope
which drew it forward, or the tack. Various designs

4483

SHIPHTAN

were often woven upon the sail; we seem to have an
example in this picture. Αἱ the bow is a smaller
mast to carry the arfezzon. But a third sail is to be
noted on this ship. This is above the large square
sail. Being triangular in shape and having its base
along the main-yard and its apex attached to the
top of the mast, it requires no topsail-yard. Similar
triangular topsails are represented on some of the coins
of the Emperor Commodus. Lastly, we notice that a
small boat is being towed astern (cp Acts 27 16, ἢ σκάφη);
this would be used for various purposes, but it was of
special importance as a life-boat in case of shipwreck
(Acts 27 16 30 32). It could even be hoisted on board.!
From Acts 2729 it appears that sometimes several
anchors were carried. At first stones were
1L Auchore, used for this purpose ; later, the anchors
resemble very much those of modern
times, they were provided with arms, stocks, and
crowns, but had no flukes at the extremities of
the arms.?. Ships also carried a plumb-line for
sounding (cp Acts 27 28, Boàis); but the want
of a compass made navigation often very
dangerous—the stars, by which the course of
a vessel was directed, not always being visible
{cp Acts 27 20).3

An ancient ship could sail, according to Smith, at
an angle of about seven points with the wind, ‘We
have no information," he says, ‘as to the exact angle
with the wind which an ancient ship could sail. It
must, however, have been less than eight points,
but more than six, the usual allowance for a modern
merchant-ship, in moderate weather. I have, there-
fore, în my calculations taken seven as the mean be-
tween these extremes, and I cannot suppose it would
be much greater or less ’(p. 215).

Before putting out to sea it was usual to make
supplication to the protecting deities for a prosperous
voyage (Wisd. 14 r).4 Cp, further, Trape.

chiozer, Vers. einer allg. Geschichte di Handels
u. d. Schiffart in den alt. Zeîten, 1706; Le Roy,
inve La Marine des Anciens Peuples,

12. Biblio- 1777; Berghaus, Gescà. d. Schiffarts.

graphy.

kunde, 1792; A. Jal, Avchéologie

Navale, Paris, 1840; Bockh, Un
kunden tiber das Seewesen des Attischen Staatess
Smith, Voyage and Shipwreck of St, Paul, Lond.,
1848, (4) 1880; Breusing, Die Nautik der Alten,
1886; J. Vars, L’'Art Nautigue, 1887; EB0), art.
‘Ship’; Cecil Torr, Ancient Skips, 1895.

M. AC.

SHIPHI (ΡΞ), ancestor of Ziza (g.0.):

I Ch. 437} {cadaA [Β], ceder [A], co@er
[L]).

ἢ

SHIPHMITE (ὍΡΦ ; o τοὺ cepnleli [ΒΑ], ca-
dami [L]), a gentili attached to ZABDI, 3, who was
“over the increase of David's vineyards’ {x Ch. 27 27),
and, like his companions, presumably belonged to 8,
Palestine, See SHEPHAM,

SHIPHRAH (MDW, $51; cerrpwpa [BAFL]), the
name of one of the Hebrew midwives; Ex. lis. This
name may be regarded (Che.) as one of the minor sup-
ports of the theory that the sojourn of the Israelites was
not in Misraim (Egypt), but in Misrim (in part of the
Negeb). Cp Moses, $ 4.

SHIPHTAN (ΘῈ ; caBa@a [Β], caBagan [A].
capatan [F], (clapa@a [L]), an Ephramite, father

1 The above description is based upon Torr's standard work
(see $ 12).

2 See the coin of Antoninus Pius (given în Smith, 210).

8 Cp A. De Quatrefages, 07. ci£. p. 193: ‘The Polynesians
knew perfectly well how to direct their course at sea by the
stars, and the route from one point to another once observed
was Inscribed, if we may use the expression, in a song which
would never be forgotten.” .

4 Cp the description in Grote, Mist. gf Greece: ‘Silence
having been enjoined and obtained by sound of trumpet, both
the crews in every ship and the spectators on shore followed the
voice of the herald în praying to the gods for success, and in
singing the pasan. On every ship were seen bowls of wine
prepared and the epibata made libations with goblets of silver
and gold.”

4484

SHIRT

of Kemuel; Nu.3424. For a theory of the origin of
the name cp SHAPHAT, and KEMUEL,

SHIRT (Judg. 1412), AV", AV SHEET.

SHISHA (NUY, x K. 431), in x Ch.18 16, SHAv-
SHA.

SHISHAK (DEù*W, cp Vg. Sesac, 1K.1425, more
correcily PW? —:.e., Shoshak [Kt.]), the king of Egypt
to whom Jeroboam fled (τ K.1140) and who plundered
Jerusalem and the temple in the fifth year of king
Rehoboam, 1 K.1425 (2 Ch. 122579)!

Egyptologists have always recognised in this name
the first king of the twenty-second, Bubastide, dynasty,

Bofenk 1. Shoshenk I. His personal name Sa-ia-x
1. Sosenk IL (sometimes 72, sometimes assimilated)-£2
is undoubtedly of Libyan etymology, like several other
names of that royal family. The vowels of the name
are rendered Sw-si-in-&u (i.e, Shoshenk} by the
Assyrians,3 and the biblical orthography confirms this
pronunciation. Josephus (4%. vii.53 vili. 102) has the
form Zovraros (in another recension Zirwkos) after (5.
Manetho transliterates Σεσῶγχις (var. Σεσωγχασις),
and according to Wilcken (quoted Zeit. sur Assyr.
1351) a Theban ostracon has the name Σέσογχσι." This
vocalisation Sheshénk is later but not necessarily wrong,
as the Libyan languages (like modern French, for
example) have little or no accent. The original pro-
nunciation may thus have been Skdskdré, exactly as
the name is βρεῖς in Egyptian. The assimilation of x is
sometimes met with already in hieroglyphics (cp above).
The reading of &, Σουσακίε)εμ, seems to have arisen
from an attempt to put in again this assimilated 7.5

On the origin of this founder of a new dynasty from
a family of Libyan officers, see EcyPr, $ 63.6 The
connection by marriage with the high priests of Memphis
seems to mark the first step towards high influence for
these ‘commanders of the Mashanasha.' The exact
date of Shoshenk I.'s accession to the throne would be
of the highest importance for biblical chronology,
but cannot be determined exactly with our present
material The end of the twenty-second dynasty
seems to falì somewhat after 800 B.C. Manetho gives
the sum of the dynasty as 120 {the single items amount
to 116), which would bring us to about 920; but the
Manethonian dates conflict with monumental dates
which give at least 220 years.” We have, evidently, a
great many co-regencies for which we may allow some
fifty years, so that the beginning of Shoshenk's reign
would be about 950,

More cannot be said ; but, fortunately, the Tyrian chronology
in Menander 8 seems to show that we can place the first year of
dynasty twenty-two after 950 B.c. (On the campaign against
Jerusalem, cp below, δ 3, and CHronoLoGY, $ 32). Twenty

one yenrs are monumentally attested for Shoshenk on an inscrip-
tion in the quarries of Silsileh, announcing that the king ordered

1 See PHaRAH, $ 2 [5], for an explanation of the absence of
the title Pharaoh in the caseof Shishak ; that he is onîy called
‘king of Egypt, indicates a very early source.

3 In ASur-bani-pal’s records the name is used of a descendant
of the zend dynasty, reigning in Busiris (4%--77) as a simple
nomarch.

4 Pseudo-Callisthenes and others (see Wiedemann on Herod,
2 102) have preserved the name as Sesonchosis. They confound
the king with the fabulous Sesostris. We can thus see that
Sheshonk-Sesonchosis must later have enjoyed che reputation of
being a great warrio:

3 The variant Sa-fa-#(e)-* occurs, but too rarely to be con-
sidered legitimate (see Lieblein, Dick. de #07s) Wiedemann,
Gesch. Ax. 548, quotes Skesakus from Abulfarag, Asochezs (as
also some late MSS. of Josephus have) from Method, in Phot.

00 ὅ.

6 The unfortunate theory that the family was Assyrian (Birch,
Lauth, Brugsch) and that în Takelot we have to recognise
Tiglath (Assyrian tw&re2tu), in Ne-ma-ra-te (probably A%ur
bani-pal's Lamzinty furnishes the correct pronunciation) Nimrod,
etc., is now generally abandoned.

7 See MVAG 5 31, fora summary ofthe chronological question.

+8 See Wi, KA TR) 120,

4485

SHISHAK

stone to be quarried for great constructions in the temple of
Amon at Thebes, These seem to be the constructions on the
SE. side of the second pylon; their completion would point
to a somewhat longer reign. Manetho, however, in Julius
Africanus, gives only twenty-one years to the king.

Seulptures on the S. wall of the great temple at
Karnak present the list of Palestinian cities conquered
by this king, a monument of great historical import-
ance, for a specimen of which sec EGYPT, $ 64. So far,
133 ovals with names are known,® of which, however,
many are destroyed. Each oval is surrounded by a
line indicating a fortified wall; a bound captive above
indicates that this strong city was conquered by Pharaoh.
The figures are certainly not portraits, but symbolical.
The names have been distributed very awkwardly
by the ignorant sculptor; e.g., one name has been
mechanically divided into three names, so that now
{107) ‘the fields {108} of Arad (109) the Great' reads
as if three separate cities were intended, The render-
ing of the names, which is good for the consonants, but
very imperfect for the vowels, suggests sources in so-
called Phoenician letters in an Aramaie or half-Aramaic
language (45. x. £wr. /lc.). A geographical arrange-
ment of the list (which properly begins only with the

2. List of x1th oval) cannot be established ; the most
cities. important cities come first, Israelitish and
Judaan names being freely mixed. Many
writers have been surprised at the mention of N. Israel
ite cities, because from 1K.1148 we should have ex-
pected Shoshenk to have been a friend and belper of
Jeroboam.8 C. Niebuhr (Ckronologie der Gesch. Isr.,
vii.) thinks that the Pharaoh conquered the Israelitish
cities for his vassal (cp Wi. G/1:60); cp, however,
Stade's correct observation in G/ 1354. The truth is (see
Masp. Mist. 2774, and cp As. κι Eur. 166) that it is not
necessary to assume that any of these northern cities
were attacked by the Egyptians. Their enumeration
merely means that the northern kingdom was tributary;
it is only the second half of the list which contains details
pointing to the actual conquest,4 and these seem to belong
to Judah. ‘The tribute, which the Pharaoh claimed
everywhere, was promptly given by Jeroboam who owed
his throne to Egypt ; in Judah it had to be exacted by
force. The Philistine cities were omitted in the list.
As usual, no full record of the conquesis was given, but
only a specimen which, in this case, comprised David's
and Solomon's kingdom, The Philistines were certainly
not exempt from the tribute, and it would be strange if
the expedition had not comprised Pheenicia, at least.5

The date of Shoshenk's expedition is unknown.
Maspero’s conclusion (st 2773) that it must have
been not more than two or three years before the
opening of the quarry in Silsileh, is very precarious,
It would be more natural to assume that the king
undertook the expedition not long after his accession,

1 Published Rosellini, fox. Sfor. 148; Champollion, Afors-
muents, 284; Notices, 2113; a revision by Maspero, Rec. de
Travaux,T 00. A considerable literature has been called into
existence by this list See Blau in ZDA/G 15233; Brugsch,
Geogr. Insckr. 2.56; Masp. AZ, 1880, 44 (and în the Pictoria
Institute, vol. xxvil.); Brugsch, Gesc&. Aeg. 66r; WMM ds.
w. Eur. 166, etc. It may be mentioned that another copy, un-
fortunately hopelessly defaced, has recentìy been found in
another locality (Hibeh in Upper Egypt); cp Armales dx service
des antiguités, 2134.

2 Two more rows have recently been excavated. Α new
edition of the whole monument by the present writer will soon
Appear in MVAG, to which the reader must be referred.

According to & of 1 K. 12 24, which is modelled on 1 K.11
(ee Hanap), Shishak was Jeroboam's father-in-law.

4 Such as the ‘surrounding’ (pn, Aramaic word) of, or the
road to, a city.

5 Name 29, Vu-dA4-mra-rek was explained by Champollion
as ‘roi de Juda'and this error which seemed to furnish a
portrait of Rehoboam has become as popular as most flagrant
errors. The present writer has (584 1081) proposed
‘hand (i.e., sign, monument ?) of the king,’ as name of a city.
The article would, however, be uncommon, and this makes the
explanation somewhat doubiful. The interpretation of Brugsch
(Geogr. Insckr. ii.62) and Maspero (Z7ist.() 2, Il), Jehud în
Dan, does not agree with the orthography.

4486

SHITRAI

after the manner of so many kings. A reference to
'expeditions in the countries of the Syrians' (f-£2%),
which seems to mean Shoshenk's campaign, is discussed
in OLZ4280; a determination of the year in which a
certain official was governor of Thebes (or vizir) would
farnish the date of the expedition.

The other constructions of the king of which traces have been
found in ‘Thebes, Memphis, Pithom, Tell) el. Yehodeh,i
Bubastus (Nuville, BuZastis, 46), Hibeh (see above) do not
Seem to have been very considerable.

Shishals wife had the name f4-7-‘-mta, frequent in dynasty
22. At any rate, 1K.1119 need not be referred to, since
Hadad's exile in Misraim seems rather to point to an old mis»
interpretation of Musri, 8. of Palestine, See HADAD, 35
JEROBOAN, 1} SOLOMON. W. MM.

The study of the historical episodes with which the name of
Shishak is connected has passed into a new phase owing to

Winckler's discovery of the N. Arabian land of
3. Shishak= Musri in a number of passages in the OT (see

Cushi? Wincklcr, in 4718) 146/, and for a fuller,

though still incomplete, list of OT references,
Mizra1m, $ 24). Already in 1898 (MVAG, 1898, 1, pp. 14 /;
cp G/2269 /. [1900]) this scholar pointed out the
ty of the view that Jeroboam fled not to Egypt but to
Mose, and in 1899(/0£, July, see especially 558-560, and cp
Jerosoam, 1) Cheyne discussed at length and în their connec-
tion the references to pp in the accounts of Solomon and
Jeroboam, In 1902 (ΛΑ ΤΙ 243, cp GZ1160) Winckler re-
affirmed the view of C. Niebuhr that Shishak conquered N.
Israel for Jeroboam, adding that even if Jeroboam took refuge
in Mugri, not in Egypt, it was natural for a Pharaoh to
favour the plans of Jeroboam on the principle divide ef impera.
He remarks, however, that Egyptian supremacy in Palestine
did not last long; the mutual enmity of Israel and Judah drove
them into the arms of their stronger neighbours, Tyre and
Damascus, He still holds chat ‘Shishak'in τ K.114o is an
interpolation (so also Che. /0X, Ze.) Unfortunately there
are four not altogether insignificant objections to this view.

There is much evidence in the OT for the view that N,

Arabian potentates were constantly interfering in the affairs of
Palestine in the regal period, whilst most probably there is no
evidence (cp SoLomon, 4 5/7) that Egypt even occasionally
interfered, until we come to the time of Neco and Apries, and
even in the case of these kings there is room for doubt whether
the Hebrew editor has not fallen into misunderstandings.

2. If ‘king of pu’ means ‘king of Misrim* in 1 K.114o,
the presumption Îs that it has the same meaning in 1 K.14251
we can hardly doubt that the invasion of Judab there referred
t9 has some connection with the plot which Jerobvam batched
in Misrim during his sojourn there.

3. The fortresses built by Rehoboam, according to 2 Ch.
1158-10, were most probably intended to guard against a N.
Arabian invasion (see REHOB0AM).

4. Froma text-critical point of view it is difficult to doubt
that pery (MT) and pprny (6 σουσάκειμ) are corruptions of
25 and WAI respectively. They belong to well-ascertained
types of textual corruption (cp Crif. 856, on Is. 6620 Zech, 1415
where pip comes from 12, and see SHesHacH, SHasnak), In
2 Ch, 12 3 (‘the Lubim, the Sukkiim, and the Cushites*) the
second of the three ethnics is no ethnic at ali (but cp Sukkum);
D'ona was written the first time pro (cp Am. 97). bv15 should
be onb—ie., probably p-153 (the people of the southern Gilead
{Jer.8 22 and often. We may, therefore, hold that, whether or
no Shoshenk [. really invaded Palestine, the event which îs
recorded ἴῃ 1 K.1425 and 2 Ch.122 9-12 is a N. Arabian
invasion, such as is referred to in 2 Ch. 149. Shishak and
covrare both represent vgn3 ‘Cushi,' a name such as might
appropriately be given to a king of Misrim, It is just possible
that the redactor had heard of an Egyptian invasion by Shoshenk
(cp Puaraox, 82 [5]); but no pres can safely be laid upon
this. W.M.M. 8 1; T.K.C. 8 3.

SHITRAI (101272) Κι, NOW Καὶ ἃ acaptaic [Β],
catpai [AL], Pesh. follows Kr.), a Sharonite, superin-
tendent of Solomon's herds în Sharon; τ Ch. 2729. Kr.
‘Shirtai' is probably right; the name (like SHAPHAT,
which follows) comes from ‘nous, ‘ Zarephathite.'

τ΄ κισ.

SHITTAH-TREE (NOE; mryZoc [Sym. akApiton
ξγλον, Theod. axan@a], Is. 4119), RV 'acacia-tree,”
and Shittim wood, RV "acacia wood” (DDD *SP.zyAa
ΔΟΗπτὰ, Ex. 25510 and often, Dt.103). Originally
Sintah; borrowed from Ar. sont; Egypt. $ef (perhaps
send) ‘may very possibly be also a loan-word*
(Erman, ZDMG, 1892, p. 120). Mentioned in Is.,
i.c., between the cedar and the myrtle in a list of choice
trees (see Jerome's comment), and used, accordmg to Dt.

1 Enumerated by Wiedemann, GA 550.
4487

SHOA

(but interpolation is probable) in the construction of
the ark, to which P in Ex. adds staves, boards, bars,
table, pillars, altars in the tabernacle. It is perhaps
too much to say with Tristram that the Acacia seyé/
must be meant. It is true ‘the timber {of that tree] is
very hard and close-grained, and admirably adapted for
fine cabinet work® {(/V4/2 39). But Tristram's remark
that this is ‘the species of Acacia found' in the Arabian
desert is not borne cut by Doughty who writes thus
(Ar. Des. 2gx):

“The eyes of the Aarab distinguish four kinds of the desert
thorns; 40% (the gum-acacia), sdmmare, sillima, and sidla;
the leaves of them all are like [z.e., small and pinnate], but the
growth is diverse. The desert smiths cut {6tk-timber for their
wood work, it is heavy and tough; the other kinds are too
brittle to serve them," Elsewhere (2 678) he states that the /474-
timber is used for shipbuilding on the Arabian Red Sea coast.
It must be difficult to those who are not ‘Aarab'’ to distinguish
the 207% (f9/4) from the seyd/, and both from the sant.

Several species of acacia, including the seyé/ and the
sant, are found, says Tristram, in the Holy Land
to-day ; probably all bore the same Heb. name Jiffe£
—i.e., the ‘ prickly' or ‘thorny tree’ (Theod. ἄκανθα).

The sant (Acacia vera, Mimosa Nilotica) grows both
in Lower and in Upper Egypt, as Hasselquist long ago
stated (Travels, 250). Robinson found it in Palestine
in the western part of the Wady es-Sant, where perhaps
formerly it was more abundant, since it has given
its name to the Wady. The seyd/ too is abundant
not only in Arabia {though less so, doubtless, than
formerly), but also near En-gedi, where these trees form
a characteristic feature of the landscape.

‘They are trees of middle height, gnarled, with conspicuous
branches, which form a head like a parasol, covered with light,
elegant, and beautifylly green leaves. The gum-arabic exudes
from them in the autumn, at the base of the trunk, between the
crevices of the bark, and coagulates in ‘tears’ as large as a

bazel-nut, of a pale yellow colour, and almost transparent’
(Lortet, La Syrîs d'aufourd'Ini, 11%).

The golden-headed tufts of blossom are much admired
(Tristram, Lord of Israel, 489). The seydl is "less
dependent on moisture than the palm, though certainly
iis finest specimens are found hear springs' (E. H.
Palmer, Sinai, 39). All these trees have painful thorns;
‘happy I was, in those often adventures of night travel-
ling in Arabia, never to have hurt an eye’ (Doughty,
Ar. Des. 2ags). The species to which they belong
includes more than 400 varieties, found in the dry, hot
regions of Asia, Africa, and Australia (Delitzsch, in
Riehm, #WB166). Sce also ABEL-SHITTIM; BETH-
SHITTAH; ELAH, VALLEY OF; MULBERRY-TREES.

τ΄ κι.

SHITTIM (Ὠ 20), Νὰ, 251, εἴς. See ABEL-

SHITTIM; ELAH, VALLEY OF, col. 1253.

SHIZA (K*#; possibly a battered clan-name ; but
cp NI, the name of a Palmyrene family [Mordtmann,
Neue Beitràge sur Kunde Palmyras, Munich, 1875,
no. 55]), father of ADINA [g.0.], 1 Ch. 1142 (carza [B],
ceza [N], ceya [A], ciza: [L]).

SHOA (1? ; coye [ΒΟ], coyA [A]; Aq. τύραν-
vor; Vulg. fyrannos ; Pesh. reads ἐμά), the name of
a people, mentioned beside Koa, whose seats were not
far from Babylonia {Fzek. 2323). Delitzsch identifies it
with Sutù, which occurs often in the cuneiform inserip-
tions beside Kutu (see Koa). A shorter and more
original form is Su, whence the Hebrew form Shoa'
The country of the Su or Sutil lay on the Tigris, and
extended as far as the southern declivities of the Medo-
Elamite mountains (Del. Par. 235). On the dangers
to which Babylonia was exposed from the incursions of
the Suti, see Sargon's Khors. inseription, 1135. (KP
273). Ezekiel's list of names, however, has to be
eriticised before we can venture on identifications. How
can ‘all the Assyrians’ be said to accompany the Sutù
and the Kutu? PEKOD (7.v.) gives the key. The
three names are-—Rehoboth, Ishmael {me], and Jerah-
meel; and the ‘b’ne Asshur‘ are the people of Ashhur
{almost= Terahmeel). See Crif. δὲδ. T.K.C. ,

4488

SHOBAB

SHOBAB (3310, cowBaB. as if ‘ backsliding,” but see
below). 1, One of the sons of DAvID [8 1a, n. 2, 8
11, n.](25.514: σωβαδαν [A], ἐεσσεβαν [L]; 1 Ch. 85:
σωβαν [B]; 144: ἰσοβοαμ [B], σωβηβ [L]). SHARAR
in 25.23334 should perhaps be Shobab; cp HARAR-
ITE, 3.

2. A descendant of Caleb and Azubah (τ Ch.2:8:
«ἀσουβ [B], σουβαβ {L]}.

The names of David's sons evidently spring from ethnics,
seggeBav and ἰσοβοαμ point to byaertze., Saynen, ‘Ishmael'
(cp some of @'s readings under Îsusaa, JASKOBEAM). This
«explanation suits both 1 and 2. Cp Crif. Bi4. cn prime» Jer.
506. The theories suggested under AzuBAH refer, on the whole,
to MT. T.K.C.

SHOBACH (©2Î%), captain of the army of Hadad-
ezer who was defeated and slain by David at Helam
{2 5.1016-18: ρωβὰκ [BA], [σαβ. Au. 18], caBee [L]),
His name appears in 1 Ch, 1916-18 as SHOPHACH (350%,
σωφαρ, capa? [B], ἐσωῴαρ [N*], -ax [N°#"], σωφαχ,

σωβαχ [A], σωφακ [L]).
If Hadad-ezer was really king of Musur, and not of Zoba (see
Zona), ‘Helam' (ob, rS"n) will be a corruption of Jerahme'el

Sx5r9), and ‘Shobach' (37212) connected with M2B°, Isunan
Cp SHosek. T. K. Ὁ,

BHOBAI (3 ; δβδου, caBei [B], οωβδι, caBai
{A and Nin Neh.], cwBai [L]). A family of ΝΈΤΗΙΝΙΜ
{g.v.] in the great post-exilic list (see EZRA ii., $ 9),
Ezra 242 Neh. 745 = 1Esd.528; AV SAMI, RV SABI
(σαβει [A], σωβαι [L], Bom., unless τωβεις represents
this name), If the Nethinim are Ethanite families (see
SOLOMON'S SERVANTS), ‘aw will come from var (as
often from base»). It was an Ishmaelite—i.e, Jerah-
meelite—family. Cp. SHUBL T.K.C.

SHOBAL (2312, probably related to Ishmael, cp
Ashbel, Ishbaal hardly ‘young lion," as WRS /ourz.
Phil, 9g0 [see Gray, ΡΝ 109), οωβὰλ [BADEL]}, b.
Seir, a Horite (Gen. 36202329 [σωβαρ E] 1 Ch. 13840;
coyB4A [L in Ch.j). Another genealogical scheme
{cp GENEALOGIES i., $ 5) represents him as son of
Hur (which, as it happens, may be shortened from
Ashhurfite] or from Jerahmeellite]), and of Calebite
origin (1 Ch.250, σωβα[ρῚ [BL]), and since the name
‘Caleb’ may also plausibly be traced to ‘Jerahmeel,”
and Judah was represented by legend (see JUDAH, $ 3)
as partly Jerahmeelite, it is natural to find Shobal
appearing also as a sor of Judah (1 Ch.41, σουβαλ
[BA]. The name Shobal is also perhaps to be
identified with SHUBAEL [g.v.]. Turning to 1 Ch. 252
(σωβα[1.}}, we find that whiîst one of Shobal's sons
{Haroeh} appears at first sight to bear a personal name,
all the rest bear gentilic names. The presumption is

SHOES

Salma(i.e., Bethlehem), @ found vv. 52/7 unintelligible,
and copied slavishiy, but Pesh, ceases at ©. 52 with an
©bscure enumeration of the sons of Shobal in Kirjath-
jearim, thus omitting the sons of Salma [v. 54] and the
motice of the Kenites [v. 556]. The latter notice is enig-
matical. ‘We are perhaps meant to trace a connection
between the Kenites and ‘Salma’ {see SALMAH, 2). It
may be added that Hammath (so ΕΝ, following MT)
is very possibly miswritten for ngyo, Maachath (but cp

HEMATH). T. K. C.

SHOBEK (PI; coBHk [BRA] cwBeip [L]).
signatory to the covenant (see EzRA i, $ 7); Neh.
1024 [25]. Cp SHOBACH.

SHOBI (2, sce on SHosAI), son of Nahash, of
Rabbath-ammon, who brought supplies to David at
Mahanaim (2 5. 1727: oyecBei [BA], cepeei [L]:
Pesh. reads 'Abishai' [which is a corruption of
*Ishmael '), cp ZErRUIAH). The combination of this
enigmatical member of the Ammonite royal family
with a Machir, whose real existence is certainly not
proved by the reference in 25.94f, and an old
Gileadite who bears the difficult name Barzillai, and
whose son bears the equally doubtful name Chimham,
and both of whom are introduced again in a narrative
of stronglyromantic appearance, suggestscritical caution.
It is too slight a remedy to omit ‘son of Nahash' as an
incorrect gloss (We. 7.8.5 201 n.). The verse is largely
made up of corrupt variants and glosses, and the genuine
kernel probably is, 'And it came to pass... that
Jerahmeel, son of Jonathan, the Gilgalite’ where
“Jerahme'el” corresponds to 'Shobi' [ishmael; see
below], Machir to '[son of] Ammiel," ‘Jonathan’ to
'Nahash,' and ‘Gilgalite’ to ‘Gileadite.’ ‘The words
‘ Rabbath of the b'ne Ammon’ are a corruption of
τ Rehoboth-jerahmeel." See, further, MEPHIBOSHETH,
NaHasH, RogELIM, But cp AMMoN, $ 4 (end),
and HPSm., 24 Voc., for attempts to explain MT.

S. A. Cook (A/SZ 18 164,f [1900] proposes to read w3% for
spe, and to omit 15 as a later insertion consequent on the corrupt
reading (‘and Nahash, etc., brought’). It îs better from our
present point of view to read bgaz RIN; RIN easily fell out
before gag, which form, being intermediate between ‘3g and

Sym», may once have taken the place of tap.
T.K.C.

SHOCHO (RV Soco), 2 Ch. 2818; SHOCHOH (Εν
Socoh) 15.17:, and SHOCO (ΕΝ Soco) 2 Ch. 117.

* See SocoH.

that Haroeh also is gentilic, and when we see the name :

under the form Reaiah (41) we cannot doubt that it
is a shortened form of ‘Jerahmeel.' This Haroeh, or
{better} Reaiah, is said to be the ‘father’ of Kirjath-
jearim, and there is now plausible historical evidence
for the view that Kirjath-jearim is a corruption of
Kirjath-jerahmeel (that is to say, the place was origin-
ally a Jerahmeelite settlement). To this place four
familjes are assigned (253). ‘Their names, however,
have come down to us în a corrupt form. They appear
to be partly parallel to the three ‘families’ of Kirjath-
sepher (i.e, Kirjath-sar&phathim), given, according
to the most probable reading, in 255. ‘Ithrites' may
correspond to ‘Tirathites' (where an old tribal name
Jether [cp ITHRITES] may be suspected); ‘Shumath-
ites' to ‘Shimeathites’ (cp Simeon); ‘Puthites' may
come from ‘ Perathites' (Perath or Ephrath was an im-
portant name in the Negeb); ‘Mishraites’ (like ‘ Zorath-
ites’?) reminds us of the ‘Misrites," a race akin to the
Jerahmeelites (sce Crit. 248.) ‘The MANAHETHITES
[g.v.] and Zorites or Zorathites {see ZoRAH) are reckoned
{if the text is correct) partly to Shobal and partly to

1 So partiy Winckler (G/ 2185, τι. 3). That ‘Puthites'=a
clan called ‘ Peleth* is improbabile. Sce PeLETHITES.

4489

SHOES, Under this heading ît will be convenient
to take note of alì coverings for the feet whether sandals,
Μ shoes, or boots, so far as they were
1. Introduction. Lnown among the early Hebrews.

This treatment ἴ in fact necessary on account of the ill-deined
usè of the varicus termsto denote coverings of this nature. The

term “sandal’ is usually applied τὸ a foot-covering consisting
simply of a sole bound on with thongs, but ἦτ was also fied on,

: andso the word îs roughly used by @ to denote the nd°2/(5713, see

$ 3), the ordinary Hebrew term. The Gk. ὑπόδημα (lit., ‘that
which is bound wrder [the foot]') originally denoted a sandal;
but it came to be applied to the Roman calcens (a shoe covering
the whole foot), and is used by Josephus (4 vi. 1 8) of the calig&
(the thick shoe, studded with nails, worn by Roman soldiers).

Coverings for the feet have not always formed a
regular part of the clothing of the Oriental. Primarily,
of course, everything depended upon the climate and
the nature of the country, Upon the Assyrian monu-
ments the warriors are not unfrequently barefooted, and
many of the royal statues are totaliy devoid of any
covering for the foot. In Egypt sandals were not in
use before the fifth dynasty, their introduction was
gradual, and their popularity a work of time; ‘they
were, when off the feet, sometimes carried by an
attendant, showing that they were not always worn"
(Wilk. Arc. Eg. 2336 n.).

1 Examples of such extensions of usage could be easily multi-
plied (e.g., Talm. gp, boot; ‘pin, breeches). A shoe corre.

sponding with the calice is evidently referred to in δ λαό. 604
In Syr., na'lé and its denominative are used of horse-shoes.

4499

SHOES

Examples of the ordinary sandals abound (for Egypt,

see δ. cit. 2, figs. 443 f.), and are represented

3; upon the oldest monuments depict-

2. Eutration8 ing inmabitants of Sardinia (WMM

monmmonte, «1 x. Lr. 374), Cilicia (6. 340/.),

| "Western Asia Minor (15. 364 £.), etc.

They vary from a mere sole bound with a thiong, to

elegant and elaborate shoes of the richest ornamenta-

tion, and are variously made of such materials as palm-

leaves, and papyrus talks (Egypt), linen (Phoenicia),
and leather (Assyria, etc).!

In Assyria the simplest and most common variety
consists of a sole with back and sides bound to the foot
by two bands over the instep (see Perrot-Chipiez, 474
in Chald., etc., 176), at times a third band crosses the
toes, and is, again, sometimes connected with the straps
over the instep.2 In a painting on stucco from Nimrid
(op. cit.,2, pl. xiv.), the sandals are coloured black, the
straps yellow. A more serviceable and not uncommon
variety is seen to advantage in the foot-gear of A$ur-bàni-
pal's followers (05. cit, 1145, 2, opp. p. 138). Over a
kind of tight-fitting bandage enveloping the leg is a boot
reaching mid-way up the back of the calf, the uppers
being connected by straps. Similar straps are interlaced
from the top of the boot (top-lacings ?) and appear to be
held up by a garter worn just below the knee.® A third
important variety is seen in the turned-up boot, a charac-
teristic feature of the Hittites (cp Perrot-Chipiez, Art ix
Iudea, 2, fig. 282, and passim), a good example of
which is seen in the representation of one of Afur-nasiz-
pal's vassals at Nimrùd (47% ἐν Ass. 2, fig. 64). Finaliy,
from the Egyptian monuments, we perceive that the
Bedouins of the Sinaitic peninsula customarily went bare-
footed (as is common at the present day, see Doughty,
Ar. Des. 1224) ; on the occasion of long journeys, how-
ever, they appear to have worn a sandal of black leather,
the females, on the other hand, being depicted with a
sort of boot, reaching to the ankle, of red leather with a
white border.

From a consideration of these circumstances and our
knowledge of the statues of the earliest Hebrews, we may
suspect that they, too, at first, were unaccustomed to
wear shoes save în travelling (cp Ex. 1211 Dt.295 Josh.
9.5 13),4 although the fact that, in later times, to go bare-
footed {z.e., to revert to the older practice) was looked
upon as a deprivation and as a manifestation of griet
(Is.202-4 Ezek. 241723, cp 2S.1530) shows that the
custom of wearing shoes soon became firmly established.

Shoes or sandals are frequently mentioned.

The ordinary term is κά αἴ, ὍΣ (V/to confine,

8. Heb. &nd shut in) ΕΥ̓͂ shoe, but ΕΥ̓͂ ‘sandals’in Cant.

Gk. terms. 712], 6 ὑποδήματα frequentiy, and σανδάλια,

in Josh.95 1s.202. Both occur in the NT,

ὑποδήματα, Mt.311 1010 Mk.17 etc. (EV “shoes’), and car-
δάλια, Mk.69 Acts128 (EV ‘sandals’) Vg. has both cascea-
menta and sandalia. ln the Mishna the term for a shoemaker
is bo Ἰῦκ κι] the word ‘sandal’ had become naturalised. The
strap by' which the sandal is bound under the foot is called în
biblica! Hebrew 3594, i (σφαιρωτήρ ; and ἱμάς, with which
cp Mk. 17 eto.)or 42%, mr (σπαρτίον), ‘thread’ (see, for both,
Gen. 14 23). Once, according to most moderns (e.g., Ges.-Buhl,
Siegfr.-Stade, Di.-Kittel's /s., Duhm, Kautzsch), who follow

1 Leather shoes are referred to în Ezek. 16 τὸ (vinin by, ὅδ
ὑάκιθον ; see BADGERS' SKINS (5]).

2 One is reminded of the Roman solez where the thong passes
between the great and the second toe and is fastened to another,
the liezla,

3 Especially curious are the swathes and bandages covering
the foot of Marduk-nadin-abe (σή. cit, 2, fig. 43). Atthe present
day the shepherds οἱ Palestine wear rongli simple shoes (cp
Conder, Tenkvore, 2281) with leather gaiters covering the calf
of the leg, on accountof the rocks and thorns among which they
climb. The a552424% (nîmsn, 18.176, ‘greaves’) of Goliath
may have been similar; see GreavES.

4 Josh. 93 affords the interesting phrase nigbupi niba nibyx
‘shoes, worn out, and patched.”

5. min'&l, bys5, Dt 8825AV, RVmg. ‘shoes'(506) is properly

‘bars'(RV, Dr., Steuernagel, etc.), cp wen'22, Dipao, Neh.83,
Cant. ὅ 5.

4491

SHOES

Kimhi, there is mention of the military ‘boot.’ This is in Is,
95 [4] where RYme. offers the reading, ‘for every boot of the
booted warrior,' etc. This view of the meaning is supported
by a reference to Ass.,3 Syr., and Eth, parallels. Ît is unknown,
however, to the old exegetical tradition, which, so far as ît pre-
supposes ΠΝῸ (or some word like it), supports the rendering
‘tamult” a if ing); see Vg., Pesh., Sym,, also Rashi, Ibri
Ezra, AV (‘battle’), one part of which probably supports the
rendering ‘armour,’ the other ‘tumult.’ [&"s πᾶσαν στολὴν
ἐπισυνηγμένην δόλῳ possibly represents pWI3 pon jomb3. Vg.,
Pesh., Sym., also Rashi, and Ibn Ezra explain fiv, ‘tumult."]
AV (‘battle’) favours the latter view; RV the former.2 Our
right course is perhaps to compare patallel descriptions of the
abolition of war elsewhere (e.g., Ps. 469 [10]). So at any rate
Cheyne, who rejects [wp altogether, and, finding other improb.
abilities in the text of Is, 94 [5], proposes a possible reconstruction
(SBOT, "Isa.; δ).

There are many references to the shoe in the OT

which have a close relation to important Hebrew customs,
4. Hebrew but the Hebrew and even the Greek text
customs SOmetimes requires close preliminary in-
references ‘estigation. (a) We notice first the com-
to the shoe. mand to Moses to draw off his shoes? when
on holy ground {Ex. 35, cp I2x1 Josh.
515). This supplies a trace of a primitive taboo, to which
those who assisted at religious festivals, especially in the
sacred dance or procession {cp DANCE, $$ 2-6), were
subject.4 ‘Tunics and the like were washed to avoid
this taboo. In Egypt, too, we find that the priests
frequently took off their sandals when officiating in the
temple. Οἱ the other hand, a worshipper such as Afur-
nasir-pal offers a libation still wearing them (Perrot-
Chipiez, “γέ în Chald,, etc., 2 fig. 113). The Talmud
says ( Vèbamoth, 63) that no one was allowed to approach
the temple with staff, shoes, purse, or dirt on the feet,"

(3) Next, we have to deal with an obscure reference
in Ps. 608 [10] 1089 [10]. We know from Ruth 47 (see
below) that drawing off the shoe meant giving up a legal
right. May we assume from Ps, Zc., that casting a
shoe on a piece of land was the sign of taking possession
ofit? Rosenmilller (see Delitzsch's commentary) quotes
an Abyssinian custom of this sort; Delitzsch and Baethgen
follow him. Others (see RVm2-) think that Edom is here
represented as a slave to whom the shoe is cast, that he
may carry it.8 But this is forced; and the reference to
Moab as a ‘washpot’ being at least equally strange, it
may be necessary to suppose corruption of the text (sce
Che, Psa/ms), The idiom which the psalmist would
have used, had he wished to describe the Awmiliation
of a conquered country, would have been ‘upon Edom
will I place my feet,' or the like (cp Josh. 1024). Wilkin-
son (2326) gives a picture of a captive in the lining of
an Egyptian sandal, depicting the humiliating condition
considered suited to the enemies of the country.

(ὦ In the MT of Am. 26 and 86 a ‘pair of sandals,”
which, niade in a few minutes, would be dear at a penny,
would seem to be proverbial for something of small
value.7 But the parallel clause has ‘for money"; Ὁ 82
may not be the correct reading.

It is true that it is supported by 7 5,12 3 [8 and Ecclus. 46 τοῦ
& Lat., which agree in representing Samuel as too honourahle
to accept even ὑποδήματα (Sandals) as a bribe. But no doubt

1 On Ass. dere, ‘shoe’ (the ideogram means ‘road-leather 9),
see Del. Ass. 7778, s.v., and Haupt on “Isa” Ze., in 07;

“Isa. (Heb.), 88.

i Hitzig Sepports the rendering ‘armour' by che Syr. ha!
*weapon.

5. The verb used is σὴ, elsewhere nigi in Ruth 477, and pbr
in De, 259 Is.202.

4 See WRS Rel. Sem.) 453: We. Heid.®) 110.

δ Analogies from Crete and Rhodes are cited by Frazer, Paws.
5202, Conversely, on the occasion of ceremonial sacrifices the
worshippers or initiated members are shod in slippers made of
the skin of the victim. W.R. Smith (Rel Sez. 438) cites
such a case from a late Syrian rite, and Greek and Roman
analogies are quoted by Frazer, Ze, It is somewhat remarkable
that the Levitical law is silent on the matter of the priest's shoes,
and interesting also is the silence of the Roman rubrics.

8 So Hupf. Riehm. Cp Με ὅτι, In Egyptian paintings
servants are represented performing this menial duty.

7 So tis' (rum soleaà, in the Arabic poets (G. Jacob, Alt-
avab, Parallelen, 17); cp also Goldziher, ΖΑ 7 296. (1892).

4492

SHOES

4g) (which these versions presuppose, and which the Heb, text
of Ecclus. actually has) is a corruption of DIS (Mic. 7 3), which
must have been the original reading in τ 5. 124 [Che.}.1

{d) We have already alluded to Ruth 47 f (see 5).
“A man pulled off (nb) his shoe,’ we read, ‘and gave
it to his neighbour' to indicate transference of rights.
Hoffmann (ΖΑ ΤῊΝ 398) explains that the shoe, being
part of the seller's attire, was passed on to the buyer as
an attestation of his right. Cp RUTH, and for an
Arabian parallel, references in TRADE, $ 82€ 2 {5}.

(e) Similarly, in the ceremony for freeing the husband's
brother from the duty of the levirate marriage (Dt. 259)
his shoe was removed in token of renunciation.* So in
a Bedouin divorce the husband says; ' she was my spe»
and I cast her off’ (WRS Ars. 269). The renuncia-
tion of the brother was considered contemptible ; hence
the woman spat in his face, or, as the Rabbis explain,
in his presence. So, too, the shoe was not removed by
the brother himself, but by the woman, in token that he
was abandoning a privilege as well as a duty. Note
the phrase in Dt. 2510, ‘the house of the unsandalled
one’ (5yan pin na), Cp FAMILY, KINSHIP,

(7) Sandals were put on the feet of the prodigal son
on his restoration τὸ favour {Lk. 1522). It would seem,
then, that in the time of Jesus, sandals were not worn
by the lowest class. The sandals of the rich could no
doubt be sumptuous, like those of the ladies of Egypt
(Wilk. ἄπο Eg. 2336). Cp Cant.7r, Judith 104 169.

[Having considered a very obscure and familiar passage
of a psalm (608[x0]} and a not perfectly satisfactory

A phrase in a prophecy (Is.95[4]), we now

δ. Difficult NT approach a still more sacred passage

- which is repeated under slightly different
forms in all the four gospels. These are the four versions
of the Baptist's words :—

Mt. ὅτι, He that cometh after me is mightier than I,
whose shoes I am not sufficient (RV®E-) to bear.

Mk, 17, There cometh after me he that is mightier
than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not sufficient
{RYmE) to stoop down and unloose,

Lk. 816, There cometh he that 15 mightier than I, the
latchet of whose shoes I am not sufficient (RV®£-) to
‘unloose.

Jn. 127, He that cometh after me—the latchet of whose
shoe I am not worthy to unloose.

The difficulty is twofold,
shoes' (rà ὑποδήματα βαστάσαι) mean? and how came
the other traditional form of words into existence, which
substitutes ‘unloosing the latchet' for ‘bearing the
shoes’?

(1) B. Weiss (1876) explaîns the phrase în Mt., ‘carrying the
sandals after him*; so, too, Holtzmann, who describes it as a
constant duty of the slave, thus contrasting with the ccasiona?
duty of unloosing the masters sandals on his return home.
There seems, however, to be no more evidence that those who
chose (not as mourners) to walk barefoot had their sandals
carried after them than for the carrying of a washpot behind a
king when he travelled (see above). (2) The change from fas.
τάσαι to λῦσαι is ascribed by Nestle (P%. Sacre, 11) and
Chajes (Markusstudien, 5) to the freedom of a translator, © Ber-
tholet (Meyer, Jesu Muttersprache, 120) prefers to look for some
Semitic word which, through being misunderstood, could be
rendered in two different ways. He thinks that MÈ. and Lk.
give the right rendering of pub bpenb, which Mt., not în.
excusably, misunderstands. ' Unfortunately, as Nestle (Z.c.)
remarles, Spb cannot mean “to unloose.’

We must look more deeply into the text of the Baptist's
sermon as given in Mt. It is largely composed of
phrases which occur or might occur în the OT, and
vv. ur τῷ are parallelistic. ‘The latter consideration is of
special importance. ‘He that cometh after me is
mightier than 1’ is not suitably followed by the words

1 Halévy restores DS in Ecclus. but not în Sam.
furcher step, however, is clearly necessary (Che) Cowley
and Neubauer (cp Levi, L'Ecc/és. 1 120) render‘) in Ecclus. ‘a
secret gift. This, however, presupposes MT of 1 5.124, which,
as Thenius (AGLA ‘Sam,/18) rightly saw, is incorrecî.
argument of Lihr (ΑΗ ‘Sam.’ (8!) seems indecisive.

2 {For a similar ‘Ar, usage see Goldziher, A84andl 2. Arad.
Phil. 147 (1896).]

4493

What does ‘bearing the

This |

The |

SHOSHANNIM

given in EV-—' whose shoes I am not worthy to bear';
the second expression ought to expand and amplify the
first. The ‘mighty one' that ‘cometh' is neither God
(Is.53:/) nor the Messiah; he is a warrior, and we
do not expect the prophetic narrator to condescend to
mention his sandals. Not his sandals but his weapons
must be referred to, and the speaker may be expected
to say that he is not mighty enough himself to wear, or
to bear, the warrior's armour; ὑποδήματα must have
displaced a word meaning armour, and ἱκανός must
mean, not ἄξιος (‘worthy "), but ‘strong enough! A
probable remedy at once suggests itself.” The passage
may have been written in Hebrew, and prbgy, ‘shoes,
have been misread for πῦρ, ἢ ‘weapons. ‘Read “gig
da nei ‘nibp. ‘ whose weapons Iam too puny to bear.
The passage is now surely worthier of the second Elijah,
who did in fact both carry and wield the sword of the
Mighty One.—T. K. 6.1 1. AS. A. CT. K. C.

SHOHAM (ὉΠ, $ 71; icfcloam [BA], iec-
cam [L]), a Levite, b. Merari (1 Ch.2427}t. The
name is of interest, having possibly come by trans-
position of letters from ngn, ‘ Moses." Cp Moses, ὃ 2.

τ. Κι σ᾿

SHOMER. 1. (ὙΠ; σώλμηρ [Β], pr we [A];
cemmuHp [L]; the name appears as N9?, SHEMER
[g.v.] in τ Ch. 734), father of JEHOZABAD, 1 (2 K. 1222).
In 2 Ch. 2426 the form is nupgi, SHIMRITH (σομαίωθ
[B]; σαμαριθ [A]; σαμιραμὼθ [L]).

2. (pi, ni; caunp, ceuunp [B], cwunp [AL]), a
name in a genealogy of ASHER [g.z., $ 4, ii.], 1 Ch.
7 32. Inv. 34 SHAMER, RV SHEMER [g.v., 2] (og).

SHOPHACH (ἸΞῚ δ 1 Ch. 19 16-18, in 2 5, 10 16-18
SHOBACH.

SHOPHAN. See ATROTH-SHOPHAN,

SHOSHANNIM; SHOSHANNIM-EDUTH; SHU-
SHAN-EDUTE, UPON (m'igiibo; paviviby
ming; Nip ΦΉΣ ΟΡ}; phrases found în the respective
headings of Pss. 45 69 80 and 60 in AV; RV for
‘upon’ gives ‘set to’ and în mg. renders “lilies,"
*lilies, a testimony,' and ‘the lily of testimony.' As
in the case of other enigmatical elements of psalm-
headings, Shoshannim and Shoshannim {or Shushan}
Eduth are often taken to be the catchwords of a song,
to the air of which the psalm which followed was to be
sung {so already Ibn Ezra)? The ‘testimony’ (.e.,
the law?) might be compared to lilies. Others (e.g.,
Thrupp) think of a musical instrument in the shape of
a lily, or (Rashi, strangely) with six strings, while
others (Gràtz; Haupt in ‘Pss.’ 5807, Eng., p. 183)
render the phrase ‘with Susian instruments,’ comparing
al ‘dlamotà=' with Elamite instruments’ (Ὁ) in the
headings of two psalms close to Ps. 45. ‘That the
Susians are called Susanchites (?) in Ezra 49, may not
be decisive against this view. But why should Susian
instruments be mentioned as well as Elamite? A
similar hypothesis with. regard to Gittith is rejected else
where (GITTITH) as untenable, and our experience both
with Gittith and with other strange words in psalm-
‘headings leads us to suspect textual error. and n were
easily confounded in pronunciation, and letters were
often transposed by the Scribes. 21, Ὁ; τ᾽ may be
regarded as corruptions of 75, pva, ‘Cushan,'
* Cushanites* (cp SHEMINITR). EDUTH must also be
a corruption. Possibly my has sprung out of finmebp
‘upon (Ὁ) Jeduthun." On Jeduthun, see PsALMS, $ 26
[10].

1 Ὁ became 3, and p, as in other cases, intruded.
3 Τὴ Ps.80, however, the words “on Shoshannim' are marked
off from what follows by the accent Athnah.

4494

SHOULDER

& g ves, ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀλλοιωθησομένων (IV), or, in Ps. 60, roîs
ἀλλοιωθησομένοις ἔτι (ip, Rom. ér1), in Ps. 80 adds μαρτύριον.
Aq. ἐπὶ τοῖς κρίνοις, ἐπὶ κρίνων, ὑπὲρ τῶν κρίνων μαρτυρίας ;
Symm. ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀνθῶν, ὑπὲρ 7. a. μαρτυρία: Theodot. ὑπὲρ
τῶν κρίνων: Jer. pro his qui (que) commotabuntur. Cp Bi,
JPT, 1882, p. 631. TRO

BHOULDER. The words are (1) 17}, ev04; (2)
ἘΠ, Afheph; (3) ΖΦ, Jekem (cp SHECREM). ‘The
sacrificial ‘ shoulder' of Nu. 18:18 AV becomes in ΕΝ
‘thigh' (PRW). Cp SACRIFICE.

SHOVEL. The words are :—

I. w y& (Wp to sweep together), only in plur.
[DA utensils for cleaning the altar (see ALTAR, $ 9;
COOKING, $ 4), Ex. 273 383 Nu, 414 fall P], also 1 Καὶ.
7 4045 a K. 2514 2 Ch. 41116 Jer. 52:84.

2. 07m, ya:464, usually ‘pin, especially ‘tent pin"
{see TENT); in Dt. 2813 RV®# for ‘paddle’ of EV;
plainly, from the context, an implement suitable for
digging with.

3. min), σάλανῆ, 15. 9024, See AGRICULTURE, $ 9.

SHRINE. τ. The rendering suggested by RV®® in
Am. 526 for 1333. See CHIUN.

2. εἰδώλια [NV*, εἴδωλα, AV*] in 1 Mace. 147 (in
plur.) is rendered in RV ‘shrinés for idols," in AV
‘chapels for idols’; cp 2 Mace. 115 {AV ' chapels,*
RV ‘sacred places’); x Macc. 1083 (idols' tempie), Bel
τὸ (‘temple’). See TEMPLE, $ 1.

3. ναός (Acts19 24). See DIANA, $ 2.

SHRUBS (DM), Gen, 2115. See Busa, 2.

BHUA (VI), a Canaanite (or Kenizzite ?), Gen. 38
212 (AV SHUAH [ili.}), whence BATH-SHUA {g.v.), a
Canaanite (or Kenizzite?) woman, 1 Ch. 23; see
JuDAH, 8 2. .

SHUA (δ νη), a name in a genealogy of ASHER
(g.v.,$ 4 ii and note—-perh. =SHUAL? cp @524), 1 Ch.
732 (cwAa [ΒΛ], cora [L]).

SHUAH (Mt ; cwye), son of Abraham by Keturah
(Gen. 252 τ Ch.132: cwe [B], coye [L]). Very
possibly the original text had w43, ‘ Cush' (cp Jokshari,
in the same passage, from Cushan, and see HUSHAM}.
Upon the common theory, however, Shuah is identified
with the Sàhu of the Assyrians (temp. ASur-nasir-pal,
about 860 R.c.), the name of a land situated on
the right bank of the Euphrates, between the mouths
of the Belih and Habor (Del. Per. 297 £, Schr. AG
142 f.), perhaps represented by the σαυη of Ριοί. v. 19 5
(Di. on Gen. Ze.) Friedr. Delitzsch, Dillmann, and
Cheyne (7ο and Sol, 15) connect with the ethnic
SHUHITE (mei, ὁ σαυχ[α]ίων, σαυχ[ ε]ίτης, ax) applied
to Jobs friend BiLnan, in Job2:r (and else-
where), But when the old story of Job, which
came down in a very fragmentary form to post-
exilic times (see Jos, BooK OF, $ 4) was recast, so
as to form a setting for a theoretic treatment of the
problem of the suffering rightepus, it is not likely that
the Hebrew artist or poet brought one of the wise men
{Job's friends) from a country which had no reputation
for ‘wisdom.’ Besides, ‘Bildad' reminds us forcibly
of Bedad {?=Birdadda), an Edomite name (Gen.
3835; see BEDAD). Nowit so happens thatin 1 K.43r
[δ 11), we hear of certain wise men, not Israelites, who
were famous in Hebrew legend (see HEMAN), Theexact
reading of their names is uncertain. Possibly ‘ Darda' in
*Calcol and Darda' (yrym 5953) is a corruption of mia.
If so, Bildad's description ought to be ‘the Jerah-
meelite' (son of Mahol=son of JERAHMEEL). But
«Cush' and ‘Jerahmeel' are practically equivalent.
‘Shuhi' may easily have come by transposition from
Hushi=Cushi {cp SHUHAM). Otherwise we might
perhaps venture to read ‘the Zarhite’ (‘mun) Cp
ELINU. T.R.C

SHUAH (MMVW?) 1 Ch. 4 τι, AV, RV SHUHAR.

4495

SHULAMMITE, THE
SHUAH (YI), Gen. 38212, RV Suva (i.).

SHUAL. 1. nd TN; [τὴν or τ΄ ΓΗΝ] οωγὰλ
[BL, missing in AJ), ‘ Land of Shual' is the name of the
distriet in, or near, which OPHRAH lay (1 5,18 17}.
Is resembiance to HAZAR-SHUAL [g.v.] and to SHAA-
LIM [g.v.] is remarkable. Cp ASHER, $ 4 note, also

JQR luo. a. (EIN; οογλὰ [Β], οογδλ [A]. -Ν
[L]). a name in a genealogy of ASHER (9.2, $ 4, îi.),
1 Ch. 7 567.

It should be noted that Stat and 50: ΞΗΛῊ (g.7.) occur în
the same group of names, just as in τ 9. "4 SHALISHAH (g.0.)
occurs close to SHAALIM [9 Cp also lygp, SAUL.

SHUBAEL (ΟΝ 3). ; on origin of name, see below;
coyBaWÒà [BA], -1HA [L]}. A Levitical name given to
a descendant of Amram Ὁ, Kohath Ὁ. Levi (1 Ch. 2420,
«sf. [B]); also under the form SHEBUEL to the chief of
the sons of Gershom b. Moses (1 Ch. 2816, Sx3ag),
*ruler over the treasuries’ {x Ch. 2624, bgaw, ἑωηλ [B],

oe
cwBin) [L]}). Tg. Chron. identifies Shebuel with
JonaTHAN [g.2.] b. Gershon Ὁ. Moses (Judg. 1830).
SHEBUEL also appears as a son of Heman, 1 Ch, 254
(σουβαηλ [L]}; but 2. 20 returns to the original #2547/ (cp
2316).

In the period of the Chronicler Shubael may perhaps have
been derived from 29%, ‘to return, and di, ‘God’ (cp Names,
88 31, 70, îi.), But the name is probably very old, and may be
Heatifed with Stionat (perc), a name bore by a family origin:
ally Calebite, which afterwards became merged în Judah (for
palallels, see Genssios, Heman, ΚΟΝΔῊλ The further possi»

bility must be admitted that %Dw, Shémazl (Samuel) is only
a modification of Daiagi, Shzbuel,' and therefore of Shobal

(cp_Jastrow, /BZ τὸ τοῦ [igoo]) ἴπ 1 5.11 Samuel'e
origià is traced to Jeroham—-i.c., Jerahmeel. In 1 Ch. 254
Shebuel is followed by Jerimoth (= Jerahmeel?), and in 23 23 the
name of this son of MUSHI [g.7.] again occurs. τ᾿ K. C.

SHUBAH (MY), brother of Chelub (1 Ch 411;
AV SHUAR, coya [L], sea [Vg.]); 24 and Pesh. omit
his name and give after Chelub 'father of Achsah,' a
reading which Benzinger (ΑΗ ΟἹ favours, But Shuhah
may be identical with Hushah {NMW43N), 2. 4—ie.,
Cushah.

SHUBAM (DN; cam[eli [BF], cameràH [4],
came [L]), and the family of the Shuhamitos (‘POWI,
àHmoc 0 camleli [BAF], A. o came [L]. A. 0
camerini [A in v. 467) exhaust the list of ‘the sons of
Dan after their families’ in Nu. 2642 £=Gen. 46 23,
HusHim—.e., Cushim (Che.); cp MICAH, 2, on a
theory of Danites in the Negeb. See also Dan, 8 9.

SHUHITE (ΤᾺΝ), Job 211. See SHUAH.

SHULAMMITE, THE (msbuso), i.e., the woman
of Shulem,! the designation of the bride in Cant. 613
[1711 Thetrue form, however, is probably munwn, ‘the
Shunammite," which shonld possibly be restored for
2. ‘pp in 612, and for prmy in 77 (see CANTICLES,
8 16; JO, Oct. 1899, p. 133). Perbaps Shulem
was an alternative form for ‘Shunem’; cp Bethel=
mod. Beitin, Jezreel=mod. Zer'in, and see Kampff-
meyer, ZDPV15 32, also the statement of Eus. and
Jer. (SHUNEM). Whether the poet is speaking directly
of the historical Shunammite damsel who was David's
‘companion,’ or simply means to compliment any
and every Jewish woman at whose wedding festivities
Canticles may be used, is disputed. The latter view
{Budde's) seems the more probabile (see CANTICLES,
$ 6). The Shunammite was the type of a fair woman
(x K.13; cp Cant. 18 5g). Budde does not, how-
ever, completely explain why this type was selected.
Possibly (though this is no part of Budde's theory) a
tradition known to the poet stated that Solomon

1 Apart from the article, the name moby might be a proper
name. Cp ‘Salome’ and np», an Aramaic proper name
(Ges.19); cp Cook, Aramaic Glossary, 113).

4496

SHUMATHITE

actually took the Shulammite for his wife. In this
case, we may venture to suppose that for ‘ Naamah
the Ammonitess' (nyayn, 1 K.142131) we should read
* Naamah the Shunammite” (msn). ‘Abishag’(1K.
1315 2:1721/.), like Abital, is no real name, See
ΒΌΠΟΜΟΝ, $ 2, near end, and article in /04, referred
to above.

@'s readings are σουμανειτις [B], σονλαμιτις [RA, and most
cursives), Vg., It., two Onomastica (0.5 198 66 204 41), Procop.,
Theodoret, favour σουλαμιτις; Philo of Carpasia, strangely,
oSoAdageris. The older and more original & reading is that ot
B (Riedel, Die Auslegung des Hohenliedes, 1899, pp. 105£).
Aq. ἐν εἰρηνενούσῃ ; Sym, τὴν ἐσκυλευμένην.

τ. κι σ᾿

SHUMATHITE (*MON), 1Ch.253. See ΒΗΌΒΑΙ..

SHUNAMMITE ΟΡ, 1K.13:5 277 2K.
Ar22s; MU, 1K.22f « Κ. 436). A gentilio
(fem.), applied to Abishag and to the hostess of Elisha,
both women of SHUNEM [g.v.].

in Kings invariably has σωμανζε]ετις, σωμανίτης, σουμανιτις,
or σουμανιτης. Cp ΒΗΌΨΑΜΜΙΤΕ, and, for Eus. and Jer. see
Snunem.

SHUNEM (DI, in Josh. coynan [B], -m [AJ
cynum [L]); in 1 58. cwman [BL], ronaman [A];
in 2 K. coyman [Β], οωλλὰν [B*®E ΕἼ, ciwNaM
ΓΑ "417, ciomam [A7; on Eus, and Jer. see below). 1. A
place în Issachar, grouped with Jezreel and Chesulloth
(Josh, 19 18), and mentioned in the Egyptian lists among
the places in Palestine which submitted to Thotmes III.
and Shoshenk (RP) 546; As. v. Ex. 170). Shunem
must be the mod. .S2/exz, which is a small village,
with beautiful fruit- and flower-gardens, well situated on
the SW, slope of the Nebi Dahî (Little Hermon), and
looking over the whole plain as far as Carmel. Two
natives of Shunem are specially mentioned—viz.,
Abishag, David's ‘companion’ (τ K.13 93) 171 1),
and the ‘great woman' who entertained Elisha (2 K.
437.) many add, as a third, the ‘Shulammite* of
Cantieles. We also learn from 18.284 that the
‘ Philistines,' in the time of Saul, pitched their tents
in Shunem, over against the Israelites on Gilboa {1 5.
284). (On Elisha's miracle at Shunem and its NT
parallel, see NAIN.)

2. If we may hold that the scene of Saul’s last struggle
with the Philistines, and also that of Elisha's prophetic
ministry, have been mistaken by the editor or editors
who brought the texts of τ 3. 28 and 2 K. 4 into their
present form, there was a second Shunem in the Negeb.
This is, of course, not a mere isolated theory, but a
part of a general theory that much of the OT has been
recast, on the basis of a partly corrupt text, and under
the influence of wrong theories of the geography and
{partly) the history of ancient Israel. On this matter,
so far as it concerns Shunem, see SAUL, 68.457; Pro
PHECY, $ 5£ ‘Shunem’ is probably the place called
‘ Beth-shan' in 1 S. 31 o—that is to say, perhaps the
Bor-ashan of τ S. 30 30 (see ASHAN), and ‘ Mt, Carmel'
to which the ‘great woman' rode, and where Elisha
dwelt, was Mt. Jerahmeel. If so, it becomes very pos-
sible that Abishag ‘the Shunammite' was a native of the
Shunem in the Negeb ; indeed, David's close connection
with the Negeb makes this in itself highly probable.

It is remarkable that Eus. (0.5. 294 56, 5.2, σουβημ) and Jer.
(05152 17, τι. Stenem:), who say that the Issacharite Tocality
was în their time called Sulem, do not identify it with the
Shunem of Elisha's hostess. This they refer to separately as
σωναμ, Sonar (05 295 86 153 18), and identify with the wav or

Sanim of their own day, ‘a village within the border of Sebaste
in the region of Acrabattene.” T.K.C.

SHUNI (‘92 ; caynic, coyni [A]. caynerc [δ],
covynei [B]. coyni [F] caynere, co@oyni [1}}) one
of the sons of Gad (Gen. 46 16 Nu, 26 15), a corruption
either of Sharonite (GAD, $ 13) or of Shunammite (Gad
having been originally settled în the land of StHON [from
Cushan], or of the Negeb, where there appears to have

4497

SHUR

been a Shunem}.! ‘The patronymic is Sbunite, Nu
2615 (Ἐπ, cow[el [ΒΑΕ], cwwe [L]) 0. Kc.

SHUPHAM, ΕΝ Shephupham (g.v.), whence the
gentilie Shuphamite (*5DIV), Num. 2639 ΟΡ
SHUPPIM, also SHarHam and SHEPHAM, originally
names belonging to the Negeb, whence Benjamin also
may be held to have come (Che.).

SHUPPIM (Ὀ ΒΤ’, $ 75). τ. A son of Benjamin:?
1 Ch. 7 το 5} (σαπῴειν, μαμῴειν [B], σαφειμ, seppe
[A], cagar, σαφιν [1.}. ‘The preferable form is prob-
ably SIFUPHAM (9.0.).

2, According to i Ch. 26:6 MT, the westward lot
fell'‘to Shuppim and Hosah' (see HosaAH) when the
courses of the doorkeepers were arranged in David's
time (εἰς δεύτερον [B, as though [539], εἰς δ. τοῖς
τεροθύροις [L, as if it read po], τῷ σεφιειμ [47}.
The name is probably a mere error arising from
the repetition of the last two syllables of the preceding
verse (o'bpra, ‘the stores’).

SHUR (NW; coyp; but in 15.157 accoyp [B),
coyà [L]; 15.278 [reAam] woyp TETEIKXIOMENION
[B].—coyp - - - ter. [41], reccoyp [L}; Gen, 2518
coyHA [A]), generally supposed to be a locality on
the NE. border of Egypt (13, 151 278 Gen. 167 201
2518); adjoining it was the ‘ wilderness of Shur' (Ex.
1522). If, however, we examine these passages and their
contents historically, we soon see that Egypt is not at
all likely to be referred to; the scene of all the narra-
tives in question is the Jerahmeelite Negeb (see NEGEB).
pvse should therefore be vocalised Misrim (=the N.
Arabian Musri} not Mizraim (see Mizra1x, $ 25), and
the Shor or Asshir (correction or gloss in Gen. 2518
and 1 5. 157 458) is a region south of Palestine and
adjoining Misrim or Musti.

The passages are—({1} Gen. 167; Hagar is found ‘by
the fountain in the way to Shir' (Z.e., between Kadesh
and Bered fon the phrase in 1614 see γιέ. Bib.]}). (2)
201; Abraham dwelt ‘between Kadesh and Shùr' (see
GERAR). (3) 2518; the Ishmaelites dwelt ‘from
Havilah [=Jerahmeel] as far as Shur that is in front of
Misrim, [to the entrance of Assbur]" (4) Ex.1522;
after leaving the ydm sak [RkD SEA], the Israelites
*went out into the desert of Shîr,' after which they
came to Marah and Elim [together = Jerahmeel; cp
Repmpim]. (5) 1 S. 157; the Amalekite country
‘from Havilah [rather Jerahmeel] to the emrance of
Shur that is in front of Misrim' (6) 278; the
Amalekites whoni Saul defeated, and the other peoples
named, inhabited ‘the land which is from Jerahmeel
(sn comes from bypnvb, and corresponds to 25m in
the ||, Gen. 2518) to the entrance of Shur.* To these
may be added two phrascologically similar passages,
though the name given is not Shur, but in one case
Asshur and in the other Shihor, viz., (7) Gen.214;
Hiddekel (i.e., the wady Jerahmeel) which ‘goes in
front of Asshur'; and (8) Josh. 133; the territory of
the Geshurites, etc., ‘from Shihor (= Ashhur) which is
in front of Misrim as far as the border of Ekron {rather
'jerahmeel') northward.' See PARADISE, $ 5; SHIHOR.

Thus, to the equivalent forms Asshur, Ashhùr, and
Géshùr, we may now add a fourth 'Shur.' The view
based upon @54 of 1 5. 27 8, held formerly by Well-
hausen {785 97) and still assented to by H. P, Smith
{Sam. 133), that Shor originally meant the wall (or
line of fortresses) which extended from Pelusium through
Migdol to Hero, and protected Egypt against the
Arabians (cp Brugsch, Gesch, Aeg. 119, 195; Die Bibl
Steben Jahre, 80), must apparentiy be abandoned. [No
such line of fortifications is known, W. M, Miller

1 AT the names of the sons of Gad în Gen, 46 τς (from Ziphion
or Zephon=Zaphon. to Areli=Jerahme'eli) can, according to
the present writer's theory. be explained as Negeb names.

2 Or rather, son of Bela δ. BEXJANMIN (9.2. $9i.), 1 Ch. 85. EV
Shephuphan. Cp/Q£ 1 1085, $ 8.

4498

SHUSHAN

(cp Aster, 102, 134) thought of a comparison of Shur
with the great Egyptian frontier-city and fortress, /a-
ri (pronounce about Zor?}, 5, of Pelusium, part of
which that city held in earlier time, Phonetic difti-
culties would of course still remain.] Cp Winckler,
Musri, 2 (MVG, 1898, 4) p.6£ τ᾿ Κι C.

SHUSHAN (li, coycaln]) always (except in
Esth. 3:54 where REN? PN, cp ©'s constant ἡ πόλι)
with the addition of ‘ the palace, or rather [RVMS8-] ‘the
castle’ (MY; see BDB, 1082), in the time of Daniel's
Belshazzar, capital of the province of ELAM (g.v. and
cp PERSIA, $ 12); in that of Nehemiah's Artaxerxes
and of Esther's Ahasuerus, the residence of the kings of
Persia (Dan. 82 Neh. 1 τ Esth. 12 5 315, twice) The

- identification with Susa, which in the Ass.
1 Ancient inscriptions is repeatedly referred to as
Susan (=the Susin or Sufun of the
Susian inscriptions), is obviously agreeable to the in-
tention of, at any rate, the last redactor of Dan., Neh.,
and Esth.; whether the reading ‘Shushan' was that of
the original narratives, remains to be considered.
Where the ancient Susa was situated, and what it was
like in the glorious period which begins with its second
foundation by Darius Hystaspis, we now know more
fully than was once possible, owing to the explorations
of Loftus and M. Dieulafoy, though ancient tradition
had told of the magnificent walls and of the hoards of
gold found in the treasury by the victorious Alexander.
ΟΥ̓ the first Susa with its palace (Rogers, Mist. Βα.
Ass. 1420) and its zikkurrat (see BABYLONIA, $ 16) of
alabaster, which was destroyed by ASur-bani-pal (A°8
2205), we have no mention, primary or secondary, in
the OT, though the SUSANCHITES in Ezra 49, whom
‘the great and noble Osnappar (Ὁ) brought over” (to
Samaria) are generally thought, incorrectly perhaps
but with no slight plausibility, to have come from the
district of Shushan. The situation of Susa, indeed, was
so suitable for a large city that a revival of its ancient
prosperity might have been with some confidence pre-
dicted.

‘It is at a distance of 1g m. in a SW. direction from

Dizful that the prodigious mounds of Shush, or Susa,
5 5 stand up against the sky. They are

2. Sitmation. Liiuated on the left bank of the river
Shaur (originally Shapur), which rises at no great dis-
tance to the north and flows in a deep, narrow bed
below the Tomb of Daniel, and between the larger
rivers Ab-i-Diz {Eulaeus), 6} m. distant on the È.,
and the Kerkhah (Choaspes), 1} m. distant on the
W. The Choaspes divided the populous quarter of
the ancient city from the citadel and palace. The
entire circumference of the mounds is from 6 to 7 m.
They consist of three levels : the lowest conceals the
remains of the ancient city; the second, which is a
rectangular platform 2% m. round and 72 ft. high, was
the fortified erceinfe that contained the palace; the
uppermost, 1zo ft. in height, 1100 yds. round the base,
and 850 yds. round the summit, was the citadel, and is
stili known as Kaleh-i-Shush.'1 So strong was this
citadel (the μεμνόνιον of Strabo xv.32; cp Herod. 554)
that it successfully withstood Molon in his war with
Antiochus the Great (Polyb. 5 48), The original
palace, however, was destined to a somewhat short
existence; it was destroyed by fire in the time of
Artaxerxes Longimanus, Artaxerxes Mnemon restored
it. According to Xenophon (Cyrog. vili. 6 22} Susa was
the winter residence of the Persian kings, the rest of
the year being spent by them at Babylon and Fcbatana.
Susa wasstill a flourishing city under the Sassanians. It
was razed to the ground after a revolt, but rebuilt by
Shapur II., under the title Iranshahr Shapur. The forti-
fications were dismantled at the Moslem conquest, but the

1 Curzon, Persia, 2309. A little below the great mound is
the alleged Tomb of Daniel.

4499

SHUSHAN

site was still inhabited in the Middle Ages, and a seat
of the sugar manufacture of Khuzistan.

If M. Dieulafoy may be followed, the excavations
which he brought to 50 successful a close at Susa are of
high importance for the study of the book of Esther.
Among other matters, he refers to the δέῤξάπ (EV
‘ palace ') mentioned twice, once as the place in the court
of the garden of which a feast was made by the king
for all the people of ‘Shushan the castle’ (Esth, 1 5),
and again in connection with the ‘banquet of wine”
at which occurred the crisis in the fortunes of the
‘wicked Haman' (77/). The word (}r>3) occurs no-
where else, and all that scholars can say is that it is a
new formation from na. M. Dieulafoy, however, thinks
that when for two years one has interrogated the soul
of the Memnonium, it is impossible not to recognise in
the “ Bithan' of the OT the Susian apadàna.!

‘Alone of all the palace buildings, the tabernacle consecrated
to thedivinised king could and ought to rise in the midst of a
paradise [παράδεισος]; alone, it was sufficiently isolated from
the apartments reserved for the sovereign to make it possible
conveniently to introduce a considerable number of persons.
Like the ditkan, the apadna was surrounded by groves imme»
diately adjoining the house of the women ; like the 672447, it
was preceded by an immense vestibule, capable of holding the
guests of Ahasuerus ; like the 47/441, it was a hypostyle, and
paved with coloured marbles. Lastly, liîke the &ie4d%, it played
ἃ special part in the life of the kings of Persia and the ceremonia!
of the Achemenian court.” ‘The apadàna, or throne-room,
resembled a Greek temple; the king occupied the place of the
divine statue. The throne-room of Susa covers more than a
hectare (23 acres); the porticoes, the staircases, the enclosures
open out on a terrace eighteen times more considerable in area,
and divided in two parts by a pylon. On this side a colossal
staircase led from the Z/2ce d'avmes outside to the level of a
vast parade; on the other, radiant with its crown of enamels,
buried in the foliage of a hanging garden, was the apadana,
past which marched the ambassadors of all the states of Greece."

That this is satisfactory we cannot bring ourselves to
admit. We will not insist on the mina (29924r0) of
Dan. 1145(EV 'his palace‘), for, in spiteof the tendency of
scholars to identify this word with the Old Pers. apaddra,
we feel the strong probability that this word is corrupt
(see PALACE, $ 1 [9]. Βαϊ ἰ5 it likely that the narrator
in Esther should have known the Persian architecture
so accurately when {see ESTHER, 8 1) the book is in
other respects so full of patent improbabilities ? A little
experience of the ways of the seribes shows a better way
out of the difficulty of the jn'a. That it is a parallel
formation to mi. is a purely arbitrary theory. Much
more probably jn'5 is a corruption of 383. It was an
orchard (ng3) of pistachio nut-trees that was meant (cp
the ‘garden of nuts' [rìxg ΠΏ} in Cant. ὃ χα),

The improbabilities of the story of Esther would

become less striking, if we could recon-

a Present struct the original story, which the
writer TY. editor (according to a theory for which
there seem to be analogies elsewhere in the OT) has
converted as well as he could into a story of the Jews
under Persian rule, whereas originally the story had
reference to the period when the Jews were (it may be
held) in captivity under the N. Arabian Jerahmeelites.
The present writer sees reason to think that the books
of Daniel and even Nehemiah (besides Judith and
Tobit) have passed through a similar process. Into
the details of this we cannot enter here (see Cri/, Bi8.).

We may, however, poînt out (1) that ‘Shushan habbirah®

(not a very probabile phrase 3), in all the places where it occurs,
may very possibly have come from ‘Cushan-harabbah'; (2)
that πον ΟΠ n*pa may be an editor's recast of [bannv], D>:pa,
where ‘n may be a correction of the corrupt word ΠΟ} (3)
that +51 borx în the same verse may represent two corrupt
forms of bunny (i.e., the river of Jerahmeel, Ezekiel's ‘ Chebar*
or rather ‘Barachel' = Jerahmeel). The parallelism between
Daniel on the banks cf Ulai (Ὁ and Ezekiel by the ‘river

1 M. Dieulafoy has constructed an imaginatively restored
model of the palace of Artaxerxes Mnemon, which stands în the
Louvre,

2 ‘Le livre d’Esther et le palais d'Assuérus," 1.57, April-June
1888, pp. 275-277.

8 G. Jahn (Das 8. Esther, 1901, p. 2) thinks that @ read
yi for mean

4500

SHUSHANCHITES

Chebar (2) has already been noticed by commentators. Parallels
for the corruptions here assumed will be found in Crit. 856.

The result of accepting the theory referred to would be
that we get in each case two documents instead of one—
first the original narrative, in so far as it can be traced,
which had to do with N. Arabia, and next, the edited
and recnst narrative, which shows the acquaintance,
slight indeed, but genuine, of a much later Jew with
Persian geography and history. If, then,
tempted to criticise severely the historical errors in
these books {Dan., Ezra-Neh., Esth.), which have
absorbed so much time with so little result, let us
remember that, according to this theory, the editor had
to make the best that he could of partly corrupt
material, and that he is not to be judged by the standard
of an original narrator.

Cp Delitasch, Par. 326, and Calwer Bib.-Lex.(®) 87551
Loftus, Chaldea and Susiana, 3143/7 (1897); Mme, Jane

Dieulafoy, La Verse la Chaldée εἰ la Susiane; Relation de |

tgpage (1897); Μ. Diculafoy, L'Acropole de la Suse (1890);
Billerbeck, δόξα (1893) ; Néldeke, Gesch. der Perser aus Tabari

(1879), p. 58. See also ULAI, τι Κι C.

SHUSHANCHITES (N°'9IVN), Ezra 49 RV. AV
SUSANCHITES.

SHUSHAN-EDUTE (MP [0 30), Ps. 70 title.
See SHOSHANNIM.

SHUTHELAEH (N5Ni2}), an Ephraimite clan-name,

Nu. 2635£ (& 397, coytaAa [B], ewcoycara [A τ.
39]. goyc. [A τ. 40] σουθαλα [FL]), ethnic Shuthal-
hite, RV Shuthelahite (M?NPI, ©. 35, 0 cor
Tarde [B], -θᾶλδι [FL], Goyc. [A]). ‘The name (see
SHELAH) probably came from the Negeb. It should
perhaps be inserted in Gen. 46206 with @ (σουταλααμ
[AD] -8. [L}); see, however, EPHRAIM, $ 12, n.1.

It occurs twice in the much-edited genealogy of EPHRAIM
{9.2., 8 12), 1 Ch. 7 20-27; in n. 20/ (σωθαλα [A 2.20), -θ,
[8 ἠδ, -ελέ [Ba.b.mg., om. B* A σ΄ 21], σονθαλα[αμ] [LI), and,

agaia, in the corrupt form TELAH în 2.25 (MP, θαλε [A], «ces
[B], gaà -a [1.}}.

SHUTTLE (N). Job 76. See Wravina.

SIA (ND [Neh.]) or SIAHA (NOD [Ezra]), the
family name ofa company of (post-exilic) Netbinim.

Ezra 244 (cond [B], acaa [Avid.], ἑωσιον [L})=Neh.747
(ασουια (B], cagovia [x], σιαια [A], ἑὥσιον [L}) = 1 Esd.529
Suo, RY Sua (σουα [8], σουσα [A] ἑωσια {L}).

The longer form of the name has probably arisen
from a combination of two readings xy and πρὸ ; cp
NEPHUSHESIM, Neh. 752.

SIBBECHAI, ΕΝ Sibbecai (‘93D, caBpHyHe or co-
Bakyic Jos. ; cp @t 2 S. 2118, 1 Ch. 204]), a Hushath-
ite (or man of Hushah, a place apparently near
Ephrath—:.e., Bethlehem = Beth-jerahmeel [Che.]!)
renowned in popular tradition through his combat
with a giant in the Philistine war (see SapH);
2 5.218 (oeBoyxa [B]. ceBoyaei [A], coBekxi[L]),
1 Ch. 204 Critics {(Wellh., Dr., Kiost., Budde}
agree în restoring his name in place of the corrupt
MEBUNNAI (ex τῶν vw [BA]: cafe: 1L]) in 2 5,
2327 : this is supported by several MSS of @ (including
(δ᾽ σαβενι), and by the parallel passage (1 Ch. 204;
σοβοχαι [B], σοββ. [A], σοβακχι [L]), also by 1 Ch. 1129
(σοβίβ)οχαι [BA], σοβοχε [δὲ], σοβοκχά [L]). But we
decline to follow Chronicles-1 Ch.2711 (σοβοχαι [BA];
σαάχεκι [L.]}—when it makes Sibbechai commander of
the eighth part of David's army.

SIBBOLETH (mbap), Judg. 126. See SHIBBOLETH.

SIBMAH (ΠΟ; AV SuemaHn in Nu. 3238),
or (masc. form) SERAM (DIP, only Nu. 323; AV
SHEBAM ; Sam. 922; usi. ceBama; in Nu. 323,
eceBema [B°}], cemaBa [F]}, a place beyond the

1. Ephrath în the Negeb is probably intended. See RacueL's
SEPULCHRE, and note that in 1 Ch. 2711 Sibbecai is connected
with the Zerahites.

144 4501

we are *

SICYON

Jordan with extensive vineyards ; Reubenite, according
to Nu. 3238 (cp 7. 39 and Josh. 1319); Moabite, accord»
ing to 15.168 αὶ (caBama [Ὁ in w. 9]), 76. 4832
(ωσερηλλὰ [BN""], we epumoc IN"], acepumatAl
caBama [Q]), a passage in a prophecy written, at
any rate, long after the fall of Israel. Jerome {on Is,
168) states that it was hardly 500 paces from Heshbon.
Conder identifies it with the important site Silmia, with
tombs and ruined vineyard towers, 25 m. W. of Heshbon
(PEFO, 1882, p. 9). As Derenbourg has suggested,
Sibmah may be referred to in MI Z 13.

The passage runs, ‘ And I settled therein G.c., în the conquered
city of ATAROTH, 9.0.) men of pg. In the Jerus. Targ. pe

is given for p>w and bag. So also Schlotimann (Z22/G, 24
259). Cp ZERETH-SHAMAR, τ΄ K. C.

SIBRAIM (D°99D; ceBpam [B], ce. [A]. -paim
[9], caBapeim [πε], Pesh. reads ‘Sepharvaim'), a
city on the ideal northern border of Canaan (Ezek.
476), described in MT as lying between the territory
of Damascus and that of Hamath. According to
Cornill (see @) this definition belongs strictly to another
city HELAM (g.v.), the name of which should be in-
serted after Sibraim. It is more important, however,
to notice that the original text, which has been redacted
by an uncomprehending editor {cp TAMAR), probably
referred (as also Nu. 3417) to the Jerahmeelite Negeb.
The four names in the MT of Ezek. 47162 will in this
case represent Maacath, Rehoboth, Zarephath, Cusham
{see MAACAH, REHOBOTH, ZAREPRATH), Nor could
we hesitate to explain Helam (05) as=Jerahmeel. If
on the other hand we suppose the MT to give the
original text, the difficult question arises, where is
Sibraim to be placed? In accordance with his
view of the ideal frontier as a whole, van Kasteren
identifies Sibraim with Khirbet es-Sanbariyeh, 4} m.
SSE. of Κα, Seràda {see ZepAD), near the bridge of
the Nahr Hasbani, on the road to Banias (Rev. dib.,
1895, p. 31). The form Sanbariyeh, however, would
rather (as van Kasteren himself remarks) point to a
Hebrew form Sabbarim or Sibbarim. Nor is Furrer's
identification, which arises out of an opposite view of
the situation of the frontier, less free from difficulty (see
below). Sibraim was at any rate a place of importance,
if we may accept Halevy's view (ZA 24or/.) that both
Sibraim and Sepharvaim are identical with the Sabarain
which was destroyed în 727 by Shalmaneser IV. ac-
cording to the Babylonian Chronicle discovered by
Pinches (see SEPHARVAIM, and note the reading of
Pesh. given above) The objections are (1) the
representation of n by 3 (which, however, is not an
insuperable difficulty), and (2) the possibility of reading
Samarain. See SAMARIA, SHALMANESER.

[The conjecture of Furrer that Sibraim is the mod. Ska:
wieriza (ΖΡ 829) on the E. side of the lake of Emesa, rests

mainly on the doubiful reading σαμαρειμ in some copies (e.
87) of the LXX.—w. r.S.] τ᾿

SICCUTH (ΠῚ35), Am. 526. See CHIUN AND
SICCUTH, SALMAH.
See also Muss-Arnolt, Agos. 2, 6th ser. [1900], 414-428.

SICHEM (D9Y%), Gen. 126 AV, RV SHECHEM (4.2.).
BICKLE (0, dato). see AGRICULTURE, $7.

SICYON (cikyton? [ΕΝ], 1 Mace. 1523). Sicyon
appears in the list of cities and countries to which
‘ Lucius, consul of the Romans' (i.e., probably Lucius
Calpurnius Piso, consul in 139 B.C.) wrote in favour of
the Jews. We may infer that Jewish settlers and
traders formed a considerable element in the population
of the places named. Reference is made in the
authorities to the extent of the Jewish Dispersion
about this date (cp Orac. Siby4. 8271, πᾶσα δὲ γαῖα
σέθεν πλήρης καὶ πᾶσα θάλασσα---ἶ,ἐ., about 140 B.C.

1 The change from the early form Σεκνών or Σεικυών fo the
form Σικνών is dated by the coîns to the time of Alexander the
Great (Lenke, λίνον. Hell. 95).

4502

SIDDIM, VALE OF

See also the quotation to the same effect from Strabo
in Jos. Anz xiv. 72 and cp id. 4/vi.33). Philo
Judeus testifies to the wide diffusion of the Jewish
race over the far Fast and Asia Minor, and after
enumerating Thessaly, Boeotia, Macedonia, Aetolia,
and Attica as regions in which Jews were plenteously
scattered he adds Argos and Corinth, and ‘the most
and the best parts of the Peloponnese' (Leg. ed Caiwza,
36, Mang. 2587, τὰ πλεῖστα καὶ ἄριστα Πελοποννήσου.
Cp Philo, γε βασοινε, 7, Mang. 2524).

Sicyon was one of the most ancient cities of Greece,
advantageously placed about 2 m. from the sea on a
terrace over-looking a fertile plain on the S. shore of
the Corinthian Gulf, about 18 m. W. of Corinth.
Though she could not rival Corinth, Sicyon next to that
city was renowned for skill and industry in all kinds of
manufacture (Strabo, 382).

At an early date Sicyon became a flourishing home of plastic
art (see Gardner, Handbook of Greek Sculpture, l προ Δ). The
ancient wealth and importance of the town îs attested by the
large number of its coins still extant, dating from about the
middie of the fith century 5.c. (usual type, a Chimera and
flying wood-pigeon; see Head, Mist Mumm. 345 7). The
destriiciion οἱ Corinth by the Romans in 146 Βια, Wedld tend to
revive the commercial importance of Sicyon, more especially as
Sicyon received an accession of territory thereby (cp Paus. 11.2.2}.
Nevertheless the town gradually sank into decay, even before
the restoration of Corinth, and was burdened with debt (Ci
ED. ad Att.i. 199 i. 204 ii. 110); in the second century a.D. it
was in a miserably decayed condition (Paus. ii. 77).

WI. W.

SIDDIM, VALE OF (ΟἿ ΡΠ ΡΣ; Vg. vallis
silvestris; for @ see below), the scene of the battle
between the king of Sodom and Chedorlaomer (and
their respective allies), Gen. 143810. It is said, as the
text stands, to have been ‘full (a conjectural paraphrase,
see AV) of slime-pits,' or rather of 'pits of bitumen*
{npn; see BITUMEN), which proved fatal to two of the

kings {see SOoDOM).

In 143 the ‘vale of Siddim' has the gloss, ‘that is, non n*
(EV ‘che salt sea’). The notion is supposed to be implied that
the ‘salt sea' at a later time extended itself over the vale of
Siddim where Sodom and Gomorrah stood. @ADEL gives the
strange rendering ἐπὶ τὴν ddpayya τὴν dAvinjv * αὕτη (ἐστὶν) ἡ
θάλασσα τῶν AAP (7. 3; ἡ κοιλὰς ἡ ἁλυκή, 72. 8 το), Theod.,
however, gave (according to Jerome ; see Field's Hez., n.) τῶν
dAgùv—i.e., DINI, ‘(the vale οὐ the Asherahs”; and & may
once have had the same reading. This, however, can hardly be
correct, nor is it satisfactory to keep the letters of MT, pointing
O", ‘the demons, with Renan (/is4 1116), Wellhausen

(63) 103), and Winckler (G/ 2 33 108).1

If the view of Gen. 14 set forth elsewhere (SODOM) is
correct, the notion that the vale of Siddim has any
connection with Sodom and contained pits of bitumen
must be abandoned. The ‘ vale of kassiddim’ has most
probably arisen by corruption from Maacath-cusham—
i.e., Maacah of Cusham. See Sopom, 8 6 (c).

T.K.C.

SIDE (ciAH [ANV]), 1 Mace. 1523. A rich and
flourishing seaport of Pamphylia, lying between the
rivers Eurymedon (W.) and Melas (E.). It was founded
by the Cymzeans (Strabo, 667) and possessed a temple
of Athena apparently of some celebrity.? Attaleia and
Side were the two outlets for the products of Pamphylia.
Side had close commercial relations with Aradus? in
Phoenicia (cp Livy 3548, where the contingents of
Aradus and Side form the left wing of the fieet of Antio-
chus the Great, as those of Tyre and Sidon the right—
guas gentes nulle unguam néc arte nec virtute navali
equassent; see also id. 3723 £). According to a
tradition current at Side itself the town was of Hellenic

1 The ‘Valley of Spirits thinks Winckler, îs a fictitious
name derived from Babylonian mythology (G/ 2108).

2 Hence, on the interesting series of δοίης of Side, Pallat
frequently appears. The coin-type or symbol of the town,
playing upon its name, is the fruit of the pomegranate, which
the Greeks called σέδη (see Hill, Handbook of Greek and
Roman Coins, 176).

8 The name of Aradus occurs immediately after that of Side in
the enumeration in 1 Macc. 15 23.

4503

SIDON, SIDONIANS

origin, but the Asiatic elements gradualiy asserted
themselves, until, by the time of Alexander the Great,
Greek was no longer spoken there, but a peculiar idiom
which differed also from that of the neighbouring
aborigines (Arrian, Arab. 126). This curious statement
is borne out by the fact that a series of the coins of Side
has the tegend Σιδητικόν supplanted by inscriptions in
characters resembling the Aramaie which have never
been deciphered with certainty (see Waddington, in
Rev, Num., 1861, 13).

After the defeat of Antiochus by the Romans, Side
retained practical autonomy, and became one of the
chief places of mintage on this coast. Its importance
is indicated by the fact that the Attic tetradrachms of
Side were allowed to circulate in Asia assimilated in
value or tariffed with the cistophori which under ordinary
circumstances were the only lega] tender (Momms. Mist.
Mon. Rom. 199), This coinage lasted a long time and
is of astonishing abundance, perhaps owing to the fact
that Side was the great mart in which the Cilician
pirates disposed of their booty (Strabo, 664). It is,
therefore, not surprising to find Side enumerated in
I Mace. 1523 as containing a strong Jewish element.
Antiochus VII. (138-128 B.C.) owed his by-name Sidetes
to the fact that he had been brought up at Side.

Side continued to be a town of importance under the
Empire, to which fact its coins testify in various self-
laudatory epithets—aypordrys, ‘splendid,’ ἐνδόξου,
‘honourable," or πίστης φίλης συμμάχον Ῥωμαίων.
Aspendus on the Eurymedon was her rival {Pol. 573),
and later also Perga. Both Side and Perga claim the
title πρώτῃ Παμφυλίας. In fact, the ecclesiastical lists
always separate Pamphylia into Pamphylia Prima under
Side, and Pamphylia Secunda under Perga, although
the civil organisation recognised but a single province
(Rams. Mist. Geag. of A.M. 393).

The remains of Side (now Zsk/ Adalia) on a low peninsula
are now deserted. Its two ports are silted up; its theatre is
one of che largest and best preserved in Asia Minor (for de-
scription and views, see Beaufort, Aaramania, 140£).

W.Lw.

SIDON, SIDONIANS. (DI®Y; DINMEIY: cIA N,

cella νι οι» ΦΟΙΝΊΚΕΟ). For the early history, see

'HCENICIA. ncient writers alread:
1. Etymology. erplained ‘fish-town' from sid (os),
‘to hunt,’ and în Phcenician also ‘to fish’ {see Justin
183). IH we accept this, ‘Sidonians’ originally meant
the fishing population ox #e coast; but perhaps we
should rather derive the name from some tribal god
Sid (14), after whom both town and people were
named. We do not indeed find any trace of a
worship of Sid; but the gods Sid-melkart and Sid-tat
are both met with (cp PHGENICIA, $ 12).

Sidonim, Sidonians, both (4) in Phocnician and
Assyrian inseriptions and (δ) often in OT, means the

2, Use of Phoenicians generally.

‘ Sidonians. (a) Hiram 11, calls himself mdlet

π΄ sidontm (vs bo), ‘King of the Sidonians”
upon a votive inscription, and Tyrian coins of the time
of Antiochus IV. bear the legend sor ἔνε sidonim
(ps na nb) ‘of Tyre, the metropolis of the Sidonians,"
So too in Assyrian inscriptions Fluleeus king of Tyre
and suzerain of most of the Phcenician coast is called
Lule, king of Sidon. Of course, we also find the
narrower use of the term both on Pheenician coins and
in Assyrian inscriptions.

(6) In Gen. 49134 ‘ Sidon' is, not the town—whichk
lies too far N.—but the Phoenician coastland, and
in Judg. 187 the phrase ‘the manner of the Sidonians”
refers to the unwarlike Phoenician traders. Ittobaal
(see ETHBAAL, but also SOLOMON, $ 3 δ) is called ‘king
of the Sidonians' in τ K.163r, and Solomon (τ K.
56 [20]) admits the superiority of the ‘ Sidonians’ to the

1 Winckler also questions the explanation ‘fish-town. He
supposes ‘Sidon’ to be a Semitised form of a pre-Pheenician
name (4041427). :

4504

SIEGE

Jews in the hewing of timber. Im both cases the Phoe-
Nicians are meant.” * Sidonians' as the name of a people
must once have been as common as the ethnic names
Monbite, Edomite, Ammonite, and the rest! Quite
rightly, then, in Gen. 10:5, Canaan (=Syria, as in
Amarna Tablets) is said to have two sons, Sidon (the
Phoznicians) and Heth (the Hittites). Of these Sidon
is the firstborn, because, as we now know, the Hittites
did not penetrate into central Syria till the fourteenth
century. ‘Afterwards,’ so the writer continues (Ὁ. 188),
*the tribes of the Canaanites spread themselves abroad';
v. τόδ is admitted to be an interpolation (sce ει σι, Dill-
mann), The same use of ‘Sidonians’ is common in
Greek literature,

The Pheenicians are în Homer very often called Σεδόνιοι (7.
6290; 04,15 118=4618), and their land Σιδονίη (11 6 291; Ùd.
13205), True, Φοένικες is also found (72.23 743,7; 04. 13272,
142887 154157), Both names occur together likewise în the
celebrated verses concerning Menelaus’ wanderings (04. 488).
The name of the fowx Sidon is found in 04,15 425. From
the fact that Sidon, not Tyre, is mentioned we must not draw
political conclusions as some have done ; through the influence
of the ethnic name ‘Sidonian' the name of Sidon was familiar
to the Greeks ar an earlier time than that of Tyre, although the
latter was then much the more important.

Roman poets, too, frequently use ‘Sidonius’ {as a
synonym for ‘Poenus’) in the sense of ‘ Phoenician®
(cp Ovid. Fest. 3108, etc.) E. M.

A king of Sidon has dealings with Zedekiah (Jer. 27 3),
and Jewish prophets mention Sidon by the side of Tyre
both in the Babylonian and in the Persian

ser period {Jer.474 Ezek. 278 Joel3[4}4).
references. Unfortunately the OT references to Zidon,

as well as to Tyre, often occur in
passages where corruption may with probability be
suspected (so Cheyne; for instances see MIZRAIM,
TIRAS, ZAREPHATH),2 Whether the destruction of
Sidon by Artaxerxes Ochus (351 Β.0.} is really referred
to in Is. 231-14 (Duhm), 240 (Cheyne), is also at any
rate doubtful, The comparative revival of Sidon in
later times is attested by Lk. 617 Acts273.
A bishop of Sidon (‘a city of note’ Eus. 05) attended the
Council of Nicwa (325 a.n.), Again and again Sidon is men-
tioned in the annals of the Crusades. Several
4, Later times destroyed, it was for three centuries quite
History, etc, insignificant till at the beginning of the seven-
teenth century it began to recover under the
Druse Emir Fakhr ed-Dîn. The present town of Saida contains
about 15,000 inhabitants. The northern harbour still survives;
but the large southern harbour was filled up by Fakhr ed-Din,
to make it Inaccessible to the Turks,3 E.M., $xf
SIEGE. The proper term for ‘ besiege' is the kal of
gir (ταν) Dt 20x12 2 S.111 1 K.1527 1617201 2/K.624/ 175
189 24r1 Is, 203 Jer.214 322, usually followed by 9y or Sx.
The corresponding substantive is 74547 (ISO), Nab. 3.14, and che
phrase ‘D3 38) or ‘BI ma is used to express the passive ‘to be

Vesieged.' ἜΞ wia is used în the same sense when applied to a
city Dt. 2019 2 K.2410 252 Jer.525. The Greek equivalents
are πολιορκεῖν ἐπι), περικαδίφειν (Eni, ἐν), περικαθῆσθαι ἐπί,
ἐπικαθῆσθαι ἐπί, συγκλείειν, χαρακοῦν ἐπί, or διακαθέφειν ἐπί,
or καθίζειν ἐπί. The Assyrian word is ἄεησῶ (eséru used of
personsì.

‘The earliest pictorial representations of sieges and
assaults of fortified towns come to us from ancient

Egypt. Thus the tomb of Beni-Hasan
1. Egypt; portrays a fortress of the Middle Empire
Amarna and presents a vivid example of a siege.

Tablets; Like the Assyrians of a later time, the

early Israel. Egyptians ‘advanced under cover of the arrows

of the bowmen; and either instantly applied
the scaling ladder to the ramparts or undertook the routine of a
regular siege, in which case having advanced to the walls, they
posted themselves under cover of testudos, and shook and

---
1 For other OT evidence see Dt.89 Judgi 83 (=Josh.13,4-9),
106 12 1 K.11533 15.232, δα,
2 τὸς and τς Would easily arise out of an indistinctly written

msn

3 [From a series of newly-found Pheenician inscriptions it
appears that Sidon consisted of at least two divisions, one of
which was called Ὁ γχ, ‘Sidon-supermare (Ὁ. C. Torrey,
7A05; 28 (1902) 156 Cp the Eshmunazar inscriprion, ἢ, 16
D> pae pus (CZS 1 n: 3), and the Ass. form Asdud-immz (sce
Asnvov).]

4505

SIEGE

dislodged the stones of the parapet.’ This they accomplished
by means of what might be called n hand battering.ram, cone
sisting of a long lance or pole with a strong metal point. In
case the fortress resisted all attacks by scaling ladders and
assaults by the hand.ram the testudo or pent-house would be
employed, which conccaled as well as protected the sappers who
undermined the walls. This testudo was a rude framework
covered with hides large enough to contain several men (Wilk.
Anc. Egp. 1242 ff. and woodcut; Rosellini, Monmmenti civili
dell'Egitto, 118).

The Tell-el-Amarna despatches (1450-1400 B.c.}
yield us but little information. The Egyptian governor
Rib-Addi, in repeated letters to the King of Egypt,
compares himself to a ‘ bird sitting in a snare’ (? cage,
basket),! when besieged in Gebal by the hostile forces
commanded by Abd-ASirta. We are reminded of
Sennacherib's phrase in the Taylor-cylinder in which he
boasts that he had shut in Hezekiah ‘like a bird ina
cage’ (col. 320). Rib-Addi addresses repeated pathetic
appeals to the Egyptian sovereign to send him sabi (or
amilùti) masartal-ti), ‘garrison troops’ (cp Heb. τἠν),
and says (in another letter) that he remains helpless
and inactive in his town and dare not pass outside the
city gates (64, Δ. 20/); but we have no details re-
specting siege operations.

When we come to the latter part of the thirteenth
century B.C. (19th dyn.), however, the reign of Rameses
II affords us interesting glimpses into the methods of
siege and assault. The scenes are depicted in Lepsius'
Denkmdler, 3166. ‘We have a representation of the
storming of Dapuru (?), a fortress of the Heta.

*This fortress, as we see, deviates somewhat from the ordinary
style of building. Below, a battlemented wall surrounds an
immense lower building which supports four towers, the largest
of which has windows and balconies. Above the towers is seen
the standard of the town, a great shield pierced through with
arrows. . . In orderto protect themselves from the shower of
stones and arrows that the besieged pour down from above, the
Egyptian soldiers advance under cover of pent-houses. Then
ensues the actual storming of the castle by means of scaling-
ladders. . . Some of the Besieged let themselves down over the
wall, more than one being killed în this attempt to escape*
(Erman, Life in Anc. Egyft, 533). See fig. 4 in Eover.

In the earliest periods of Israel's history we do not
read of regular siege operations. No attempts were
made to capture cities save by assault, since the early
nomad Hebrews did not possess engines of war or other
appliances requisite for the regular reduction of a
fortress. In capturing a city-fortress by direct assault,
as in the case of Jerusalem which was stormed by
David's warriors (2 S.56-8, a very obscure passage),?
there must have been enormous loss of life, Some
skilful stratagem was sometimes resorted to by the
besiegers, as a pretended retirement followed by an
ambuscade (Josh. 847} or a night-attack (Judg.719/.).

It is doubtful how far the Assyrians resorted to the
slow methods of siege in reducing the fortress-cities to

2, Assvria. Stbicction in the earliest period, viz., in

- ABSYIIA the reign of Tiglath-pileser I Even in
the records of ASur-nasir-abal and Shalnianeser II we
have no account of such operations, though the monu-
ments portray them occasionally. Thus în describing
the capture of Madara in the annals of ASur-nasir-abal
{col. 2, 22 98f, ΑΒ 89) we are only told; ‘ The city
was very strong (dandr darnif). Four walls (durdri)
encircled it Î stormed the town; they feared my
fearful weapons." In an earlier passage (col. 254) no
details are furnished of siege-operations (in the capture
of Amalu), and many other similar instances might
be given. It ἰ certainly probable that in a large
number of cases regular siege operations were not
carried on, ‘These involved a considerabile expenditure
of time as well as of means and material. Engines of
war, like chariots, were difficult objects of transport in
a mountainous country. We have already had occasion
to notice the passages in the annalistic inscriptions

1 See Winckler, ΑΓΒ ν. 55 45-48, 6035, etc., 6213/7, 64347,
848-10, etc. Arma ἔρρεεν Sa rna libbi bubari kilubi. With this
expression cp Jer. 527.

[See Crit, ΒΙ]

4506

SIEGE

which record that chariots were left behind for thig
reason {CHARIOT, 8 4).

‘When we come to the records of Sargon II, (721-705)
we have in his great triumphal palace-wall inscription
a vivid account of his campaign against Merodach-
baladan. This document (44268 7), as well as the
annals (where the defence of Dàr-Athara is recounted,
I. 248 f.), describesthe precautions taken bythe besieged,
Merodach-baladan flees from Babylon, his capital,
takes refuge in the fortress of Dîr-Yakin, strengthens
its walls, summons the neighbouring tribes to hié
assistance, and posts them before the great wall. He
then dug ‘out a trench of immense size, 200 cubits
broad and 18 cubits deep, and filled it by cutting a

STEGE

description of the operations against Urdamani, says
that he blockaded him and deprived him of food and
water (KB 2:68), and in another passage (cyl. col. 3 109)
refers to the warriors posted on the walls of the cities.
These are, however, very slight details and bear
reference to defence rather than attack.

What these verbal descriptions omit is supplied to us in
fair abundance by the monumental representations. "The
accompanying figure of the siege of a city by ASur-nasir-
abal (fig. 1) furnishes the details which we require and
enables us to realise the enormous slaughter which the
storming of a fortress entailed. Another figure (fig. 2)
portrays the siege of a town by Tiglath-pileser 11].
Archers are depicted shooting at the walls from behind

(°

H Wa
Ν
; Ἷ LIA
P; Ἶ οἷν

LIO

Fic. .1—Siege-Operations by Assyrians.

channel to the Euphrates (Triumph, Insc. 21, 127 /£)
Having thus fiooded a large area around the city with
water, he broke the bridges. What follows is certainly
somewhat obscure. Merodach-baladan is described as
pitching his royal tent în the midst of this defensive
lake ‘like a 44527 bird. In flamboyant style Sargon
says that he (Sargon) transported his warriors over the
flood ‘like eagles' We may suppose that some rafts
were constructed (see Winckler's remarks in the Introduc-
tioù to his Aeilschrififexte, 84). ‘The battle must have
been fierce and murderous and the waters were stained
with the blood of Merodact.-baladan's warriors (Z 130).
We read of no prolonged attempt to reduce Dùr-Yakin

[ἢ

= )
VWy

I

O;

Fic, 2.—Sharp-shooters behind Shelters.

by regular approaches. Similarly, in the case of the
fortress Dîìr-Athara, into which on another occasion
Merodach retreated, defending it by means of a deep
fosse, filled from the river Surappi (1. 248 £), the
siege operations were of brief duration, for we are told
that the town was reduced before sunset (1. 252).

In the Taylor-cylinder of Sennacherib (col. 32rf
XB295} we read that the Assyrian general erected
against Jerusalem ramparts (&a/sdzi, probably ‘towers')
which effectually shut in the defenders of the city.
Cp Rassam cyl., col. 252. ASur-bani-pal, in his

4507

wicker screens, while the battering-ram is wielded below,
and we behold the ghastly spectacle of captives impaled ad
terrorem before the walls. To this horrible practice the
inscriptions bear witness. Thus Aur-bani-pal {Rassam-
ΟΥ̓]. col. 23.) in the account of his Egyptian campaign
describes how his generals attacked the hostile cities of
the Delta, hung the corpses of the rebels on stakes and,
after having flayed them, placed their skins on the city
walls.

The monumental reliefs show that the usual course
in storming a fottress was for the heavy-armed to
advance first and with shield in hand to mount the tall
ladders which were placed against the city-walls and
reached almost to the summit of the latter. ‘The
archers meanwhile from behind the protective screens
made of wicker- or wood-work discharged arrows against
the defenders on the walls and especially against the
towers where the enemy were concentrated. Doubtless
fire was employed, and missiles covered with tow and
resin or pitch would be hurled against anything com-
bustible. Thus in the early Israelite episode (narrated
in Judg. 9.46-49) we read that Abimelech and his followers
cut down branches and set fire to the hold of the temple
of El-Bèrith into which the occupants of the tower of
Shechem had betaken themselves.!

The historical books of the OT and occasional
passages in the prophets enable us to supply a few details
of the ancient siege-operations carried on in the wars of
pre-exilian Israel. ‘Thus 2 S.11 furnishes some account
of the siege of Rabbath Ammon, and it can be readily
inferred that it lasted a considerable time. On the
other hand there is no reference to any entrenchments,
engines of war, or other siege operations or appliances.
The Hittite URIAH {g.v.) was simply slain by a sortie
executed by the Ammonites against Joab's beleaguering
force. Yet it can hardly be asserted that Israel by that
time was not conversant with any, other methods of
warfare than night-attacks, surprises, feigned retreats or
ambuscades. For in 2 5. 2015, where the siege of Abel-
beth-manacah is described, a mound or embankment
{s0/2I4h} is thrown up against the city. This embank-
meat stood in the intervening space between the principal
wall and a smaller outer-wall (#27), And we are

1 [On the obscure word Ms see HoLD ; and on the narrative,
SHECHEM, ZALMON.]

4508

SIEGE

apparently to understand that under the protection of
this embankment, occupied probably by archers or
engines ot war, some of the Israelite troops were oc-
cupied in undermining (so Ewald} or battering down
the walls.! The passage shows that the Hebrews under
Joab's energetic military guidance were beginning to
make some progress in siege operations, not improbably
under Pheenician influence. See FORTRESS, $ 2, and
cp 2 8. ὅτε,

When we turn to another important passage, in
1 K. 20, descriptive of the siege of Samaria by Benhadad
{= Hadadezer, the Dad'idri of Shalmaneser's inser. read
by Winckler Bir'idri)? we find several elements that are
obscure [sce Crii Zib.] The account, moreover, is
from two distinct sources (see Kittel), In Ὁ. 12 a word
seems to have dropped out between igm and the
following ρητὸν. 5 read οἰκοδομήσατε χάρακα ‘build
ἃ rampart’ or perhaps ‘palisaded camp.’ The former
seems here to be the meaning of χάραξ, which is also
employed in a collective sense by Polybius (in the sense
of ‘entrenched camp"). The omitted word,.correspond-
ing ta this Greek word for ‘rampart,’ was in the original
Hebrew text used by the @ «isp (cp Dt. 2019 Heb.
and @) 'siege-works' or ‘lines of circumvallation.”
There is an alternative view, that the word to be supplied
here is ὩΣ ‘battering-rams’; but this has no basis of

support in the 6, and is only plausibly sustained by the |

use of the phrase 5y ni in Ezek. 42 in connection with
the word ΠῚ. Over these lines of entrenchment, within

which Benhadad and his Syrian troops thought them-
selves secure, Ahab made a desperate sally with 7000
men and utterly routed the enemy,

The importance of the military embankment (n5hb) for

siege operations may be clearly discerned in the monu-

(I ERA

Fic. 3—Wheeled Turret with Ram.

mental reliefs. The ποθ was constructed of earth and
stones and might even reach almost to the level of the
confronting fortress-wall. Sometimes a path paved
with bricks or tiles was formed on this rampart and
upon this lofty six-wheeled movable turrets, carrying
bowinen on the summit, and provided with a powerful

1 Heb. pino Sub onmvo. Evwald regards ENnEiO as
denom. verb from no ‘hole,' and is followed by Bttcher and
Thenius. (δ, however, render, ἐνοοῦσαν (1, ἐνενόουν»), which leads
Wellhansen and Klostermann to restore Divino (cp Prov. 548
Jon. 14), ‘were meditating to overthrow, ete'_a weak meaning.

2 {To reference in BENHADAD, $ 1, add now ΑἸΑ ΤΊ] 250.]

4599

SIEGE

Vattering-ram, were driven down the paved slope against
the hostile wall or tower. Some of these movable rams
{fig. 3), mounted on wheeled conveyances, were of much
smaller size, These possessed a powerful head or spur,
shaped like a ram's head, and the body of the convey-
ance was framed of thick pianks which afforded pro-
tection to the warriors inside against the arrows and
stones discharged by the defenders of the besieged city.
The more simple and primitive contrivances, consisting
of long beams or poles with metal heads (such as the
ancient Egyptians used, see above), which were driven
by hand only against the lower portions of the walls,
were employed even as late as în the days of Shal-
maneser Il. (middle of gth cent. R.c.), and even in
the days of Nebuchadrezzar, if we can trust the details of
Ezekiel's portrayal of his operations against Tyre, 269
(see below). The larger movable towers with powerful
rams may be found depicted on the monuments of ASur-
nasir-abal, Billerbeck thinks that they must have been
employed at a much earlier period to reduce the
enormous walls of strongholds that were erected in
Babylonia as far back as 3000 B.c.!

As we approach the close of the regal period in
Hebrew history the methods adopted by the Assyrians
3. Later pre- became familiar to Israel. ‘Thus the

siti SELLE word for battering-ram, ἐάν, îs several
exiile ‘times employed by Ezekiel (4a, 2127[22]).
We cannot, however, lay stress on the details of 2 Ch.
2615 in which it is recorded that King Uzziah placed
catapults or balliste (niyagin, see ENGINE) for discharg-
ing stones and darts on the towers of Jerusalem.
Probably the passage reflects the tradition as to defen-
sive apparatus in a besieged town of the early Greek
period (300 8.C.). Certainly catapults were employed
by the Assyrians for discharging stones and darts at the
defenders in the days of Uzziah, and it is possible that
Israel was familiar before 750 B.C. with these military
engines ; but we have no mention of them in pre-exilian
literature. In Jer.66 reference is made to one of the
characteristic accompaniments of a siege, viz., the
destruction of trees. Fruit-trees are here not specifically
mentioned, but all the trees whose wood served for
palisades or hurdles, as shelters for the archers or as
timber for the pent-houses. That the Hebrews, like
the Assyrians, employed the services of slingers (see
SLING) in sieges is clearly shown by 2 K. 325.

In Ezek. 42 we have an enumeration of the various
forms of siege-work to be depicted on the tile in which
the central figure represents Jerusalem itself. Around
it are placed the rampart (ddyàf) and the embankment
(5a/24ih). Encampments are to be made and battering:
rams erectea on every side. It is quite evident that
these clear and definite features have been derived from
the prophet's acquaintance with the military operations
of Nebuchadrezzar's armies. A fresh and vivid detail
should be noted în Ezek. 268 in the prophecy against
TyRE (g.e.). Nebuchadrezzar will besiege Tyre. "The
embankments will be cast up and the /estz40 reared
against her. Kraetzschmar, however, doubts the render-
ing of sinndk by festudo, and prefers to regard it as
meaning the high shield carried by the Rabylonian
soldiery, under whose protection they undermined the
walls. In favour of this view he cites Delitzsch, Peitrige
sur Assyr. 8175. Inv. 9 the doubtful words ibap ΠΡ
probably refer to the battering-ram, and we should
render with Cornili, ‘ And his battering-ram he places
against thy walls and thy towers he demolishes with his
lances.'

The Books of Maccabees throw some light on the

1 See ‘ Fortress-construction în the Ancient East,” by Colonet
Billerbeck in Der alte Orient,0} no. 4 (Leipsic, 1900) The
resent writer much regrets that this careful s6idy came into
is hands too Jate for him to utilise in the article FoRTRES
Billerbeck gives a ground-plan (16) of the ancient fortress of
King Gudea (abont 3000 B.c.) inscribed on a stone slab preserved
in the Louvre.

4510

SIEGE

siege operations of the second century B.c. In the
sa in Siege οἵ Mt. Zion described in x Macc,

# petaila In Gs / we read of stations to shoet from
and Josephus, βελοστάσεις, probably embankments,
ῬΌΏΜΒ, ni005) and engines of war for the dis-

charge of fire-brands (πυροβόλα) and stones (λιθοβόλα),
as well as σκορπίδια which seen to have been a smaller
kind of σκορπίος or great cross-bow {called also γαστρα-
φέτης ‘stomach-bow').! Lastly we have slings (see
SLING). Engines were also constructed by the besieged to
repel these attacks. «In the days of Simon the Maccabee
strongholds were erecied in Judea ‘fortified with high
towers, great walls, gates, and bars’ and well pro-
visioned, In 1 Mace. 1343 we read that Simon
besieged Gaza and invested' it with intrenched camps
and brought a particular engine called ἐλέπολις {or

‘city taker') to bear against the city, and battered one |

of the towers and captured it, ‘The occupants of the
ἐλέπολις then leaped into the city and there was a great
commotion in the city and the inhabitants rent their
clothes and went on the walls with their wives and
children and cried with a loud voice beseeching
Simon.'

This ἐλέπολες was invented by Demetrius Poliorcetes
in the siege of Salamis in Cyprus in 306 B.C. It wasa
tower 120 feet high and measured 60 feet laterally. It
was carried on four wheels, each r2 feet in diameter,
was divided into nine stories, and was manned by
200 soldiers, who moved it by pushing the parallel
beams at the base (Warre-Cornish}, An even larger
machine was employed at the siege of Rhodes în the
following year, pyramidal in shape and with iron plates
on the three sides.

The use of s/irgs in sieges to which 2 K. 325 1 Mace,
651 bear witness was also characteristic of the Roman
period of domination. When Sabinus the Roman pro.
curator was besieged by the Jews, the attackers used
slingers as well as archers (Jos. 474 xvii. 102) and they
were also employed by Pompey with considerable effect
when he besieged Aristobulus in Jerusalem (Jos. 27
1.79). This siege was memorable for the enormous
labour involved in filling up not only the ditch in front
of the N. side of the temple, but the deep valley as well.

Josephus in his De Be/lo Judaico furnishes abundant
material for detailed description —though not in.
frequently exaggerated?—of a Roman siege. Especially
interesting are the vivid particulars, derived from
personal experience, of Vespasian's operations against
the naturally strong fortress of Jotapata (2/ iii. 74).
Hurdles were formed of the wood cut down from the
mountains for the protection of the soldiers in the con.
struction of the embankment. Meanwhile the Jews
hurled darts and stones at the troops so engaged,
Vespasian, on the other hand, set up 160 engines which
discharged javelins, stones a talent in weight, arrows,
and fiery missiles, and thus made the walls untenable by
the defenders, when they came within range. Sallies,
however, were made from the walls, the hurdles dragged
away, and the workers at the embankment killed. The
attempt made by Josephus to raise the height of the
city walls was carried odt, in spite of the volleys of
missiles, by the ingenious expedient οἵ covering fixed
‘piles with raw hides from newly killed animals, which
owing to their moisture were proofagainst fire, Another
device, to neutralise the shock of the battering ram,*

1 See Warre-Cornish, Concise Dict. of Greek and Roman
Antigg., Tormentum,' 636 ὅ.

1 ἄν, B/i.T23.

8 This battering-ram (27 ili. 7 19, 88 214,77) was farmore formid.
able than the rams employed by the Assyrians described above,
and propelled by different means. It wasa vast beam of woo:
like a vessel's mast, with a thick piece of iron at the head and
swung in the air by ropes passing over its centre and suspended
like a balance in a pair of scales from a second beam supported
by other beams passing on both sides of the second like a cross,
This battering-ram was then pulled by a great number of men
with united force. In order to protect them it was cased with
hurdles all over the upper part, secured with skins.

451

SIEVE

consisted in letting down sacks of chaff to meet the
impact ($ 20). As an effective mode of defence scald-
ing vil was poured upon the Roman soldiers and
penetrated within their armour.

We have no space to describe further the varied ex-
pedients in offence and defence in this memorabie siege,
nor to recount other phases of warfare that present
themselves either in the investment of Gamala or in the
operations carried on by Titus around Jerusalem. ‘These,
like the account of the siege of Alesia in Caesar, de Bell
Gall. 768-89, belong to classical rather than biblical
archaeology.

The ethics of ancient warfare are almost universally
conspicuous by their absence. ‘The religions sanction of

του ZÉrem (see BAN) was given to wholesale
5, No ethies c1. ughter O iene
Semites ruthlessiy inflicted on the captured
inhabitants (Joshua, passim, 1 S.1533 28.82; cp2K.
812 1516 Hos. 141 {13:6] Am.113. Also see Stone of
Mesha, ὁ 17). Even the deuteronomie legislation made
it incumbent (Dt. 2013) that every male inhabitant of a
town that resisted should be put to the sword, but
women, children, and cattle should be carried away as
captives. Assyrian monuments depict the terrible clos-
ing scenes of the tragedy of a captured town. Mothers
and maidens on the walls are portrayed with dishevelled
hair and outstretched hands praying for mercy. But
mercy was scant. ASur-nasir-abal, after storming a
mountain stronghold, boasts that he cut off the heads
of 260 warriors and built them up into a pyramid (col.
164). In the capture of Hulai 3000 prisoners were
burnt (4 108). The strong fortress of Tela with three
encircling walls received a fearful punishment. Many
prisoners were burnt. Others were deprived of hand,‘
‘arm, nose, ears, or eyes. ‘The Assyrian boasts that he
erected a columa of writhing agony (Z 118). Boys and
girls were burnt in the flames (col, 21). ‘That all the
survivors became slaves was the natural outcome of
universal custom. Walls were razed to their foun-
dations, the city totally demolished, while catile end
valuables were carried off as spoil. The fruit-trees
around the city were utterly destroyed by the invader.
Thus Tiglath-pileser III. in describing his operations
against Chinzer (Rawl. Nimrud-insc. IL., 67, 24) says,
(isu) kirî (isu) musukkani Za dib dorifu akisma isten ul
ezìb; ‘The plantations of palm which abutted on his
rampart I cut down, not a single one did I leave.’
Though Elisha recommended a like course in the war
against Moab (2 K.319), the growing humanitarian
spirit gradually broke into the old ruthiess tradition of
Afrem. The fruit-trees around the city were to be
spared (Dt. 2019) Yet the old spirit of warfare stili
remained în full force (vv. 13-17), especialiy in reference
to Canaanite towns. But this was after all a trait of
the dead past. Greater mercy was to be shown in wars
with more distant peoples (<@, 11-15). And this growing
spirit of humanity is refiected in the conduct of Simon
the Maccabee towards the inhabitants of Gaza (Gazara),
an episode already narrated (8 4). In response to their
entreaties he becomes reconciled.

The duration of a siege varied with the resisting
power of the walls and its defenders as well as the strict-
ness of the investment. Otber factors
co-operated, such as the provisions stored
in the city and the water-supply. Disease
also might accelerate the end. The siege of Samaria
lasted more than two years, ‘The siege of the island
of Tyre by Shalmaneser IV. and Sargon II lasted
probably five years, and by Nebuchadrezzar thirteen
years (unsuccessfully). Of the great straits to which a
prolonged siege reduced the inhabitants we have a vivid
portraiture in 2 K. 625 Ezek. 41011 5101: Jer. 199 Lam.
220 Dt. 2853. Cpthelanguage of Lk. 2123 f£

o. C. W.

SIEVE (1339, Am.99t; ΠΕΣ, 15. 30287) and SEFT

{cintazw), Lk. 2231, See AGRICULTURE, $ το.

4512

for sieges.

6. Duration
of a siege.

SIGN, SIGNS

SIGN, SIGNS. 1 DI, πόρ, and 2. ΠΝ, ve.
See Ensions, $ rac. For ‘signs’ in phrase penna: nîni
σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα, see WoNDERS; also GosPELs, $ 137,7

3. ΒΝ, siyyrn, Ezek.3915 Jer.8l21 2 K.2317. See col.
2978 (e).

4. ΠΗ, »εαϑ' δέλι, Jer.61, RV ‘signal.’

5. παράσημος, Acts28 11. See CastoR AND PoLLUX.

È. σημεῖον. See above, 2.

For ‘the twelve sigus'(mbin, 2 K.285 EVmg., and nimib

οὐ 3832 AVmg., RVmg. ‘signs of the Zodiac ’), see MazzaLoTa,

AZZAROTH, STARS, $ 34.

SIGNET (DNÎN, 40662; NUDO, fabbd'att; NOI,
‘ioka' ; δακτύλιος), See Rino,

SIHON (1Π0Ὁ, MD: cuwn [BAF], cron ΠΝ a
king of the Amorites, in the time of the early Israelites.
There are serious problems arising out of the accounts
of Sihon. Our object must be, first, to give a sketch
of the traditions in their present form, and to state the
position of previous critics as to their historical value,
and next, to point out the great simplification of the

Ϊ

whole question produced by the application of a keener ᾿ς

<criticism to the text of the narratives.
Sihon is represented in the traditional text as a king
of the Amorites beyond the Jordan, whose dominion
was bounded by the Jabbok on the N.,
di The dra by the Arnon on the S., and by the
0) TU. Jordan on the W., and extended east-
wards to the desert (Judg. 1122). According to Josh.
123 1327, however, it also included the ARABAH [g.7.]
between the Jabbok and the sea of Galitee {called
Chinnereth or Chinneroth), and in Josh. 1321 the five
kings of the Midianites killed by the Israelites (Nu. 81 8)
are called ‘princes of Sihon' (σείων ΒΊ, σηωρ [A]).
When Israel asked leave of this Amorite King to pass
through his land, in order to reach the Jordan and
invade Canaan, he refused it, and took the field against
them, but was defeated and slain at Jahaz (Νὰ, 2121-24;
Dt, 226-36; Judg. 1119-22). The Israelites took Heshbon,
Sihon's capital, and with it all the territory between the
Jabbok and the Arnon, Oc {y.v.] and his kingdom they
also conquered, and so, as it wouid appear unintention-
ally, they became the masters of the whole of the trans-
Jordanic region called, in the wider sense, Gilead (see
GiILEAD, $ 3). The northern part—the former kingdom
of Og—was given to half Manasseh, the southern to
Gad and Reuben. From Nu. 2127-30 Josh.1325 Dt.
236 it is inferred that Sihon ‘had crossed the Jordan,
and driving Moab southwards over Arnon and Ammon
eastwards to the sources of the Jabbok, had founded a
kingdom for himself.’ ® The extraordinary negotiations
described in Judg, 1114-27 are based upon the asserted
fact that the territory between the Jabbok and the Arnon
originally and properly belonged to Ammon. The
Ammonites sought in vain to conquer their ancient
territory from the Israelites, and in τ K.419 we find
one of Solomon's prefects ruling over ‘the land of
Gilead, the country of Sihon king of the Amorites and
Og the king of Bashan.”

The circumstance that neither J nor P mentions the fight with
Sîhon has suggested τὰ Meyer (ZA7W 536 7°) and Stade (GVZ
1 117) that the fight with Sihon can have formed no part of the
original tradition, and arose out of a misunderstanding of the
old song in Nu.2127-30, Their objections are noticed and
replied to by Kittel (λέ αὶ 2/228-231) and by G. A. Smith (HG
561), but not altogether conclusively.

The redactors and editors of the already corrupt
Hebrew texts have ventured to alter the historical and
ser geographical details in accordance with

2. Cribically Ἦν own inaccurate ideas: but they
emended text. πος their liberty 50 conscientiously that
it is almost always possible in a greater or less degree
to discern the true text underlying the false, Og the king
of the Amorites was really Agag king of the Arammites or
Jerahmeelites (= Amalekites), and the region occupied
by his branch of the Jerahmeelite race was called
Cushan-Z.e., the N. Arabian Cush, which adjoined

1 G. A. Smith, HG 5575
4513

SILAS, SILVANUS

Missur or Musri. This ‘Cushan'’ (je12) was miswritten
Sihon. Whether the capital of the land was called
* Heshbon' (pan) or ‘Heshmon' (poem) may be
doubtful. There are traces of a clan called agig or the
like (cp Hashabiah, Hashubah) as well as of one called
mein (cp Heshmon, Husham). That the five kings of

the Midianites should be called ‘ princes of Sihon' (Josh.

1321) need not surprise us. ‘Their nanies are based on

the three ethnic names Jerahmeel, Zarephath, and

‘Arab; it is not more wonderful that such personages

should be connected with Cushan than that Balak, a

son of Zippor (#.e., a Zarephathite), should be introduced

to us as king of Missur {‘ Moab,' in Nu. 224, etc., as
often, is miswritten for ' Missur '}, and that these kings
should be called ‘ Midianites' harmonises with the fact
that Balak king of Missur (‘ Moab') is closely connected
with the elders of Midian! The reconstruction,
whether partial or complete, of all the other Sihon
passages would occupy too much space here (see Cris.

Bib,). Suffice it to say that the view of E. Meyer,

Stade, Bacon, and the Oxf Hex. that Nu.2126 is an

editorial insertion arising out of a misunderstanding of

the song which follows seems fully justified. The song
itself, in a revised form which probably approaches the
true text somewhat more nearly than earlier revisions,
appears to run thus :— :
276 Let the castle of Heshbon be built,
Let the city of Cushan be established !

For a fire burned Heshbon,

A flame the city of Cushan,

It devoured the cities of Missur,

It consumed the citadels thereof.

Wo to thee ! [O people of) Missur,

Thou art undone, O people of Cusham!

He has given up his sons as fugitives,

(Vea), Jcrahmeel his daughters into captivity.

30 Cushar as far as Rimmon has perished,

Missur as far as Naphtoabh is desolate.?

The criticism of Judg. 1. Z given elsewhere (JEPHTHAH, #8
, 5) may be here Teaffirmed, so far as ît asserts that the narrative
as been editorialiy recast, and in particular that the account of

Lepbibah's message to the king of Ammon (2) must originally
ave referred to the compact between Laban and Jacob or

Israel (Gen. 31 44-54). But the theory that }iy has often

arisen out of pùnp or ὈΝΏΠῪ, taken in connection with the

view of the earlier tradition respecting Moses suggested elsewhere

(see Moss, $ 18), suggests a better key to the problem. ‘l'he
e story itueli (see DIS did nor originally have Hauran for ite

scene ; this naturally suggests a more radical treatment of the

Sihon-narrative, On the statement in 1 K.4r9 (MT and ©),

which Kuenen wrongly supposed to confirm the tradition of an

Amorite king Sihon, see Cri. Βέδ. Solomon's twelve prefects

(as the original text must have stated) were most probably

placed over the Israelite territory in the Jerahmeelite Negeb;

see SoLomon, $ 6, n, 1.

See Kuenen, 74. i 18516 [1885], E. Meyer, ΖΑ ΤῊΣ

5 36-52 [1885]. T.K.C.

SIHOR (“ÎMW), Josh. 133 AV, RV SHIHOR (g.v.).
Cp also EGYPT, RIVER OF, and NILE.

SILAS, SILVANUS. Bilvanus (in this form of the
name) is mentioned only four times in NT. In
1 ‘Thess.lx 2 Thess. li he appears as
1. NT data. ; int author, along with Paul and
Timothy, of the respective epistles; according to
2 Cor. 119 he preached the Gospel in Corinth along
with the same two; according to 1 Peter (512) that
Epistle was written ‘through’ (did) Silvanus.
Silas (in this form of the name) is met with only in
1 Either the large ethnic term 'Midian' covers the smaller
one of ‘ Jerahmeel” (or © Zarephath '), or more probabiy pm is
written in error for no (Missur); cp Joe13[4]4, rms Ἔν, where

28

29

prrs may come from *)yf, a correction of 24, and the poem în
Ts. 23, where both “4 and jiu:y are the scribe’s errors for ny;
the oracle being concerned with Missur, In Nu.227 (MT and
®) ‘elders of Moab' and ‘elders of Midian’ are mentioned
side by side; 7.10 apparently comes from 775» and this from
3393 (the original reading out of which 2810 sprang).

2 See Crit. Bib. The last line seems to baffle Prof. Sievers
(Metrische Studien, 2411). But Pesh.'s reading nom (see
ΜΕΡΕΒΑ) might have suggested the remedy. Cp ἼΣΤ mei
(Ps. 65 13 [12)), fe, an nm

4514

SILAS, SILVANUS

Acts 15 22-185. At the council of Jerusalem he is
chosen along with Judas Barsabas to accompany Paul
and Barnabas in name of the primitive church to
Antioch and there deliver the letter embodying the
apostolic decree which at the same time is to be com-
municated by word of mouth also (152227), After
some time so spent they return to Jerusalem (15327).
in connection with their appearance in Antioch they are
called 'prophets' (προφῆται) ; when chosen at Jerusalem
they are referred to as ‘chief men among the brethren ἡ
(ἄνδρες ἡγούμενοι ἐν τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς) ; 153222.

After the separation of Paul and Barnabas in con-
sequence of the difference about John Mark before the
second missionary journey, Paul makes choice of Silas
to take the place of Rarnabas as his companion (15 40}.
The next mention of Silas is in connection with the
incidents at Philippi when he and Paul wereapprehended,
beaten at the instance of the Roman authority, and
cast into prison. It is described how as they prayed
aloud at midnight they were miraculously delivered and
how they baptised the gaoler and his family, When
orders came to let the prisoners go, Paul claimed
for himself and his companion their privileges as
Roman citizens, thus compelling the magistrates to
come in person and beg them to leave the city (16 19-40).

In connection with the sojourn in Thessalonica it is
recorded of Silas that he took part in the successful
missionary work there ; and after a tumult was escorted
out of the town by the Christians there on his night
journey with Paul towards Beroea (174-104) In Berctea
with Paul he was again successful in the synagogue.
Along with Timothy (of whom there has been no men-
tion by name since 163) Silas remained in Bercea whilst
Paul, in consequence of a tumult, was brought by the
Christians to Athens (17 rod-15a). These bring back a
message from Paul begging Silas and Timothy to join
him as soon as possible, he awaiting their arrival there
(1715416). But it is not until after he has gone on
to Corinth that they actually come up with him (185).

The question whether by the two forms of the name
the same person is denoted is one which must be

2. Possible determined mainly by the contents o the

identity, P2Ss9ges in whic | they respectively occur ;

È the mere suggestion of a person having
two names does not in itself create any difficulty ($ 7).

(a) It is in agreement with 2 Cor. 119 that, as we read
in Acts185, Silas and Timothy rejoin Paul in Corinth.

(δ) According to 1 Thess. 31 5, Paul, before the
composition of 1 Thess., sent Timothy from Athens to
Thessalonica. According to this we shall have to
assume at all events a hiatus in Acts. If, as we read
in Acts185, Timothy first rejoined Paul not at Athens,
but at Corinth, then if he was to be sent by Paul from
Athens to Thessalonica he must first have again made
the journey to Athens from Corinth along with the
apostle.

Of any such break in Paul's sojaurn in Corinth, however, we
find no trace in Acts 181-182. Moreover, it îs impossible to
assign the journzy to Athens to a later date; for, according to
Acts 18 184.22 Paul's route from Corinth leads him directly by
way of Ephesus to Syria. The third missionary journey is not
to he thought of in this connection ; for în it the apostle came
to Macedonia first, proceeding afterwards to Hellas (Acts201/;
whether to Athens or no is not at all said), whilst according to

1 Thes. 2 18.3 4 he had not been in Thessalonica again before
the letter was composed,

Unless we are prepared to assume that a journey of
Paul from Corinth to Athens has been omitted, the
anly alternative is to seek for the lacuna in what we are
told concerning Timothy (and Silvanus), and suppose
somewhat as follows. While Paul was still in Athens
(Acts 17 16-34), not afterwards when he was în Corinth,
he was joined from Bercea by Timothy, whom he then
sent (from Athens) to Thessalonica. As for Silvanus,
it is not necessary to suppose even a lacuna, if we
conjecture that his meeting with Paul did not occur at
Athens but only after Corinth had been reached. But
if in Acts the arrival of Timothy at Athens is left un-

4515

SILAS, SILVANUS

mentioned and the journeys of Timothy and Silvanus
are always represented as having been made together,
there is also the other possibility that Silvanus joined
Paul along with Timothy while the apostle was still in
Athens. Only, in that case, when Timothy set out from
Athens for Thessalonica Silvanus must have been sent
off somewhere else, as we find Paul saying that the
journey of Timothy to Thessalonica had for its con-
sequence that he himself was left in Athens alone. The
plural in x Thess. 31 ‘we thought it good to be left
behind at Athens alone and sent Timothy’ seems to
allow the supposition that Paul remained in Athens
along with Silvanus; but the singular in 35 ‘I. . . sent'
shows that this is excluded,

It is to be emphasised that the introduction of a coming οὗ
Timothy (and Silvanus) to Paul in Athens is quite contrary
to the view of Acts; for according to 17 16 Paul awaits both in
Athens, yet in point of fact (185) they do not reach him till
he is in Corinth and this last circumstance is stated in such
a form as makes the meeting there entirely the result of the
apostle’s injunction recorded in 17 15. If however, the student
is prepared to accept the assumption of the one lacuna or the
other in Acts as above, there is nothing to hinder the identifica»
tion of Silas with Silvanus.

Weizslicker (Ap. Zeitalter, [3 256, ET 1292 f.) never-
theless doubts the identification. He thinks that

3. Two the companion of Paul was Silvanus but

distinct that the composer of Acts substituted for

ermons ? him Silas, a member of the primitive church,

P with a view to expressing by this means
also the connection of Paul with Jerusalem. It is
correct to say that this tendency really is at work in
Acts (see ACTS, 8 4; CORNELIUS, $ 5; COUNCIL,
88 6, 10). In point of fact one can very easily find
cause for bringing it into requisition in the case of Silas
when regard is had to the parallel case of Barnabas.

Silas îs Paul's companion on the second missionary journey
as Barnabas was on the first, Now we find Barnabas figuring
in Acts 1119-26 as the emissary of the primitive church who is
charged by it with the task of înspecting the first Gentile
Christian church at Antioch and who fetched Paul from Tarsus
to Antioch. Not only is this difficult to reconcile with the
known independence of Paul; it is also excluded by the order
of the provinces, Syria and Cilicia, to which, according to Gal.
121, Paul betook himself after his first visit to Jerusalem. As,
then, in Acts, for the first period of his activity Paul is placed
under the guiding hand of Barnabas, so also is it possible to
conceive that under the infiuence of the same tendency he has
assigned to him a companion from Jerusalem for the second
missionary journey, a companion who shall be the guarantee that
in the missionary activity of the apostle the connection with
Jerusalem shall not be lost. ‘The same composer in fact in
21 20-26 goes so far as to affirm that Paul, on the last occasion
of his coming back to Jerusalem, took upon himself a Nazirite
νον and fulfilled it in order to prove with ali publicity the
completeness of his adherence to the Mosaic law. As against
this see Acrs (8 7, xx end). In particular, in 164 a main
business of the second missionary journey is represented as
having been that of communicating and inculcating the decree
which we are told had been arrived at in the Council of Jerusalem.
(As against the historicity of this decree, see Councti, $ 11.)
For such a purpose Silas must have seemed a singularly suitable
companion for Paul, as along with Judas Barsabas he had heen
the messenger solemly charged by ihe primitive church to carry
the decree to Antioch.

AIl this, however, supplies no compelling reason for
assuming a substitution of the Jerusalem Silas for a
companion of Paul not belonging to Jerusalem who
was named Silvanus. Precisely by the instance of
Barnabas ought we to be put on our guard against too
far-reaching critical operations. That Barnabas was a
prominent missionary companion of Paul is assured by
Gal. 219, and that he was a Jew—-a Jew in fact who
notwithstanding all his daily intercourse with Paul had
nevertheless not as yet succeeded in freeing himself
from the yoke of the law—is shown by Gal. 213. This
being so, Paul can very well be supposed to have
selected also a second Jew—Silas, to wit—for a travelling
companion. Had Silas really been the bearer of the
decree of the councit, Paul assuredly would not have
done so; it must be remembered, however, that no
such decree was ever made and, least of all, carried to
Antioch. It is possible to recognise the tendency of

Ὁ Acts, spoken of above, to represent Paul as in con-

4516

SILAS, SILVANUS

nection with Jerusalem by means of his companion
Silas, and yet, to decline to be shut up to the supposition
that this tendency brought about the substitution of this
Silas in the place of another companion of the apostle ;
it is enough to discern the error and the tendency of
Acts simply in its representation of the Silas who
actually did accompany Paul as a prominent person
in the primitive church and, in particular, as guarantor
of the apostolic decree.

That the companion of Paul was a Jew is presupposed not
only by the composer of Acts as a whole, inasmuch as he
represents Silas in 1 10 (0.4) as coming forward in synagogues
and also (16 3) represents circumcision as being necessary in a
companion of Paul (in the case of Timothy), but also by the
author of the ‘we'.source (see AcTS, $ τ, 9 end), who includes
Silas among the number of those who (according to 16 16) go to
the synagogue or, as the case may be, to the Jewish place of
prayer, and (1613) teach there. In 1620 Paul and Silas
are even called Jews expressly-though only in the mouths of
their accusers, it is true, on which accouat the passage must
be set on one side as possibly meaning to suggest that the
accusers were in evror (cp 1637).

Amongst the views of critics we find not only the dis-
tinetion between Silas and Silvanus just spoken of;
there is also the attempt to identify the

SI Silas- o Individual to whom both names are as-
A Αχαρ signed with other persons as well. With

Luke, to begin with. This hypothesis
was put forward by Van Vloten (see below, $ 10) in the
interests of his proposed answer to the question 25 to
the authorship of the ‘we '-source in Acts.

There is much that speaks for the view that this author was
Silas ; other considerations speak for Luke; yet neither theory
is in itself alone quite satisfactory (see AcTs, $ 9), Van Vioten
accordingly sought to combine the adyantages of both by
identifying the two persons. In particular he found difficulty
in the supposition that in 1610 the author of the ‘we*-source
should have joined Paul as a travelling companion without the
fact being mentioned. The supposition is necessary as long as
one chooses to see in this author some one not named in Acts—
Luke, for example; it can be dispensed with (he thinks) as
soon as we see în him one who has already been spoken of asa
member of the travelling company. s, for example. Van
Vloten sought to establish the possibility of his identification
with Luke ly the consideration that the words from which
Silvanus and Lucanus (the origina! form underlying the abbrevi-
ation Lucas ; see Lug, $ 6) are derived, have the same meaning
Gilva=lucus= wood); also by the argument that in 2 Cor., 1 and
2 Thess,, and 1 Pet. only the name Silvanus is met with, but
conversely in Col, (414), Philem. (24), 2 Tim. (411) only that of
Luke.

To all this the answer must be that identity of etymo-
Iogical meaning in the case of two proper names by no
means establishes any title ta identify the persons who
bear them. Moreover, it is not objectionable but be-
fitting the seemly modesty of the author if his joining
the company of travellers is indicated not by the mention
of his name but simply by the transition from the third
to the first person, whether he is really himself the eye-
witness or falsely makes himself appear as such (see
ACTS, $ 1), The transition to the first person, too, is
not made any more explicable if the person so indicated
has already been named. Since he is not the only one
who has been so named we do not learn from the
'we' who he is. Moreover, Van Vloten has not at all
succeeded in disposing of the difficulties by which the
hypothesis that Silas wrote the ‘ we '-source is beset (see
ACTS, 8 9), or even in lessening them; the identification
with Luke contributes absolutely nothing at all towards
their removal.

The identification of Silas-Silvanus with Titus has
been attempted in quite other interests. (α) It has long
been regarded as a conspicuous instance

sù Siae ne of silence due to ‘tendency’ that in
se Tita ? Acts the name of Titus, who, accord-

ing to Gal.23, was the subject of so
violent a contention at the Council of Jerusalem, is men-
tioned neither in this connection nor yet anywhere else
{see CounciL, $ 7). This difficulty would disappear if
Titus was identical with Silas. Titus, however, was
a Gentile Christian, we learn (Gal. 23); whilst Silas,
according to Acts 1522, was a member of the church of
Jerusalem.

4517

SILAS, SILVANUS

In order to identify the two in spite of this consideration,
Marcker and Seufert (see below, $ 10) find themselves reduced
to the violent expedient of interpreting Acts 1522 in the follow.
ing sense: ‘it scemed good to the apostles and the elders, with
the whole church, to choose men out of their company and send
to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, Judas Barsabbas and Silas,
chief men, ἔνε company gf (ἐν) the brethren On this interpre.
tacon Judas and Silas are distinguished from the brethren
chosen from out the church of Jerusalem, and therefore Silas
may possibly be a Gentile Christian. On the other hand, even
apart from the violence done to the language of the text, this
supposition is, in its substance also, in the highest degree im-
probable ; for it would be impossible to have chosen as exponent
of the apostolic decree any more unsuitable person than Paul's
uncircumcised comrade. No less astonishing is the other
supposition, that of Graf, which seeks to reach the same result
by the opposite route; the supposition, namely, that Titus-Silas
was from the first a member of the church of Jerusalem and was
chosen from its midst. In other words, we are asked to suppose
that an uncircumcised person had been for years a member of
the church in Jerusalem. Apart from the inherent difficulties,
neither form of the hypothesis serves in any adequate degree the
purpose for which it is introduced ; for though it is true that
on this hypothesis Acts does not leave out the name of Titus-
Silas altogether in connection with the Council of Jerusalem, it
omits the principal thing—viz., that the demand for his circum-
cision was frustrated by Paul.

(3) A peculiar position is taken up by Seuferti. He
does not write in the apologetic interest ; rather does he
ascribe to the composer of Acts a tendency similar to
that supposed by Weizs&cker ($ 3 above), that, namely,
of putting forward Titus, by the selection of his Jewish-
sounding name Silas {see below, $ 76), as a man stand-
ing in close connection with the Jerusalem Christians,
and so bridging over the gulf between these and Paul.
It will be time to consider this theory when the identity
of Titus and Silas has been established; but, as has
been shown, what is proved is their distinctness.

The acme of complexity is reached by the hypothesis
of Zimmer {see below, $ 10). According to him, Silas

᾿ the Jewish Christian of Jerusalem is

Sme Silas meniioned only în Acts 15222732 / ;

with Titus, distinct from him, but identical with

another not? Silvanus and Titus, 15 the Silas named
in Acts 1540-18s.

(α) The Silas who, according to Acts 15 40, is chosen by Paul,
then in Antioch, to be his travelling companion, cannot be the
same person as the Silas who, according to 15 33, returned from
Antioch to Jerusalem. — But why not? Paul might have
summoned him back from Jerusalem; or, without the circum.
stance being expressly mentioned, Silas could, after the interval
named in 15 35,4, have again returned to Antioch.1

(ὦ The Roman citizenship which, according to Acts1637,
Silas possessed, does not disprove that he belonged to Jerusalem ;
for either he or his parents can have acquired it somewhere in
the Diaspora in the same manner as, for example, the ‘libertini ἡ
of Acts 69 possessed it (sce Schiir. Ο ΡῚΡ 3 5375, ET ii. 3 576,4).
Besides, this citizenship of Silas is itself excecdingiy doubifal
(see below, $ 8a).

© Zimmer argues that in 2 Cor. 8 23 the same thing is srid of
Titus as is said of Silvanus in 1 19, and therefore the two are
identica. But the statements are by no means completely co-
incident. Titus could rightly μὲ called “fellow worker (συνεργός)
of Paul in writing to the Corinthians, even if he had not been
the companion of the apostle in the founding of that church,
simply in view of the fact that after their alienation from Paul
he had won them back to him ; on the other hand, the expression
employed with reference to Silvanus (‘ preach the gospel ') relates
to the founding of the church,

1 We have no need, therefore, in order to maintain the identity
of the Silas of 1533 with him of 1540, to fall back upon the
interpretation—in point of fact a very unskilful one—offered by
2,342, ‘But it seemed good to Silas that they should remain*
(ἔδοξεν δὲ τῷ Σίλᾳ ἐπιμεῖναι αὐτού6). It presupposes that the
ἀπελύθησαν ἀπὸ τῶν ἀδελφῶν of 2.33 does ποῖ mean ‘they took
leave of the brethren and set out on their joumey ᾿- ἃ meaning
which nevertheless is assured by 2825, and În our present passage
is made specially necessary on account of the addition ‘unto those
that had sent them forth' (πρὸς τοὺς ἀποστείλαντας adrovs)—but,

‘it was said to them by the brethren that it was not desired to
detain them longer in Antioch.' Had the composer of Acts held
this to-have been what actually happened, he would not in any
case have regarded it as a thing worth recording. Matters are
not made any better by the reading ‘it seemed good to Silas
to remain there' (αὐτοῦ with the futther addition ‘but Judas
alone proceeded ' (μόνος δὲ Ἰούδας ἐπορεύθη. They beconie still
worse if this last clause, which D and ΝΕ. are almost alone în

iving, be omitted (so, for example, RVMg.); for in that case

ἀπελύθησαν must necessarily mean, ‘they on their side took
Veave," and why Silas should then suddenly have changed his
mind is left wholly unexplained.

4518

SILAS, SILVANUS

(4) The apologetic aim-followed by Zimmer as well as by
Màrcker and Graf—of freeing Acts from the charge of silence
with a purpose, is even less successfully realised in the case of
Zimmer than it 15 in that of the other two, since the Silas who,
according to Zimmer, is identical with Titus is not mentioned at
all in connection with the Council of Jerusalem.

(e) The difficulty (only arising in connection with Zimmer's
hypothesis} that in Acts two separate persons of the name of
Sîlas should be mentioned in such close proximity (15.32 40)
without any indication of their being distinct individuals is hardìy
less chan that which presses upon all forms of an identification
of Titus with Silas-Silvanus—this, namely, that Paul should have
designated one and the same fellow-worker now as Silvanus now
as Titus, and should have interchanged the two nameseven within
the limits of so short a passage as 2 Cor. 119-213.

As for the forms of the names, the identity of Silas
and Silvanus admits of being shown in a variety of ways.
(«) Silas may be an abbreviation of

7. The names. Silvanus. This sort of abbreviation
used for pet names (hypocoristica) is, properly speaking,
native to Greek soil; but that in NT times it was also
applied to Latin names is shown by the instance of Luke
(see LUKE, $ 6). Strictiy speaking, the form we should
have expected would be Silvas; but the form Silas is
also possible, since abbreviation followed no hard and
fast rules,

It can be shown that Μενέστας (not Μενέστρατ) is equivalent
to Μενέστρατος (Polyb. iv. 160 xx. 10 5 xxii. 12{14]13) and 'Ap-
Χέστας to ᾿Αρχίστρατος (Ficky Criech, Personennament) 73).

or Lucas too no hesitation is felt in assuming Lucianus (not
to mention other forms which have been suggested) as the un-
abbreviated name., Jos. 8/ vii. 81 5, 88 252, 275-279, pei
Sught not to he cited as against this, for the XAovas! there
named is, according to Schiirer (G/1/% 1541, ET i. 2259) and
Forcellini (Oxo. Latinitatis, 3 (1883) 1162), L. Fiavius Silva
Nopius Bassus, so that the name does not come into considera-
tion here at all. Still less cught appeal to be made to the fact
that in MSS of the NT the word is accentuated ZiAas, although
if an abbreviation from Silvanus it really ought to be Σιλᾶς ;2
for the accentuation of MSS is in no sense authoritative. The
circumstance, t00, that the name Silas, according to Zahn (Eind.
i. d. NT 122 £), does not occur at all elsewhere on Latin soil,
and has been met with on Greek soil only at Thespiee (C/G
Septentrion. 1, no. 1772, 4. 125) is far from being decisive, in-
deed, against ‘abbreviation from Silvanus, yet at least points
to another alternative, viz. that

(δ) Silas may also be a Semitic name.f Silvanus in
this case will be the Roman form nearest possible in
sound to his own name, a Roman form assumed by this
Jew for intercourse with the non-Jewish world {see
Namrs, 8 86).

As regards etymology, the derivation from #%y, ‘three, is
inadmissible. The #2Y (SueLesn) named in 1 Ch. 7 35 becomes
Σελλης in GA, Should one choose to conjecture Wp (with
8301) as the Hebrew form—as is perhaps done by Hoole
(Classical Element in the NT, 1888, p. 61,/.)—the Greek, after
the analogy of ἼΦ in 1 Ch. 230, which appears in the LXX as
Zarad [BA] or XaAe8 [L], would in no case be Σιλας, _ Thus
also the conjecture that Silas is identical with the Tertius of Rom.
1622 {so Franz Burman, Erercift, Acad, 2, Rotterdam, 1688,
P. 161) is seen to he quite baseless.

Jerome (on Gal.11; ed. Vallarsi, vii. 1374) and OS (ed. Lag.
7116 7225 19970) derive Silas and Silvanus alike from n7g}
(rnissus: 0519861 has Σιλας pevirns) So also Zimmer, who
cites the πο (SneLAH, 2) of Gen. 1024 ΤΊ 13-15 1 Ch 11824.
This last, however, appears as Zaha in δ (or Ξαλας [L once
in Gen. 10 24). in Jos. Anz. i. 64, 88 146, 150, as Σαλας, Σαλης
or SeAas. For this reason we must also reject the conjecture of
Seufert (above, $ 54) that the choice of the Hebrew name which
the composer of Acts gives to Silvanus was determined by the
attribute of [τὰ bearer as being an apostle or one ‘sent.'

The

In all probability the root of Silas is bry.

1 To be accentuated so, according to Winer,@ 88 652, 5
n. 73, because ov stands for a consonant and other MSS write

«ABas.

2 Thus, if for no other reason, because in the longer form the
accent lies upon the second not upon the first syliable. That all
hypocoristica should have the circumfiex on the last syllable is
in accordance indeed with the principles laid down by Herodian
(ed. Lentz, 150-59) but not with the examples he gives; cp
Winer,8) 8 677.

3 With Greeks it might be an abbreviation of Σιλανός which
occurst—e,g., so early as in Xen. Arad. vi. 2[4] 13.

4 In Josephus the following Jews bear the name of Sila:
(@) a tyrant of Lysias (4πέ, xiv.32 $ 40); (4) a friend of Agrippa
I (vili. 67, $ 204; xix. 63, $ 209; 71, $$ 317-325; 83, 8353); (0)
acommandant of Tiberias (Zif. 17, $ 89/13 53, ἢ 272; 27 11. 216,
$ 615): (4) a commandant from Babylon (8/ ii. 192, $ 520, ili.
21 , 88 11, 19).

4519

SILAS, SILVANUS

Palmyrene inscriptions nos. 17, 18, and 95 in de Vogilé
(Syrie Centrale, inscript. Sémit., 1868, pp. ar, 65)
show-—and indeed in the case of no. 17 with the Greek
parallel text τοὺ Zeeda!—the form awe which is
equivalent in meaning to the Heb. ting, ‘he who has
been asked for'; cp Nòld., ZD.MG, 1870, p. 96f As
the aleph in the middie was hardly audible, the form
Sila easily arose out of this. So in 70 34srtr=Le Bas
et Waddington (sce n. 1) 23, no. 2567, p. 586, explic.
P. 589 fi: Zapuvryepapos ὁ καὶ Σειλας in Emesa in
Coelesyria, 78-79 A.D.; κρὴν several times in Talmud
(cp Néldeke, /c., and Zahn, 123); also τι in eastern
Aramaic in the fifth century a.D. (CZS2, no. 101,
according to Zahn). On this etymology Σίλας will be
the correct accentuation,

The form τῷ Σειλεα in Acts 1534 D (ἃ : Silea) is noticeable,
as also the (only graphically different) τῷ Σιλαια of Acts 174 D,
whilst elsewhere D invariably has XtAas or Σειλᾶς, The ZuA-

Βανός found în 2 Cor., and 2 Thess. (Dd Ee FC), and in 1 Pet.
(B) is only another writing for XxAovards.

We come now to the question of the credibility of the
data regarding Silas-Silvanus,

ΤΊΣ (e) As regards Acts it has been re-

8. Gredibiliby ποτ κοα already ($ 2 /-) that the share of

rari Acke || Silas-Silvanus in Paul's second mission
end 1 Pet” 21Y journey is not open to any question,
ΝΗ Sio especially when confirmed as ît is by

2 Cor. 119 {on the genuineness of which
epistle see GALATIANS, $$ 6-9), but that Acts needs
between 1715 and 185 some supplementing, and so far
as its entire presentation of the ‘apostolic decree' is
concerned is completely unhistorical. The same holds
good of the miraculous deliverance of Paul and Silas
from prison at Philippi, as soon as 1 Thess. is accepted
as genuine, for in 1 Thess. 22 Paul alludes to the evil
treatment he had received at Philippi and yet attributes
it not to any outward miracle but to his own inward
disposition that he nevertheless found fresh courage for
the preaching of the gospel in Thessalonica (cp AcTs,
$ 2} The fact also that the Roman citizenship
is here so unexpectedly attributed to Silas rouses the
suspicion that the author may bave expressed himself
carelessly and included Silas in his statement, although
in fact all that he really knew of was the citizenship of
Paul {see above, 8 6 4).

(δ) Whilst the genuineness of τ Thess., and so also
the designation of Silvanus as joint author (1), is open
to no well-grounded objection, that of 2 Thess. must be
given up, especially on account of 21-12. It will not
avail to plead for the genuineness of the rest after this
has been set aside ; rather must we regard those portions
of 2 Thess. which coincide with x Thess., including that
in which Silvanus is named, as being imitations by
which it was sought to give the epistle the appearance
of being a genuine writing of Paul (cp Schmiedel in #7C
sum NT2:; Holtamann, ZVTW, 1901, pp. 97-108).

{c) Since after the sojourn of Paul'at Corinth in the
course of his second missionary journey (Acts 185 2 Cor.
119), Silvanus is not again mentioned as having been in
the company of the apostle, it is in itself possible that
when 1 Pet. was written Silvanus was in the company of
Peter—the epistle being assumed to be genuine and to
have been written after that date. Of those who do not
regard 1 Pet. as genuine, many find in the affirmation
of ὅτε that Peter is writing ‘through Silvanus' (διὰ
Σιλουανοῦ) and particularly in the words ὡς λογίζομαι
(AV ‘as 1 suppose’) which RV, certainly cerrectly,
takes as referring to ‘faithful’ (muroî, ‘by Silvanus,
our faithful brother, as 1 account him, I have written
unto you briefiy'), a veiled reference to the fact that
Silvanus bad written the epistle after Peter's death. Τῇ,
however, the epistle dates from 112 A, Ὁ. (see CHRISTIAN,
8 8) this theory is excluded by consideration of what
would have been Silvanus's age at that time, ‘Thus we

1 The Greek text also in CZG 3, no. 4484, and în Le Bas et

Waddington, Voyage archéologigue en Gràce cten Asie Mineure,
23, 1870, no. 2601 (p. 594: explications, p. 600).

4520

SILENCE

shall have to suppose that the mention of Silvanus, as |
also that of Mark (513), who also can hardly have
been still alive at so late a date as 112 A.D., subserves
a definite purpose. Both had been members of the
primitive church (for Mark, cp Acts 1252) and at the
same time companions of Paul; thus, on the one hand,
they become fitted to figure as comrades of Peter, and,
on the other, the naming of them creates the impression
that Peter had a thoroughly good understanding with
Paul the founder of many of the churches included in
the address of the epistle {Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia,
Asia, and Bithynia) ‘The remaining contents of the
epistle show little of that tendency to bring about a
reconciliation between Paulinism and Jewish Christianity
which the Tiibingen school attributed to it; but the
closing verses which have been under our consideration
must doubtless be taken in this sense (cp PETER,
EPIsTLES OF, $ 6, end).

In doing so it is a matter of indifference whether we are to
understand by ‘through’ Giò) that Silvanus is indicated as rhe
individual who, like Tertius in Rom. 1622, wrote the epistle at
the apostle's dictation (so the subscription to Rom. in cod. 133:
‘it was written through Tertius,' ἐγράφη διὰ Τερτίου), or
whether, as the analogy of the other spurious subscriptions of
Pauline letters would warrant, we are intended to look upon him
as the bearer of the letter ; all chat is excluded is the attribution
to him of any sort of independent share in the composition of
the epistle.

In the lists of the ‘seventy' (Lk. 101) Silas and Silvanus
figure as distinet individuals, the former as bishop of Corinth,

᾿ the latter as bishop of Thessalonica. Accord-
9, Later views. ing to the Περίοδοι Βαρνάβα John Mark was
baptized by Barnabas, Paul, and Silas în
Iconium (Lipsius, 4/04», 42. -gesck. i. 203, 1.1 ο 2 277 280 285).
Many interpreters maintain Silas to be the “brother” referred to
in 2 Cor. 8187 This brother, however, must rather have been a
Macedonian, as he was chosen by the Macedonians to represent
them in conveying the collection to Jerusalem. Against the
theory that Silas was the author of the ‘we'-source of Acts see
AcTs, 89. Against the view put forward in 1825 by Bòihme and
Mynster that Silas was the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews
the same considerations hold good as have been urged against
the authorship of Barnabas în so far as they both belonged to
Jerusalem (see BaRNABAS, 8 5).

Van Vloten, ‘Lucas u. Silas' in ΖΉΡΤ, 1867, pp. 223/; 1871,

PP. 431-434; against him, Cropp, ibid, 1868, pp. 353-355;

᾿ Marcker, Stellung der_ Pastoralbritfe im

10. Literature. Leden des Paxlus, Gymnasialprogramm,

Meiningen, 1861, pp. 10-12; Titus Sidoanns,

ibid. 18645 Graf in Heidenheim's Pierteljarhrsschrift fur

englisch-theologische Forschung, ὃ, 1865, pp. 373-394; Seufert,

ZWT, 1885, pp. 359-371; Zimmer, Zischr. f. ξἰγελέ, Wissensch.

w. Birchi. Leben, 1881, pp. 169-174; ΓΡΊΤ, 1881, BP: parr28;

against him Jiilicher 7} 7, 1882, pp. 538-552; Adolf Johannes
{catholic), Comme. zu. 1 Thess., 1898, Dp. 147-153.

P.W.S
SILENCE (MAT: sAUici inferum), a title of
SHEOL (g.v.), Ps. 9417 11517.
The existence of such a word îs, however, most improbable,
and there îs no Ass. parallel. [δ᾽ 5 ᾧδης may = MD?y. 566
SHapow or DeaTH. i

SILK occurs in AV as the rendering of three different
words.

1. BY, 55, is rendered ‘silk’in AV text of Pr. 81 22, and mg.
of Gen. 4142 Exod. 254. On this see LinEN (7).

2. vip, meli (tpiyartos),! Ezek. 161013}. Amidst
the variety of ancient renderings there is a general
agreement that some cloth of fine texture is intended ;
Jewish tradition favours ‘silk’ (Ges. Z%es.}, a meaning
with which the rendering in @ is not inconsistent ; and
Movers (P4dr, ii. 3264) contends that silk was, at feast
as far back as Ezekiel's time, conveyed from China into
W. Asia by the land route through Mesopotamia,
though it was probably almost unknown in Europe till
after Alexander's conquests, and did not come into
general use before the period of the Roman Empire.?
Cp TRADE, 8 62. In any case the reference in Ezek.
16ro is to a long outer vail of fine material which
covered the entire person (Smend, 24 Zoc.).

1 Le, “woven of haîr'; Aq. has ψηλαφητός and ἄνθιμος, Sym.
ἐπένδυμα and πολύμετος; Th. merely transliterates. Vg.

subtilia and golymitus, Pesh. hella (‘vail’), and ἐδξέδέλα |
‘blue’). ;
‘ 2 Cp 5848) 22 56. !

4527

SILOAM, SHILOAH

3. σιρικόν, .e., σηρικόν, the familiar Greek name for
silk (from ΣῊρ : see Strabo, 516, 701), occurs in Rev.
18124, in the enumeration of wares which formed the
merchandise of the apocalyptie Babylon.

The references in classical writers show that, under the early
empire, silk was of great costliness, and its use ἃ sign of extreme
luxury

The larva ofthe silk-worm moth, Bowdy τιον, so called from
its feeding on mulberry leaves, produces far the greatest bulk of
the silk in use. Inferior silks are, however, produced by several
species of the same genus, and Tussar silks are spun from the
cocons of Anherza fernzi, which feeds on vaks, in China;
ind of A. mylitta in Îndia, and from other species mostly be.
longing to the family Saturniidee. The silk is the hardened
extract of certain silk glands which open just below the mouth
of the caterpillar, and is excreted to make the cocoon within
which che insect passes [τ pupal stage.

Cp Hitzig, ZDMG 82124 N. M.—A. L. S.

SILLA (DD; cera [Eus. OS 296, 99]; sEz4 [Jer.,
Vg.]), a place-name in the account of the murder of
Joash (2 K. 1220 [ar]). ‘At the house of Millo [or, at
Beth-millo] which goeth down to Silia,' as AV gives, is
clearly wrong (ἐν οἴκῳ μααλω τὸν γααλλα [B, ἐν γ. B®b],
νον μαλλων τῷ ἐν τῇ καταβάσει ἀλλων [L], . . - μααλω
τὸν καταμένοντα γααλαδ [A, sic ut vid.]), ἐπα πεῤδίᾷ
lasla' [Pesh.]).

The key to the problem is supplied by the theory that the
people with whom the Israelites had most constant relations
were the Jerahmeelites, and that Solomon most probably obtained
his timber for building, not from the Lebanon, but from the
mountain- country of the Negeb. The mysterious word
x15p (Millo) is most probably a corruption of ΜΟΙ" (Jerahmeel),
and so too is xbp 311 (See Miro). It was at Beth-jerahmeel
tha: Joash was slain, and since the context requires a place in
Jerusalem, the most plausible view is that ‘Beth-jerahmeel*
means the ‘house of the forest of Lebanon,’ for Solomon's
Lebanon, or perhaps Gebalon, appears to have been în the
Jorahmeelite Negeh (see Sotomon, $ 36). The same building
is probably specified in the true text of 2 Ch. 2425 (see Crif.
Bib.). Cp, however, Winckler, AA 718) 260, n. 2, and the com-
mentaries of Benzinger and Kittel (less satisfactory conjectures).

T. K.C.

SILOAM, SILOAH, SHELAH, SHILOAH. The
four places in which Sbiloah or Siloam are mentioned are : (1)
15. 86 (00971 Ὁ; τὸ ὕδωρ τοῦ Σειλωάμ [BR], 7. d. τ΄ ZA, [ΑΟΤῚ,
Tho waters of Shilo4h, EV); (2) Neh.3rs (nbg'a ΠΞ'
κολυμβήθρα τῶν κωδίων [Β], om. rwdwwr μ΄, hab. κωλίων.
νοδιημ, & adds Ge τοῦ Σιλώαμ, τῆς κρήνης τοῦ Σιλωα 1; Theo
pool of Siloah AV, of Shelah RV); (3) Lk.184 (ὁ πύργος ἐν τῷ
Σιλωάμ; The tower in Siloam); (4) Jn.97 and (not in best
MSS) 11 (δὴν κολυμβήθραν τοῦ Σιλωάμ, The pool of Siloam
‘which is by interpretation, Sent”; the better reading seems to

τὸν È.)

Possibly also there is an allusion to Siloam in the
‘fountain’ and ‘pool’ of Neh. 214. For topography
and description see JERUSALEM, $ 3 and diagram; also
$$ 11, 18 3, and map facing col. 2420; also CONDUITS,
$ 5, where a translation of the famous Siloam inscription
is given. Josephus (87 ν. 41 8 140) speaks of the waters
of the fountain {πηγὴ Σιλωᾶε) as sweet and abundant,
and {Z/ v. 9, $ 410) reports himself in his speech to his
compatriots as having pointed out that Siloam and the
other springs which were formerly almost dried up when
under the control of the Jews, had, since the advent of
Titus, run more plentifully than they did before.
Jerome (Comment, in Esa, 86) also mentions the
irregular flow of Siloam—a feature which has been
noticed ly most subsequent pilgrims and travellers, and
is explainea by the geological formation of the district.
In NT times certainly, and probably earlier, a healing
virtue was attributed to the waters of Siloam. On the
mwystical meaning of Jn. 911 see GoSsPELS, $ 56, col
1803, but cp SHILOH, and, on the miracle, cp JOHN,
$ 35, col. 2539. .

In 1s.86 the waters of Shiloah ‘that go softly”
(at least if the text is sound; sce, however, Crif. Lib.
[Che.]} represent either the power of the house of David,
which certainly was insignificant, or the might of Yahwè
which seemed but was not really slight ; they are con-
trasted with the ‘waters of the River, strong and many®
(+. 7). which symbolise the vast physical power of Assyria.
In Jn.97 the ἀπεσταλμένος has been taken by most

1 /nbw, emisit? cp emissary?
4522

SILVANUS

interpreters from Theophylact onwards to refer to
Christ the true Siloam (cp 629387 728 826 1732).
Whether this is at all probable may be doubted ; other
interpretations however (see Holtzmann, αὐ /ec.) are no
better. Liicke has pointed out the possibility that the
clause is merely a marginal gloss. Such explanations
abound in the Oromastica.

SILVANUS (ciAovanoc), 2 Cor. 119, etc.
SILAS.

SILVER (03, 46se94; Aram, NDDI; Syr. Aespd ;
Ass. Aaspu; root-meaning perhaps 'paleness,’ see
WRS /. Phil 14τ25).

The word is sometimes used, in its proper sense, of
silver ore, e.g., Ezek. 2220 22 (figuratively), etc., but

1. OT also often of silver as a measure of weight
references, and value, δι: ‘silver 30 shekels' (Éx.
* 2132), ‘400 silver shekels' (Gen. 2815),
and, with the omission of ‘shekel’ or ‘shekels,’ "a
thousand of silver’ {Gen. 20:16), ‘twenty of silver”
(3728). Hence more often still ‘silver’ (#6se4)=
‘money,’ cp ἀργύριον and the French argezi, but not
necessarily coined money, e.g., Gen. 3115 422527 Dt.
2320 [19]. In Gen. 422535 the plural form (as if
‘ monies } is found,

On silver mining, alluded to in Job 281, and on the
methods of refining the crude ore alluded to in (Is. 125)
Ezek. 222022 Zech. 139 Mal. 33 Prov. 173 2721 (we
must not add Ps. 1261[7]), see Mrrars. The separ-
ated silver was called 4ee% sarzph (ms Ps.

127 [6]); &. mesu&fdt (pap 5, 1Ch. 294 Ps.127(6]);
&. nibkar (nm ‘5, Prov. 1020). The crucible is called
Prov.173 2721) In Jer.109 we read

of ‘silver beaten out into plates"; where it came from
we shall have to ask presently. Hebrew traditions
told of great abundance of silver in early times. These
traditions, which are supported by the use of &ese54
(silver) for ‘money,’ are doubtless correct. Abram
and Ephron ‘the Hittite" have certainly no lack of
silver, according to Gen. 28, and, though this passage
comes from the much disparaged priestly writer, he
probably does but repeat the statements of carlier
writers.

According to a view which, even if new, may nevertheless do
justice to old and forgotten truth, the scene of the transaction
described was not at Hebron but at some place of hallowed
associations in the Negeb—probably Rehoboth,} which would
justly be represented as Kirjath-arab,4 ‘city of Arabia In
this connection we may refer to ζοδερινς silver divining cup
(Gen, 442). It is not impossible that the original scene of the
fascinating story of Joseph was not in Egypt but in the Negeb.
But even if this was not the case, we are assured on the best
authority that silver in Egypt had at first a higher value than
gold (see EcyPT, $ 38). The 4rue Hittites, too (whose capital
was Kadesh on the Orontes), had abundance of silver in the
time of Rameses IL ; the treaty between them and this powerful
Egyptian king was on a silver tablet.

In Solomon's time, it would appear as if the larger
introduction of gold depreciated the value of silver.
We are told (1 K. 1021) that none of the king's ‘vessels’
were of silver, which ‘was nothing accounted of in

See

1 6, as we now have it, gives în Ps. ἀφ. δοκίμιον τῇ γῇ. In
Prov. 27 21 δοκέμ, corresponds to #151, ‘crucible.’ Did the text
of ὦ in Ps. at one time run, ἀργύριον πεπυρωμένον ἐν δοκιμέῳ
(Ξδοκιμείῳ) without τῇ yi? Deissmann (Nere Bibelstudien,
90) thinks that the only tolerable sense of δοκέμιον τῇ γῇ is

geuulne silver for the land.: At any rate both the MI ni
of Ps. 127 [6] attest the activity of scribes working upon a cor-
rupt text. Cpn. 2.

2 Nestle (£2.7 8287) would give the same sense to ‘dp,

which in Prov. 27 22=‘pestle.’ This affects the criticism of

‘pa. May we read "5, ‘in the crucible'? There seems to
be a better solution.

.3 ‘Hittite' itself, when used of any person în the S. of Pales-
tine, is a mutilated form of ‘ Rehobothite.' See REHOBOTH.

4 For instances of numerals which are corruptions of ethnic
names, see Moses, $ τι, ProPHET, $ 7, Crit. Bi6. on Gen. 15 13.
‘City of Four’ (Kirjath-arba) is as improbabile as ‘daughter of
Seven ' (see SoLOMON, $ 2).

4523

SIMEON

the days of Solomon,’ and (Ὁ. 27) that he ‘ made silver
to be în Jerusalem as stones.

From what sources was this plentiful supply of silver
derived? Itis geologically impossible that either gold

or silver should exist in the mountains of

2. SOMrCES. Syria and Palestine. We may suppose
that most of the silver of the ‘ Hittites' came from the
mines of Bulgar Dagh in Lycaonia. According to
Prof. Sayce :—

“The Hittite inscription found near the old mines of these
mountains by Mr. Davis, proves that they once occupied the
locality. It is even possible that their settlement for a time in
Lydia was also connected with their passion for “the bright
metal.” Acallevents, the Gumush Dagh, or ‘* Silver Mountains,”
lie to the 5. of the Pass of Karabel, and traces of old workings
can still be detected in them.'1

As to the treasures of Solomon, we are told in 1 K.
1022 (cp SOLOMON, $ 4, end) that the ‘navy of Tarshish'
brought silver as well as gold. Upon this Prof. W. M.
Miller remarks {(OZZ 3269) that this points to great
ignorance of the Red Sea coasts. ‘There was, however,
according to the Arabic notices, no lack of silver in
the mountains of Vemen, and it was hence, as Oskar
Fraas thinks (4 WB 10072), that Solomon derived the
precious metals. And what is to be said of Tartessus?
If the current opinion is correct, though Solomon's ships
did not get out so far as Spain, the later supply of silver
to Palestine was largely derived from the rich territory
by the Guadalquivir. We fear the opinion needs to be
accepted with reserve. Tartessus was, no doubt, in a
rich district. The story is, that since the Phoenicians
found that they could not carry all their silver away,
they made ‘ silver anchors' in place of those that they
had brought (Aristot. De A/ira6. 148; cp Diod. 535).

Unfortunately, there is considerable danger that, except in late

assages like 2 Ch. 9212 Jon. 1 3, ‘‘l'arshish” is a corruption of

Asshar'; and there is one extremely late passage (Jer. 109)
where the same restoration (‘silver . . . brought from Asshur)
should apparently be made. Perhaps the most important
passage is Ezek. 27 12 where, according to MT, silver, together
with iron, tin, and lead, is represented to have been brought to
Tyre from Tarshish. A close investigation of the passage ἴῃ its
context suggests that Missur (not Tyre) provides the market, and
N. Arabian peoples provide the merchandise disposed of (see
Crit. Bib.). The Asshurite merchants, it would seem, were the
middlemen between the miners in some perhaps distant part 0.
Arabia, and the rich and powerful people of Missur. Another
evidence of the abundance of silver in N. Arabia ìs supplied by
2 S.8.20-12 (in the light of criticism), where the spoil taken by
David from Ζοβλὴ [ζ.Ὁ.], or rather Missur and other N. Arabian
regions bordering on Palestine (suchas ‘Aram'—i.e., Jerahmeel),
is said to have consisted in vessels of silver, of gold, and of brass.
It is noteworthy, too, that the poem of Job, which most probably
arose either in N. Arabia or under strong N. Arabian influences
(he names point decidediy to this, see [08 [Boox], $$ 4, 9),
shows great interest in gold and silver mines. On two out'or
the three references in Job (22 25 286), see Οὐ, $ 1, col. 1730.

T.K.C.

SILVER, PIECE OF (aprypia), Mt. 26:5 865
STATER, ad fin.

SIMALCUE (cinMaAkovyH [A]), 1 Mace. 1139 AV,
RV IMALCUE.

SIMEON

Where settled? (6 τ). Extra-biblical? (8 6).
Gen. 34 49 (8 2). Conclusion (8 7).
Deut. 33 (8 3). Name ($ 8).
Judg.1 (84). Genealogical lists ($ 9).
NARO. Geographical lists ($ 10).
Simeon (119; cymewn [BAL]: see below, $ 8)
was the brother ® of Levi and Dinah (Gen. 3425, J; cp
495). What genealogical scheme underlay
1 Shore this representation we do not know.4 In
settled? .he scheme followed by the final redactors
Simeon had five full brothers; how many sisters (Gen.
3735, 1; 467, D) we are nowhere told. Moreover,

1 The Hittites (1888), 95.

2 We do not add 1 K. 22 47 (see JEHOSHAPHAT, col. 2352).

3 On gna in Gen, 49 see $ 8, ἵν

4 It is natural to suppose a genealogy that made Simeon,
Levi, and Dinah the only children of their mother. We cannot
assume this with confidence however. Simeon and Reuben
form a pair in Gen. 485 (P), and Simeon is styled brother of
Judah in Judg.13)).

4524

SIMEON

Simeon the brother of Dinah figures as a tribe in the
distriet of Shechem, whereas the Simeon whose cities
are enunierated in the well-known lists ($ xo) is there
connected with the S. country and associated with
Judah rather than Israel! It has been customary to
identify these two Simeons. It is not impossible, how-
ever, to hold that there were more Simeons than one
(see below, $ 6). If, however, we identify them, are we
to regard the two representations as variant theories,
belonging to a time when the real life of the tribe had
been forgotten? Or may we suppose that they both
contain reminiscences of history, that in fact Simeon
lived, let us say, in the neighbourhood of Shechem and
then removed to the S. ? ‘There would be more chance
of giving confident answers to these questions, if we
knew whether the framers of our sources had actual
knowledge of a Simeon tribe or Simeon families ; if, for
example, we could point with confidence to sanctuaries
which at least had been distinctively Simeonite, where
therefore there might have been preserved a tradition of
Simeon's having come S. from the highlands of central
Palestine. It is, no doubt, natural to suppose that
Beersheba was such a sanctuary. It may very well
have been ; it was certainly famous, and, in particular,
was at least at times in touch with northern Israel.
The difficulty is to prove that it, or any other definite
spot, was Simeonite, Simeon is never mentioned as a
component part of the southern kingdom.

Still, although we may not be able to point with
confidence to any contemporary statement about

2. Gen.34 49 Simeon in the literature accessible to

+ Wen.34 49. us. the editors whose work has reached
us may have had such evidence lying before them.3

i. It must be remembered that the end of ]'s story
of the Shechem exploit ascribed to the tribe has been
lost. That may have told of Simeon's removal towards
the south. From the fact that the redactor suppressed
the passage we may plausibly conjecture that what it
narrated was more or less of the nature of a catastrophe
discreditable to ‘Israel’ It may therefore have been
historical, and may have come from a time when
Simeon was still really a tribe. How a later writer
would have told (and did tell} the story we can perhaps
see from Gen. 355: After the incident which forms the
subject of chap. 84 the Israelites moved off leisurely,
their god having interfered in their behalf so that there
fell on the natives of the land an awe such as fell on
the Greeks when Apollo brought the seemingly
vanquished Hector back to the fight strong as ever
(Z2. 152797). So, a later writer thought, must it ever
fare with Israel. The older story, however, told not of
‘Israel,’ but of Simeon and Levi. ΑἹ] that a later
editor was willing to retain of it was the remonstrance
of Jacob: you have brought a disaster (omoy) on
us, in making us abominable to all the natives of the
land; as we are but a small company they will band them-
selves against us and defeat us, and we shall be destroyed.

ii, What the sequel of the older narrative was can
probably be inferred from Gen.495-7. Even there we
are not told explicitly what happened ; but there was
a power to fulfil itself in the father's curse (cp BLESSING
AND CURSING}: I will divide them in Jacob, And
scatter them in Israel, What meaning the writer would
put into these words is uncertain. Steuernagel thinks
that Jacob is here a tribe name and that the verse
means that Simeon was dispersed in the highlands of

1 Cheyne, however, suggests that the Shechem.story also
dealt originally not with central Palestine, but with a district
on the N. Arabian border, in or near the Negeb (cp Mosrs, $
18); SHECHEM, 2.

2 On Simeon's never being assigned to either kingdom οἰ
Graf, Stamon Simeon, 19; also, ontheories connecting him mich
the northern kingdom, “δ. 33. Fot the Chronicler's notice see
below, $ 5, iv.

3 On r Ch. 438-41 see below, $ 5.

4 There seemis, however, to have been an independent story
which did speak of ‘Israel’ See Gen. 4821,£ [E] (cp Gunkel
in //K9) ad loc.), and the legend in Jubilees 842-8 (cp Charles
ad loc. and the literature cited by him),

4525

SIMEON

central Palestine (Zirzarderzze, 104), some, however,
perhaps wandering southwards (ἐδ. 15). As treating
of the early fortunes of Shechem, the story of Gen. 34
is dealt with elsewhere (see EPHRAIM, $ 6, DINAH),
Dinah was perhaps supposed to have disappeared com-
pletely (see DIxAH, $ 6); what the real history of Levi
was is a difficult question (see LEVI, LEVITES, GENE-
ALOGIES, $ 7). It is with Simeon that we are here con-
cerned. That it was not always counted as a tribe
appears to follow from its absence from Dt. 33 (blessing
of Moses).!
It has been questioned, however, whether the omission
of Simeon in Dt, 38 is original.
Not only does @AL apply τι. 68 to Simeon (καὶ συμεων [58
om. σ.) ἔστω πολὺς ἐν ἀριθμῷ), τὸ whom the words, however
they are to be taken (REUBEN, $ 4), are quite
3. Dt. 33. as applicable as to Reuben. It has been thought
also(Graetz, Gesch. ii, 1 486/, Heilprin, Hist. Poet.
Heb.\113f; cp_Halévy, 7. As., 18978, pp. 329-231) that 74
perhaps belonged to Simeon (there might be a play on the name
in ‘Hear"). If these proposals were combined the Simeon
saying 2 would read
Let Simeon be a small company.
Hear, Yahwè, his voice,
And bring him in unto his people.
The case for such a text, however, is not strong (see Driver,
ad loc.).8
If the passage really mentioned Simeon in some such
way it would seem to imply that Simeon had somehow
come to be severed from ‘his people.’ That would be
an interesting variant of the view of Simeon represented
in the ‘Jacob Blessing' (Gen. 49), where Simeon is not
detached from his people but dispersed among them.
Moreover if Simeon is really mentioned in the
Esarhaddon tablet to be discussed later ($ 6, iîi.), a
position of detachment for Simeon at a comparatively
late period would be established by contemporary
extra-biblical evidence. Gen. 49 (and 34) is, however,
by no means the only biblical reference to movements
on the part of Simeon.
Of special interest are the references in Judg. 1, as
giving a theory, doubtless widely held, as to Simeon's
I arrival on the scene. There, as we have seen
4 Judg.1. (co), 4524, n. 4), Simeon's brother is Judah
(vv. 319). Israel, having agreed to a division of the
land among the tribes, inquires of Yahwè who is to
begin the attack, The answer being ‘Judah,' Judah
asks Simeon to join in the expedition, promising to
return the favour later. Simeon consents, and the
two peoples advance against the Canaanites, defeating
them signally at Bezek, if the text is sound (see ΒΕΖΕΚ).
Whether the tradition made Simeon and Judah then
settle in the central highlands is not clear.4 ‘The
meagreness of the account of Judah's campaign suggests
that the old story of Judah's advent was lost or
suppressed: we hear of Caleb's appropriation of
Hebron, Othniel's of Debir, the Kenites' of the district
of Arad (Judg.1:6; on the text see the comm.), and
Simeon's of Zephath-Hormah ;% but nowhere are we told
where or how Judah settled.® It is difficult to think that
this is accidental: the redactor would have told of
Judah's southward progress if he could. Perhaps one
reason why he could not was that, as Graf suggested
(Stamm Simeon, 15), the district which ultimately bore
the name of Judah was entered from the S. If Judah îs
primarily the name of the southern kingdom, which
consisted of Kenites, Calebites, Jerahmeelites, Simeon-
ites, and other southern elements, the settlement stories
would naturally deal with the fortunes of its component

1 On its omission în Judg. 5 see below, note 4.

2 T'his theory thus suggests that the Judah saying îs : 78 11.

8 On the various proposals see further, Graf, Der Segen
Moses, 24-26 (1857).

4 if so, are we to suppose that old tradition did not always
distinguish between Judah and ‘ Levi'? (Gen. 34). Only in this
connection can the absence of any reference to Simeon in Judg.
4 or Judg. 5 have any significance.

5 To infer from the Hormah exploit being elsewhere (Nu, 213
see HormAH) given to ‘ Israel, that some assigned to Simeon in
early times a position of great importance would be precarious.

6 Gen. 38 is somewhat different.

4526

SIMBON

parts! Even, however, if the other Judah elements
entered from the S., Simeon might first have lost a
footing temporarily gained in Central Palestine. That
might account for the Shimeon at Seminiyeh (right
across Esdraelon from Ibzik) of Josh. 11: 1220 if that
is the true reading (see SHIMRON, and below, $ 6, 11.}.
©On the other hand the story of the partnership of
‘Judah’ and Simeon may not rest on prehistoric
relations so early as the settlement. It may reflect a
later time.

It has been thought, for example (Wi. G/ 2201 n.), that
vnderneath what now appears in 1 Ch, 424 as a mere list of names
it is possible to detect a statement relating to a migration of
Simeon southwards. According to this theory Simeonites were
settled in the southern part of the territory out of which Saul
carved an extensive Benjamite state (above, col. 2583, n. 1),
and rather than yield to him they moved south. That would
be a likely thing to happen, especially if the Simeonites were
not firmly settled. Of course such a movement would agree
passably with the suggestion of Gen. 49 and the story în Gen.
84. Nor is there anything impossible about an origin such as
Winckler proposes for the genealogical list. Still, the sug-
gestion in question ἴδ perhaps hardly convincing enough (see
below, $ 9, i.) to form the basis of a definite theory of the history
of Simeon.

To the same period was assigned by Dozy a move-
ment, or movements, on the part of Simeon of which

6.1Ché. the Chronicler's account is still in the form

- *€ of a narrative, although it contains a good
many names. The passage (τ Ch. 438-43) contains
several statements, the relation of which to one another
is not clear, the text being more or less doubiful.?

(@) According to 438-40 certain Simeonites pushed down to
the district of Gedor or Gerar in search of pasture for their
sheep.

(δ) According to 7, 41 these men went în the time of Hezekiah
and smote3 . and the Meunim who were ‘there’ and
banned them and dwelt in their place,

(©) According to ©, 42 some of ‘them’ (500 with 4 leaders)
went to Mt. Seir and smote those who were left of the fugitive
Amalekites and settled there,

i. According to Benzinger these three statements are
divergent accounts of the same thing (RC, 17 /.), all
of them being later insertions into the Chronicler’s work.
A question more important than the date of their
insertion is whence they were drawn. We must allow
for the possibility that they come from a good source,
Of course that need not imply the correctness of the
reference to Hezekiah.f There is nothing in itself
improbable in the Hezekiah date. The Meunim seem to
be mentioned under Uzziah, also Arabs in Gur {τε Gerar?
and Sy for Sya?: Winekler, XA479) 143, n 1: 2 Ch.
267; cp MEUNIM, δ). A little later, under Manasseh
according to one interpretation of a passage în a cunei-
form tablet, we find Simeon as a whole reckoned as
belonging to Musri, not Judah (below, $ 6, ilî.).

ii. Dozy (De Zsrabliten te Mekka [1864], 56 [Germ.
Trans. 50]), however, thinks that 7. 316 shows that the
events belong to the time of Saul, and in an extremely
ingenious manner works out the following theory :—

When Saul's expedition was sent with orders to extirpate the
Amalekites, the king was spared and brought back {x S.153 9}.
In Yethrib-Medina ic was told that when the disobedieni army
returned to Palestine they were exiled for their disobedience
and returned to the Amalekite land9 (607 [53 /]). The force
sent would likely be Simeonite (the most southern tribe, 63 [56}}.
Afterwards, when David punished the Amalekites for their attack
on Ziklag, 400 escaped (1 8. 30 17), to be destroyed later by 500
Simeonites “who settica în δεῖν le Ch. 443/21 po $6,/ Iso. cin
Hezekiah's time an interest was felt in these Simeonite exiles

2 In this connection we may note the absence of all mention
of Judah from the Shechem story in Gen. 84 89. See above,
col) 4526, n. 4.

2 For Cheyne's view of the text see MeunIM, a.

3 On the text compare Winckler, MVG, 1808, pp. 48

4 Dozy argues that it is only the writing down that is ascribed
to Hezekiah's time (/srael. fe Mebka, 56[49)). Berthean thinks
the reference is intended to include the expedition. [11 is
difficult to see how the person who inserted the notice could
apply. it to any other than the time of Hezekiah.

‘The Gedor of Ὁ. 39 is thus the 7744» or sanctuary at Mekka
(89 [Bo]), ‘the valley” (of τ, 39) is E. of Mekka (92-94 [83/.),

which received its name from the great fight (712) 19D= Macoraba:
811725).

4527

SIMEON

(56 [49), 72 [64]) and Is. 21 τα /1 is an invitation to them to come
back (6-73 [60-65]). In time they came to be called Ishmael
(103-110 (93-99); cp below, $ 8 ili.

Dozy's reason for assigning the Simeonite movement
to the time of Saul does not seem cogent : v. 315 {' these
were their cities unto the reign of David‘) is not the
Chromeler's ; it is a marginal gloss which has intruded
so as to sever ‘and their villages’ {v. 32) from the words
to which the parallel Josh. 19 shows that they belong
{so Be. ad /oe.). Nor can Dozy's other combinations
be accepted {for a sober criticism see Grafs review,
ZDMG 19 330-351 [1865]).

N. I Weinstein (Zur Genesis der Agada, 291-156
{1901]), however, adopts most of Dozy's combinations,
and adds others of his own,

He tries to show that the Minim of Talmudic literature are
the Meunim of the OT, and they in their tum Dozy's wander-
ing Simeonites, whose name he supposes later writers to have
avoided on account of a reproach under which they lay, substi-
tuting Mennim or Minim. Much of this seems open to the
same kind of criticism as Dozy's discussion.

iv. On the other hand, there seems no definite reason
to urge in support of the view that the Chronicler's
statements are a late invention (We. 20/08 are; ET
213). Why should he invent such a story? Else
where the Chronicler seems to treat Simeon as belong-
ing to northern Israel [but cp_Crif. Bis. τὸ, on 15.
97-104] {2 Ch. 159 : Ephraim, Manasseh, Simeon; 346:
Manasseh, Ephraim, Simeon, Naphtali). It would be
ἃ strong point in favour of an early source for the state-
tents in 1 Ch. 439-43 if it could be proved that Simeon
was still a current name in S. Palestine in the seventh
century B.C. (see 8 6, ili).

At this point, accordingly, we may conveniently turn

6. Extra- Da extra-biblical sources in search of

Diblical "eferences. o.
references? ._l We may begin with the attempt to

Ten find such in Thotmes IIL's list of 119
places of Upper Rtnu.

No. 35 is Sa-m-tn' and no, 18 Sa-m-*n-w (var. Sa-m-"--w),
which Îooks like the plural of no. 35. We may grant the
similarity ofthe names to Simeon (cp the spelling of Sa-ra-ha-na);
but we cannot infer much. We cannot locate them. According
to W. M. Miller, they, at least, were ποῖ ἴῃ the S., as the list (he
believes) does not include names in the 5. of Judah. Cp also
col. 3546, number 35, and notes 2 and 3. The conjecture, there-
fore, that Simeon (with Levi) was an carly settler in Palestine
(Hommel, 477'268; Sayce, Early Heb. Trad, 392) remains a
hypothesis.

li. Nor are we much better off a century or more
Jater in the Amarna correspondence.

There is a letter (472 5, no. 220 3) from Samu-Addu, prince of
a place called Sa-am-hu-na, which is phonetically= Simeon, and
is definitely indicated as the name of a town (2/4); but we
cannot tell where it lay. Steuernagel inclines to identify it
with the Symogn (Zvuowr) of 458 in Fili ΤῸΝ Zopepwr,
MT jpg, Stimron, $ 1) mentioned with Achshaph, and
mosn (so Buhì, Pa 215) with Seminiye? (sce below,
, a[1}). There is nothing to make the identity of Samhuna
with one of the places mentioned in the Karnak list improbable
(so also Meyer, Glossen, 73). If the identity be held probable,
it would appear to stand in the way of connecting Simeon in
any very definite manner with the Habiri as Steuernagel
proposes to connect the Leah tribes generally. ὁ

ili. Unfortunately, none of the later Egyptian lists
contains a name resembling Simeon. It might be
surmised that the old towns, or at least their names,
had died out. Sayce conjectures that Simeon preceded
Judah in the occupation of S. Palestine, and had dis-
appeared by the time of David (Ξαγίν Mes. Trad.
302). There is a passage, however, in one of the
Îragments relating to the successful Egyptian expedition
of Esarhaddon, which must be taken account of,

iii

1 Dozy(70[63]), Gratz(GescX. ii. 1485: a theory laterabandoned)
follow Aq. Sym. Theod, în inserting fugitives (T1i=gesyovras)
as subject to ‘call’ On a supposed reference to Simeon in
Mic. 115 (Movers, Urtersuck. id. ὦ, Chron. 136; Hiteig, ad
loc.) see Graf, Stam Simeon, 32: ona supposed connection of
Massa of Prov. 30x 81 1 (Hitzig, Sprache Sal. 3107 and others)
with Simeon, see ἐδ, 34, and oh other supposed references see
Weinstein (as in $ 5 ἘΠ).

2 Petrie, also, places Sambuna in Galilee (Mist. Egy#6 2317).

4528

SIMEON

‘From (cc10ur5) Mu-sur,' says Eserhaddon, ‘I marshalled my
camp (faraiu adie), τὸ Me-lubeha I directed my march, 30
Aastw-kakbar from (5) Ap-ku which is in (or ‘by') (fa-#à)
(conn009) Sa-me-nfa] to (civ) Ra-pi-bi to (2-na #10)! the Wady
of Musur.”

If this is really the text of the tablet—it is the read-
ing of Budge, Peiser, Craig, and (doubtfully) Rogers ὃ
—it is important; the district (224) in which Ap-Ku lies
is not, as has been supposed, Samaria, but Sa-me-n[a],
a name which might be an Assyrian representation of
Simeon.® According to this, there was probably in the
first half of the seventh century B.c. a district known to

the Assyrians as }(y]ew, apparently somewhere in Pales-
tine. The next question is, Where?

«. The district contained, or had on its border (42/1), a town
called Apku, which lay 30 4assu-4a&kar from Rapii—Raphia
=er-Refah. What the length of a Aasbu-4a4tar was is un
certain *(113 kilom, {=7 Eng. m.]? or σὲ kilom. [-- 3} πι.}. The
average day's march in this inscription is a 4asbw-ta4#ar.

(1) Îf the day's march was about 7 m., 30 ἀσεόνεφαξ αν» from
Rapibi would give the site of Apku as somewhere about 100 m.
from er-Refah—that is to say, about as far as, eg, between
Dothan and Jenin. It might then be a question whether
Sa-me-n[a] is not perhaps a clerical error for Sa-me-ri-na.
*Aphek in Sharon” (cp Anex, end) seems too far 5. Fik, E.
of the Sea of Galilee, with which Schrader identified Apku
(KAT) 204) îs some 135 m. from er-Refah; kal'at et-Sema'
SE. of Tyre, with which panda (4//G, 1902, p. 58 1274}.
connects the district of Samenla], identifying Apku with ‘ Aphek
in Asher'of Josh. 1930, is over 140 m.; Seminiye (above, ii.),
somewhat over 110 m.

( If the day's march was abont 14 m., 30 ZasbrZabtar |

from Ra would make A some 200 m. from er-Refah—
that is to say farther than Berat.
col. 3736; cp AFHEK, 1) seems to be about 215 m. from er-Refah.
6.Fhe attempt to do justice to the Aplu part of Esarhaddon's
statement, however, raises a difficulty in what precedes.

(1) Esarhaddon seems to say that when he directed his march
to Me-lub-ha he was în Musur and there marshatled his camp,
starting from Apku. Now, Mu-sur is nowhere used of N.
Palestine. It has been argued with great force, however, by
Winckler (and by no Assyriologist disproved δ) that Musti is

1 Hommel, literally, ‘to the borders of’ (4u/iétze, 295).

2 In 3 R.35 no. 4 obv., ὁ ταὶ the name is read [1870] Sa-me-ru.
G. Smith (7.584 3 457 [1874]) does not quote the name, but
(Assyri Discov. 3x2 [1875)) renders it Samaria; similarly in W.
Boscawen's text (758.4 493 {1875}, and Strassta. 494. VerseicA,

. 533, no. 4238 : Sa-me-{ri-na), the reading followed by Schrader,
ἔμ ΡΟ 62) and. Delitasch (Par. aB6). Meanwhile Βυάξε,
however, Hist, of Esarkaddon [1880], 118, reads Sa-me-na
(without query) This is rejected (emended?) explicitly by
Tiele (B4G 350, n. x [1888)), and silently by Winckler (Vaters.
s. altor. Gesch. 98: translit. text {1889]). Later, however, the
original was examined by Peiser and J. A. Craig and declared
to read Sa-me-na (MG ili. 18 [1898)) which is likewise the
reading (shown shaded) of Rogers(‘ Two Esarhaddon Texts, în
Haverford College Studies, no. 2, 1880) The present writer
examined the tablet, and is convinced that the reading Samerina
is quite impossible (so also Budge, and C. A. Thompson, in
conversation). There are several possibilities; but Samena
seems most likely. See also $ 6 ili, α (1).

3 On Ass. ér=Heb, dx (for 4) see Delitzsch on ‘Samaria’
(Ass. Lesestiche,l® 1933) For disappearance of ‘azi: at
the beginning of a syllable, cp #62/ from 750/=/P αὖ (ον.

4 Cp Del. Par. 177-179, and C. H. W. Johns as în n. 1, col.
4539, and the literature cited there and in Muss-Amn. Dize. 414.

Since the above was written, E, A. W. Budge has given
his reasons for rejecting the view of Winckler (ist. of &gy}, 6
pp. ix-xxx). It can hardly be claimed, however, that they settle
the question. (1) The fragment (83, 1-18, 836) cited by Winckler
as apparently mentioning Musri and Milsri) side by side must,
indeed, be left out of the argument, It is broken off so close τὸ
the upright wedge of ‘75’ that ît is illegitimate to argue as if
the character were complete, and therefore is. It might quite
well he ἡκᾷ (AA719) 145, n. 3) Budge and King go further,
and say that they can see clearly a trace of the head of a second
upright wedge (the present writer, after examination of the
tablet, is inclined to think that they may be right). The reading
would then probably be Mi-lu[h-ba] as Winckler suggeste
(KAT®) 145, n. 31 225 for ὑπὸ would be unusual [Wi.]:
the reff. in the index to Bezold's Catalogue yield no parallel;
still, in Khors. 103, Oppert and Ménant [/owrx. as. 6 ser. 1,
begin., 1863] give μὴ though Rotta, 4ox., pl. 1s0. Z 9, gives
the usual »π6], and Winckler's edition follows). Wincklers
theory, however, by no means falls with the surrender cf this
reading. He never treated the tablet as the main justification
of his theory (see Mwszi, etc., 1), (2) Budge's other arguments,
however, seem open to criticism as inconclusive. In particular,
the translation of ana 44/28 eli mat Musri (KI. In. 34) by τὸ
the wardenship of #4e Marches af Egypt, although following
time-honoured precedent, has never been justified. The pho-
netic value of NI.GAB when it means gate-guardian, as in

4529

Afiki (in By on map facing'

SIMEON

sometimes to be understood as referriug to the neighbourhood
of the Negeb of Judah.

Winekler, accordingly, conjectures that the Same[na]
in question was in Musri, used în the sense just indi-
cated, Apku being the Apheka of Josh. 1553, where it
is assigned to Judah. The Joshua context suggests the
neighbourhood of Hebron ; at all events, somewhere in
the hill country of Judah. This theory would give us
the most interesting and remarkable datum that, about
a generation and a half after the fall of Samaria, the
name Sim[eo]n was at Jeast known as a geographical
term denoting a district not far from Hebron, and the
further datum that the Assyrians counted it to Musri.
This would have some bearing on the theory which
finds Simeon referred to în Dt. 33 (see above, $ 3) and
explain the prayer for its return to Judah. Many
interesting problems would thus assume a new aspect;
but the point most important for our present object
would be the establishment of such a contemporary
geographical use of the name Simeon as would virtually
prove a real knowledge of a Simeonite people in S.
Palestine, which would give us a valuable starting-point
for dealing with the Hebrew Simeon legends.

There is, however, a difficulty in the way of identify-
ing Esarhaddon's Apku with the Judahite Aphek of
Josh. 1553.

Hebron is barely some 60 m. from Raphia, which could equal
30 Zasbu-kakkar only if the Zasbu-takfar were some 2 m. lf
thatis not tenable, the Hebron Apku theory could be maintained
only by supposing that ‘30° (since there is no doubt about the
reading) is a mistake of the Assyrian scribe or of the source from

which he compiled.1 Placing Apku in S. Palestine is, there-
fore, not beyond criticism.

(2) On the other hand, the difficulty of a N. Palestine
site for Apku hardly seems to be quite as great as
Winekler suggests.

It is no doubt natura! to suppose that Esarhaddon was_him-
self in Musor when he set out for Melubba; but ad-ki-e is not
quite unambiguous.? Esarhaddon might then, from a N.
Palestine Apku have ordered his army out of Musri and have
marched himself to join it, Sa-me-na might in that case be
connected, perhaps, with one of the places in Thotmes III.'s list
mentioned above (ἢ 6, 1.) (so Sanda, [2 58 74), n. ; cp above, î./.).

There remains, however, against the N. Palestine
theory, the difficulty emphasised by Winckler :

How came Esarhaddon's army to de în Musri so as to be
called forth by Esarhaddon, unless that were, as Winckler
suggests, simply the stage on the expedition reached at the
point in the narrative? ‘And, if so, how was Esarhaddon not
with the army?

We must thus, apparently, be content to leave the
problem open for the present. Simeon may be mentioned

; in contemporary documents belonging
7. Conclusion. ;. the sixteenth century, the fifteenth,
or the seventh ; but we cannot be sure. ‘The hope of
securing a fixed starting-point for the story of Simeon
in strictly contemporary evidence is for the present not
fulfilled. Any day, however, new material may enable
us to decide the question. Meanwhile, we must be
content with possibilities.

‘When the character of the development which resulted
eventually in the formation of the kingdom of Judah is
fully considered, and the suggestions of affinity with

‘Descent of IStar” gassize, is pità or mutelit (ς R.186 137);
when its phonetic value is képu (as a comparison of Rost, Plate
2816 ki. . . ti with Plate 976, NIGAB-u-ti, shows that it is in
the Esarhaddon passage [cp what is said by C. H. W. Johns on
the phonetic value of NI.GAB in his careful discussion of the
kepu office in Assyrian Deeds and Documents, 284-8, which
the present writer did not see till after this note was written]),
it means governor. Schrader admitted twenty-four years ago
that ‘governor over Egypt” was impossible (Δ Ὁ 265); only,
he gave up ‘governor instead of giving up ‘Egypt.’ On 624%
see alko Johns, Doomsday 84. 9

1 Or by regarding Zasbu.gaffer as not a technical measure
but a genera! term: ‘long journey” (cp C. H. W. Johns, «σαν».
Deeds and Documents, 2208).

2 The contexts in which it oftenest occurs give it the meaning
of ‘muster, marshall forces where one is' (ει, in Taylor
Cylinder, 523: assemble your army [Au-u4-4i7 um-man-da],
muster your camp [di-4a-a Zarasa-ka]); but it need not imply
presence; cp 4 R.4812, 132: ‘Bel will call forth (-da-4af
Summa) a forciga fox against him ' (Del. Ass. 7778).

4530

SIMEON

Ishmaelite, Edomite, Kenite, etc. are allowed for, it is
natural to conjecture that Simeon stands for one of the
unsettled elements of the southern population fused
more or less permanently into a state by David,
especially when it is noted {cp Sayce, Zar Hebrew
History, 392) how many (5 out of 11) of the towns
(15.3027-31) to which he îs said to have ‘sent gifts’
appear in the list of Simeonite towns, for there does
not scem to be between the lists any literary connection
{below, $ 10). According to Land (2 ε΄ Gids, Oct.
1871, p. 21) Simeon was very possibly an Ishmaelite
group that attached itself to Israel? If we think that
Beersheba was markedly Simeonite, interesting problems
arise connected with such names as Abraham, Isaac,
{cp Stade, GV71155), Samuel's sons, David, Amos.

i, In all the statements we have referred to, the name
has borne practically the same form. It appears to

8. Name consist of the radical im' with the nominal

" π΄ termination δὴ τα 8η,2 What view of the
name was taken in early times we cannot say. It is
not necessary to siippose that the story of Leah's grati
tude for the hearing of her supplications (Gen. 2933)
was a very early explanation. Ît is exactly parallel to
the explanation of the cognate name Ishmael (Gen.
1611: 1}

The name Simeon has been connected by Hitzig (ΟἿ 47),
W. R. Smith (/P4, 1880, p. 80), Stade (ΟΖ 1 152), Kerber
(Die rel.«geschs Bedeut. d. Heb, Eigenn, 71) with the Arabic
st", said to mean the offspring of the hyena and the female
wolf (Hommel, Sdugeftiere, 304), and Ball (SBOT, ad /ec.
and 114) proposes to read Gen, 49 5: Simeon and Levi are ὄρ»:
(for λένε ‘brothers'3), in the sense of ‘bowling creatures,*
perhaps ‘hyznas.’ Unfortunately, 2/72 occurs only in Is. 1321
and its meaning is not known (Che. 5. 507, ‘jackals"; but
Duhm, Marti, probably ‘wild owls’; cp Staerk, Sfediex, 218
{1800]). Smith supports his explanation by citing che Arabic
tribal names Sim', “a subdivision of the defenders (the Medîn-
ites) 4 and Sam'4n, 'a subdivision of Tamim,' and compares
such names as Zabyan (σαν, gazelle), Wa'lan (τυα ἐ, eo,
Labwan (24wa, lioness), with which be classes such Hebrew
names as Zibeon Mya, byaena), Ephron (mnp, ἼΒμν di calf
of wild cow).

If Simeon is really mentioned by Esarhaddon's scribe
as Sa-me-n[a] ($ 6 ili. ), it would scem that the name was
at that time, at least, sometimes pronounced Sam'an.
On the other hand, there was, as we have seen, a place-
name pronounced Sambuna in the fourteenth century
8.0, (above, ὃ 6 ii.), and there is a contract tablet dated
in the thirty-sixth year of Artaxerxes I. which mentions
a man named Sa-ma-ab-t-na (Hilprecht, no. 45, Δ 2),
brother of Ia-hu-i-na-ta-nu (=Jehonathan). ° Later,
as a personal name, Simeon became common (see
SIMEONI i,, 1-6, and S1MON,1-13; SIMON PETER, $ 14,8;
cp, for Palmyrene inscriptions, Lidzbarski, Aplemeris,
vol. i., index (under pyow}.

ii. The name appears in regular gentilic form as
Sim'onî, SIMEONITE (μον : ‘cp Reuben, Reubéni)

6, however, everywhere represents the gentili by the noun
form (συμεων: in Nu. 25 14 PW becomes in (58 τῶν o. [AFL
om, των}}. It is possible, therefore, that the σνμεῶν of BBRAOT
in Zech. 1213 implies that Shimei, *yDY was known asan alterna»

tive form of the gentilic8 (cp WRS, /P4i/ 996 [1880]), just
as în Arabic there is the similar pair ending in <i and "Ani
respectively (WRS, 80).

dideke, ZDAMG 15206 11861],
3 Gemini, according to Zimmem (ZA 7162/) and Stucken
(IVG, 1902, p. 189).

4 H2 doss πὲ allude to Dozy's daring hypothesis referred to
above ($ 5).

5 The gentilic ἰσνρείκὴ Sa-ma-u-nu-ai occurs along with (amelia)
Pu-ku-dwai ina letter to ‘the king'(K. 1248). What (city)
Sa-am'-s-na (50, according to the text ἐπ Del. Lerestache,(4)
not [as in ΚΒ 2 τοδὶ Sa-ame-w-n2), son of Mardulc'apil-iddina "in
Sennacherib's Taylor Prism inscription (533) can mean it
would be hard to say. Sal)-mav-gu-ns was the name of one
of the sons of Bel-ikaSa (raler of the half-Aramean tribe of the
Gambulai) executed by Afur-bini-pal. Samuna în Sa-mu-na-
aplu-iddina (Johns, Doowsday B%. vii. l6=K. 8179) and in
Sa-munu-ia-tu-ni (Ass. Deeds and Doc. 160 R. 11=K. 279) ἴ5
doubtless Eshmun (2oor:sday Βά. 16).

€ The Shemaiah also of r Ch, 437 appears în 458 as συμεων.

4531

SIMEON

iii. Names containing the three radicals ye are so
common, especially in the neighbourhood of 5. Palestine,
that they would be enough in themselves to suggest the
theory of dispersion underlying Gen. 49. In that theory
there may be more than popular fancy. We cannot
here profitably discuss W. R. Smith's view that ‘the
dispersion of the tribe Simeon is most easily under-
stood on the principles of exogamy and female kinship *
(/Phil. 996 [1880]). A historical connection of some -
kind, however, between at least some of the various
cognate names seems extremely probable.

We find Shimei as Simeonite (1 Ch. 427), Levite (Ex. 617),
Reubenite (x Ch. 54}—all Leah tribes—Benjamitel (2 S.1611
etc. ; cp 1 K. 418), and în the family of David (2 5. 2121 Kt.)
as the name of the only brother mentioned in old sources (Bu,
on 18. 169 in X7C); besides which we find cognate names like
Eshtemoa, and Ishmael,? pronounced now in Egypt, Isma'in®
(cp Bethel, Bétin; Reubel, Reuben).4

Not only are the names Simeon and Ishmael cognate.
There seem to be also in the genealogy of Ishmael points
of contact with that of Simeon (see MIBSAM, MISHMA),
to which we now pass.

i. As in the case of Reuben, P's genealogy of
Simeon oceurs in Ex. 615 as well as in

9. Genea- Mg
cant Ta, the usual passages. The list is as
logicai lista. flows :—
Gen. 46 r0=Ex. 615 Nu. 2012 1Ch. 424
ra ΟΝ lese
ppt pot mot
πανὶ
pot pot art
ast ni mit
ΚΝ δηνν" rag *
The Gen.= Ex. list eemsto contain three names cach appearing

twice: binp:= bag, pio=p2% and ama=ane Nu. changing
one sibilant, gives may for shy, and drops its double (a1&). 1Ch
4 further shows 3% for 1532}.

‘Winckler thinks that we have here a case the converse of what
is suggested elsewhere with regard to JssacHar ($ 7): the
Chronicler's list is, he thinks (ΟἿ 9 zox, n. 1), the corruption of a
sentence telling that the b'né Shim'in went southwards when
Saul contested with the Zarhites.5 On this suggestion see
above ($ 4, end). ᾿

If the list be taken for a real ‘ genealogy ' it is difficult

to choose between the variants (see the special articles).

Bertheau decides in favour of Jakin as against Jarib, but only
for the (weak) reason that it occurs thrice. He thinks that the
best known Simeonite clan was Shaul (Shaul"s mother is known
85 ἃ Canaanite and he alone has [three] sons, of whom Mitma'
in turn has three). It would seem that some popular story was
current about this Shaul and his Canaanite mother. According
to Jubilees 8420 her name was Adibaa, and according to 4413
she was a woman of Zephath, which, according to Judg. 117, was
the city captured by Simeon and called Hormah, In Gen
Rab. 80 sheis said to have been Dinah (cp Charles, /xbi/ees, 206).

ii. In the Chronicler's special genealogy (i. 425,7), which
appears in MT thus-—

Shaul

ι

I
Mibsam Mishma

[
Shallum®

Hammuel Zaccur Shimei

1 Note also Jamin and Saul as Simeonite names (1 Ch. 424).

2 Cp Graf, Der Stamm Simeon, 23, Ewald, GGA, 1864,
p. 1274, and above, $$ 5 ἢ. 7.

3 Indeed the note on the name in Gen. 1611 (J) is mm por
Ἐν Da. with 199 as în the case of REUBEN (δ 7 i.). .

# How cauticus it is necessary to be in reasoning from simi-
larity of names appears from the remarkable fact that Saul as
well as Shimei is a Simeonite name, and that Samuel, who
*discovered' Saul, is brought into relation with Beersheba, the
most famous of the towns claimed for Simeon. Shemnel b.
Ammihud is the name of the Simeonite representative in the
partition of W. Palestine (Nu. 84 20).

5 ing mi ame 7" di na pune vin. This might be
made more plausible perhaps by feading 10), instead of the
strange na, for mi of ὈΝΥ2) 1 but the clause Sua mir 3. mae
is not convincing.

8 Cp P’s Simeonite census prince Shelumiel b. Zurishaddai
(Nu, 16 2 12 7 36 10 x9), from whom Judith is said to he descended
CTadith 87). Sala (bo. but 455 σαλμων, GFL σαλωμ) was the
father of the Simeonite Zimri who was slain with the Midianite
woman, Nu, 25 14 (see Β το, 4, end). The other names assigned
to Simeon are Shaphat Ὁ. Hori, the ‘spy’ (Nu, 135), and
Shephatiah Ὁ. Maacah, the ruler (1 Ch. 27 16),

4532

SIMEON

the names, apart from the Ish:naelite Mibsam and Mishma' and
the Judahite Ham(m}uel, need not be old (cp Gray, ΜΕΝ 236):
indeed 61 omits Hammuel and Zaccur, and Shimei might bea
duplicate of Mishma'. Moreover, they all appear in U55A as
descendants in progressive generations of Shaul.

ili. Still more suspicious looking is the peculiar list in 2. 34-
37. (On the number, thirteen,l of the names, some of which are
supplied with genealogies, see below, $ 10, i.).

It may be noted, however, in connection with Simeon's
being a brother of Levi, that the names brought into
‘prominence in the list —Shaul, Shimei, Ziza 5 {traced
back five generations?) —are known otherwise as
Levitical names (cp GENEALOGIES i, $ 7[v.]).

a. ‘The theory of the statistical writers evidently was
that Simeon was gradualiy merged in Judah: the

10. Geo. Simeonites first settled amongst the
- &@0° Judahites (Josh. 1919) and then, in the
graphical lists. ;;me of David (τ ΟΝ. 43r6—it is a
marginal gloss to the whole list: see above, $ 5 iî.),
were lost în Judah. It would appear that there was
a time when the Judah list in Josh. 1521-32 lacked
exactly those cities which in Josh. 19 are assigned to
Simeon, for when they are omitted the totali, twenty-
nine (instead of thirty-six), is correct. The fact remains,
however, that all the Simeonite cities are somewhere
or other assigned to Judah. It has been noted that
whereas we hear of the Negeb of Judah (τ 5. 27 το), of
Caleb (3014), of the Kenite (2710), of the Kerethi
(8014), of Jerahmeel (2710), we nowhere hear of the
Negeb of Simeon (Graf, Stamm Sim., 14) Whilst
naturally no attempt is made to sketch a boundary line,
it is clear that Simeon was supposed by the writer of
Josh. 19 1-9 to be found in the SW. of-Judah.

The slighting of Simeon 4 in the partition of W. Palestine has
been connected (Weinstein, Gex. der Agada, 299) with the story
of Zimri in Nu. 2514; so also (Gen. rad. 99; Nume. rab. 26;
Rashi, and others) the fact that Simeon is the only tribe that
falls în the second census (Nu. 30 14) enormously (from 59,300 τὸ
22,200) below its size in the first (Nu. 122/).8 It is difficult,
however, to extract any more history out of the first story than
out of the second.

4. The list of Simeonite cities appears in four forms,

which are here shown side by side.

A Simeon. (2) Θ᾽ Juran. (4)
Josh, 19 2-6 1Ch.42831 = Tosh.1526-32 Neh. 1126-29
7, 35 4, ἢ
i i i i
Beersheba Beersheba —, &hema Jeshua
sheba
Moladah Moladah Moladah Moladah
Hazar-gaddah
Heshmon
Bethpalet Bethphelet
Hazar-shual Hazar-shual Hazar-shual Hazar-shual
'-— Beersheba Beersheba
(Biziothjah= ‘its villages’)
Balah Bilhah Baalah
Tim
Azem Ezem Azem
Eltolad Tolad Eltolad
Bethuef Bethuel Chesil
Hormah Hormah Hormah
Ziklag Ziklag Ziklag Ziklag
Beth-marcaboth Beth-marcaboth Madmannah Mekonah
Hazar-susah Hazar-susim Sansannah
Beth-lebaoth Beth-birei Lebaoth “its villages*
Sharuhen Shaaraim Shilbim
ἢν
Etam -

Ain and Rim- En-rimmon
_ mon

iù
-—Ether
Tochen

Ashan Ashan Ashan
The names have been given in the forms under which
they are discussed in the separate articles, where account

1 In the Chronicler's expanded version of the Hexatench list
(1 Ch. 424-26) it is necessary to include Simeon himself to make
up the full thirteen.

2 In the form Zizah; see Ζιχα.

3 Ending in ὅδ 5 with Simeon himself (ruaewv for Shemaiah).

4 On the varying ethical judgment on the conduct of Simeon
in Gen. 84 see Gunkel ad /oc. and Charles' ΒΚ. oF_JUBILEES,
on 3026.

5 In the case of the other four—Reuben {3000}, Ephraim
(8000), Naphtali (8000), Gad (1000}—the fall is slight.

145 4533

pa
Ain Rimmon Ain Rimmon

Ether

SIMON

is taken of the variants in &. It will suffice here to
note that in list (1) (58 inserts θαλχα after Rimmon;
in list (3) 684 omits Heshmon and &A identifies
ASHAN (7. 42) with ASHNAH (v. 43). In list (4) GU
follows MT; but @2R4 omits all except Jeshua and
Beersheba.

i. The main list (i.) appears to consist of thirteen
towns agreeing with the thirteen {1 Ch. 434-37) names
(some with genealogies attached) of their inhabitants
who afterwards migrated to Gerar (1 Ch. 439).

ii. The main list of towns is followed by a supple-
mentary list (ii.) of four {Ain Rimmon being a single
place, and Tochen preserved only in 1 Ch. 432), agreeing
with the four ‘captains’ who migrated to Mt. Seir.

iii. Of the list of nine Judahite or Simeanite towns
assigned to the priests (x Ch. 6 57-59 [42-44]= Josh. 21 13-
16) only ASHAN {g.v.; in Joshua miswritten AIN) is ever
called Simeonite. Η. W. H.

SIMEON (VD; cymewn [BAL]; see Simeon
i, $ 8, i, end) τ. EV accurately SHIMEON, in the
list of those with foreign wives (EzRA ἵν, $ 5, end),
Ezra 1031 (G5PRA Σεμεων).

2. Grandfather of MATTATHIAS (τ Mace. 21}; see
MACCABEES Ì., $ 2.

3. A devout man of Jerusalem, mentioned in Lk.'s
Gospel of the Infancy (Lk.222-39), He was gifted
with the ‘holy spirit'—z.e., the spirit of prophecy—
and had learned by revelation that he should not die
without having seen the Messiah. Having been super-
naturally guided to the temple courts, he saw the child
Jesus brought in by his parents, according to custom,
on the completion of the period of the mother's puri-
fication. He then burst into an inspired song (vv. 29-
32), known to usas the Awze Dimittis (cp HYMNS, $ 3),
He could now depart, like a relieved sentinel, and could
transmit to others the happy tidings of the dawn of the
Messianic day (see GOSPEI.S, $ 39). For Mary he added
a special word of prophecy, pointing to the different
results of the preaching of the Cross of Jesus, which
would lead some to a new life, and others to anguish
at his crucifixion (vv. 347). See further, J. Lightfoot
on Lk. 225.

It is possible to regard Simeon as a poetic personification of
that inner circle of fewish believers which formed the true
ServanT or THE Lorn (9.7.). Long had it waited for the ful-
filment of the prophecies of salvation, and now (i.e., when this
‘Gospel of the Infancy’ was written) its members were passing
one by one into the company of believers in Jesus, Nor need
we be stavrtled to find an imperfect parallel to the story of Simeon
in one of the legends which cluster round the birth of the Buddha
(see Carpenter, The Synoftic Gospels(l), 155),

4. ἘΝ, SYMEON (Lk. 330). See GENEALOGIES OF
Jesus, $ 3.

5. ΕΝ, ΒΥΜΕΟΝ, ‘that was called Niger' (cymewn
è καλούμενος Νίγερ [Ti. WH]), is mentioned along
with Barnabas, Lucius, Manaen, and Saul, among
the prophets and teachers in the primitive church
at Antioch {Acts13:t) See MINISTRY, $ 37. Niger
was probably his Gentile name, whether chosen with
any reference to his complexion we cannot tell; the
name was not uncommon (see Dic Gr. and Rom.
Biogr. and Mythol.).

The list of the first preachers of the Gospel given by
Epiphanius (Epiph. Ofere. 1 397, ed. Dindorf) closes with the
names Βαρνάβαν, καὶ ᾿Ἀπελλῆν; Ῥοῦφον, Niyepa καὶ τοὺς λοιποὺς
τῶν ἑβδομήκοντα δύο.

6. ΕΝ, SvMkon (Acts 1514).

Sn

SIMON {cimwon; ="snub-nosed'? a Greek name
[see Simon PETER, $ τα] of frequent occurrence among
post-exilic Jews [}N9*D]; cp Jason ; see SIMON PETER,
8 τὖ,

The persons who bear the name in @ or NT are :—

1. Simon Chosameus (cimwn yxocamaoc [Β]
.-. XOcomaloc [A]), x Esd. 932= Ezra 1031, SHIMEON
{b. Harim].

See Simon PETER,

4534

SIMON

2. Son of Mattathias surmamed THassi (1 Macc. 23;
θασσις [A], dagolek [NV]; «asi [V]; gd [Syr.];
Jos. Ant. xii. 61, arts). See MAccABEES, 88 1, 5.

3. Son of Onias, ‘the great priest," whose praîse is
set forth in Ecclus. 50. It is doubtful whether Simon
I {the Just’) or Simon II. is alluded to; cp ECCLESI-
asticuS, $7; Canon, $ 36; ONIAS, 88 4-7.

4. A Benjamite, who, wishing to avenge himself upon
Onias, informed Apollonius of the existence of huge sums
of money in the temple treasury {2 Mace, 3-4), ‘The ac-
count of the attempt of HELIODORUS [g.7.] to seize the
treasure is well known. See APOLLONIUS, MENELAUS,
OntIas, $ 6. He is called the προστάτης τοῦ ἱεροῦ (34)
or temple overseer, and it was perhaps his duty to look
after the daily supplies of the temple. Cp TEMPLE, $ 36.

5. Named in Mt.1355 Mk. 63, together with James,
Joses, or Joseph, and Judas, as one of the ‘brethren'
of Jesus. He is not mentioned elsewhere in the NT;
but it is not impossible that he is identical with the
Simeon, son of Clopas the brother of Joseph, mentioned
by Hegesippus as ‘cousin german' (ἀνεψιός) of Jesus,
who succeeded James în the bishopric of Jerusalem and
suffered martyrdom in the reign of Trajan. See CLOPAS.

6. Surnamed the CANANZZAN, AVCANAANITE (ὁ Kav-
αναῖος : Mt. 104 Mk. 318), or the ZEALOT (ὁ Ζηλωτής,
Lk. 615 Acts 113); named as an apostle in all the four
canonica! lists (APOSTLE, $ 1). There is no doubt about
the superiority of the reading «aravaîos to that of TR,
xavavirns, though the latter has the support of N; but
although the writer of the Third Gospel and Acts tookitas
representing, and has translated it, ‘Zealot’ (sce ZRAL-
015}, many modern critics (cp JUDAS, 9, 8 2} are inclined
to take the word as a Greek modification of ‘gip or
*x3p, meaning, ‘a man of Canan, or Cana” (there were
several Canas). Simon does not reappear in the NT
history. In ecclesiastical tradition he is usually men-
tioned in conjunction with Judas of James ; and indeed
in some western authorities in Mt. 104 the epithet Zelotes
is given to Judas not to Simon, Judas Zelotes taking
the place of Thaddaus. ‘The addition of Zelotes is
probably due to a punctuation of Lk.'s text which might
not seem unnatural if no connection of sense were recog-
nised between ravavaîos and ζηλωτήτ᾽ (WH). Simon
the Zealot is frequently identified with the Simon
(Simeon) of Clopas mentioned by Hegesippus (ap. Eus,
HE 332) as a descendant of David who was alive in
Jerusalem in the days of Trajan and suffered martyrdom
under the consular Atticus; but this identification is
not made by Hegesippus or Fusebius themselves, and
appears to be first met with in the Chronicon Paschale,
Pseudo-Hippolytus, and Pseudo-Dorotheus, all of which
call him Simon Judas.

Later ecclesiastica] tradition varies as to the field of Simon®s
apostolic labours. One set of legends places his activity in

fabylon or on the shores of the Black Sea. But, as Lipsius
points out (Apokr.- ‘prgesch. 31422), these. representations

ave probably arisen from a confusion with Simon Peter who
writes from ‘ Babylon" and addresses the Christians in ‘ Pontus.”
Another set of legends, especially met within late Greek writera,
represents him as preaching in Egypt, Libya, Mauretania, and
Britain ; but the same district are also assigned by some tradi
tions to Simon Peter. In the Western church the festival of
Saints Simon and Judas is observed on Oct, 28. The Breviary
lesson for the day has it that ‘Simon Chananzus qui et Zelotes,
et Thaddaus qui et Judas Jacobi appellatur in Evangelio, unius
ex catholicis Epistolis scriptor* evangelised Egypt (Simon) and
Mesopotamia (Jude) respectively, and afterwards went together
into Persia and ended a successful ministry there in a glorious
martyrdom.

7. Of CYRENE [g.0.] (Σέμων κυρηναῖος [Τὶ. WH]),
perhaps a Hellenistie Jew, who came from the country
and was compelled to carry the cross for the crucifixion
(Mt, 2732 Mk. 1521 Lk. 2326). Afterwards he was
reckoned among the seventy ‘others’ {apostles), Lk,
101, and he was said to have died on the cross ὑπὲρ
Xpisroî—i.e., for the sake of Christ. ‘The Basilidian and
perhaps also other Gnostics believed that he died in place
of Jesus; cp R. A. Lipsius, Apokr. Apostelgesch. 1195 f.

4535

SIMON MAGUS

204 3427. According to Mk. he was the father of
ALEXANDER and RUFUS [gg.7.] ἊΜ, H. Ryder (/2Z
17196/, 1898) thinks that Simon's eldest son’ was
Alexander, his second Rufus, his third Tertius, and his
fourth Quartus—all Christians living in or near Rome
when Mark wrote. Living among Gentiles, Simon
gave his sons Greek and Latin names. This Rufus has
been conjectured by many to be the same as the Rufus of
Rom. 1615. E, P. Gould, Sf. “ταν, 289 Δ (1896), re-
marks ‘It is the height of foolish conjecture to identify
this Rufus, the son of Simon of Cyrene, with the one in
Rom. 1613: St. Mark will only indicate that the names
Alexander and Rufus were known to the early church.’
Deep indeed is our ignorance on such points.
w. Ὁ, ν᾿ M. {No, 7.)

8. ‘The leper ' of Bethany, in whose house ihe woman
anointed Jesus with the contents of the alabaster cruse
(Με. 266 MK. 143; cp MARY, $ 25). An incredible
apocryphal story makes him the husband of Mary the
sister of Martha; cp LAZARUS. [The designation ‘leper'
has greatly exercised the critics. It is worth recalling,
however, that the mother of JEROBOAM [g.v. 1] is called
in MT ayins. ‘a leper’ (1 K. 1126), and that Naaman in
the extant recast of an older story'{2 K.. 5 τὴ is represented
as ya, ‘a leper.' In both cases the original tradition
stated that a Misrite was referred to. It is possible that
the Simon referred to was said to have come (like ‘that
Egyptian’ in Acts 2138} from Egypt to Jerusalem, and
that the original narrative (in Hebrew) called him “5
Cp also ‘Simon of Cyrene,” Chajes (Markus-studien
[1899], p. 75) supposes an original Hebrew reading
yugn, ‘the humble'—z.e., ‘ pious’ (as often in Talmud).
‘One who had been a leper' is at any rate a miserable
explanation.—T. K. C.]

9. The Pharisee, in whose house the penitent woman
anointed Jesus' hands and feet (Lk. 7 40), Cp GospELs,
Β το, and MARY, 8 25, col. 2970. Against the identi-
fication of this anointing with that of Mary of Bethany,
just before the Passion, see Plummer (209). The theory
is at any rate ancient, for, as Plummer remarks, Origen
on Mt, 266 contends against it. It is also supported by
Keim (Jesu von Nazara, 3 222), Holtamann (4/00, 273,
© 346), and Scholten (Ze Paulinisch Evangelie, 254).
The last-named scholar is of opinion that ‘the influence
of Paulinism on the changed representation of Luke is
unmistakeable,' and that ‘leper’ in Mt. and Mk. was a
symbolic phrase for Pharisee. Without committing
ourselves to this, we may reasonably hold that here, as
often in collections of traditions, a germ-idea received
confiicting developments. i

το, A tanner of Joppa with whom Peter lodged (Acts
43). The reference to his trade is significant; the
narrator suggests that Peter was losing his old pre-
judices. It is said that a wife could claim a divorce
from a husband who became a tanner {Mishna,
Ktthabith 710), Cp HANDICRAFT, $ 5; JoPPA (end),

11. The father of Judas Iscariot, Jn. ὅγε 132 26.

τῷ. For Simon Magus, see below (special article).
On the ‘Great Apophasis’ see GospELSs, $ 91 {and
references).

13. For Simon Peter, see below (special article).

w.C.v. M. (No. 7.)

SIMON MAGUS.

CONTENTS
Introductory : Acts8 9-24 (fi 1). Anti-Pauline and Anti-Gnostic
Extra-canonical data ($ 2.2). polemic (88 9-11)
Bimon= Paul ($$ 4-7). Historical Simon-figureg (ἢ 12).
Four distincet Simon-figures = Conclusion on Acts 89-24
68) ᾿ ( πὰ
Literature ($ 15).
Simon Magus is mentioned in the NT only in Acts
89-24. (4) In Acts8g-8 we read that Philip the
Evangelist preached the Christ in the city
1. In Acts. cf Samaria, and wrought many miracles
Next (vv. 9-13), we are told that Simon

4536

of bealing,

SIMON MAGUS

had previously to this bewitched the people by his
magica! arts, giving out that he was some great one,
and being declared by them to be that power of God
which is called Great. After that men and women had
received baptisni at the hands of Philip, Simon also did
so, and continued with Philip, full of amazement at his
miracles. Meanwhile (v2. 14-17), at the instance of the
apostles in Jerusalem, Peter and John had come to
Samaria, and through laying on of hands had obtained
the Holy Ghost for those who had been baptised. Upon
this, Simon (vv, 18-24) offered them money and desired
the same power, but after a severe rebuke from Peter,
finally besought the two apostles to pray for him, that
the punishment they had threatened might be averted.

(δ) This narrative contains much that is strange.
That, instead of the city of Samaria (as în vo. 538//)
the country of Samaria should be named in ©. 14, may
be set down to a pardonable want of exactness. "The
designation of Simon as ‘that power of God which is
called Great' and his designation of himself as ‘some
great one'! are not intrinsically incompatible with his
sorcery ; but it is very surprising that the sorcery is
referred to twice {72, 9 11) and that its second mention
is preceded by the same word [προσεῖχον, ‘ gave heed')
as had already been employed in 7. 10.

This appears to indicate that the two explanations of his
popularity come from two different sources, By the reference
to his sorcery, he would, în that case, he characterised as a mere
γόης of the sort that was very abundant in those days; ‘that
power of God which is called Great’ would signify something
much more exalted. Now, it is not easy to imagine that an
editor would have introduced 2, 11 if he had already found zx,
9.£ lying before him in his text. It îs more probable that τ. τὸ
was interpolated, and that in che process ‘took heed’ (προσεῖ-
xo) was borrowed from ©. 11. The close of τ᾽. 9 (Simon's giving
Out that he was some great one) can în that case have belonged
to the original text, for it is far from conveying necessarily any-
thing neariy so high as ‘the power of God which is called
Great’; but it is hard to believe that ‘bewitching, and bringing
the nation of Samaria into a maze' (μαγεύων καὶ ἐξιστάνων τὸ
ἔθνος τῆς Σαμαρείας) also should come from the author of τ, 11.
Perhaps the original text had 22, 9 102 (down to ‘great,’ μεγάλου);
the redactor beginning with ‘saying, λέγοντες (#. τοῦ), added
the designation of Simon as the power of God that is called
Great, and then thought it necessary to return in 7. ας to the
idea of sorcery (from which attention had meanwhile heen
called away), and în doing so borrowed ‘took heed' (προσεῖχον)
from τ, το and ἐξεστακέναι from 2. 9 (ἐξιστάνων). This re.
newed mention of Simon's sorcery, however, was not indispens-
able ; 2, τῷ could quite as well have followed directly on 2. 10.
ft would have been equally superfluons if it had been inserted
by the redactor in τ. 9 (μαγεύων to Xauapetas), had 2. τι
belonged to the original text (in which case the whole of 2. 10,
on account of the προσεῖχον, would have to be attributed to the
redactor). Ifthere is reluctance to assign to any redacto» the
doubled mention of the sorcery, there remains only the alternative
that a.copyist who acted as independently and arbitrarily as the
copyist of D (or a preliminary stage of D; see AcTs, $ τσ ἢ
substituted at his own instance the other reference to the magical
practices for that which he found before him; that then, upon
comparison of this transcription with an unaltered copy, the
new form of the idea was written upon the margin, and then was
taken by the next copyist for an integra! portion of the text left
out by his predecessor by an oversight, and was accordingly
introduced into it at what seemed to be an appropriate place.

(ἡ The idea that only apostles (by laying on of
hands} can procure the gift of the Holy Ghost is quite
unhistorical (see MINISTRY, 8 344. From this, it
would not at once follow, however, that it is a later
insertion ; for the whole passage may be equally un-
historical.

At the same time it is, in fact, apparent, that vv. 14.182 intro.
duce a representation which in the actual connection is surpris-
ing. According to Ὁ. 13, Simon has been only astonished at
Philip's miracles : as for the bestowal of the Holy Ghost, he
wishes to be able to do the same. In a sorcerer would it not
have been more natural to desire to possess the miraculous
power of Philip (cp Sisoy PETER, ἢ 334)? Among the
scholars, therefore, who separate sources in Acts (see AcTs, 8 11),
we find Van Manen, Feine, Clemen, jtingst supposing that in
the source Simon did seek to purchase Philip's miraculous power
with money. On this supposition it is simplest to regard the
last word of v. 13 (ἐξέστατο, ‘he was amazed ’) and vv. 14-182

1 Perbaps originally it ran merely as in 5,36 efvaé τινα ἑαυτόν
—' that he was somebody'—and ‘great’ (μέγαν) may have been
merely an explanatory gloss to ‘somebody’ (nva); cp the neuter
εἶναί τι, ‘to be somewhat,' Gal. 26 63.

4537

SIMON MAGUS

(down to πνεῦμα) as interpolated. In this case, în the immedi-
ately following context, we must regard, at least, ©. 10, the
‘them (αὐτοῖθ) instead of ‘him? (αὐτῷ) in ©. 18, ‘ Peter'in τ.
20 and the plutals δεήθητε and εἰρήκατε ἴτι τ. 24 25 adljustments
caused by the interpolation.

(4) However plausible this separation may seem to
be, it by no means completely solves the riddie of our
passage. The problem still remains quite dark, how it
was that the editor could ever have come to interpolate,
at one and the same time, into a source which consist-
ently represented Simon as a sorcerer (2. 9 or 11), and as
wishing to possess still greater magical powers, two
such foreign elements as the designation of Simon as
the power of God that is called Great and the com-
munication of the Holy Ghost through the apostles (vv.
10 14-17). Thetwo have not the slightest connection with
each other. It might perhaps be suggested that the desig-
nation had been borrowed by the editor from a second
source, and that the reference to the Holy Ghost was
his own contribution; but this would not furnish us
with any intelligible motive for his proceeding. Yet it
seems highly necessary that we should discover such a
motive; for a second surprising point which is not
cleared up by separation of sources, and hardly can
be, is the question how it could come to pass that a
man to whom the whole people of Samaria gave heed,
and showed high honour, should have been so easily
converted to Christianity, and that as a sorcerer, he
should so little resemble the Bar-jesus of 1386-12 who quite
naturaliy opposed the Christian missionaries so strenu-
ously. Moreover, it is surprising that the story has
no close; we are not told what in the end became of
Simon. Here, once more, can it be seen how useless
it is to carry out separation of sources merely on the
ground of indications of broken connections, while not
concerning oneself at all about the deeper questions re-
Jating to the composition of a piece, and about ‘tendency*
criticism. The solution of the problem can be led up
to only by widely extended investigations.
Simon, to begin with, plays a great part in the
writings of the Fathers.
(4) Justin (about 152 A.D.) cites him as an instance
to prove thai, even after the ascension of Jesus, the
2, In the demons caused men to come forward who
Church. EAYe themselves out to be deities, and were
Fathbern actually worshipped as such, Such was a
* certain Samaritan named Simon, of the
village of Gitta,! who performed feats of magic by
demonic arts in Rome during the reign of Claudius,
was held to be a god, and was honoured by Senate and
people with a statue in the middle of the Tiber, between
the two bridges, bearing the inscription in Latin:
‘Simoni deo sancto,' and almost all the Samaritans, as
well as a few people elsewhere, worshipped him as ‘the
first god' (τὸν πρῶτον θεόν), ‘the god above all rule
and authority and power' (θεὸν ὑπεράνω πάσης ἀρχῆς
καὶ ἐξουσίας καὶ δυνάμεως), and declared a certain
Helena, who had formerly lived in a house ot evil fame,
and afterwards travelled about with him, to be the first

1 'Απὸ κώμης λεγομένης Tirrov. Thus Gitton would be a
possible form of the name. T'irrw», however, is certainly gen.
pl, since Gitta is met with elsewhere also as the name of ἃ
town: in Josephus {Γύττα or T'érra, gen. Γίττης or l'irru» ; see,
eg. Ant. vi. 18.10, δὲ 319-321) for the Philistian Gath, in Pliny
(EN 19117175) tor ἃ place on Carmel (Getta), and in the
Philosophumena (67) we have ὁ Terrnvés (not T'irreovds). For
farther details see Lipsius, Pe/russaee, 33; τι. In all the editions
of Justin krown to the present writer, indecd, the word is ac-
cerituated Terr», and so also in Eus. 7 ii, 13 3 and Epiphanius,
Har.2 τ, In that case the nominative would be Γέτται ; this,
however, in viewof the gen. Τέττης is quite unlikely. If both geni
tive forms are to be explicable, the nominatives must coincide.
Cp Ῥομόρρας (2 Pet. 26) alongside of Τομόρρων (Mt. 1015),
Avarpar(Acts 14621 16 1)alongside of Avorposs (148162 2Tim.
8.11), Θυάτειραν (Rev. 111: so in Lachmann, and as an alternative
reading in WH) alongside of Θυατείροις (2 18 24), and Θυατείρων.
(Acts 16 14), Αὐδδας (Acts9 32) alongside of the accus. Αὐδδα,
(0 32 36). Similar variations are found in x Macc. in the cases of
Agia, Βαιθσουρα, Γαζαρα. The word form ‘ex vico Gethonum*
(Clem. Recogn. 27) rests upon a misunderstanding.

4538

SIMON MAGUS

thought that had proceeded from him {πρώτη ἔννοια :
see Apol, 126 56 215, Dial. 120).

(δ) The base of the pillar referred to was dug up on
the island in the Tiber, at the place indicated by Justin,
in 1574 ; the inscription runs : ‘Semoni Sanco deo fidio
sacrum. Sex. Pompeius . . . donum dedit.' Thus,
the pillar was dedicated to the Sabine god Semo Sancus
{cp Ovid ast. 6213-18), and not by Senate and people,
but by the piety ol a private individual.

As Justin has gone so far astray here, Lipsius (8.2 5318;
Apok». Ap.-gesch. ii. 134) ventures to trace back also the
alleged worship of Simon and Helena by ‘almost all the
Samaritans' to misunderstanding of certain sacred pillars or
massebahs (sce MASsEBAH), to wit those of Hercules-Melkart,
the “king of the city’ of Tyre and the Tyrian moon-goddess
Selene-Astarie, whose impure worship is alluded to în the
reference to the house of evil fame (according to Iren. Her.
i. 16 [23] 2 and according to the quotation of Justin, Α΄ δον, i. 263
in Eus, ΑΕ i. 13.4, it was in Tyre). In the pseudo-Clementine
Recognitions Helena is actually called Luna, that is to say, Selene
(Σελήνη), and according to the Z/omeidies (2 23) she wasamong the
companions of John the Baptist (of whom Simon was the first) the
only woman— thus only ‘half man’ (ἥμισιν ἀνδρός), to indicate
that these 30 companions really represent the number of days în
a lunar month, which are not 30 complete days but only 29}.

{c) What we read about the ‘ first god’ (πρῶτος θεός)
and his ‘first thought" {πρώτη ἔννοια) is taken from the
Gnostic system which is attributed to Simon. We may
suppose Justin to have given full information as to this
in the work cited by himself in .4/0/.i. 268, but now lost,
entitled σύνταγμα κατὰ πασῶν αἱρέσεων, which was
used by later heresiologists from Irenzeus (Zier. Ἵ τό [53}}
and the author of the P4ilosoftumera (67-20) down-
wards, Harnack (Ze4r8, d, DGA1 206-208) finds in Simon
a new ‘universal religion of the supreme God,' Lipsius
nothing more than the ordinary Gnosis which had
become widely diffused in Syria from about the time
of Trajan, and is known to us mainly through the
Ophites, with this difference alone that here Simon
takes the place of Jesus as the Redeemer. According
to Kreyenbiihl (Zveng. d Wekrseit, 1, 1900, pp.
174-264) Simon was not a founder of a religion, but the
first genuine philosopher of religion, to whom belongs
the undying merit of having been the first to formulate
and scientifically to elaborate the fundamental principle
of all Christian philosophy, namely, an ‘anthropo-
logical pantheism' or an ‘absolute and universal
theanthropologism' (240).

In the ‘Great Announcement' (ἀπόφασις μεγάλη), attributed
to Simon, which is first mentioned in the P4i/osopfumena and
copiously extracted from, Kreyenbihl discerns, not, like all other
critics, the work of a later Simonian, but a genuine production
of Simon himself. For our present purpose it is not necessary
to discuss this question or to set forth the Simonian system, for

which the reader may consult Lipsius (82 5 316/)and Hilgenfeld
(Ketzergesch., 1884, pp. 163-186).

(4) Suffice ît to observe here that all the church
fathers from Irenzeus onwards make Simon the prime
author of all heresies, and inform us that he was
regarded not merely as a leader of a sect, but also asa
manifestation of the supreme Deity, as Messiah, also
by the name of ‘the Standing One’ (ὁ ἑστώς), or,
more precisely, according to the ‘ Great Announcement *
(Philos. 69 13) as ὁ ἑστώς, στάς, στησόμενος---ἦ.ε., the
permanently Abiding. Cp further, $ τα δ, Καὶ

(a) This interpretation of the expression ‘the
Standing One' is confirmed also by the pseudo

3. Pseudo-Clem. Clementine Homilies, (222: ὡς δὴ
στησόμενος del ‘as intimating that he

Homm. and Lol al d' d R x

Recogg.: (a) on sha Mies: stand') ani ἢ ἐεσσηῖς-
ταν ΘΑ tions( 27 : ‘negat posse se aliquando
Simon. dlissolvi, asserens carnem suam ita
ivinitatis suse virtute compactam ut

possit in aternum durare). According to Recagz. 172,
Simon further designated himself as ‘ virtutem sammam
excelsi Dei qui sit supra conditorem mundi.” Cp $ 144.

(3) We thus find in Simon's case also application of the
Gnostic distinction between the supreme Deity and his
subordinate, the creator of the world or demiurge. The
supreme Deity is incomprehensible and unknown to all
(Recogn. 231 f.).

4539

SIMON MAGUS

He sent forth the creative Deity to make the world ; having
done so, the latter declared himself to be (od, and demanded
observance of the Mosaic law. To Simon, also, is attributed
the dogtrine that the souls of men proceed from the supreme
God (who at the same time is called The Good), but that they
have been let down into captivity within the world. The body
is their prison (2 57/). This enables us to understand what is
meant when we aré told that Simon denied the resurrection of
the dead (4o7z,222). It can be explained from 2 Tim. 212,
according to which the false teachers, who are simply Gnostics,
declared that the resurrection was past already. By the resur-
rection they understood the soul's arrival at knowledge of its
heavenly origin, and its superiority to the body which is its
prison. Therefore, în their view, for all Gnostics the resur.
rection has already come about, and they consistently denied
any future resurrection of the body.

(c) These data may be sufficient to show that it is a
form of Gnosticism that the pseudo-Clementine Momi/ies
and ecognitions are combating in the person of Simon.
If they contained nothing more they would accordingly
be seen to have arisen, at the earliest, sometime in the

second century.

Other indications which do not need to be discussed here lead
us to the beginning of the third century (so Lipsius, ii. 137, n.2;
Harnack, Led, d. DG, 1266: beginning or middle of third
century, according to 7.2 Ζ, 1902, p. 570, even as late as the 4th
cent., before Eus. [/£ iîi. 88 5]—this after Chapman {below, $ 15]
had disputed their employment by Origen), and to infer a Catholic
redaction of both writings (so Harnack, £c.), or at least of the
Recognitions (so Lipsius, ..c.). The story as to the members of
Clement's family who became separated as non-Christians, and
after their conversion find one another and recognise (whence
the name ‘ Recognitiones,” ἀναγνωρισμοῦ one another, both in a
bodily and în a higher sense, has a purely edificatory purpose.
Apart from the final redaction (see above) the proper standpoint
of the authors—a Gnostical Jewish Christianity—does not point
back to the oldest times, and can hardly have ewercised much
influence. Thus, from what has been said up to this point, it
might well appear that these writings ‘contribute nothing
towards a knowledge of the origin of the Catholic church and
doctrine.' This is, in fact, the opinion of Hamack (Led. d.
Dogm.-Gesch.{2}, 1268), and in his view, indeed, ‘it may be re-
garded as certain.’

The pseudo-Clementine Momzilies and Recognitions,
however, contain yet another element of the very

4. (δ) 01 greatest importance, In them Simon
Simo 2 Baal displays features which are unques-
mon = * tionably derived from Paul, and
plainly show him to be a caricature of that apostle
drawn by an unfriendly hand. (4) The principal passage
is Hom.17:9.

Here Peter says to Simon: “If, then, our Jesus, manifesting him-
self'in a vision, made himself known to tlice also, and conversed
wirh thee, in doing so ît was as one who is wroth with an
adversary, and therefore speaks by visions and dreams [Nu.
12.6.8], or, it may be, even by revelations which [yet] were
external.’ But can any one be qualified for the teaching office
through a vision? And if thou wilt say, ‘It is possible,’ then
(I ask) ‘Why did our teacher for a whole year continualiy
converse with those who were awake? And, further, how are
we to believe thy word that he even appeared to thee? How
can he have appeared to thee, when thy manner of thinking
is wholly contrary to his doctrine? But if thou hast for even
so much as a single hour been made blessed and instructed for
the apostleship by a manifestation of him, then pray declare his
doctrine, set forth his words, love his apostles, and strive not
against me who companied with him. For indeed thou hast
come forward as adversary against me who am a firm rock, the
foundation of the church [Mt.1618]. If thou wert not an
adversary (ἀντικείμενος) thou wouldest not slander me and
revilemy preaching,in orderthat I, when utter that which I have
heard from the Lord face to face, may find no credence, plainly
as if I were a condemned and reprobate person {read καὶ ἐμοῦ
ἀδοκέμου ὄντος; cp 1 Cor.927). But if thou sayest that I am
condemned (ei κατεγνωσμένον pe λέγεις), în doing so thou
inveighest against God who revealed Christ to me, and
iaveighest against him who on account of this revelation did
call me blessed [M£. 16 17], and so forth.

What Gnostic ever personally withstood Peter?
According to the incontrovertible statement of Hege-
sippus (a). Eus. HZ ili. 827 /.), Gnosticism arose from
the times of Trajan after that the sacred choir of the
apostles had deceased. For what Gnostic had it ever
been possible to be, like Peter, a personal disciple of
Jesus during his lifetime upon earth? What Gnostic
ever gave himself out to be an apostle? What Gnostic
ever claimed to have been qualified for the apostolate
by a definite vision which he described? And who
ever except Paul (Gal. 211) spoke of Peter as ‘con-
demned' (xareyvwrpévos)? Thus, it was at Antioch

4540

SIMON MAGUS

that ‘Simon’ assailed Peter and spoke evil of his
preaching, and it was his vision on the way to Damascus
(for Paul, according to 1 Cor. 91 Gal. 11 12, the basis of
his claim to the apostolate) that is here intended to
be reduced ad alsurdum by a dialectic that really has |
much to say for itself. Already in chaps. 14 and 16 it is
urged that such a vision could have been produced by
an evil demon, just as well as by Jesus.

(8) Nor iîs this all The words of Peter in his
Epistle to James prefixed to the owzilies (chap. 2)
relate also to the same incident în Antioch: 'Some of !
the Gentiles have rejected my doctrine which is in
accordance with the law [of Moses], while imputing to
me a certain lawless and nonsensical doctrine (ἄνομόν
τινα καὶ φλναρώδη διδασκαλίαν) of the hostile man.
And indeed while I was in my journeyings some took
în hand by manifold interpretations to wrest my words
unto the dissolution of the law, as if I myself also were
of such a mind but did not openly proclaim ἴτ᾽ {cp the
charge of hypocrisy, Gal. 212). Nay, more, in How.
2019= Recog. 1061, it is related that Faustus, father of
Clement, to whom Simon has by witchcraft given his own
outward semblance, is in Antioch constrained by order
of Simon publicly to proclaim his repentance in the
following words :—

“1, Simon, declare this to you, confessing that I have unjustly
slandered Peter. For he is no false teacher, no murderer, no
sorcerer, nor any other of those wicked things which I in my
wrath formerly accused him of. I, myself, who have been
the author of your hatred against him, beg cf you to cease from
your hatred ofhim; for he is a true apostle of the true prophet
sent by God for the salvation of the world. . . . And now I will |
tell you why it is that I have made this confession, Last night ;

I

angels of God severely scourged me, the godless one, as being
an enemy (ἐχθρός) to the herald of the truth. I beseech you,
therefore, if ever 1 again should come forward and venture to
speak against Peter, do not listen to me. For I confess to you:
Tam a magician, lam a false teacher, 1 am a sorcerer. Per-
haps it is possible by repentance to wipe out my past sins,”
If the father of Clement did not occur in an older form of the
book, we may conjecture that this confession was originally
there put directly into the mouth of Simon. What is said about
his chastisement is a malicious allusion to the declaration of
Paul in 2 Cor, 127, as to the cause of his malady, that an angel
of Satan (ἄγγελος Σατανᾶ) had been sent to buffet him. It is
important to observe that in /ecog. we bave the sing.: ‘an
angel,' not the pl. ‘angels’ as in 0%.

(2) If we have here a well-ascertained case în which
an utterance of Paul regarding himself is spitefully
twisted to his discredit, soon also we find more of the

same kind elsewhere.

In the course of his vindication of himself Paul had, with
great reserve, declared that he had once been carried up into
the third heaven (2 Cor. 121). This is made ridiculous in
dec. 265: si putas facilem menti tua: accessum esse super coelos
et considerare te posse quae illic sunt atque immense illius lucis
scientiam capere, puto ei qui illa potest comprehendere facilius
esse ut sensum suum quì illuc novit. ascendere in alicujus
nostrum, qui adsistimus, cor et pectus injiciat et dicat quas în
eo cogitationes gerat.! The doctrine of Paul that to eat meat
offered to idols is not forbidden (see more fully under COUNCIL,
$ 11, col, 924) is distorted into the story that Simon in the
market-place entertained the people of Tyre with the flesh of a
sacrificial ox and with much wine, thus bringing then under the
power of the evil demons (07.73: cp 44). This distortion
is all the more worthy of attention, because the author, in
connection with it, gives admonitions in the very words of Paul
*to abstain from (or not to be partakers of) the table of devils’
(σραπέζης δαιμόνων ἀπέχεσθαι, or μὴ μεταλαμβάνειν, 748: ΟἹ
τ Cor.1020/). In view of the miracles which Paul himself
claims în 2 Cor. 12 12 Rom. 1519, τ is easy to understand that
he came to he spoken of as a magician. In the enumeration of
the magica! powers of which ‘ Simon ' makes his boast in Recog.
29, the ‘when bound I can lonse myself . . + when confined în
prison I can make the barriers open of their own accord ‘(‘ vinctus
memetipsum solvam . . . in carcere colligatus claustra sponte
patefleri faciam ’) specially recalls Paul's liberation from prison
at Philippi (Acts 1623-26). Even.if this liberation is unhistorical
(Acrs, $ 2), it found elief after ît had been related, and ît can
have been related a considerable time before the date at which
Acts was written. Once more, let us take another word that is
used, not indeed by Paul himself, but with reference to him by

1 “Tf you think that there is casy access for your mind above
the heavens, and that you are able ro conceive the things that
are there, and to apprehend knowledge of that immense light, I
think that for him who can comprehend these things ît were
easier to throw his sense which πους héw to ascend thither
into the heart and breast of some one of us who stand by, and |
to tell what thoughts he is cherishing in his breast.”

4541

SIMON MAGUS

a follower. In Acts915 he is called a chosen vessel of the
Lerd } in Aecag. 8,49, Simon is called a vas electionis of the
devil.

{d) In this violent polemie it is not surprising to find
thrown back at Simon—z.e., Paul—the charges which
Paul had himself levelled at his opponents.

In 2 Cor. 11 r3 Paul calls the Judaising emissaries at Corinth
‘false apostles” (eudardoroA01); in #0. 1621 Peter says that

lesus foretold false apostles (ψευδαπόστολοι), false prophets, the
forming of sects and lists for supremacy, all which seem to him
to have taken their beginning with Simon the blasphemer of
God. In 2 Cor.1114 Paul proceeds: ‘And no marvel; for
even Satan fashioneth himself'into an angel of light’; in Acco.
218, Simon is called the ‘malignus transformans se in splen-
dorem lucis” According to ox. 2 33 wickedness (κακία) sent
forth its comrade in arms, Simon, like a serpent (ὡς ὄφιν; cp
2 Cor. 11 3), according to Αὔοννε. 11 35, as one who preaches under
a pretence of truth in the name of the Lord and sows false
doctrines (πλάνη), and ît was with reference to him that Jesus
(Mt.7 15) foretold the coming of ravening wolves in sheep's
clothing. Here, also, may be recalled a saying which does not
come from Paul himeelf, but from the author of Acts. This
writer puts into Paul's mouth (2029) the prophecy that after
his departure grievous wolves shall make their appearance in
Ephesus, not sparing the fiock. It is very probable that refer
ence is intended here to the Jewish Christian school of thought,
which was prevalent in Ephesus under John in the last third
of the first century. Paul himself had already in 1 Corl69
spoken of the ‘many adversaries’ (ἀντικείμενοι πολλοῦ in
Èphesus. This expression, also, is taken up and turned against
himself in the passage already cited under a, above.

{e) More especially we find recurring in the pseudo-
Clementine Howmzilies and Recognitions three designations
which are already referred to in the epistles of Paul as
having been made use of against him.

When in 2 Cor. 68 Paul says of himself, ‘as deceivers and
Iyet) true” (ὡς πλάνοι καὶ ἀληθεῖφ), the censure implied in the
word πλάνος is just as little purely imaginary as is that contained
in69: ὡς ἀγνοούμενος, ὡς παιδευόμενοι (unknown,' ‘chastened’),
ete., or that repudiated in 4 5 (‘we preach not ourselves’), or
that hinted at in 31 (‘are we beginning again to commend our.
selves?), cp 512, All these charges had actually been made,
otherwise Paul would not have needed to repel them ($ 9 e).
The word most fitted to stick as a term of reproach was ‘the
deceiver' (ὃ πλάνος), and în point of fact it does reappear in
Hom. 2 17, which represents Jesus as having foretold that ‘first
must come a false gospel by the instrumentality of a certain
deceiver' [the gospel of freedom from the law] (πρῶτον ψευδὲς
δεῖ ἐλθεῖν εὐαγγέλιον ὑπὸ πλάνον τινός). Cp the πλάνη in the
quotation (11 35) cited under 4, as also the miracles which Simon
works (233), “to astonish and decelve' (πρὸς κατάπληξιν καὶ
ἀπάτην), or (7 4), the expression ‘deceived before by Simon'
(πὸ τοῦ ξίμωνος προαπατηθέντεφ), or the decedriones of
Simon (Recag. 3 65), his ‘slanders’ (διαβολαί : Zone. ὃ 59).

Notice further that, according to Gal, 1 10, it was made a
reproach against Paul that he sought by his doctrine to please
men; this Comes up again in the words of Peter in #0. 18.10:
“Since ye have thus spoken to please the multitudes who are
present’ (ἐπειδὴ ἀρεσκόντως τοῖς παροῦσιν ὄχλοις οὕτως ἔφης).

Above all, however, it is of the constant designation
of Simon as ‘enemy’ (d ἐχθρὸς ἄνθρωπος, or simply as
ὁ ἐχθρός, inimicus, see, e.g., above, δ) in both writings,
that we are able to infer from Gal. 416 with a high
degree of probability that it had already been applicd
by his Galatian adversaries to Paul. It is difficult to
see how Paul could have felt any occasion to ask the
Galatians whether he had been the enemy of the
Galatians by his preaching of the true gospel, that is of
the gospel freed from the law (this is what is intended
by ἀληθεύων ὑμῖν : 416) if he had not been spoken of
to the Galatians as being their ‘enemy.’ Here should
be added Mt. 1328 (sce below, 8 60).

(7) This ‘homo quidam inimicus’ according to
Recog. 170 f. raises a tumult against James the efisco-

1 This very drastic kind of polemic is exemplified in the NT.
also. The Gnostics who are controverted in the Epistle of
June (4.0, $ 2), in common with all Gnostics, divided mankind
into the two categories of ‘psychic'and ‘pneumatic'; they held
themselves to be pneumatic. This the author turns round the
other way în 2, 19: ‘these are they who make a division [j.e.,
between psychic and pneumatic ; not, as in AV, ‘ who separate
themselves, or, as in RV, ‘who make separations’], sensual, not
having the spirit.’ There is a still closer parallel to this sub-
stitution of the devil for God în Rev,224. It is hardly to be
supposed that the followers of Jezebel made it their boast
that they ‘know the deep things of Satan'; we may be perfectly
certain that their boast was that theyknew the deep thingsof God.
Al the more sharply sarcastic is the formof the phrase: ‘ Know
>. - the deep things of Satan, as fAey say” But it is Paul who
is the author of the claim to possess the spirit that searcheth all
things, yea, the deep things of God (1 Cor. 2 10-12) Cp $66.

4542

SIMON MAGUS

dorun princeps at Jerusalem, snatches a firebrand from
the altar and with this begins a general Jewish massacre
of Christians; he throws James down headlong from
the top of the steps, so that he lies as one dead. After
three days the Christians who have fled to Jericho learn
that the hostile man has received from Caiaphas the
high priest the commission to persecute all Christians,
and armed with written missives (‘ epistole ‘) from him is
about to go to Damascus in order to begin the persecu-
tion there, believing that Peter has betaken himself thither!
{cp Acts83 91} 224/ 269-12 Gal. 113 1 Cor. 169).

(ὦ) Even the style of Paul is plainly imitated in a
mocking way. În the recantation (Zow. 20 19) of
Simon mentioned above (6) we have his δέομαι ὑμῶν
(I beseech you': Gal. 4 το), αὐτὸς ἐγώ (‘I myself’:
2 Cor.10t), εἰδέναι ὑμᾶς θέλω (‘I would have you
know”: 1 Cor. 113), παρακαλῶ οὖν (‘I beseech there-
fore’: Rom.121 1 Cor.416; cp Eph.4x τ Tim.2:);
elsewhere τί γάρ, τί οὖν, οἷο,

So also with the apocryphal Acts of Peter and Acts
of Peter and Paul (as to which see SIMON PETER,

$$ 32-34). Whilst in the apocryphal

5. ApOCIYPhal correspondence of Paul with the

ti Corinthians which belongs to the Acta

Pauli (see Simon PETER, $ 396, n.) the doctrine

attributed to Simon is Gnostic, in the Apocrypha just

mentioned Simon appears less as a gnostic than as a

wonder-worker; but that by him the apostle Paul was
originally meant is manifest here also.

(4) The question of Paul to Simon: ‘Why didst
thou deliver up circumcised men and compel them to be
condemned and put to death?’ (διὰ τέ σὺ περιτετμὴ-
μένους παρέδωκας καὶ ἠνάγκασας αὐτοὺς κατακριθέντας
ἀποκτανθῆναι ; see SIMON PETER, € 34 e) is decisive.
There is no Gnostic who could have had either such
power or such inclination. The words can refer only
to what Paul did according to Gal.113 1 Cor. 159
Acts83 91/5 224/ 269-12. In this way what follows
gains in cogency, the original reference to Paul being
not so absolutely palpable without this key.

(δ) In the (pre-Catholic} Acta Petri Simon is spoken
of as ‘inimicus,’ ‘condemned’ {$ 4, e, and SIiMon
PETER, $ 33 4), and even the Greek word πλάνος (8 4 εὴ
has found its way into the Latin text; according to the
Actus Petri cum Simone (4 τὰ, în Acta Apocr. i. p. 49,1
13 and p. 60, l. 4) not only is Paul called (‘magus’ or)
‘planus,’ but Simon also is described as ‘planus (et
deceptor).' Inthe (Catholic) Acta Petri εὐ Pauli (43)
Nero makes it clear that Simon persecutes Peter and
Paul out of envy, and is a ‘manifest enemy” {πρόδηλος
ἐχθρός) of both and of their Master.

(6) In the disputation on circumcision touched on
above (a; cp SIMON PETER, 88 34 e, 39 c), Simon warns
the Emperor against believing Peter and Paul, as they
are circumcised and therefore worthless persons. Paul
makes answer: before we knew the truth we had the
circumeision of the flesh; since then, only the circum-
cision of the heart. Peter adds: if circumeision is
something bad, why art thou circumcised, Simon? It
will be manifest at once that only the words of Peter,
not those of Paul, are any effective reply to the reproach
of Simon. If with Lipsius {IL 1 360) we remove those
of Paul as being a later addition (cp SIMON PETER,
$ 35 e), then the pure antithesis between Simon as the
opponent and Peter as the defender of circumcision
comes to light. This, however, is directly contrary to
the whole representation of Peter elsewhere in these
Acts; for here he figures as the one who is doing away
with the law {Simon PETER, 88 342, 39). In so far,
however, as Peter defends circumcision the effect is to
take away his complete agreement with Paul (the
accentuation of which is nevertheless one of the main
objects of the book; see Simon PETER, $ 35 d), for

1 He is not here expressly called Simon, Should this be
intentional, this passage would then have to be relegated to $ 6
as being direct polemic against Paul.

4543

SIMON MAGUS

here it is only the circumcision of the heart that Paul
stands up for. Thus in our present passage it is not
at all the Catholic Peter, but the original genuinely
Jewish-Christian Peter with whom we have to do, and
this is our evidence. that his opponent was not origin-
ally a Gnostic, but simply an opponent of the Judaising
of Christianity, in other words, πὸ other than Paul. ©

(4) To Paul also applies the further accusation in
the same passage, that ‘Simon’ found it necessary to
give himself out falsely to be a Jew and to put on the
semblance of strict observance of the law in order to
deceive the people whom otherwise he would not have
been able to win over to his erroneous doctrine (see
SIMON PETER, $ 34). This clearly points back to
1 Cor.920: "to them that are under the law (1 became)
as under the law, not being myself under the law, that
1 might gain them that are under the law.' We
recognise also, however, the charge which, according τὸ
Gal. 51: 110, was made against Paul by his Judaistic
opponents, that outside of Galatia he still continued to
preach circumcision, for everywhere he shapes his
doctrine so as to please men (see GALATIANS, $ 13,
middle).

(6) With this accords {even if not conclusive as
evidence) the favour which Simon finds with Nero.
After Nero had proved himself the most dreadful enemy
which Christianity had, it must have suggested itself
very readily to the adversaries of Paul to lay it to Paul's
discredit that he had so expressly enjoined obedience to
Nero (Rom, 131-7) and that Paul's captivity had been
so mild (Acts2830/). As a result of his submissive-
ness such a partiality of the emperor as we find him ex-
pressing for Simon în the Catholic and also in the pre-
Catholic Acta (Srtmon Peter, 8 334) seemed natural.
Cp below, $ τῷ ὁ.

(7) Lipsius (ii. 1.363 £ ) has even conjectured that the
story of the seeming beheading of Simon ($ 34 c) has at
its root malicious misrepresentation of the behcading of
Paul.

In order that Paul might not have the glory of martyrdom
his traducers had it that he had not been beheaded, hut by a
trick had brought ît about that a ram was decapitated in his stead.
To this was then added the further touch that he presented him-
self to the emperor as one who had risen from the dead, in order
thereby to secure acknowledgment of his divinity, and of the
truth of the promise he had previously made, of a return from
death after three days. This promise is met with also in quite
another form in the /°4i/ose/Auzzena, 6 20, where Simon suffers
himself to be buried by his disciples, and proposes to rise again
after three days, but does nat revive (see Stmon PETER, $ 32 4,
n, x). Evidently che thenie has gone through several variations.
In accord with it is what we read in the Catholic Acta, that Nero
causes the body of Simon, who has fallen down from the clouds,
to be watched for three days so as to know whether he will rise
or not (see Simon PETER, $ 346) With Simon's promise
Lipsius confrontsthe statement of the Acts of Paul (=‘Martyrium
Pauli,’ 4, 6= Pseudo-Linus, ‘Passio Pauli,'8, 18, in Acta Afost.
Apocr.l112-116 32 42) that it was Pauì who foretold to Nero
his return after his beheading and who also fulfilled this pre-
diction.

(£) Lastly, mention must be made of the attempt of
Simon to fly to heaven (see Simon PETER, $ 337]
8 34 [/]). The supposition lies close at hand that
here too we have a malicious perversion of the saying
of Paul that he had been caught up to the third heaven
(5 Cor. 122) and that precisely the story of his fall and
of his death was connected with this because the appeal
to this rapture into heaven was regarded as a flagitious
piece of self-glorification, and, should the conjecture of
Lipsius just mentioned prove correct, the beheading of

+ Paul was not regarded as being the true end of his life.

At the same time it must be observed that Simon's flying is
repotted in two forms, Alongside of the statement, just recorded
above, that his desire was to reach heaven by it, we find another
much simpler one that his intention wassimply, by a brief flight,
to give proof of his magical powers, and thereby secure public
attention (Simon PETER, $$ 334, 340). For this we have an
authenticated parallel. Suetonius (Nero, 12) relates that a flying
professor who had undertaken to play the part of Icarus in a re-
presentation-of mythological scenes organised by Nero, in the
circus on the Campus Martius (that is to say, exactly on the
scene of the alleged attempt of Simon), at his first attempt fell
to the ground close beside Nero, who was bespattered with his

4544

SIMON MAGUS

blood. If it was this or some similar occurrence that suggested
the ascription to Simon of the attempt at flight, che statement
that Simon's intention was to fly to heaven is a further develop.
ment. The possibility remains that the story was manufactured
with 2 Cor.12 2 in view ; yet we cannot be confident of this. In
the pseudo-Clementine WonziZies we find merely that Simon flies
occasionally (2 32), and în the Aecognitions (29) this takes the
special form that Simon promises ; ‘si me de monte excelso
preccipitem, tanquam 'subvectus ad terras illasus deferar.’
What seems to lie at the basis of this îs the promise of Satan
to Jesus în the temptation on the pinnacle of the temple (Mt.
Asf=Lk. 4 gi 1). The evidential value of the arguments ad-
duced at the beginning of this section, however, is not impaired
by the ambiguous character of the indications last adduced.

How small is the right of any one to set aside any
such polemic against Paul as being from the outset

impossible is shown by the fact that

6 Analogous ;n early Christian literature the same

Lara Paul thing is found also without intervention
ag " of the mask of Simon, and even
occasionally with express mention of the name of Paul,

(a) Epiphanius (ae. 30 16, end) tells us that in
Ebionitic Acts of the Apostles was found, regarding the
apostle Paul, the statement that he was the son of a
Greek mother and a Greek father belonging to Tarsus,
that he had spent some time in Jerusalem and there
desired the daughter of the bigh priest in marriage, on
which account he became ἃ proselyte and accepted
circumcision ; but, having after all failed in his suit, in
his wrath he wrote against circumcision, the Sabbath,
and the law.

{2) In Rev. 214 20 it is said of the followers of Balaam
and Jezebel that they eat things sacriticed to idols and
commit fornication. The two classes of persons aré
thus identical in spite of their different names. Nor
are the Nicolaitans [ep NICOLAITANS] distinet from
them, for we read (215): ‘so also hast thou them that
hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans in like manner”
(οὕτως ἔχεις καὶ σὺ (not: σὺ καὶ) κρατοῦντας τὴν διδαχὴν
τῶν Νικολαϊτῶν ὁμοίως).

That is to say, In that thou (the church of Pergamos) hast the
Balaamites, thou hast also [in the same persons] those that hold
the teaching of the Nicolaitans in like manner as the Church of
Ephesus has (26) Now the Nicolaitans at Ephesus are in 22
suid to be apostles who have been found to be false ; and of the
adherents of Jezebel we are told in 2 24 that they profess to have
known the depths of Satan. ΑἹ] these accusations fit Paul; the
last of them must he understood in the manner indicated above
@ 4c, n.), To eat meat offered to idols and to commit fornica.
tion had been indeed sanctioned by Paul if we take ‘fornication'
in the sense that has been indicated under Counct., $ 11, col.
925. As he had already called his opponents false apostles
@Cor. 1113) it is not surprising if we find them hurling back
this reproach at himself and his followers (cp & 4). The later
the date to which the epistles in Rev. 2 / are assigned (see JoHN,
Sox ΟΡ ZEBEDEE, $ 11) the more gasily possible does it become
that in them it is no longer Paul himself, but a later schoo! that
is being controverted, a school which made perhaps a more
thoroughgoing use in practice of this doctrine of freedom from
the law than he himself made, or which even abused that
principle ; but neither is it possible to show from the text itself
that it cannot by any means have been directed even against
Paul. On 1311-17, see #76,

{c) Even in the First gospel, in all probability, it is
Paul who is alluded to alike as the ‘enemy' {ἐχθρὸς
ἄνθρωπος), of Mt. 1828, and as the ‘least’ (ἐλάχιστον)
in the kingdom of heaven ; see GoSsPELS, $$ 112 c, 128 6.
Cp above, $ 4 e, end.

{d) As for the canonical book of Acts, the polemie
against Pau! which underlies 89-24 and 2422-26, and
which is artificially turned aside by the composer, will
come under our consideration later ($$ 13/2, 128;
cpalso BarJescsì Kreyenbiihl (214-216; $ 15 below),
it may be added, sees also in Acts 148-20 and 19r:-r9

a similar procceding on the composer's part. -

In Lystra Paul was only stoned ; the divine worship which he
is represented as having received, rests only on the detraction
of his Judaising adversaries, who thereby, as elsewhere in
the person of Simon, wished to represent him as a man
who owed his success with the Gentiles—-these, according to
Kreyenbihl, are figured in the lame man blind from his birth—
τῷ magical arts. ‘l'he magical efficacy assigned to the handker-
chiefs and aprons touched by him (19 15} 15 held in like manner
to be an invention due to a similarly hostile intention, In the
Nicolaus, also, of Clement of Alexandria (Sfroxz ili. 425, pi
522, ed. Potter), who, when he had been rebuked by the apostles
for jealousy, offered his beautiful wife to any one who chose to

4545

SIMON MAGUS

marry her, Kreyenbiihl also (1907) finds Paul who gave up the
‘chaste virgin, the primitive church, to the Gentiles, and thus
to fornication Such conjectures hardly rise to the level of
probability, even although the difficulties suggested by stories
of this kind when literally taken remain worthy of attention,

(e) Similarly it is necessary to receive with caution
the view of Preuschen (ZAN7'W, 1901, pp. 169 [186]
201), that the form of Paul underlies the delineation of
the Antichrist in the Christian Apocalypse of Elias,
although the coincidences, especially also with the
Acta Pauli, are some of them really striking.

Preuschen himself says that a searching investigation as to
the history of theorigin of this Apocalypse is still needed. Ac-
cording to Schiirer (7.2.7, 1899, pp. 4-8), it is later than Clement
of Alexandria. If this be so, the features of the picture of Paul
cannot have been transferred to the Antichrist for the first time
when Paul's high place had become undisputed ; that must have
occurred much earlier, when the hatred against Paul was stili
alive and did not shrink even from such a distortion of his
picture as this. In the transference of these features to the
Apocalypse of Elias now before us, misunderstandings, however,
can easily have crept in This admonishes to great caution.
Moreover, Preuschen's work is not yet completed.

At the same time, however, Preuschen's view regard-

A ing the ΑἹ as 1
7. Simon as È gt pocalypse of Elias leads to the

question whether perhaps the figure of
Antiehrist in Simon may not also underlie the picture
pocalyP868: c; the Antichrist in apocalyptic writings.

(4) Preuschen (Zc. 173-176) answers this question in
the affirmative so far as Siby/ 3 63-74 2165-170 are con-
cerned. That in 363 the expression ‘afterwards shall
Beliar come forth from the Sebastenes' (ἐκ δὲ Σεβαστηνῶν
ἥξει Βελίαρ μετόπισθεν), Σεβαστηνοί has never as yet
been satisfactorily explained is true.

Σεβαστός is the Greek rendering of Augustus, a name of
honour which Octavian first received in 27 Βις, Should XeBar-
τηνοί, however, mean, not people of Augustus, but people of
Samaria, neither is this designation possible at an earlier date
than 27 8.c., forît was not till then that Samaria received the
name Sebaste. In order to he able to maintain the very tempt-
ing interpretation which refers the widow ruling the world in
8375-80 to Cleopatra, and the triumvirate clearly indicated in
8 51} to Antony, Octavian, and Lepidus, and thus fixes the
date of the whole piece 3 36-92 as falling somewhere between 40
and 30 8.c., scholars have found it necessary to take the ex-
pression Σεβαστηνοί as proleptically possible even before the
official bestowal of his name of honour upon Augustus, or to
regard the verse in which it occurs as an interpolation. Preuschen
understands the world-ruling woman (v. 75) of Rome (that în v.
77 she is called a widow, and that in vv. 47 52 Rome is designated
by its own proper name he does not take into consideration) and
then interprets the Beliar who is to arise from among the
Samaritans as referring to Simon the Magician. [τ is correct to
say that the rather vague delineation here and în 2 165-170
presents no obstacle to stand in the way of this identification ;
but the identification is not yet thereby established.

In fact, it appears even to be directly excluded if 2. 69 is
correctly interpreted: Beliar is to seduce many men, namely
‘as well faithful and elect Hebrews as also lawless ones, and
other men who never at all heard of God* (πιστούς τ᾽ ἐκλεκτούς
θ᾽ ‘Efpaiovs ἀνόμους τε καὶ ἄλλους ἀνέρας οἵτινες οὔποθ' ὕλως
θεοῦ εἰσήκουσαν). Jiilicher, who was the first to interpret Reliar
as referring to Simon Magus (7.2 Ζ, 1806, 379), finds mankind
here divided into three classes : (1) Christians{maroùs ἐκλεκτούς),
(2) Jews (EApaiovs ἀνόμους), and (3) Gentiles (ἄλλους ἀνέρας,
etc.) În that case, however, the third re ought to have come
after Ἑβραίους, not after ἀνόμους, Grammatically possible
would be another threefold division : (1) πιστούς, (2) ἐκλεκτοὺς
‘EBpalovs. (3) ἀνόμους καὶ ἄλλους ἀνέρας, ete. Only, in that case
the πιστοί would certainly not mean Christians ; otherwise the
‘Efipato: would not be called ἐκλεκτοί. If the passage is due to
a Christian, as Jilicher supposes, then the only right construc»
tion is that which takes ἀνόμους as ἃ predicate of Ἑβραίους,
as above. Moreover, in the third class just supposed the καὶ
would have a disturbing effect. _If the te after ἀνόμους could
mean ‘and,’ then it would be permissible to render καί by ‘also‘:
‘andalso other godlessmen,' The τε, however, after ἀνόμους must
mean ‘as also since that after πιστούς means ‘as well’; con-
sequentiy καί can only mean ‘and.’ ΤῊΣ only unexceptionable
translation is accordingly the following : ‘As well faithful and
elect Hebrews as also lawless ones, and other men,’ cte. As
these ‘other men’ are the Gentiles, only Jews can be meant by
the ‘lawless ones.’ If on this rendering one were to scek for
Christians also, they must be indicated by the ‘faithful and
elect Hebrews, in other words must be exclusively Jewish

1 German translation from the Coptic by Steindor@ in 7U
173, 1899; as Apocalypse of Sophonias already published by
Stern in Z. £ agypt. Sprache, 1886, pp. 115-135, and in French
by Bouriant, Mémoires de la mission archéologigue au Caire,
i. 2 260-279 (1885); not to be confounded with the Jewish Apnca-
lypse of Elias cited by the Church Fathers ; see Schiùrer, ΟΕ
2.673.696, ET ii. 3 129-130,

4546

SIMON MAGUS

Christians, which will hardly be supposed by any one. Rather
does the author divide the Jews into the two classes of the
*faithfal and elect’ and the ‘lawless,' placing the Gentiles
alongside of them. In that case, however, the passage is not
the work of a Christian, and therefore it does not relate to Simon
Magus; for it was only among Christians and not at all among
Jews that Simon Magus passed for a person so objectionable
‘and at the same time so important that he could be identified
with the devil.

Nor yet even among Christians was any such estimate put
upon him at so early a date as in the apostolic age ; he acquired
it by the enhanced importance which came to be attached to
him through the romance of which he was the hero. Thus if
Simon should be meant we should have to reject as t00 early
the dating of Preuschen, who understands by the three men
who destroy Rome (Ὁ. 51/7) Galba, Otho, and Vitellius (68 and
69 4.0.) and by the fire from heaven (τ. 53.) the eruption of
Vesuvius in 79 a.D. Moreover the second dating cancels the
first: for that Galba, Otho, and Vitellius had destroyed Rome
could no longer he believed after 69 A.D. Geffcken (7738 τ
p-.15), who agrees with Julicher as regards Simon Magus,
Judiciousiy leaves the date undetermined. Yet it is altogether
wrong to take τω, 36-92 or even only 22, 46-92 as a unity, In
the passage before us the destruction of the world by fire is
predicted as something new no less than three times (53-61,
71-74, 84-87); and moreover the destruction of Rome by the
three men just referred to follows upon the reign of the Messiah
over all thè earth (46-52), whilst of course it must have preceded
ir, and the reign of the widow over the world follows upon the
destruction of the world together with Beliar and his followers
by fire (71-77), and also ρου τῆς destruction of Rome by the
three men already related in ©. 51, which would be equally
inappropriate whether the widow be taken as meaning the
widow Cleopatra or Rome. Thus only vz. 63-74 come into
account 4s 2 unity for cur present discussion.

(ὁ) Simon the Magician has been detected in the
‘other beast’ of Rev. 1311-17 (which in 1613 1920 2010
is called the ‘false prophet') in recent years by Spitta
(Ofenb. d. Jok., 1889, pp. 380-385) and Erbes (Qfez6.
Jch., 1891, pp. 25-27). This identification may in some
measure suit the wonderful works which are attributed
to this beast in 1313-1354. But it no way suits the regard
for the worship of the Emperor in vv. 12156, and the
exclusion of those who have not the mark of the beast
on hand or forehead from the buying and selling, unless
we choose to suppose that the figure of Simon furnished
merely the outlines for this second beast which were
filied in by the author with essentially new features.

Still less have Volkmar (Corse. 8, OfEnd. J04., 1862, pp. 197-
25), Blom {ΤᾺ. 7, 1884, pp. x76-180) and Kappeler (7%eoZ
Zischr. aus der Sckwetz, 1893, pp. 40-62, 65-69) succeeded,
without resort to the greatest lengths of allegorical interpretation,
in finding the apostle Paul in the second beast; on any literal

exegesis, not even the miracles which cause no difficulty when
referred to Simon can, by any possibility, be assigned to Paul.

(Ὁ) In so far, however, as, after the example of
Gunkel (Sc4asf «. Chaos, 1895) and Bousset (Arti
christ, 1895), the line taken is that of seeking in the
leading apocalyptic forms merely renewals of older
figures, whether of mythological or of literary origin,
which assumed once for all a normative character that
underwent only slight modifications when applied to
new circumstances and conditions, it may certainly
be worth while to inquire whether Paul, or Simon, or
the features in the figure of Simon which have been de-
rived from Paul, have contributed elements to the shaping
of these renewed apocalyptic figures. Preuschen's aim
is nothing less than to show that it was by the introduc-
tion of the form of Paul that the figure of Antichrist,
originally thought of as a ruler, assumed the character
of a false teacher, so that both types of Antichrist
thenceforward existed alongside of each other.

After the survey just made of the appearances of
Simon in the literature of early Christianity, our next
task must be to ascertain what results,
9 MS ;f any, can be claimed. (a) In the
Aimee first piace, it has become evident that

"we have to do with three distinct
magnitudes which meet us, now here now there, under
the form of Simon, To these must be added as a
fourth a Jewish magician of Cyprus, Simon, a guard of
the procurator Felix, who employed him to draw away
Drusilla from her husband, Azizus king of Emesa, and
procure her in marriage for himself (Jos. 4x4 xx.72, 8
τάτ Δ). To him we shall return afterwards ($ 12 86€).

4547

8. Four forms

SIMON MAGUS

Meanwhile, the three figures that have come before us
in the literature we have hitherto been surveying art
(1) the Samaritan magician as Acts, on the first im-
pression, seems to present him ; (2) the Gnostic, founder
of the Gnostic sect of the Simonians ; (3) the distorted
image of the apostle Paul.

(3) It is indispensably necessary that we should
distinguish these three forms as sharply as possible, and
especially necessary in cases where they may have come
to be mixed up in one and the same writing. In this
sense, we have already treated separately the Gnostic
and the perverted image of Paul as they are found in
the pseudo-Clementine Zomilies and Recognitions
{$ 37). In these writings Simon appears as a magician
also; but if thereby the magician who, according to
Acts, made his appearance in the very first years of
Christianity, is to be understood, then the Gnostic
system ascribed to him does not at all fit, for it is of
much later date.

Now, magicians have existed în all ages, and thus ît were
easily conceivable that the author of the Gnostic system in
question, ‘in the second century, was really also at the same time

a magician. Asagainst this suggestion, however, two considera.
tions must be borne in mind; not only that Gnosis and magical

arts are united in the fancy of the Church fathers (who attributed

to their adversaries, without discrimination, all kinds of evil
things) more easily than they are in reality, but also that, on
this view, we lose all connection with the Samaritan Simon of
the earliest Christian times, a connection which is nevertheless
presupposed in so far as Simon is opposed by Peter. If, in view
of this, we decline to give up the connection, we must neverthe-
Jess recognise that in the pseudo-Clementines all the three forms
of Simon are mixed up with one another so as to form a com-
pletely impossible figure, The case is similar in the apocryphal
Acts; only, there the Gnostic features in the person of Simon
are not very prominent. On Acts89-24 see $ 14.

(ὦ If, then, we desire to get at the truth of the
matter, it is an exceedingly perilous thing to be too
readily prepared to find a harmonious picture, instead
of various features derived from distinct sources, Thus,
the argument is very widely current that, inasmuch as in
the Simon of the pseudo-Clementine Zomilies and
Recognitions a Gnostic tendeney is being controverted,
he cannot, at the same time, have any Pauline features;
in fact, the myth has even come into being that Lipsius
too, in conceding the Anti-Gnostic character of these
writings, has also given up their Anti-Pauline character.
Similarly, it îs often supposed that nothing more is re-
quired than the postulate of the actual existence of a
Samaritan magician of the name of Simon, in order to
make it possible to set aside all supposed reference to
Paul in the narrative of Acts8: or, where a little more
caution is exercised, it is supposed that the same result
can be reached by the observation that the figure of
Simon there exhibits Gnostic characteristics.

If once we are prepared to keep these different
characteristics strictly separate, and at

9. pe Anti: the same time 10 recognise their
ἣ μὴ cod presence together (should they happen
po: han Poveni to be present together) in one and the

n -_ same writing, the next question for us

Anti-Guostie. comes to be whether the Anti-Pauline
polemic is older than the Anti-Gnostic.

(4) One might suppose that the answer could not be
doubtful, seeing that Paul himself was before Gnosticism.
The consequences, however, which have been deduced
by the Tiibingen school from this view of the case cause
many to shrink from accepting this result, however
obvious.

These critics are utterly averse to making the admission that
any such intense hatred could really ever have been directed
against Paul, as would follow from the malignant and perverse
representation of him implied in the /oxziZies, and Recognitions,
and in the apocryphal Acts, should ît be the fact that the
passages in question date from the earliest Christian times.
The ideal of Acts, that the multitude of them that believed (as
also the apostles) were of one heart and soul (4 32) dominates
the current conception of that period much too strongly to make
it possible for many τὸ recognise as historical any conflict of so
profound and far-reaching a character as that revealed in these
writings.

(5) Only, what is it that is done in order to avoid the

4548

SIMON MAGUS

unwelcome admission of its historical character? Any
attempt to explain away the hatred which these writings
breathe against the Simon with whom they deal,
promises little success, Thus, of necessity, one is
driven to the assertion that the Anti-Gnostic interest is
in these authors the original une and the Anti Pauline
features are merely later introductions, much in the
same way as an artist, in order to give greater life to
his picture, will introduce into it here and there a few
additional touches, but without altering the nature of
the work as a whole.

{c) This assumption, however, of the posteriority of
the Anti-Pauline polemic în these writings is completely
untenable. How should the writers have come to
make precisely Paul their target? If there had been a
conflict between him and another school of primitive
Christianity from which these writers were not perhaps
far removed, the conflict was nevertheless buried at the
death of Paul.

It is coming to be more and more generally recognised that
the real Paulinism hardly survived the lifetime of its author (so
Harnack himself, Le478. d. DG 10) 46, n. 1, 527 78,116, etc.).
Whilst the most generai of all îts results— the admission of the
Gentiles to Christianity without observance of the law—was
accepted in its own interests by the Church now beginning to he
Catholic, every other special interest which Paul had promoted,
and even his services in connection with the carrying out of the
universalism which now was taken as a thing of course, passed
into oblivion. Already rhe book of Acts represents Peter as the
real originator of this, and Paul as but his follower in it (Acs,
$ 4). Simultanecusly, however, this book and the whole of that
literature and period gave to Paul more and more a place of
honour beside Peter (see MinIstRY, $ 36), and his writings
during the second century gained more and more of a canonical
position.

Thus, partly forgotten so far as his conflict with the
attitude of the original apostles is concerned, and partly
highly honoured as an apostle of bygone days: how
should Paul ever come to be in the second, or, so far as
the pseudo-Clementine omzlies and Recognitions are
concerned, even in the third or fourth century, the
object of so fanatical a hatred? It is a psychological
impossibility. Add to this that the writers, by the
introduction of Pauline features, would have been making
unrecognisable the picture of that which they wished τὸ
combat ($ τὸ €).

(4) Harnack has felt this, and drawn the consequence
which is the only possible one: ‘perhaps the Pauline
features of the [pseudo-Clementine] magician altogether
are an appearance merely" (Lerd, ὦ. Dogwe.-gesch.
1/8 269). In the light of our preceding investigations,
the boldness of this proposition will be apparent,

How could such a judgment be possible, or that of Headlam
UTASt., xg01f, pp. 537): ‘With the possible exception of
one passage, there is not the slightest sign of anti-Paulinism,
and nowhere is there any opposition to St. Paul'? 15. it,
perchance, due to the fact that Headlam has his eye only on
the real Paulinism and finds that the polemic of the pseudo-
Clementines and apocryphal Acts does not touch that, and then
omits to ask whether the authors perhaps precisely by their
malicious distortion of the image of Paul deliberately 20#54ed to
harm him more than would have been possible by means of any
honourable polemic?

(e) The examples of polemic against Paul without
the mask of Simon, already adduced in $ 6, must have
shown how deep the antipathy to Paul went, and how
widespread it was even where we have not to do with
writings which clothe themselves in the form of a
romance. ‘The epistles of Paul himself, however, con-
tain still more traces of this.

In $8 46 sd, we have already touched on what admits of |

being inferred from Gal,51: (still preaching circumcision),
110 (seek to please men), 416 (ἐχθρός), 2 Cor. 68 (πλάνος).
Paul's selfcommendation in 2 Cor. 81 511, his preaching of
himself (4 5), and his claim to have been taken up into the third
heaven and into Paradise (12 2-4), needed only to he exaggerated
a little and the charge of self-deification was ready. ‘To these
have to be added, further, the charges which Paul would not he
found repudiating so emphatically if they bad never been made
against him : such as that he walks în carnal wisdom (2 Cor. 1 12),
writes other things than appear (113), says Yea and Nay in
the same breath (1 17), corrupts the word of God (2 17), seeks
to be lord of the faith (124), uses his power for the destruction
of the churches (108 13 ro), when present is weak but comes
forward in his letters with the greatest claims (1097 1).

4549

SIMON MAGUS

From his refusal of financial support for himself the-inference
was drawn that plainly he was conscious of not being a real
aposile, otherwise he would have made use of the privilege cf
those who were (1 Cor. 915 2 Cor. 11 10). To this ît was added,
further, that he applied to his own uses the collections which he
caused to be made for the poor in Jerusalem (2 Cor. 1216-18 7 2,
end). Finally, “chastened’ (παιδευόμενοι) in 2 Cor. 69 can only
be understood as meaning that his malady had been interpreted
as a divine punishment for his opposition to the Christianity of
the original apostles.

(7) AI these charges and reproaches, however, proceed,
in the last resort at least, from the Judaizers who came
to Corinth or to Galatia and sought to turn against
Paul the churches which he had founded—in other
words, from the representatives of that school which
speaks in the pseudo-Clementine writings and apocryphal
Acts or at least in their sources. If one desires not to
be unjust to them, one will even have to concede that
Paul had provoked them to the utmost by his persistent
advocacy of his own views, by his unsparing attack even
upon Peter at Antioch (Gal. 21-21), by his blunt judg-
ment upon things which they regarded as sacred, by
the anathema he pronounced upon theîr gospel (Gal.
18), by his biting sarcasm (Gal. 512), and by his
sweeping condemnation of everything about them
{a Cor. 1113-15). We are only t00 readily inclined to
take sides with Paul and to find in his case certain
things to be perfectly correct, which in his adversaries
we would either condemn without qualification, or even
declare to be historically impossible. Whether, for
example, Paul says that his opponents are servants
of Satan (1115), or whether the pseudo-Clementine
Recognitions say that Paul is a chosen instrument of
Satan (349) comes to very much the same thing; and,
viewed from their standpoint, Paul must really have
seemed to them quite as much the enemy of the truth
as they to him—for after all he was doing away with
the law concerning which they could quite honestly
feel convinced that it had been laid down by God as
of perpetual obligation (see COUNCIL, $ 3, begin.)
Instead of denying the manifestly-patent fact that the
opposing schools, within the borders of primitive
Christianity, carried on their controversies with the
utmost violence, we ought rather to be unfeignedly
glad that the Christian religion possessed within itself
sufficient vitality to enable it to survive so severe a
crisis,

(g) There is accordingiy but one presupposition
only, by means of which it will be really possible to
hold the anti- Pauline features in the pseudo-Clementines
to be more recent than the anti-Gnostic, namely the
assumption that the principal Pauline epistles are
more recent than the Gnosticism, which the pseudo-
Clementines combat. 50. Loman (7%. 7, 1883,
PP. 25-47), Meyboom (#. 1891, 1-46), and Steck
(Gasaterbrief. 325-335 [1888]). 11 makes little differ-
ence here, whether on this view the two things are
also regarded as contemporaneous. Marcion passes
for the chief representative of the gnosis which is
controverted, We note further that Meyboom finds
the polemic in the /omz/Zies the fresher, and derived
more from direct observation of the two views he opposes,
Marcionitism and the Antinomism set forth by the
‘canonical Paul'; that of the Recqgrilions he finds
more colourless and confused. Against the
denial of the genuineness of the principal Pauline
epistles altogether, see GALATIANS, $$ 1-9.

If then it is impossible to deny the existence of the
Anti-Pauline polemic or to maintain that it is later than

; τι, the Anti-Gnostic, the next question
20. Anti-Pauline mes to be as to how it dame to
and Anti-Gnostie 1, connected, and even combined

polemie how sith the Anti-Gnostic in such a

connected. manner as we see, especially in the
Homilies and Recognitions. (a) Harnack, în so far
as he does not explain the Anti-Pauline element as onìy
seeming (above, $ 9 4), says upon this point (doc. ci4.)
that the pseudo-Clementines ‘before aught else con-

4550

SIMON MAGUS

troverted Simon Magus and his followers . . ., but
also the apostle Paul, and seem to have transferred
Simonian features to Paul, and Pauline features to
Simon.’ . The question still remains, however, Why
they did so? If they depicted Simon or Paul otherwise
than each of them in reality was, they only obscured the
picture of each, whilst in the polemic that was being
waged, it must nevertheless have always been a matter
of primary importance to depict the adversary în such
a way that every one could clearly recognise him, The
literary skill of the authors must accordingly, on the
assumption of Harnack here presupposed, that they
wrote their works as we now have them without making
use of any sources, be ranked very low; in reality,
however, it is admittedly very considerable. By the
judgment we have quoted, accordingly, Harnack has
merely raised another problem, not solved the one in
hand.

(δ) Harnack proceeds (doc. ci8.), ' Yet it remains also
possible that the Pauline features, borne by the magician,
came first into existence in the process of redaction, in
so far as in the course of this the whole polemic against
Paul was deleted, but certain portions of it were woven
into the polemie against Simon." ‘The assumption
underiying these words is of the utmost importance,
We see Harnack here reckoning, as he had not yet
done in the preceding sentence, with literary antecedents
of the pseudo-Clementine writings.

This is in point of fact indispensabile, if only forthe reason that
we find the H'omzilies for considerable stretches dealing with the
same matters as the Recogrifions, and then again diverging
widely from them and also changing the order uf the occurrences
which both relate in common. Further, in Recog. 874£ it is
said that Clement, at the instance of Peter, wrote down and
sent to James in ten books (the so-called κηρύγματα of Peter)
the discourses held by Peter in his disputatton with Simon in
Carsarea, and in the same place is given a list of the contents of
this writing which shows that ît dealt with things which occur
also in the pseudo-Clementines of to-day. To this must be
added the family romance, and other matter which again points
to a separate origin (above, $ 30).

And yet it îs precisely this question as to possible
sources of this literature that we may not propound
if Harnack's dictum is to hold good that these writings
cannot be called into requisition in any investigation
regarding primitive Christianity, because they did not
come into existence at all until the third or fourth century.
Granted that their present form is not older than the
third or fourth century, nevertheless their sources
certainly are older, and it is the bounden duty of the
historian to look into them. Harnack withdraws him-
self from the task, although he has himself recognised
its existence in the sentence we have quoted. Finally,
immediately afterwards he goes on to say as quoted
above ($ 9 4), ‘the Pauline features of the magician are
perhaps only apparent’ ‘The student who finds him-
self disinclined to follow this path out of the difficulty
which Harnack himself treads so hesitatingly, has no
longer to face the question whether one is to ‘ believe ἡ
in a primeval Simon-romance (so Harnack ; see Simon
PerER, $ 31%), but whether one is prepared in dis-
charge of the duty of a historian to probe the matter to
the bottom.

(c) That Harnack's hint of the result to which this
would lead (above, ὁ, begin.) is a happy one cannot
be said, How are we to conceive to ourselves even
so much as the initial juxtaposition of an anti-Simonian
and an anti- Pauline polemic, which Harnack even
presupposes at a certain stage of his hypothesis
where he does not yet take account of a fusion of
different sources? But why afterwards was the anti-
Pauline polemic deleted ? How came it about that never-
theless certain portions of the polemie against Paul got
themselves woven into that against Simon? From mere
confusion? No doubt some transference of traits that
suit Paul to Simon has occurred; but this can be
explained with any psychological probability only by
supposing that the hatred against Paul in those circles,
within which these writings took their rise, still con-

4551

SIMON MAGUS

tinued to be active, and that what this hatred had found
to be worthy of detestation in Paul, was involuntarily
imputed, without any basis of fact, to other persons also
simply from the need it felt to give itself air. This is
only a proof of the original strengih and bitterness of
the hostility in question against the apostle. In him
his enemies saw the embodiment of all that was detest-
able, nay devilish. If now, in course of time, there
arose other teachers whose position resembled his, yet
was not identical with it, the inclination was only too
natural, in those who disapproved, to fix their attention
only on the points of agreement, and to carry over,
without alteration, to the newcomers the sentence of
condemnation that had iong ago been pronounced upon
Paul, and all the words of censure in which it had
been conveyed— enemy,’ ‘false teacher,’ ‘ devil’s tooì,'
‘magician,’ ‘deifier of self,’ and the like. Without
the existence of a deeply-rooted hatred against Paul
that continued to be active down to a later time, all
this would not have been possible; but as soon as its
existence is recognised, the mingling of the attributes
of distinct persons is no longer unintelligible, In like
manner also in that case one is in a position to under-
stand that people of this fanatical sort, when un-
Qquestionably new characteristics emerged, did not allow
themselves to be led by this to recognise that a new
thing had appeared, that was not to be identified with
the old, but simply regarded the new characteristics in
question as a fresh development of the long familiar
and detestable characteristics of the original adversary.

(4) One new characteristic of the kind just referred
to, undoubtedly, was the divine worship implied in the
erection of a statue in Rome (above, $ 2a). Even the
most fertile imagination could hardly have constructed
this out of the image of Paul.

Lipsius, therefore (ii. 140°), is probably right when he
supposes this assertion about Simon to owe its origin to the
stupid misunderstanding of Justin, and to have found its way
into the Aecognitions only after Justin's statement had become
current. Here it is even put in the mouth of Simon as a
prophecy : ‘adorabor ut deus, publice divinis donabor honoribus,
ita ut simulacrum mihi statuentes tanquam deom colant et
adorent' (29; cp 363 where Rome is expressiy named as the
piace). It is, however, as great a misunderstanding of the
meaning of Lipsius as that already ($ 8c) noted when Erbes
(Z.S. Kirchengesck. 22, 1901, 13.) reports it in the following
terms: ‘that the Clementine story of Peter's conflicts with
Simon in Rome can only have arisen on the foundation of
the statement of Justin. Lipsius does not say this of these
conflicts in general, but expressly only of ‘the Gnostic figure of
Simon. From the view which Erbes adopts, he draws the con-
clusion that ‘we have no need at all to go into the question
as to the sources and the strata of that [pseudo-Clementine]
literature, and are now already in a position to affirm that the
legend which brings Peter in conjunction with Simon Magus to
Rome, cannot have arisen until after 147 A.D. [f.e., after Justin].'

What Lipsius holds, and at the same time what we
τοῦ, it would seem, ought to held, is the exact opposite
of this. If, through an error of Justin with reference
to a certain Gnostic, a statement arose which subse-
quently came to be incorporated in the pseudo-
Clementines, we have all the more pressing occasion
for inquiring what was the form which these writings
exhibited, and what the picture of Simon which they
presented, before the introduction of such Gnostic
features.

(e) Lipsius, it is true, since 1876 (727 656},
Apokr. Ap.-gesch. ii. 138 fi 363) has abandoned his
earlier attempt to reconstruct, as a single writing, a
purely Anti-Pauline, pre-Gnostic source which should
embrace the whole of the existing Anti- Pauline material
that we now find dispersed in the pseudo-Clementines
and the apocryphal 4c4—not, however, because it
had been shown to be wrong, but simply because it
could not be proved to be right. All the more
decidediy, however, does he maintain that this whole
Anti-Pauline polemic existed in an oral form before the
introduction of the Gnostic features, This is in fact
the least that we must suppose, unless all the facts
which we have pointed out regarding the polemic

4552

SIMON MAGUS

against Paul are to be simply denied. Nor should a
renewed attempt to find in the Clementines a written
source of this kind be simply banned as impossible.
Attention must, however, be called also to the fact that
the position held by Lipsius bas only in appearance
been made worse by the new turn he has given to it,
and in reality has been improved,

It can appear to be more questionable if ît is unable to find
support on any written source capable of being separated out from
the writings before us, and if the possibility has to be reckoned
with that the Anti-Pauline legend existed for long only in an
oral form, and was reduced to writing only after the Gnostic
features had been combined with it. Nor is this really difficult
to suppose, The mixture of features, and che difficulty felt în
keeping them clearly separate, become easily intelligible on the
assumption that the writing was done at a late date; but the
certainty of the existence of a mass of matter that was originally
purely Anti-Pauline is not destroyed by the absence of any book
in which this had been committed to writing. The hatred
against Paul which still finds expression through the present
fortas of the writing which have been so much worked over, was
strong enough to secure that every one, even without their
being committed to writing, should know perfectiy well what
was the nature of the charges brought against Paul.

The positive advantage offered by the new form of
the hypothesis of I.ipsius is a chronological one. On
the supposition of a written source, difficulties can be
raised by the question as to whether it is really older
than the period of Gnosticism {from about 100 A.D.),
from which the non-Pauline features of the legend are
derived. In presence of a legend that existed orally
only, this difficulty disappears; for such a legend
naturally must have existed since the days of Paul, in
whose own letters we have already been able to point
out so many of the features which it presents ($ 9).

If originally it was Paul who was attacked under the
guise of Simon alike in the Psendo-Clementine Homilies

NA and Recognitions and in the Apocryphal

11, Original Acets (above, $ 4 Δ), the question in-

anti Pauline Svitably arises whether this happened

δ ριποπὲν i in the two groups of writings indepen-
Ps.-Clem. and dently, or whether both groups have a

"Anozi, Rete Common origin.

pocr. AC. (4) The first view is favoured by the
circumstance that the pseudo-Clementine Zomzi/ies and
Recognitions deal exclusively with encounters in Palestine
and Syria, the Apocryphal Acts only with encounters in
Rome. In many instances scholars have contented
themselves with establishing this fact and then holding
the question as at once settled,

(5) ‘The idea, however, which underlies this whole
polemic against ‘ Simon’ is most distinetly against this,
the idea, namely, that Peter has to follow Simon into
every place where the latter has spread his erroneous
teaching.

That this îs Peter's task is everywhere taken for granted as a
thing of course. Take, for example, 77022. 14 12, where we find
Peter saying that Simon is in Antioch (with Annubion) ; ‘when,
then, we get there and come upon them, the disputation can
take place’; out of a large number of other passages we may
point also t 7 where Peter speaks of himself as having come in
upon Simon “as light upon darkness, as knowledge upon ignor-
ance, as healing upon disease’ (ἐπελθὼν ds σκότῳ pas ὡς ἀγνοίᾳ
γνῶσις, ὡς νόσῳ ἴασις), According to 46 none but Peter can
cope with Simon, and his companions complain that he has sent
them on this occasion before him. In Recog. 865 Peter says!
‘Since Simon has gone forth to preoccupy the cars of the
Gentiles who are called to salvation, it is necessary that 1 also
follow upon his track so that whatever disputation he raises
may be corrected by us'(Quia Simon egressus est aures gentilium
qui ad salutem vocati sunt prevenire, necesse est et me vestigia
«jus insequi, ut si quid forte ab illo disputatum fuerit, corrigatur
a nobis), and in 368 we read that ‘Simon has set out, wishing
to anticipate our journey ; him we shouîd have followed step by
step, that wheresoever he tries to subvert any there he might
forthwith be confated by us' (Simon pracedere volens_ iter
nostrum. profectus est, quem oportuerat e vestigio insequi, ut
sicubi aliquos subvertere tentaret, continuo confutaretura nobis).

In view of such passages as these it is not conceivable
that the plan of the Zontilies and Recognitions became
limited to conflicts between 'Simon’ and Peter in the
Fast, as soon as it was known to the author that Simon
had come also to Rome. But this was in point of fact
actually known to the author, unless one is prepared to
deny that the apostle Paul is meant by ‘Simon.' Even

4553

SIMON MAGUS

if it is a Gnostie Simon that is controverted in the
Homilies and Kecognitions, it was Paul who supplied
the basis for this Gnostie figure (above, $ 9/); and it
is only with the origiza/ oneness of the anti- Pauline
elements in the Hoazi/ies and Recogrifions on the one
hand and in the Apocryphal Acts on the other that we
have here to do.

(0) Nor yet are direct indications wholly wanting in
the Zomilies and Recognitions that the conflicts must
be continued in Rome also.

Thus in Rec. 363 £ we read of Simon's going from Casarea to
Rome saying that ‘there he would please the people so much
that he should he reckuned a god and receive divine honours'*
(dicens se Romam petere ; ibi enim in tantum piaciturum ut deus
putetur et divinis donetur honoribus); see above, 8 σα. With
this it agrees that Peter makes the request of Clement who is
brought to him by Barnabas: ‘travel with us, participating in
the words of truth which I am going to speak from city to city,
as far as Rome itself’ (συνόδευσον ἡμῖν μεταλαμβάνων τῶν τῆς
ἀληθείας λόγων, ὧν κατὰ πόλιν ποιεῖσθαι μέλλω μέχρι 'Ῥώμης
αὑτῆς : Hom.116=Kecog. 113: iter age nobiscum et audi ser-
monem veritatis quem habituri sumus per loca singula, usquequo
‘ad ipsam nobis perveniendum sit urbem Romam ; cp 174: usque-
quo deo favente perveniatur ad ipsam quo iter nostrum diri-

endum credimus urbem Romam). So also in the Epistle of

Zlement to James prefixed to the #/oxzi/îes (ch, 1) Peter is spoken
of as being he ‘who as being fittest of all was commanded to
enlighten The darker part of the world, namely the West, and
was enabled to set it right’ (ὁ τῆς δύσεως τὸ σκοτεινότερον τοῦ
κόσμου μέρος ὡς πάντων ἱκανώτερος φωτέσαι κελευσθεὶς καὶ κατ-
᾿ρθῶσαι δυνηθείς), and as having died in Rome.

The value of these passages as evidence becomes
greater in proportion 10 the fulness of their agreement
with the fundamental idea set forth above, under 4.
AIl the more significant, therefore, is the simple ignor-
ing of them by Harnack and Clemen who do not accept
this idea, and all the bolder the view of Chase (Hastings,
DB 3775ì) that they ‘are so incidental in character that
they may well be the interpolation of a later editor, the
writer, for example, who composed the piste of Clement
fo James, prefixed to the Momilies.®

(4) Of equal importance is the fact that the Apo-
eryphal Acts which deal only with conflicts in Rome
contain references back to earlier conflicts of Simon
with Peter (and Paul) in the East.

For the pre-Catholic Acts, 17, 23, see Simon PETER, $ 332, 4,
and for the Catholic Acts see chap. 17, where Simon says of
Peter and Paul: ‘They have turned aside ali Judaea from he-
lieving in me (διέστρεψαν ὅλην τὴν Ἰουδαίαν τοῦ μὴ πιστεύειν
μου), t0 which Peter makes answer, ‘ Thou hast been able to im-
pose upon ail, but upon me never ; and those also who have been
deceived, God has through me recalled from their error' (πᾶσι
de ἐπιθέσφως ἠδυνήθης, ἐμοὶ δ᾽ οὐδέποτε“ καὶ αὐτοὺς δὲ τοὺς
ἐξαπατηθέντας È ἐμοῦ ὁ θεὸς ἐκ τῆς ἰδίας πλάνης ἀνεκαλέσατο).
Simon again holds precisely similar language în chap. 28 where
he mentions all Palestine and Cesarea as well as Judaea (ac-
cording to the Aecognifions it was in Cassarea that che last
great disputation between Simon and Peter occurred). With
this it agrees that in the pre-Catholic Acts (ch. 5), in exact
parallelism with the pseudo-Clementine Zenerlies and Recog
ritions, Peter receives from Christ in a vision the following
instruction : ‘quem tu ejecisti de Judaa approbatum magum
Simonem, iterum praeoccupavit vos Rome .. , crastina die
proficiscere," whereupon T’eter says to his Christian brethren
‘necesse est me ascendere Roma [for Romam] ad expugnandum
hostem εἰ inimicum domini et fratrum nostrum’ [for ‘nostrorum']
(cp Simon PETER, 88 340, 336).

Thus the pseudo-Clementines and the Apocryphal
Acts alike make it plain that both of them have the
underlying idea of a controverting of Simon by Peter
in the Fast as well as in Rome, even although only the
one half is developed in the one group of writings and
the other half in the other.

(e) The attempt has been made to meet this by poini-
ing out that church fathers mention the presence of
Simon in Rome while at the same time not speaking of
controversies between him and Peter. This is indeed
true of Justin, who knows nothing of any presence of
Peter in Rome at ali (above, $ 2; SIMON PETER, 8 30 £),
as also of Irenzeus (116 [23]; about 185 A.D.) and
Tertullian (405 13; cp De anima, 34, 57; about
200 A.D.) who elsewhere do speak of the appearance
of Peter in Rome (see SiMon PETER, $$ 25 ὁ, 26 α, and,
conversely, the mention of Peter and Paul without
Simon, $ 416). Only, this argument from silence

Ν
4554

SIMON MAGUS

cannot prove that Simon really did make an appear-
ance in Rome without any conflict with Peter.

In the writings of the church fathers the first mention of
this conflict occurs in the P%ilosa/kwmena, about 235 AD.
{see Simon PETER, ἢ 394). Amongst the sources of this work,
however, must unquestionably be reckoned the σύνταγμα πρὸς
ἁπάσας τὰς αἱρέσεις of Hippolytus, written about 200 A.D.,
even if Hippolytus may not be held to have been the author of
the PAilosophumena itself’; and Lipsius has made it probable
UPT, 1876, p. 607) that this σύνταγμα of Hippolytus, now no
longer extant, already contained the conflict between Peter and
Simon. If this be so, it can no longer be asserted that the
tradition of the conflict is later than the opposite tradition or
Tertullian and Irenzus. Moreover, it cannot be maintained
that thesetwo authors had any urgent occasion, in the particular
connections in which they were writing, to mention this conflict
if they had known it.

(7) In the case of Justin such an occasion un-
deniably did exist; and, moreover, Justin as being
the earlier (about 152 A.D.) is also the most important
witness. He, however, as already pointed out, knows
nothing of Peter's presence in Rome. Τὰς what he
says about Simon admits of explanation without any
difficulty, even if a tradition was already in existence
before his time to the effect that Simon had been
controverted by Peter in Rome. One part of this
tradition—that about Simon's presence in Rome-—he
found himself able to accept (in fact he held it to be
confirmed by the statue, which he brought into con-
nection with Simon; see above, $ 2a), the other—that
about Peter's presence in Rome—he was unable to
accept. Why he could not, is a matter of indifference ;
what is certain is that one who, as Justin does, regards
all the twelve original apostles as having engaged in
missions to the Gentiles, and is completely silent about
Paul {MINISTRY, $ 364) would have had no difficulty
in accepting the presence of Peter in Rome, if he was
in possession of credible information to this effect. One
must reflect that the circles from which the traditions
relating to the controverting of ‘Simon' by Peter
emanated enjoyed small repute in the church, and
certainly no mistake will have been committed if we
suppose that it was Justin's knowledge of the Roman
tradition, which he acquired on the spot, that pre-
vented him from believing in the presence of Peter
there (cp SIMON PETER, $ 40 d).

(5) As soon as the later hypothesis of Lipsius, which
as we have seen (above, $ 102) has most to recommend
it, is adopted—viz., that the entire anti-Pauline polemic
existed, in the first instance, in oral tradition—we are
all the less in a position to doubt that from the beginning
it formed a unity ; and sayings of church-fathers about
a presence of Simon in Rome without any conflict with
Peter cannot, on the other hand, be regarded as proving
anythiag, if only because they are all of them much
later, since the oral tradition just referred to must have
come into existence during and shortly after the lifetime
of Paul.

(4) Nor can the fact that în the Z/omi/ies and
Recognitions only the eastern conflicts are dealt with,
and in the Apocryphal Acts only the Roman be held as
having force against this conclusion, even if we are not
able t0 explain it.

At the same time, we may certainly conjecture that the resi.
dence and the geographical horizon of the various authors had
a determining influence on the selection of the places which they
made the scenes of their romance. Otherwise, the Z/om:i/ies and
Recognitions would certainly not have confined themselves to
Palestine and Syria, but would have included Asia Minor and
even Macedonia and Greece as well, where also Paul had exer-
cised his missionary activities. Moreover, neither the Z/omzilies
and Recognitions, nor yet the Apocryphal Acts (though this
does not hold true of them in the same degree) exhibit
unity of conception în their present form. We cannot tell
whether older forms of them would not give us a clearer insight
into the original oneness of this whole body of literature. i

Having now examined the Simon-romance in all îts

A ramifications, our next question must

MN nOn be : what element of historical truth
ΡΟΝ calo {if'any) is there attaching to Simon?

(a) Of the four Simon-figures

distinguished above ($ 8), the caricature of Paul in the

4555

SIMON MAGUS

Homilies and Recognitions and in the Apocryphal Acts
was interpreted as having its basis in the historical Paul
and no other historical person whatsoever by the
Tuùbingen school, followed by Noldeke (in Lipsius,
Erginzungsheft, 32 f.) and Lidemann (below, $ 15), as
also at an earlier date by Lipsius.

©n this interpretation the explanation of the name Simon is
that Paul, whose real name of course could not be mentioned,
was the opponent of Simon Peter and thus was the false Simon;
he was called a Samaritan, it was held, because he was a_Jew,
‘and yet also no Jew since he rejected the law of Moses, On all
other features see above, $$ 4-7, 9-ττ-

(6) Krenkel (below, $ 15), to explain the caricature
of Paul, calls in the Cyprian magician Simon, who
stood high in favour with Felix because of his services
in helping him to win Drusilla (above, $ 8a}.

As Paul also was well treated by Felix when in prison at
Cresarca (Acts 2422-26), it was a comparatively easy thing for
Jewish-Christian slander to assert thar he really was identical
with the Cyprian Simon, and that, using this name, în order the
more easily to gain followers he gave himself out to be the apostle
Simon Peter. This last conjecture is altogether improbable ;
but the first also goes somewhac far, although it seems to have
some support in Paul's preaching before Felix and Drusilla ‘of
righteousness and temperance and the judgment to come’ (Acts
2425; see BARJESUS, ὃ 4). Cp above, $ 56.

(2) Kreyenbihl (205-214; see below, $ 15) goes still
further.

The accusation against Paul of having brought Drusilla to
Felix, he attributes not to the Jewish Christians, but to the
Jews who accused him before Felix. According to Kreyenbihl,
2 Cyprian Simon never existed ; what Josephus relates regarding
him 1s simply this stander which was current against Paul, having
been brought against him under the name of Simon which was
given to him. But the question arises: How came non-Christian

Jews to give to Paul the name of Simon? Kreyenbiihl's ex-
planarion of how it was that at che same time they designated

im as a Cyprian by birth, is that Barjesus or Elymas (Acts
136-12) was originally the apostle Paul (see BARJESUS, $ 44).
Both names are, according to Kreyenbùhl, nicknames which
were given him by Jews (not Christian Jews), because he was
received in a friendly way in Csprus by Sergius Paulus, and
there fully declared his apostasy from Judaism by changing his
name. Elymas means ‘magician,’ literally ‘man of Elam'
(BarJesus, $ 12), the classical land of magic; Barjesus means
“follower of Jesus.” Such hypotheses are exceedingly pre-
carious, The historicity of the Cyprian Simon, attested as it is
by doseghus, must not be questicned ; lt it is not to the Paul
of ἴδε Simon-romance, as Krenkel thiaks (above, δ), but only
to the Paul who is presented under the name of Barjesus that
features have been transferred from him (BARJEsUS, $ 4,4, €).
Should it so happen that his name was not Simon, but Atomus
CAropos), as Nîese reads with the Milan codex and the epitome
of Josephus, then one would be tempted to bring this into
combination with the Ἑτοιμας, which is D's reading for Elymas
in Acts138 (so Harris, £x7. 1902 &, pp. 189-195; cp BARJESUS,
$1,50).

(4) Lipsius, in his latest treatment of the subject
{Apokr. Ap.-Gesch. ii, 1 49-56), has recognised a Samaritan
γόης named Simon as historical. By doing so, he holds,
we make it easier to understand the bestowal of the name
of Simon upon Paul, and Justin's statement that Giitta
was the birthplace of Simon, as well as the fact that
Simon passes not only for the father of all heresies, but
also as the revelation of the supreme God, and thus asa
kind of Messiah (above, ὃ 2 4). Η Paul was the only
basis for the figure of Simon, then only the first of these
two predicates, not the second also, would have been
attached to it. Lipsius adds, as a possibility, that this
Samaritan Simon may be identical with the Cyprian
Simon of Josephus.

(e) Harnack, in his turn, also maintains the historicity
of the Samaritan Simon; not, however, as explaining
the caricature of Paul (above, $ 4), but because the
Gnostic sect of the Simonians must have had a founder.
Lipsius {51 /) adduces this reason for believing in the
historicity of Simon only with the reservation that it is
ποῖ necessary to bring the Simonians into direct historical
connection with Simon ; they seem to have marked him
out as the representative of their ideas only by an after-
thought. Kreyenbiihl (199-201), in like manner, postu-
lates a founder for the Simonian sect, but places him at
the beginning of the second century, since the Gnostic
contents of his ᾿Απόφασις Μεγάλη, which he accepts as
genuine (above, $ 24), do not fit in with the first century,
and Justin himself says that Simon was a pupil of

4556

SIMON MAGUS

Menander, and pupils of Menander ‘are alive even
now” (vir; Apol. i 264), that is to say, about 152 A.D.
Justin, it is true, says in the same chapter, and often,
that Simon came to Rome under the emperor Claudius
or, it may be (as Kreyenbiihl thinks), under (Claudius)
Nero (see SIMmoN PETER, $ 37); but Kreyenbiihl
supposes him to draw this from another source without
regard to chronology. In truth, the Simon of Acts
shows very little if any of the attributes of a Guostic
leader of a sect, and we must be on our guard against
holding him for such, on the ground, merely, that
tradition names no other. If we assume a Gnostic
Simon of Gitta at the beginning of the second century,
then we do not need, as Kreyenbihi at the same
time does, to deny the historicity of the Samaritan
magician named Simon in the first century—a historicity
which the reasons adduced by Lipsius make very prob-
able. If, further, we hesitate about identifying the
Samaritan with the Cyprian Simon-—an identification
which has nothing in its favour except that the name
and the quality of magician is the same în both cases—
we find ourselves in the end accepting three persons
named Simon. The point, however, is difficult to decide.

(7) It is certain, however, from all our premises, that
not only Peter, but also the Samaritan Simon of the
apostolic age, never appeared in Rome. It is told of
Simon merely because by his figure Paul is intended,
‘The only writer who represents Simon as appearing in
Rome without Peter—Justin—in view of his fiction
about the statue of Simon is not entitled to credence,
especially as his statement also, and not merely that of
a simultaneous appearance of Simon always with Peter,
is quite easily intelligible if it bc taken as resting on the
romance of Simon=Paul (8 r1e, 3. Whether a
Guostic of the second century named Simon appeared
in Rome remains an open question; but it is not of
decisive importance for our present investigation.

The acceptance of a Samaritan Simon in the first
century does not, however, by any means, #ps0 facto,

. carry with it the acknowledgement of
15 Acte 806: the credibility of Acts89-24. The
* features enumerated in a preceding
section (8 16, d), which are by no means appropriate
to a magician, find a satisfactory explanation only when
it is recognised that the apostle Paul underlies tms figure
also. {a} Only Paul, not a magician, could have had
the wish to be able to impart the gift of the Holy Spirit,
and thereby attain eguality of rank with the original
apostles ; and Simon's so rapid conversion to Christianity
can apply only to Paul, the narrative already pre-
supposing him to be a Christian and interesting itself
solely in his desire to be able to impart the gift of the
Spirit. In the samedirection point also the words of
Peter (82x): ‘thou hast neither part nor lot (xX$pos} in
the matter”; for κλῆρος (ΕΝ ' ροτιίοπ, RVME ‘lot ')
is in 117 (cp 125) used of the apostolate, the attainment
of which by a magician is barred from the outset.

(δ) Equality of rank with the original apostles was
refused to Paul also by their party (1 Cor.92: ‘if to
others I am not an apostle,' etc. ), for which reason the
apostle himself claims it with the emphasis which we
see (9111 2 Cor.l: Gal li Rom.1r-6). Now, it is
not difficult to discern in Peter's other expressions also
în Acts821-23, traces of the polemic which was being
carried on against Paul.

‘Thy heart is not rig4f before God” (τ. 21) has a close
similarity to the expression used in 1310 în addressing Bar-
jesus (λει, Paul): ‘wilt thou nat cense to pervert the ri647
vwaysof the Lord?" Atthe same time, however, the phraseology
recalls also Gal.214: ‘they walked not uprightly (oux ὄρθο-
ποδοῦσιν) according to the truth of the gospel’ So Paul
eypresses himself in Antioch against Peter and his fellows,
Thus we perceive that Acts89-24 is the counterpart to the
setting down of Peter by Paul at Antioch, and we are able to
understand 823. For this verse does not mean, as in AV RV,
‘thou art in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.”
“In the bond' might be intelligible, but “in the gall’ not. ‘Thus
εἰς χολὴν... ὁρῶ ce ὄντα is the same familiar Hebraism as we
find in Με. 19 5: “I see that thou art bitter gali and an iniquitous

4557

SIMON MAGUS

bond.” Paul must have seemed like ‘bitter gall* on account of
his opposition to Perer in Antioch, and an ‘iniquitous rescraint*
in so far as he endeavoured τὸ prevent Peter from again
withdrawing from table - fellowship with the Gentile Christians.
Lastly, Simon's repentance (8 24) has ìts parallels (î.e., according
to $ ὁ, its foundation) in the Z/owrilies and Aecopnitions (above,
ὃ 42).

(c) But, did Paul really offer the original apostles
money in order to obtain from them a recognition of his
equality with them? Certainly not. But it was merely
the finishing touch to the discovery of the Simon
romance when Volkmar { 7#4. Τ εοί. Jakr3b, 1856, pp.
279-286) perceived that Paul, according to Jewish-
Christian scandal, was held to have done so when he
carried the great collection to Jerusalem on the occa-
sfon of his last journey thither (1 Cor.161-4 2 Cor.87
Rom. 1525-28).

On this presupposition, let us now ask what judg-
ment we ought to form as to the literary activity of the

author of Acis.—{a}[fthe Samaritan
bri ΩΝ Simon was not a historical person, the
924. author of Acts învented him in order to
say that not Paul but a Samaritan magician was the
Simon with regard to whom Jewish-Christian stories
told that he had wished to purchase equality with the
apostles with money, and had been repulsed by Peter.
If, on the other hand, a Samaritan Simon really did
exist, then also the author of Acts can nevertheless have
made use of him simply as a means for attaining the
same purpose. In this event, the representation that
the affair had happened before Paul's conversion, must
be regarded as specially effective,

(3) In order not to be compelled to attribute this to
the author of Acts, Lipsius in his latest treatment
(Apokr. Ap.-Gesch. ii. 151 f.) assumed not only that the
Samaritan Simon had actually existed, but also that he
had an encounter with Peter.

At the same time, inasmuch as what is said în Acts8 14-17 as
to the prerogative of Peter and John in regard to the imparting
of the Holy Spirit is quite unhistorical (MinIsTRY, ὃ 34
Lipsius can uphold his view only on the assumption that the
encounter between Peter and Simon had another occasion.
When this hypothesis îs entertained, however, not only has a
region of pure conjecture to be entered upon, but the tendency
of the author of Acts remains just as.it was before—a tendency
to say something unbistorical about Simon in order to blunt the
point of the Judaistic allegation that ἐξ applied to Paul.

(c) Lipsius further propounds it as a possibility that
this substitution for Paul of the Samaritan Simon
already lay before the author in one of the sources of
Acts. This source, accordingly, it was which followed
the tendency to divert from Paul the charge of bribery ;
the author of Acts, however, failed to perceive this
tendency, but relates the story as referring to the
Samaritan Simon in all good faith in its trustworthiness.

(4) By way of support of some such expedient, it had
already been urged before Lipsius that the magician
does not wear Pauline features; or at least not ex-
clusively Pauline features, but also Gnostic ones.

In this connection, however, 89 cannot be urged : ‘giving out
that himself was some great one’; for by this expression he is
more nearly brought on a level with Theudas (5 36). Even the
fact of his being called ‘the power of Cod that is called Great’
(8 10) admits of being carried back to Paul. Paul, indeed, not
only calls his gospel'a power of God (Rom.116 τ Cor.1 1824),
but also claims himself to possess the power of God (2 Cor.
4767 129 134 τ Cor.54). Yet it remains possible that the
expression in Acts8 τὸ is a Gnostic one, especially in view of
the word καλουμένη. We have no more reason for omitting
this with HLP sah than we have for deleting τοῦ θεοῦ, after
Blass (51, Ax. 1896, p. 462), on the sole ground of the Latin
translation of Perpignan (Acrs, col. 50, n. 2), On the other
hand, neither also is there any occasion for taking μεγάλη as the
Aramaic participle Pael (ΚΟ or +b3p='the revealer'; so
Klostermann, Probleme im Afosteltext, 1883, pp. 15-21). In
the pseudo-Clementine /onzi/ies (2 22) we read in the descrip-
tion of the Gnostic predicates of Simon: ‘he wishes to be
accounted a certain supreme power, higher even than the god
who created the world'(BéAe: νομίζεσθαι ἀνωτάτη τις εἶναι δύναμις
καὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον κτίσαντος θεοῦ [ἀνωτέρα is perhaps to
be supplied]: A'ecog. 27: excelsam virtutem qua supra creatorem
deum sit; cp $ 3a, and Simon PETER, $ 33.8).

(e) Yet, even if the author of Acts has already taken
up a Gnostic feature into his presentation of Simon, the

4558

SIMON MAGUS

fact remains that he was aware of, and wished to
obviate, the reproach that Paul had wished to purchase
for himself equality with the original apostles by means
of his great collection. Otherwise, he would not have
passed the collection over in such complete silence in
chap. 21, where we should have expected its delivery to
be recorded, whilst yet he has preserved in 204 from
the ‘we-source’ (according to a highly probable con-
jecture) the list of those who brought it (GALATIA,
8 22). Nottill 2417 has been reached does the author
allude to it at all, but here in such a manner that it
becomes something quite different—viz., ‘alms for my
nation, not for the Christians in Palestine only. For
the main purpose of the book—the representation of the
harmony subsisting between Paul and the original
aposiles (Acts, $ 3, end)—the mention of the collection
would have been serviceable in the highest degree.
This may be the reason why a collection brought by
Paul to the Christians in Jerusalem is actually mentioned,
though at a time at which it is bistorically impossible
(11297 1225; cp COUNCIL, ὃ 1a). All these circum-
stances speak for tendency too clearly to allow us to
shut our eyes to the presence of the same thing in 89-24.

(f) The decision which must be pronounced, that
tendency is at work here, is not weakened, but
strengthened, by separating out a source which was
not (as with Lipsius; above, c) already a tendency-
document, but rather as absolutely historical as possible
(above, $ 1, 3-4); for the user of this source has all the
more assuredìy, in that case, purposely introduced by
his interpolations the tendency which the present
narrative as a whole eshibits.

(9) What we are able to absolve him from, then, is
certainiy in no case (whether he used sources or not)
the deliberate intention of representing the great collec-
tion in another light than that which agreed with actual

SIMON PETER

facts, in order to take away all foundation from evil
rumours about Paul which were based on the facts ; the
most that one can do is to absolve him from the charge
of having deliberately invented statements of fact, if we
assume that he actually knew of the existence of the
Samaritan Simon which we must recognise as a fact,
and in good faith believed that it must have been this
Simon who made the attempt to bribe, and that Peter
must have withstood him, ‘This view admits of being
understood as a result of his general assumption that
the party of the original apostles cannot possibly have
stood in a relation of such hostility to Paul (cp the
similar judgment expressed under BARJESUS, $ 4).
It still, however, remains impossible to deny that the
author has been led by tendency to be silent as to the
real history of the collection, just as he has been led to
be silent about the dispute between Peter and Paul at
Antioch, and about Titus (see CounciL, $$ 3 end, 7
end), or that he relates matters for which he had no
historical warrant.

Baur, 728. Zischr. f. Theol., 1831, d, 114-136; Simson, Ζ. κ΄
Wist. Theo! 1841, c, 1579; Hilgenteld, ZIW7, 1868, 357-306 ;
. Ketzergesch., 1884, 163-186, 453-461; Lipsius,
15. Literature, Q; ;
N "in ΑΖ, 5, 1875, gor:321;
Apokr. Ap.-Gesch. îi.1, 1887, 28-69 ef fassim (sce Ergdnsungs-
keft, 238£); Lidemann, Prot. ΚΖ, 1887, 953-961 (on Lipsius);
‘arnack, ‘Simon Magus' in AB); Ζελγό. d. Dogmen=
gesch., 204-209, 264-270; Dieterlen, 2 αῤδένε Paul et Simon
le magicien, Nancy, 1878; Krenkel, /oseskus τι, Lucas, 1894,
178-190; Kreyenbiihi, Evang. αἰ, Wakrkeit, 1, 1900, 174-284.
On the pseudo -Clementine writings see Schliemann, Die
Clementinen, 1844; Hilgenfetd, Die clement. Recogn. τῶ
Homilien, 1848; Uhlhorn, Die Homil. πος Recogn. des Clemens
Rom., 1854; Langen, Die Clemensromane, 1890; Hort, Notes
Introductory to the Study af the Clem. Recog., 1902; Bigg, in
Stud. Bi6. ®, 1890, 157-193; Headlam, 77 λϑὲν 1901 Δ, 41-58;
Chapman, ibid. 436-441; and (in agreement with him) Harnack,
TLZ, 1902, 570. PW. 5,

SIMON PETER
CONTENTS
NAME (β 1)
PALESTINIAN PERIOD (88 2-23)

I. In PavL AND Acrs.
Parallels ($ 270).
In Acts alone ($ 4).

Synoptists as Sources ($ 5).
Walking on water (8 6).
Other unhistorical narratives ($ 7).

Transfiguration, Stater (88/0).
Other doubrful elements ( 10).
Minor notices with historical kemel ($ 11).
1. Ix SywoPTISTA, {δῖαν daughter (ὃ κα),
all, draught of fishes (8 13.}).
Denial, confession (8 τ5 Δ).
Designation as Satan ($ 17).

HI. In FourTH Gospel.
Less strongly divergent points($ 18).
Denial ($ 19).
Cali (ἢ 20).
Footwashing (δ 21).
Peter and beloved disciple (ἢ 22).
Chavacter of Peter (ἢ 23).

LATER PERIOD (88 24-48)
Missionary FIELDS (8 24)
SOJOURN IN RoME ($$ 25-41)

1. INT AND CHurcu FATHERS($8 25-33). IL
Earliest and later witnesses (ἢ 25/)-
Ascensio Jesaie, 1 Clem. (ξ 27,f).
Martyrdom unlocated (ἢ 29). ;
Silence on sojourn and martyrdom($ 30).
Provisional conclusions ($ 31).

Literary (ἢ 32).

Babylonia as field of activity 8 45).
Babylon of 1 Pet. δ ome? ($ 42).
Babytonia and adjoining countries as

Peter's mission-field ($ 43). death ($ 45).

Simon, or Symeon (cyMmeton i 50 & for {IWMaY} ; see
ΒΙΜΕΟΝ, $ 8), was the original and proper name of the
intimate disciple of Jesus who was destined
to be for ever known throughout all
Christendom by the surname of Peter.

(@) The name Simon is a classical one which occurs (for
example) in Aristophanes, Lysias, and Demosthenes, Ever
since the Jews began the practice of assuming Greek or Greek-
sounding names, alongside of their proper Hebrew ones, to be
empleyed in intercourse with the outside world (cp BARNABAS,
$ 1, end, and Names, $ 86), Simon was regarded as an appropri:
ate equivalent for Symeon, all the more because in the selection
of such equivalents similarity of sound was considered an im.
portant element. _ (2) The form Simon (Σίμων) is that almost
invariably met with in the OT Apocrypha (3 Ezra [1 Esd.]932
Ecclus. 50 1; also în τ, 2 and 4 cc). Only once is the well-
known Maccabean leader called Ξυμεών (1 Mace. 265); 50 too

4559

1. Name.

ἵν ApocryPHAL ACTS (88 32-39).

Pre-Catholic Acta Petri (8$ 33, 36).
Catholic Acta Petri et Pauli ($$ 34/1).
Arrival in Rome, day of death ($ 374).
Conclusions from Apocr. Acts (ἢ 39).

Place of death» Conclusion($ ἃς).
Where did Peter die ? ( s6S.
Conclusion as to Peter's later life and

III. In Pseupo-CLem, Hom, anD REcoG.
(40/1). .
Inference from pseudo -Clementine
Homilies and Recognitions (ἢ 40).
No counter testimony ($ 41).

Importance for Roman Church ($ 46).
Later Tradîtions (8 47).

Writings attributed t0 Peter (ἢ 48).
Bibliography (& 49).

only once his great grandfather(2 1), and the son of the patriarch
Jacob thrice (4 Macc. 2.19 Judith 515 92). For the last-named
Josephus invariably writes Symeon (or Semeon: Συμεών,
var. Seed), for all other persons he has Simon (Sigur),
except in two cases (Anz ati. 61, $ 265—for the ancestor of
the Maccabeest—and in Δ ἵν. 89, $ 159, where in each case
Συμεών is found). Soon after the apostolic age it even came
about that the Greek form was taken to underlie the Hebrew

and JiD'D was written instead of pipow (cp Namrs, & 86,

end). (ὃ In the NT Simon (Σίμων) is the current form.
Symeon (Συμεών), in fact (if we leave out of account the
patriarch, mentioned in Rev. 77, the ancestor of Jesus în
᾿ῆς 330, the aged prophet οἵ Τί, 22534 and the. prophet
and téacher of Antioch in Syria who bore the surname of Niger,
Acts 181) occurs but twice; and in both instances—in 2 Pet. li
as well as în Acts 1514—is used with the obvions intention of
giving special solemmity to the designation of the apostle. In
Acts 15 this is all the more unmistakable because Peter is the

4560

ἢ 44).

SIMON PETER

name used throughout the rest of the book, except in presence
of Cornelius or în the mouth of his messengers, when the style
always is ‘Simon whose surname is Peter! (10 5 16 32 11 13).

hardly neerls to be said that we cannot assume the author Ri !

Acts ἴο be here following ἃ literally exact report ; we see rather
how as a literary artist he is taking account of the situation he
is di - Similarly it is pininly with conscious intention
thac in the third Gospel he uses the name Simon (4385 3-10)
down to the point at which in connection with the choice of the
apostles (6 14) he meutions the giving of the name Peter. Only
in 58 does he let fall the double designation ‘Simon Peter"; we
may perhaps hazard the conjecture that the addition of ‘ Peter*

is due merely to the carelessness of a copyist (it is wanting in 1),

in 2 MSS [13 and 69] of the Ferrar group and in the old Lat.

codd. a, b, ὁ). Thronghont the whole of the rest of the gospel

on” recurs only in the mouth of Jesus (2231) and of the
Jesus
Chis,

disciples 434), In the only other passage where
addresses the apostle (22 34) we find ‘ Peter' (Πέτρε).
howesgr, is probably introduced for the sake of the coni
Jesus in effect says that Peter wil! be so far from showing him-
Self a rock that he will actually deny his master. In the two
passages in Acts where Peter ἰδ addressed (1013 117: în the
vision at Joppa) we also find ‘Peter' (Ilerpe). It would be
difficult to suggest any special reason for this here ; the author
will simply be following hic prevailing custoni

(4) In Mk. also we find the same principles operative in
determining the employment of the name Simon. Down to the
choice of the apostles (8 16) we invariably find ‘Simon’ (116 29 Κα
36), but after that only once, in the single instance in which the
apostle is addressed by Jesus (1437), Mt. departs from this
only în so far as he adds the surname Peter to the name of Simon
not only when he records the choosing of the apostles (10 2) but
also at the point where he first has occasion to name its bearer
at all (41), and thus as early as 8 14 he is able to use the simple
designation ‘ Peter.” In the places where the apostle is addressed
by Jesus Mt, also never uses Ὁ Peter,' but always ‘ Simon! AT 25),
or with special solemnity, ‘ Simon son of Jonas' (16.17).

(©) Similarly, it is in accord with the solemnity of DI moment
at which Peter confesses Jesus as the Messiah that we find Mt,
using here (16 16), though nowhere else, the combination ‘ Simon
Peter" In Mk. it does not occur at all, in Lk. only in 58 (see
above, e); in 2 Pet. Li it is found in B, the Ferrar MS$ 13
and 69, and other cursives, but Symeon Peter (Συμεὼν Πέτρος)
is certainly to be preferred, as the form Syméon is rare and
thus cannot easily have been introduced into the text by copyist's
error merely.

ΟἽ On the other hand this combination ‘Simon Peter,’ which
as We have seen is so rare elsewhere, is the usual designation in
the Fourth Gospel. ‘ Peter’ alone îs comparatively infrequent
and occurs only where ‘Simon Peter” has immediately preceded
(144 138.37 1811 1618267 20 3/ 217417 20.£), in other words
only in order to avoid a quite excessive stiffness; yet even in
such cases there are several instances in which the more formal

‘Simon Peter ' immediately recurs (189 206 2176). Jn. agrees
with Mt. in using ‘Simon [son] of John' (1 42 2135-17)in the two
instances where he represents thè apostle as directly addressed
by Jesus, with Mk. and Lk. in using ‘Simon’ without addition
when the bearer of the name js first mentioned (141).

(£) The Aramaic name Kepha (*9°9; in AT only in pl. δ᾽.
@ πέτραι, Jer. 429 Job 306) is used only by Paul, who employs
its Greccised form Κηφᾶς (EV Cephas). Ὅν rather, outside of
the Pauline writings it occurs but once : namely în Jn. 142 where
Jesus gives ît as a surname to Simon, with the addition, however,
* which is by interpretation Peter.' Since the name Simon serves
perfectly well as a Greek equivalent for Symeon we can all the
more readily believe that Peter (and Cephas) was not a name
assumed by the bearer himself, that ît was bestowed upon him
by Jesus. Moreover, Peter was not at all a current name at
that time. In josephus it occurs once (4x4, xviii. 63, $ 156)
according to the testimony of the Fpitome which în many
instances has alone preserved the true text; all the MSS, how.
ever, read Protus ξιρῶτον) which also was a proper name.
According to Pape-Benseler (W4rterd, d. privch, Eigennamen),
apart from Christian circles Peter would seem to have been first
brought into currency through Roman influence.

(3) From what has been said it will be evident that
with NT writers the honorific name of the apostle was
the only one in general currency, and that they used
his proper name Simon {or Symeon) only when there
were literary reasons for doing so. This holds good
also for the author (not hitherto referred to) of 1 Pet.
who calls himself {11} Πέτρος. From the epistles of Paui
we can gather that the Aramaic form of this honorific
name was known even in Galatia (Gal. 118 29 τι 14) and
in Corinth (x Cor. 1x2 322 95 155). And in fact this is
not to be accounted for by some such reason as a mere
personal habit of Paul's to call him so; rather must we
infer from 1 Cor. 1:2 that Peter's own followers had
brought his name in its Aramaic form to Corinth ; for
we may be sure that Paul when he attributes the words

1 On the form of the name of Simon's father see Jonn, Son
oF.ZEBEDEF, $ 1, middle.

4561

SIMON PETER

<I [am] of Cephas' to the Petrine party at Corinth is
rendering their language with literal fidelity. Yet from
Paul's twice saying ‘Peter’ (Gal. 27 /} we must not
conclude that the verses in which the name occurs are
from another hand ; for along with the Aramaic name
we may be sure that the Galatians, precisely because it
was an honorific name, not a proper name in the stricter
sense of the word, would be apprised, whether by Paul
or by some other, of its meaning also,

A. PALESTINIAN PERIOD.
1. ACCORDING TO PAUL AND ACTS.

Ir the question is asked whither we ought to turn for

our most secure data for the life οἵ Peter, the answer
δ must be: neither to the Gospels ποῦ

2 Pauline to Acts where there is so much that is

motices. nen to critical deduction, but to the
epistles of Paul.

As to the genuineness of these see GaLATIANS, ὅδ 1-9; and
eni Cor. 15 1-11, in particular, see RESURKECTION-NARRATIVIES,
88107 As regards Gal. 211-13 it may be added that Valter,
although holding Galatians to be entirely spurious, sees in these
three verses a rcal historical record which was known to tie
author of Acts and by him so made use of for 101-11 18 as to
make it appear that not Paul, but precisely Peter, was the first
to make a stand for table-fellowship between Jewish and Gentile
Christians (Alowpos. εἰ, paulin. Hauptbriefe, 1890, pp. 149-154).

The following are the facts we learn from these
epistles.

{a) Peter was the first to witness an appearance of
the risen Jesus (x Cor. 155). As to the fundamental
importance of this event, see RESURRECTION, $ 37.

(6) Paul, three years after his conversion, found
Peter in Jerusalem along with James the brother of
Jesus in a prominent position (Gal 118£.}; fourteen years
later he again found him along with James the brother
of Jesus and John the son of Zebedee occupying the
position of leaders of the church who had received from
their supporters the honorific title of ‘the pillars‘ (of
στῦλοι ; Gal. 21-10; see COUNCIL, $ 6).

{) On the occasion just mentioned, that of the
* council of Jerusalem,' Peter with Jamés and John was,
at the outset, by no means on Paul's side, and in the
course of the discussions which took place suffered fim-
self to be brought to concede Paul's contention that
heathen ought to be admitted to Christian privileges
without circumeision, not on grounds of principle but
‘@nly in view of the established fact of Paul's missionary
success, a fact in which he was constrained to recognise
the hand of God (Gal. 27-9; COUNCIL, $$ 4, 8).

(4) The fellowship (κοινωνία) with Paul and Barnabas
which, along with James and John, he then ratified by
joining hands (Gai. 29) was a restricted one. It was
based upon the arrangement that the mission to the
Gentiles should be undertaken by Paul and Barnabas
whilst the original apostles restricted themselves to tlie
Jewish field—a restriction which they took in a strictly
ettmographical sense, their purpose being to proclaim
the gospel thenceforward to circumcised persons only,
not also to Gentiles living in the midst of a Jewish
population, and thus to be in a position in which they
could go on observing the law of Moses which forbade
defilement by intercourse with the uncircumcised
(Councit, $ 9).

(e) Peter took up a somewhat less rigid attitude when
after a certain interval he came to Antioch and partici-
pated in the common meals of the mixed community of
Jewish and Gentile Christians there. AIl the more
harmful was the effect when after the arrival of some
followers (or, it may be, direct emissaries) of James he
withdrew from this participation, and by his exaniple,
at least, if not by express utterances, led the other
Jewish Christians, and even Barnabas, to take the same
Step (Gal 21-21). The charge of hypocrisy which
Paul brought against him on this account must in all
probability be regarded as unjust and be modified to
one of inconsistency. The freedom in relation to the
Mosaic law which he asserted by his behaviour on his first

4562

SIMON PETER

coming to Antioch wili have been the result merely of a
genial temper called forth by the pleasant conditions of
that particular community, not the result of any firmly
established conviction. Peter was not so strictly legal
as James, but essentially he was still unemancipated
from the fetters of the law (see COUNCIL, $ 3).

(7) That Peter suffered himself to be convinced by
Paul's argumentation (Gal. 214-2r) must not be supposed;
for the incident in Antioch was followed by the syste-
matic invasion of the Pauline communities by Jewish
emissaries, with which we are made acquainted in
Galatians and Corinthians. Had Peter recognised that |
Paul had right on his side he needed only to assert his
authority and to call to mind the arrangement indicated
in Gal. 29 and all attempts to undermine the influence of
Paul in the communities he had founded and to win
them back to Judaism would have ceased, ‘The leaders
of the primitive church, and among these Peter so long
as he was in Palestine, must be held responsible for a
share in this action against Paul by the withholding of
their veto at least, if not even by overt action—such as,
for example, perhaps the issue of recommendatory
letters (2 Cor, 81). See COUNCIL, $ 3.

{(g) It will be convenient to take up at this point also
the last notices of Peter that are found in Paul, even
though these should possibly lie outside the period of
Peter's activity in Palestine. In Corinth there was,
according to 1Cor.112322, a Cephas-party. ‘That
Peter himself was ever in Corinth is utterly improbable.

No one earlier than Dionysius of Corinth (about 170 A.D. ; 24.
Eus. Z7E ii.258; see below, $ 254) knows anything of Peter's
ever having been at Corinth. Cp, as against this assumption,
only such a passage as 1 Cor. 415. But, further, if Peter had
followed Paul în Corinth, Paul who names him with respect in
x Cor.9 5 155, and in 34,/ refrains from naming him also out
of respect (‘when one ssith, I am of Paul, and another, 1 am
of Apollos; are ye not men ?') would not have expressed him-
self'so sharply as he does in 3 10-15 with regard to all those who
had come after him there,

Nevertheless the rise of a Cephas-party in Corinth is
readily explicable. Real disciples of Peter came to
Corinth and the followers whom they gained in the
community there took up from them their watchword :
*1 am of Cephas.' Now, there was also at Corinth, as
we know, besides this party the Christ-party which was
strictly Judaistic (see CORINTHIANS, $ 16). Inasmuch
as the Cephas-party remained apart from it, we see
here also another evidence that within Jewish Christen-
dom Peter represented the milder school. In 2Cor.
it is only of the Christ-party that we continue to hear
(107), no longer of that of Cephas.

(4) Finally, we learn incidentally that in his mission-
ary journeys, which in accordance with Gal. 29 we are
to think of as being made in regions having a Jewish
population, Peter was accompanied by his wife, and for
her as well as for himself asked and received sustenance
from the communities in which he laboured (τ Cor.
941}

In the accounts in Acts relating to these same events
there is practically no agreement with what we learn

from Paul except on the quite general

3. Parallel statement that Peter at the time of the

tn Ael8. council held along with James a prominent

position in the church at Jerusalem. All else is absent,
or otherwise reported.

(4) As regards the silence of Acts, no one will find it
surprising that no express mention is made of the out-
standing importance of Peter at Paul's first visit to |
Jerusalem ; the thing is presupposed (but cp c). It is
all the more remarkable, however, that the book has not
a word to say about the dispute of the two apostles at
Antioch, about the Cephas-party in Corinth, or about
the Judaistic invasion of the Pauline communities and
the part taken by the original apostles in this; and
that in fact it substitutes for the first-mentioned dispute
another which arose between Paul and one of those
engaged in the conflict, only in this case not Peter i
but Barnabas, and on a question which, dogmatically

4563

SIMON PETER

considered, was wholly indifferent—viz., as to whether
John Mark should or should not be taken as a companion
on the second missionary journey (Acts 1536-40). Such
a notice is very well adapted, it is obvious, to counter-
act any representation of the real state of the case that
might have been derived from (let us say) the Epistle to
the Galatians or from oral tradition, by its substitution
of another which deprives the affair of any considerable
importance. Furthermore, of any missionary journey of
Peter one learns nothing more than the little that is said
in Acts 952 43; for, in spite of 8258 (‘they . . . preached
the gospel t0 many villages of the Samaritans'), 8 14-25
is to be taken less as a missionary journey than as a
tour of inspection (see below, $ 46) In 1217 we are
told merely that after his deliverance from prison Peter
went from Jerusalem to another place. Whither he
went or what he did there we are not informed. In
157 we find him again în Jerusalem as if this were a
matter of course. ‘The author of the book has not
deemed it necessary in speaking of a person of Peter's
importance to give any connected account of his activity.

(3) The account of the council in Jerusalem in Acts is
in glaring contradiction with what we read in Paul.

In place of the arrangement with Peter, James, and John
for a division of the missionary field we have a decree of the
primitive Church which is directly excluded by Gal. 26 as well
as by x Cor. 8 10x4-1l1 (712-14) and finds its only historical
foundation in a custom of the second century, not at all of the
first (see Councit, $ 10 /.). In particular, Peter comes forward
at the very beginning of the discussions with a discourse the
dogmatic portion of which (1594-11) would be appropriate only
in the mouth of Paul; had Peter actually spoken it he would
have deserved in the fullest degree the reproach of hypocrisy for
his reversion to the Mosaic law at Antioch. The event, how-
ever, on which Peter relies in the nartative part of his discourse
(157.9), had it been really historical, would have made the
council an impossibility from the first; for if a Gentile in che
fuli sense of the word, as Cornelius is represented to have been
in 1028 113, had been received by Peter into the Christian com-
munity, and if the primitive church, by reason of the divine
command followed by Peter in doing so, had given its approval
(15-18), the question would already have been settled and
could not again be raised, or if it had.been raised must have
been answered by a simple reference to this fact without recourse
being needed to any council (see CORNELIUS, $ 2£, 5).

(Ὁ Finally, even what bas been spoken of under (4) as not open
to antecedent objection—the absence of mention of Peter on
the occasion of the first visit to Jerusalem—rests upon false
information ; for in Acts 926-30 Paul is represented not, as in
Gal, 118,/ 22, as having visited Peter and James only, but as
having conversed in full publicity with the entire Christian
community of Jerusalem.

‘Thus, in so far as we are able to control Acts by
the Epistles of Paul, Acts is seen ta have little claim
to our confidence in anything it has to say about Peter.
We can hardly expect to be able to repose more confi-
dence in it in those portions where it is our sole
informant.

The opinion ἐς widely held that the trustworthiness of
Acts as regards Peter has been strengthened when it has

been pointed out that the first half of

4 Other data Acis has an older source behind it,
" That we have to reckon with one or
‘more sources becomes particularly plain in the discourses
of Peter (see ACTS, $ 14), in the pentecost narrative
(SerrituaL Grers, 8 ro), and in that relating to
primitive communism (COMMUNITY ΟΕ GooDs, 88 1-4).
It can only be regarded, however, as indicative of the
extreme recklessness with which many theologians deal
with such questions if we find them taking for granted
that, once the existence of a source has been made out,
the trustworthiness of its contents has also been forth-
with established. Jf Acts was composed about 100-130
A.D. its sources may easily have been late enough to be
legendary in character, and even should many parts—
the discourses, let us say-—be found worthy of credence,
this would not necessarily by any means apply, there-
fore, to all the other contents as well. The temptation
το idealise the primitive Church was only too easy, and,
moreover the general drift or tendency.of the final com-
poser has also to be taken into account as a very im.
portant factor {see AcTS, $$ 3-6).

4564

SIMON PETER

(4) As for the conversion of Cornelius, it is only
necessary to recall what has been said already (above,
$ 35) that, regarded as a Gentile conversion, it is an
impossibility unless we are to take it as having happened
at a date subsequent to the Council of Jerusalem—a
supposition, however, which is also impossible (see
CORNELIUS, $ 2).

‘The only possible way of saving some historical kernel for the
story would be by regarding Cornelius as a Jewish proselyte
who had already been circumcised. No such thing, however,
is anywhere said in Acts (not even in 10.2 22 25) and the idea is
diametrically opposed to the representation as a whole (see
CoxneL1uS, $ 3). The narrative is a conspicuous illustration of
the extent to which the author could be led away from historical
truth by his tendency or rooted inclination to regard Peter, not
Paul, as the originator of every progressive movement in
Christianity, and particularly of the mission τὸ the Gentiles.
Thus it is not at all necessary for us to dwell upon the special
difficulties that attach to the closely corresponding visions of
Cornelius and Peter (9 3-16) as integral parts of the far-reaching
parallelism between Peter and Paui which is to be observed in
Acts (see AcTS, $ 4, end).

(4) That Peter and John should have visited Samaria
after Philip's missionary labours there (8x4-25) is very
conceivable. The main thing reported in this connec-
tion, however--namely, that it was by means of the
laying-on of hands of the two original apostles that the
Samaritans who had already been baptised received the
Holy Ghost—cannot beregarded as historical (ACTS, το,
end; MINISTRY, 8 346). ‘The statement rests upon a
strongly hierarchicai idea which, moreover, in virtue of
the parallelism just alluded to, is extended to Paul also
(196), and marks out this journey of Peter and John
as one of episcopal inspection. On the unhistorical
character of 8 18-24 see SIMON MAGUS, $$ 1, 13 f.

(c) The miracles of Peter—the healing of the man
lame from his birth (31-11), of Afneas in Lydda who
had been lame for eight years {9 32-35), the raising of
Tabitha at Joppa (936-45), and the many works of healing
performed by the apostles which led to the belief that
they could be cffected even by Peter's shadow (512 151}
—are all primarily to be κοντὰ in the light of the
parallelism with Paul. ince the author of Acts had
at his command a larger supply of materials relating to
Paul than of materials relating to Peter, with the result
that he left out much in order to avoid making Paul
appear greater than Peter (see ACTS, 8 4, end), it is
natural to conjecture that he would be eager to lay hold
of any item regarding Peter which came to his hand
without subjecting it to any too severe a scrutiny.

The case of /Eneas moreover plainly shows how little the
author of Acts felt it necessary to form to himself any concrete
image of what he was relating. The course of events cannot in
reality be conceived as occurring in the manner described : Peter
came, looked upon the sicl man, and without fureher preliminary
said, ‘Jesus Christ heals thee; arise' and so forth, In this
form, devoid of any indication of a previous conversation with
the sufferer or any enquiry as to his spiritual condition, the story
cannot possibly have come from the mouth of an eye-witness}
it comes to us în the form of the most meagre extracî, where the
interest is merely in the bare fact of the miracle without any
regard to attendant circumstances or to any psychological
features. If, however, the story as we now have it does not
come from an eye-witness its historicity also becomes question»
able even if it be difficult to suppose that the name Fneas is
vholly imaginary. The healing of the lame man in the temple
is accomplished with almost equal abruptness. In the case of
the raising of Tabitha it is worth observing how widely it differs
from its counterpart, the raising of Eutychus (207-12). Eutychus
comes to life again not long after his accident and Paul expressly
says: ‘his life is in him.' But here Peter must first be
summoned from Lydda to Joppa. As regards the wholesale
miracles of healing in 5.12 15/7, finally, apart from their astonish-
ing range Ît has to be observed that the text in this place is wholly
devoid of connection (see Acts, $ 11), Cp further, / below.

(4) The sudden death of Ananias and Sapphira
{5:-1:) comes under a different category in so far as it
is capable of being explained, if one so choose, without
postulating any miracle. The naturalistic explanation,
however, will make it all the more probable that in the
course of transmission or at the time when it was fixed
in writing the occurrence acquired a more dramatic
character than originally and actually it possessed. It
can hardly be doubted that the composer of Acts regards
it as a miracle; but the credibility of his narrative is

146 4565

SIMON PETER

just at this point rendered questionable by the circum-
stance that within the compass of a few verses he sets
forth two wholly irreconcilabie views on the subject cf
community of goods in the primitive church (see Com-
MUNITY ΟἿ GOoDSs, $ 3£)

{e) With respect to the three imprisonments of Peter
(in 43 58 along with the other apostles, in 123-5 with-
out them) and his two miraculous deliverances (519
126-17), the conjecture has long been current that alì
the accounts relate to but one occurrence which gradualiy
came to be told in different ways.

By separation of sources also it has în some quarters been
deemed possible to show that in the source of chaps. 4 and
there was no word of an imprisonment of the aposties (so, for
example, Bern. Weiss). In 49 the lame man who has been
healed stands by the side of the apostles before the synedrium.
This is conceivable only if he had been cited as a witness before
that court or had been arrested along with the apostles. Neither
of these things however is said ; in fact, both are excluded, for
in v. 14 the members of the court take knowledge of his presence
assomething new. What is apparently suggested is much rather
that the members of the court, immediately after the healing had
been wrought, betook themselves to the apostles in the temple
and that their dealings with them took place here. To esca;
this Spitta finds himself compelled to regard the mention of the
man who has been healed, in 410 (end) and in 414, as an
addition to his source made by the composer himself—certainiy
net an easy assumption. In 528 we should surely have expected
to read that the high priest had taken the accused to account not
only for their preaching of Jesus but also for their escape from
prison, if the source from which 5 28 îs taken had also contained
518£

În chap. 12 on the other hand the picture îs very
vivid and it would be difficult to believe that, for
example, the name Rhoda is a mere invention. In
this case în point of fact there is no need to deny the
imprisonment and the liberation, or even that the
liberation appeared very wonderful alike to Peter and
to all the other persons mentioned ; and yet it admits
of a very intelligible explanation if with Hausrath we
suppose that the angel who brought Peter forth from
the prison will have been the death-angel of Herod
Agrippa (NTliche Zeitgesch.i8, 2351 Δ). With the
death of a ruler the prison doors often opened for those
whom he perchance had locked up more out of caprice
than in any supposed interests of justice.

(7) There is yet another consideration which tells
against the historicity of the two imprisonments of the
apostles and the miracles wrought by them in Jerusalem,
If they had come forward at so early a date into publicity
so marked as to call for the intervention of the svnedrium,
that body would hardly have rested satisfied with merely
enjoining them not to preach Christ {418 51) or with
scourging them (540). ᾿

The danger which Jesus by his recent ministry had brought
upon the ancestral religion was still fresh in men’s memories.
On the re-emergence of the same danger the synedrium would
assuredly have interposed with the utmost vigour and the per-
secution of the Christians first mentioned in Acts as occurring
after the death of Stephen (81 3) would certainly have brokeri
cut much sooner and threatened the well-being and even the
existence of the church just in proportiun to its immaturity
and want of consolidation, In all probability the Christians
found themselves constrained to remain entirely in concealment
for a considerable time. That the original apostles whose homes
were in Galilee should have removed to Jerusalem at so early a
date as is represented in Acts is, moredver, quite unlikely (See
Ministry, $ 214), It was only what was quite natural if the
spontaneous impulse to present the primitive church in the
most favourable light led to the view that the original apostles,
and above all Peter, had faced the civil power undismayed and
plainly declared that they were determined to disregard the
probibition to preach Jesus, and that they must obey God rather
than man (419 529). It was forgotten that such conduct
would certainly have led to their destruction ΑΒ to the un-
trustworthiness of δ 36, see, further, TuEUDAS, $6 1-3.

(g) The portion of Acts relating to Peter which seems
to possess the largest claim to be regarded as trustworthy
is that which records his speeches (with exception of
157-11, on which see above, $ 35). It must not, how-
ever, for a moment be imagined that they are verbally
or even throughout in substance accurate. What we
read in 16-22, and the coincidences of the other addresses
of Peter with those of Paul, show in the clearest possible
way that they all are compositions of the author of Acts

4566

SIMON PETER

(see ACTS, $ 14). Observe, moreover, that a main
point in their contents, the proof of the resurrection of
Jesus drawn from Ps. 1610 {Acts 227), is possible only
when 6 {not MT) is followed, and would thus have been
impossible in the mouth of Peter (see RESURRECTION-
NARRATIVES, 8 366). If these discourses assigned to
Peter agree, in their Christology especially, with what
seems to us to be in harmony with the oldest pre- Pauline
view, this does not admit of explanation as due simply
to the employment of a suurce of this character. The
most important factor is rather that the author of Acts
must himself personally have been attached to such a
view. As he puts it into the mouth of Paul also, it be-
comes possible indeed, but by no means provable, that
he drew it from an old and trustworthy source when he
was making the speeches of Peter.

(4) Thus it appears that on the whole Acts adds

extraordinarily little of a trustworthy character to what

we already know about Peter from the Pauline Epistles.
Relatively speaking the most assured of its additions
would seen to be the fact of his imprisonment and
liberation about the time of the death of Herod Agrippa
(44 A.D.), but without the supernatural features in the
narrative, ‘The other remaining facts which are not
open to question, as for example his stay for a time at
Joppa in the house of Simon the tanner (943 106), are
of but trifing importance. As regards Artanias and
Sapphira, neas, Tabitha, Cornelius, it may perhaps
be safe to suppose that Peter had relations with these
persons of such sort as supplied some basis for what
we read about them in Acts; but what these relations
precisely were remains obscure. Nor are we any better
off when we are told that he often came forward as
speaker for alì the original apostles, for we cannot
regard as trustworthy records the reports of the speeches
attributed to him in Acts.

II. ACCORDING TO THE SYNOPTISTS,

Turning now to the earlier period of the life of Peter
there arises—

(α) First, the question of the credibility of what we
read in the-synoptists in regard to this. That the books

4 were not written without definite ‘ten-
ὃ. Synoptista dencies’ may be taken as proved {see
for life. GosPeLs, $$ 108-114), Moreover,
"such tendencies could come into play
with peculiar readiness where the judgment as to Peter
was involved. To a Jewish Christian he must have
seemed the leading figure of all Christentom, whereas
to a Paulinist he must just as inevitably have seemed
the opponent of the true apostle, an unreasonable
obstructionist, a narrow-minded resister of the real will
of God which required the mission to the Gentiles. Now
where tendencies influence the production of gospels their
natural effect is that judgments which the author per-
sonally holds about a given person or thing are put into
the mouth of Jesus himself in the naive persuasion that
he could not have held any other view than that which
the writer held to be true at the time of writing. Ifthe
student is unwilling to go so far as to suppose that whole
narratives have been freely invented with no other basis
than a desire to exalt or to depreciate Peter, it still
remains easy to believe that an author whose disposition
towards Peter was friendly would be ready to omit or
tone down incidents which told against that apostle,
whilst another whose inclination was less favourable
would suppress or weaken things which told the other
way.

(5) In its search for such tendencies, however,
criticism has often gone very far astray. To begin
with, because the representatives of tendency-criticism
nave for the most part entirely dispensed with any
inquiry as to sources of the synoptics, or any attempt
to distinguish earlier from later portions in them. From
the standpoint of pure tendency-criticism it is very
tempting to suppose that the most honorific passage in

4567

|

SIMON PETER

Mt, about Peter (16 17-19) was omitted by Lk. and Mk.
because they both were—Mk, in a less degree than Lk.,
it is true—Paulinists. In reality, however, such a
supposition must be rejected—not only for Mk. inas-
much as Mk. was not acquainted with the gospel of
Mt., but also for Lk, inasmuch as the section in Mt.
is exceedingly probably a quite late interpolation (see
GosPELS, $$ 136, 151; MiNIsTRY, $ 4 f.).

(2) Nor 15 this all; the gospels frequently present us
with the opposite of what we should have expected from
the point of view of the tendency-critics.

It is tempting to suppose that it was out of reverence for
Peter that Mt. (17 4 /) suppressed what Mk. (96) and ΓΚ, (0.33)
report, that Peter ἅτ the transfiguration knew not (Mk.) what
to say or (Lk.) what he was saying; but where the same touch
recurs in MK. (14 40) we find that it is suppressed not only by
Mt. but also by Lk. Tempting, again, is it to suppose
that it is a result of tendency that Lk. (8 51-53) says, not of the
multitude in the house of Jairus, as Mk. (5 38-40) and Mt,
(923) do, but of Peter with James and John and the damsel’s
parents that they laughed Jesus to scorn when he said the
damsel was not dead but sleeping (cp below, $ 124). Yet
where, according to Mk. (8 33) and Mt. (1623), Jesus calls Peter
Satan Ît is Lk. (Ὁ 22) who omits the whole passage. Once
more, it is tempting to suppose that a leading place among the
disciples is being given to Peter when according τὸ Mt. 1724
the collectors of the temple tax approach him with their enquiry
why his master does not pay it, or when according to Mt.
(18 22) he addresses a question to Jesus whilst according to Lk.
(17 4)the incident does not appear at all in Mk.—Jesus gives
the answer unasked. But, on the other side, we find Lk. (12 41)
assigning to Peter an interpolated question which is wholly
wanting in Mt, (2444/); a saying which Mk. (537) assigns to
the disciples in general—the passage does not occur at all în
Mt.—is by Lk. (845) assigned to Peter alone (‘ Master, the
multitudes press thee and crush thee'}; and where Mt. (1515)
does the same, attributing to Peter and not, as Mk. (717), to
the disciples the request for an explanation of a parable—-Lk.
omits the incident—the answer is recorded in terms not highly
complimentary to the speaker: “Are ye also even yet without
understanding?” What, in fine, are we to say to such
facts as these—that only Lk, (2231 /) has the saying, the
latter half of which is exhibited along with Mt.1618 7 in
letters of gold in the basilica of St, Peter in Rome, and that it
is only ΜΕ. (1428-31) who reports Peter's little faith when he
endeavoured to walk on the water? Baur's only resource here
(Krit. Untersuch, Aber die hanon. Evangg., 1847, p. 471) was to
regard the event as involving a great personal distinction con-
ferred upon Peter by Jesus, for which reason it was omitted by
Lk. As against this we have only to call to mind how high îs
the position accorded to Peter by the last-named writer in Acts
(see AcTS, 8 4).

(d) From what has been said it will be seen that it
will not be safe to look for tendency in any remaining
differences that may be detected in the accounts of
Peter given by the synoptists.

In Mt. (10 2) Peter is designated în the list of the names of
the twelve as ‘first (πρῶτος), in Mk. (3.16) and in Lk, (6 14) this
numeration is absent. Im the story of the transfiguration it is
only Lk. (8.32) who records that Peter and John and James
were heavy with sleep. According to Mt. 2617, Jesus sends
forward ‘the disciples' to make the passover preparations ; in
Mk, (1413) he sends two only, in Lk. (228) these are said to
have been Peter and John. in Gethsemane according to Mk.
1433 and Mt. 2637 Jesus takes Peter, James, and John to keep
watch along with him, in Lk. (22 40) this feature is absent. The
question as to the date of the destruction of Jerusalem is in Mk.
(133) attributed to Peter, James, John, and Andrew, in Mt
(24 3) to the disciples generally, in Lk. (21 5-7) to ‘some (τινές),
Cp, further, $ 70.

(6) The trustworthiness of every statement in the
synoptists about Peter, even when not open to any
special objection, by no means necessarily follows.
Whether, for example, it was Peter or another who
propounded the question recorded in Mt. 1821 or gave
the answer now to be read in Lk. 8.45 is for the writers
οὗ the gospel narrative a matter of so little importance
that variations of statement could very easily arise out
of mere inattention. Before coming to a judgment,
therefore, regarding the share of Peter in any given
occurrence, it will be necessary previously to scrutinise
the credibility of the occurrence itself, and over and
above this to remember that even when this has been
satisfactorily established, Peter's share in it does not at
once follow, unless, indeed, his part in it be the very
essence of the occurrence. In particular, we must be
specially on our guard against the view—widely spread
though it be—that the second gospel presents in written

4568

SIMON PETER

form oral communications received by the evangelist from
Peter (on this hypothesis see GOSPELS, $ 148).

We begin with those accounts in the synoptists which
may at the outset be set aside as unhistorical.

(a) With regard to the story, found only in Mt,
(1428-31), that Peter went to meet Jesus on the Sea of

4 Galilee, but through failure of faith
6 pralcine © began to sink and had to be rescued
9 WAber. by Jesus, we find even so conservative
a writer as Bern. Weiss (Lebez /esz!8, 2 209) declaring
that critical investigation imperatively demands that it
be given up as a statement of prosaic matter of
fact, whilst Beyschlag (Leben /esz, 1306) expresses
the opinion that the desire of Peter that Jesus
should bid him come to him on the water is, literally
taken, simply childish, and that the miraculous
power of Jesus was not bestowed upon him in order
that he might be able to respond to every childish
caprice. Both theologians are at one with the entire
critical school in regarding the narrative as having
originally been an allegorical-poetical setting forth of
an idea, and that it came to be regarded as literal fact
only by a misunderstanding on the part of the evangelist
or of the writer whom he followed.

At the same time, it is by no means certain that it was Peter's
denial of his master that was originally intended to be figured in
the story. In that denial it was not his faith but his fidelity
that failed the apostle. Had it been his faith, the underlyin;

resupposition ci the story would be that if only Peter had
frankly confesse@ himself che disciple of Jesus he would have
come off wholly unharmed, As matters actually stood, however,
the worst consequences were really to be apprehended as results
of such a confession, though nevertheless it was his duty to
make it.

(5) We may be sure that the story of Jesus’ walking
upon the water was originally a parable intended τὸ
exhibit in a graphic way the thought that if his
disciples have faith they will be able to walk with
safety on the troubled sea (of life) (see GospELS,
$ 142 a). The addition relative to Peter then brings in
an illustration based on the opposite thesis; he who
has no faith necessarily goes down unless he calls upon
the Lord and receives help from him, This view itself,
however, in which Jesus appears as the Lord of succour,
shows by its very nature that it cannot have come from
Jesus himself. He would not have designated himself,
but, as in his genuine parables, a person by whom God
is meant, as Him from whom help comes. Thus the
later origin of the narrative, already rendered probable
by its absence from Mk., is confirmed from another
point of view. If this be so, we may perhaps go on to
suppose that the reason why Peter came to be selected
as hero of the story was because he was regarded as
head of the church, and what is related of him was in-
tended to be taken as applying to the entire church (so
Pfleiderer, Urchristenthum, 5x7, (41582).

‘There are other narratives also which require no
7. Other un- detailed proof of their unhistorical
historical ΠῚ ἘΝ, ;

Ἢ (a) The statement in Lk. 24το that
MArratives Peter visited the sepulchre of Jesus and
found it empty is doubtful even text-criticaliy, and
when its substance is considered cannot be accepted
(see RESURRECTION- NARRATIVES, 88 26 and 21;
GospeLSs, $ 138 e, 2).

(3) Along with the historicity of the statements as to
the women at the empty sepulchre must also be given
up the historical character of the notice, found only in
MK. (167), that they received from the angel the in-
junetion to teli the disciples and Peter that they should
sce the risen Jesus in Galilee. See GosPELS, $138 a, €, /
RESURRECTION-NARRATIVFS, $ 21, and, as regards an
allusion in Mk. 167 to a fact indirectly referred to in
this, ἐδ. 895.

(2) As the withering of the fig-tree cannot be regarded
as historical (see GosPELS, $$ 1374, 141, 1422), the
statement in Mk. (1121) that Peter called attention to
the fact on the following day also disappears. In

4569

SIMON PETER

Mt, 2120 ali the disciples together are already aware of
it, for the tree at the word of Jesus withers away
* immediately’; the incident is not found at all in Lk.

It is difficult to form a definite judgment as to the

story of the transfiguration of Jesus in

8. Trana: Mk: 92-10= Mt, 17 1-9= Lk. 9.28-36.

figure: (a) The form in which Jesus is here

seen is, on the one hand, that of Moses when he came
down from the mountain of the law, according to Ex.
3429-35, on the other hand, that in which the exalted
Christ was conceived of, according to 2 Cor. 37-46,
where Paul cites precisely the passage just mentioned
regarding Moses, and that of the angel at the empty
tomb, according to Mt.283 (cp Lk 244 ΜΚ. 165).
Looked at on this side, the scene is accordingly designed
to represent by anticipation the coming heavenly glory
of Jesus, and at the same time, by the presence of
Moses and Elijah, to exhibit it as a fulfilment of the
OT. Viewed in this aspect, it can make no claim to
historicity,

This would be difficult even were one inclined to concede that
the ‘metamorphosis’ of Jesus did not happen as a physica] realit
but was seen only by the three disciples in a vision; difficuit
still even were there a disposition to reduce the number to one,
say Peter, on the assumption that James and John were named
in error partly because in other places also they are mentioned
along with Peter on special occasions as being the disciples who
were on terms of special intimacy with the master (see below,
$8 1rc, τὸ, partly because, according to Ex. 249, three inti-
mate associates, Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu (along with seventy
of the elders of Israel) are also represented as having gone up
with Moses to the mountain of the law. Even so, the question
would still remain as to how it was that in the midst of the
earthly life of Jesus Peter was visited by the thought which
at once assumed for him the form of a vision. {On the
psychological antecedents of a vision cp RESURRECTION-
NARRATIVES, $ 34 4.)

(3) The transfiguration scene, however, has yet
another main purpose. It contains the divine declara-
tion that Jesus is the Messiah, in the words ‘This
is my beloved son.' This voice coincides almost
exactly with that heard at the baptism of Jesus (Mk.
li1= Μι, 81:7 τε Lk. 322) If, however, Jesus. had
already, even at that early date, been divinely pro-
claimed to be the Messiah, this second fact would
necessarily rob the other of its value.

To avoid this the following supposition has been made : just
as the divine voice at the baptism, according to the most modest,
and therefore most trustworthy of the accounts (that of Mk.),
was heard only by Jesus, the whole occurrence admitting of
being resolved into an inner revelation communicated to hi
without external physical accompaniments, so also in the vision in
which Jesus was transfigured only Peter (or Peter along with

fames and John) heard that heavenly voice. So, for example,

éville (/ésus de Nazareth, 2204-206 [1897]), who therefore
inclines to place the occurrence at a date shortly before the confes-
sion of the Messiahship of Jesus (Mk. 827-209 and lis). Bacon
{Amer. Journ. af Theol., 1902, pp. 236-265) goes a step further,
He also supposesthat it isa vision of Peterthat is described, not;
however, a vision which he had actually had, but one which is
attributed to him through a transformation of the account relating
to his confession that Jesus was the Messiah (Mk.8 27-31), The
transfiguration scene breaks the connection between Mk. 91 and
911, and comes from a source in which were contained this
and'other modifications of gospel narratives that were taken by
the evangelist to be accounts of new facts,

{c} At the same time, there is no indication în the
text that the divine voice was directed to Peter alone (or
Peter and James and John); it is indicated with at least
equal clearness that it is heard by Jesus. If, then, we
have reason for believing that in the first period of his
public life Jesus did not yet account himself to be the
Messiah, but only a prophet and a reformer, this will
incline us to recognise in the divine voice at the Trans-
figuration a reminiscence of the fact that he only
received his divine authorisation to come forward as
the Messiah at a particular point in the course of his
ministry. The similar saying at his baptism will rest in
that case upon an anticipation on the part of the
narrators, to whom it was inconccivable that the
designation by God of Jesus as the Messiah should
have been postponed to any later date, On this
assumption also, it becomes reasonable to assign the
incident that lies at the basis of the transfiguration-story

4570

SIMON PETER

to a time shortly anterior to the confession of Peter ; for
so long as Jesus was not himself certain by divine
revelation of the fact of his Messiahship he could not
accept the proclamation of it by Peter.

(4) The occurrence itself admits very easily of being
regarded as having taken place in the inner conscious-
ness of Jesus. "The participation of Peter, James, and
John becomes in that case much less active. That they
were present need not be denied ; but their activity
would then be limited to this—that, after awaking from
sleep perhaps, they received a powerful impression of
the wondrous majesty with which Jesus came to meet
them after he had heard the heavenly voice. ‘The
terms in which this had been expressed they would not
in that case hear directly for themselves, but would
afterwards learn from the mouth of Jesus. The
assertion in 2 Pet. 116-18 that Peter himself heard the
voice upon the ‘holy’ mountain does not fali to be
taken account of in the present connection, in view of
the pseudonymous character of this epistle (see PETER,
EPISTLES OF, $$ 9-12).

In the story of the stater in the fish's mouth (only
Mt. 1724-27), it has above all to be observed that the

9, Stater Miracle is only announced, not described as

ΗΝ parti having happened. ΑἹἹ the safer, therefore,

th, δ the supposition that here we are in

MOubI- rresence of a symbolical saying of Jesus.

The section contains two separate thoughts, of which the one
would be quite sufficient without the other. (1) Properly speak-
ing, Jesus and his disciples do not require to pay the tax, but in
order to avoid offence they do so. The incident contains the
presupposition that Jesus is the Messiah alike whether the words
attributed to Jesus were actually spoken by him, or whether
they are erroneously put into his mouth ; along with this it con-
tains (2) also the exhortation to submit to existing institutions,
and thus applies equally well alike to the temple tax which was
exacted in the time of Jesus, and to the Roman state tax which
from 70 a.p, onwards was substituted for the temple tax in the
case of Jews (Jos. 87 vii. 66, $ 213) and, particularly under
Domitiari, was rigorously exacted from Christians also (see
CHRISTIAN, $ 6, vil., end).

It is in connection with the second of these main
ideas that Peter comes more directly into the story ; he
is to fish for the means of paying the tax. As he isa
fisherman by occupation, the meaning of this symbolical
saying at once suggests itself; by the exercise of his
craft he will easily be able to earn enough to meet this
call upon him. This feature in the story may point to
the authenticity of the saying as attributed to Jesus; but
it may also quite well have been invented, as every one
in later times knew that Peter had been a fisherman.
After the death of Jesus it would ‘have been less easy
to have invented that other feature—that the produce
of Peter's industry was to serve to pay the tax both for
himself and for Jesus ; for it is not easy to make cut any
allegorical application to later conditions of this earningof
a double tax. Still, it must be admitted that this pericope
is one of the most obscure in the whole gospel history.

Passing from these unquestionably unhistorical ele-
ments, we come next to a scries of others which cannot

be rejected at once, but, at the same time,
10. Other can just as liule be regarded as certainly
doubtful .mentic. To this category belong :
glement8. (2) ali those cases în which Peter is repre-
sented as having said something which în some other
gospel is attributed to the disciples at large (Mt. 1515
Lk.845 Mk.133; see above, $ 5c, 4) or is omitted
altogether although the narrative to which it belongs is
retained in that gospel {Mt.182r as against ΓΚ. 174,
and Lk. 124: as against Mt. 2444 £ ; see $ 5c).

(4) To this ciass falls to be added one instance of a
subordinate action {the preparation for the passover)
which only Lk. (228) assigns to Peter {and John); see
$ τἀ; and also—

{c) The word which according to all three evangelists
(Mk. 1028 Mt. 1927 Lk. 1828) Peter is reported to have
uttered: ‘we have left all and followed thee.‘ Ifthe
evangelists are in other places so little at one as to the
authorship of a given saying, agreement in this particular

4571

SIMON PETER

instance cannot here be taken as proving the accuracy
of the report, for their agreement comes only from
mutual borrowing. In any case, whether the word in
question was spoken by Peter or by another the circum-
stance is too unimportant to allow us precisely here to
place unqualified confidence in the eldest of the three
who is followed by the other two. If Jesus blamed a
questioner this very fact still added to the importance of
the latter (cp below, $ 17); but such is not the case
here. Moreover, the question must not be treated
apart from the answer of Jesus (‘shall receive a hundred.
fold,' etc.). If Jesus ever gave any such promise to his
disciples, we may be certain at least that it was not in
connection with a question so self-seeking as this. If,
however, the narrative is open to suspicion on this most
important point, it is impossible to feel confidence on
such a relatively subordinate matter as the person of the
questioner.

Other notices there are to which a historical kerneli
or even complete historicity cannot be denied ; on the

τι, Minor 99° hand they were important enough do
notices with !MPTess themselves on human memories

historical and on the other hand they were not 50

Kernel. important as to tempt to a departure from
historical accuracy (cp the principle laid
down in GosPELS, $ 13x, col. 1873, begin.) {2}
Thus there is no difficulty in believing that Jesus on a
Sabbath day healed Peter's mother-in-law and other
sick persons, but on the following day withdrew him-
self into solitude and was sought out by Peter and his
comrades with the view of bringing him back (Mk. 129-
38=Lk. 438-43 ; Mt. 814-17 has the healings only).

(3) That the name Cephas (Peter) was bestowed upon
Simon by Jesus may in view of what has been said in
$ 1g be regarded as wholly credible even if the date at
which it was bestowed remains uncertain. According
to Mk, (816) it was at the time when the apostles were
first chosen. A more appropriate occasion but not on
that account historically established would be that of
the confession at Ceesarea Philippi with which Mt. (1618)
connects it (see MINISTRY, $ 4, end). If Mt. already
when Peter's call is recorded (418) and again at the
choosing of the aposties (102) says: ‘Simon, who is
called Peter,' he is, of course, not to be taken as intend-
ing to indicate the time at which the name was given,
but simply as wishing to apprise his readers that this
Simon was the man whom they already knew as Peter.
Lk. (614) likewise has on the occasion of the choosing
of the apostles the words ‘Simon, whom he also named
Peter.' ΒΥ this, however, he perhaps does not mean
to convey that the name was bestowed by Jesus then,
but only that it had been bestowed by him at one time
or another.

(c) Equally natural is it to recognise faithful remi-
niscence in the statement that in Gethsemane Jesus took
Peter, James, and John to watch with him, and that
nevertheless they feli asleep (Mk. 1432-4:= Mt. 2636-46),
even although we cannot be certain that this last
happened three several times. This last doubt, how-
ever, is no reason for giving the preference to Lk.
(22 40-46) who mentions the incident as having occurred
but once, and that in the case of all the disciples, for
as he unquestionably was acquainted with Mk. the
simplification here must be explained as due merely to
absence of interest in the details of the story.

In the case of the raising of Jairus® daughter also—

{a) No difficulty will be felt in recognising true remi-
niscence in the statement that Jesus suffered no one but
Peter, James, and John to go with him

1 δαῖτα to the house or (besides the parents of
@UgAbeE the girl) to enter the room where she lay
(MK. 537-40).

IH Mt. @ 23-25) has nothing about this, his silence is to be
connected with the fact that here in other particulars also he îs
notably much briefer than either Mk, or Lk., just as he is în
three other miracle narratives: that of the Gadarene and the
herd of swine which immediately precedes (Mk, 5 r-20= Mt. 8.28-

4572

SIMON PETER

34= Lk. 8 26-39), that of the healing of the man sick of che palsy
uk. Mt. 9 1-8= Lk. ὃ 17-26), and that of the lunatic boy
(MI 9 14-29= Mt. 17 14-20), where Lk. also (9 37-43) is so short;
there is also the story of the imprisonment and death of John
the Baptist (Mk, 6.17-29:= Mt, 14 3-12) which Lk. has not at all.
Lk.'s divergence (5 51-53) is presumably not so seriously intended
as it has been represented above (8 56) în verbal strictness to be
—namely, that it was the parents and the three disciples who
laughed Jesus to scorn. Perhaps when he wrote the words
(Ὁ. 52), ‘and all were weeping and bewailing her," Li. was
thinking not of the five persons named immediately before, but,
like Mk., of the multitude assembled within the house, and has
only failed to bring this to clear expression. In any case he has
retàined the separation of the three disciples from the rest.

(3) As the occurrence is the only accredited one in
the Gospel history which must have presented itself to
those who witnessed it as a case of raising of the dead
it is very conccivable that the presence of only three
disciples should have impressed itself upon the memory.
Whilst the raising of the widow's son at Nain (Lk.711-
17) and of Tazarus {Jn. 111-44; cp JoHN, Son ΟΕ
ZEBEDEE, $$ 20, 35, 372) cannot be regarded as
historical, no more exception need be taken to the
raising of the daughter of Jairus than to the resuscita-
tion of Eutychus (Acts 207-12), if only one take as
literally the words of Jesus, ‘the child is not dead but
sleepeth,' as one does those of Paul, ‘his life is in him.”

According to Mk. Jesus spoke these words before he had seen
the girl, and it is very easily conceivable that information received
from the father may have enabled him to form this judgment ;
but it is also possible that this element in the story arises from
unconscious modification of the real fact and that it is Lk. who
is in the right here when he represents Jesus as uttering the
words în presence of the girl, even if this representation does not
rest upon the direct testimony of an eye-Witness but upon altera-
tion of the text οἱ Mk.

The account of Peter's call in Mk, 116-20= Mt, 418-22
is an excellent example of shortening and condensation

13. Call. of a fuller narrative by tradition. It is un-

" " thinkable that in this scene no words but
these of Jesus should have been spoken: ‘Come ye
after me and I will make you to become fishers of men.'
Peter and his comrades Andrew, James, and John must
assuredly have had previous opportunity of making the
acquaintance of Jesus and must on their side have
had some conversation with him, No eye-witness could
possibly give so colourless an account as that in Mk.
and Mt. The later narrators, however, had no longer
amy interest in dramatic details or in the psychological
processes which resulted in the decision of the four
fishermen. The central action, the call given by Jesus,
alone engaged their attention, and for the purpose of
edification which they had in view when they circulated
it, and as an example for the converts whom they wished
to incite by it, the narrative may have seemed
beautiful and precious just in proportion to the sudden-
ness with which the call of Jesus came to Peter and his
comrades, and the absolute promptitude of their obedi-
ence. Apart from this, however, Mk, and Mt. unques-
tionably present the most trustworthy account of the
undoubtedly historical call of Peter.

The story of Peter's draught (Lk. 51-11} falls to be
adduced here as a parallel although in so far as we are

advancing from the less credible to the
14 DIRUEhÌ more credible order of narratives its
"proper piace in the discussion would
have been much earlier. It constitutes one of the few
examples we have in the Synoptists of a consciously-
framed allegory being put forward in the form of a
seemingly historical narrative in order to set forth a
particular idea ; this idea is in point of fact quite clear.
(4) First of all it is certain that the scene is
intended as a substitute for what we read in Mk. and
Mt. about the call of Peter and his comrades ; for Lk.
nowhere narrates this last, and on the other hand intro-
duces its main point at the end of the passage before us
(ν. 10): ‘from henceforth thou shalt catch men.”
(5) At its beginning Lk. places the scene in which Jesus
teaches the multitude standing on the shore from a boat
(53). Now, in Mk. (4x7) and Mt (131-3) this is the
scene in which certain parables are delivered; but Lk.

4573

i

SIMON PETER

avoids giving it in the parallel passage dealing with
these parables (84). Thus we have in ΓΚ, 5 an artificial
composition from various elements and it becomes
necessary to inquire into its purpose. (È Now
the function of a fisher of men is exercised by means of
teaching ; if then we find Jesus engaged in teaching at
the beginning of our pericope this indicates to us how
the draught of fishes that immediately follows ought to
be taken; namely, not as relating to takes of literal
fish but in the deeper sense as relating to the capture of
human souls. ὙΠ the idea is precisely the same as
that in the parable of the net in Mt. 1347, only without
its reference to the subsequent separation of the good fish
from the bad. (4) "The narrative before us, how-
ever, admits of still more definite interpretation in detail.
Simon with his comrades has toiled in vain the whole
nîght through ; now, on receiving a special command
from Jesus, he makes an unexpected haul. This has
already been rightly interpreted by the Tiibingen school
as referring to the difference between the practicaliy
fruitless mission to the Jews and the highly successful
mission to the Gentiles. In the latter, Peter received
a special Divine command and this was necessary in
‘order to overcome his original aversion to such an
undertaking (Acts 109-22). (e) The launching
forth into the deep also will admit of being in-
terpreted as referring to missions to heathen lands
as compared with the less venturesome putting out
a little from the shore, although it is not said that
the fruitlessness of the night's toil is caused by the
proximity to the shore. (/) The sin of which
Peter becomes suddenly conscious (v. 8) is thus by no
means sinfulness in general—reference to this were but
little called for by the circumstances—but definitely the
sin of failure hitherto to recognise and practice the duty
of evangelising the Gentiles as befitting and in accord-
ance with the wilî of God. (5) We are now
able to perceive the significance also of the place where
Lk. has brought in the calling of Peter.

He introduces it at a later point than Mk, and Mt. In
articular it is preceded in Lk. by the rejection of Jesus at

azareth (416-30), which on a small scale foreshadows the
rejection of Jesus by the entire Jewish people (see GospeLs,
51092), lt is appropriate that if should be followed by the
command of Jesus enjoining the mission to the Gentiles, and is
in harmony with the principle carried through by the sume
author in Acts (see ActS, $ 4, middle), according to which Paul
presches ihe gospel to the Geatiles in each city only after it has
seen rejected by the Jews. In the gospel, by placing the calling
of Peter at a somewhat later period, the author has brought
about the awkwardness that Peter has to be brought into close
relations with Jesus even before his call, at the healing of his
mother-in-law {4 38 7)—even although his name is suppressed in
4 42, the parallel to ΜΚ. 1 36—whilst the occasion of the draught
of fishes, in itself considered, appears to be the first meeting of
Peter with Jesus.

In this we may perhaps find a hint that Lk, saw
the significance of this pericope as referring to the mission
to the Gentiles (or perhaps even invented it ? see below, #)
and in accordance with this gave it the place it now
occupies. (4) The naming of James and John
as those who, according to τ. 107, follow Jesus along
with Peter is still more noteworthy. Why is it that
precisely Andrew, the brother of Peter, is absent—
Andrew whom nevertheless Mk. (116) and Mt. (48)
mention in immediate juxtaposition with him? It can
hardly be by accident merely that by this omission the
names left are the names of the three who according to
Gal. 29 were the ‘ pillars’ of the primitive church and
who at the Council of Jerusalem, though at first averse,
in the end gave their sanction to the mission to the
Gentiles ; it can hardly be mere accident, even although
there the James intended is no longer the son of Zebedee
but James the brother of Jesus. (1) Further, be

it noticed at how late a point they are introduced.

The narrative so runs that almost down to its close Peter alone
figures in it along with Jesus. Helpers such as are necessary
where many nets are în use he certainly has, according to 27.
4-6 and v. 9 (on 7. 7 see below, 4); but it is not thought worth
while to give their names, and they must therefore be regarded
as subordinate persons like the hired servantsin Mk. 1 20.” After

4574

SIMON PETER

all have been grouped together in ©, 9 by the phrase ‘all who
were with him’ {πάντας τοὺς σὺν αὐτῷ) the addition ‘as also
James and John” (ὁμοίως dè καὶ ᾿Ιάκωβον καὶ Ἰωάννην} comes in
Strangely ; but moreover, after they have been named, Jesus
goes on to address the words ‘fear not, for henceforth thou shaît
catch men,’ to Peter alone, whilst yet according to 2. 11 James
and John appropriate it also.

AIl this would seem to indicate that the narrative
originally named Peter alone, and that the reference
to James and John was only introduced into it after-
wards. The object of its introduction in that case
would have been to restore agreement with Mk. and
Mt. by the naming of several apostles who had been
simultaneously called and yet at the same time to
restrict their number to that of the three © pillars.” It
will hardly, however, be safe to attribute any such
intention to an interpolator ; rather must it be put to the
account of the redactor who had the plan of the whole
book in his mind. If this be so, we shall have to
suppose that Lk. did not himself invent the story of
Peter's draught of fishes, but that he bad met with it in
writing or in oral tradition and that its meaning as
denoting that the mission to the Gentiles was the institu-
tion of Jesus himself was fully manifest to him.

{£) Now at last we are in a position to form a judg-
ment regarding the second boat mentioned in 2. 7 and
its occupants.

As they are spoken of as “fellows’ (μέτοχοι of Peter and his
subordinates it might appear at first sight as if they ought to be
identified with James and John who are called ‘partners’
(xowwreì) of Simon in τὰ 10. ‘The inappropriateness, however,
which has already been pointed out in the naming of James and
John'in 7, 10 as additions to the ‘all’ (πάντας) of τ΄. ὁ would by
no means be got over by this identification ; for the ‘fellows’
(μέτοχοι) also of v. 7 are included in the ‘ali’ of 2. g. But as
the ‘fellows’ (μέτοχοι) of τ. 7 exercise an independent activity
and have a boat of their own, their names, had they really been
James and John, would certainly have been mentioned already
in v. 7 and not held over till v. 10 where no independent activity
is attributed to them.

Thus we must seek to ascertain their names from
their work. They are called in to help because Peter
and his comrades—in whose number James and John
are thus included —are unequal to their task unaided.
This applies to no one but to Paul and those with
him. In actuality he was the originator of the
mission to the Gentiles, and not one who had merely
been called in to assist; but we must reflect that
here the dominating presupposition îs that it was by
the original apostles that this mission was begun,
at the direct command of Jesus, or of God. So
Acts 109-22 157, so Lk. 2447, so Mt. 2819; so, still,
Justin (470%. i. 393 455 50x2, Dial 42, begin.) On
such a view of the matter, Paul and his comrades can
only figure as helpers subsequently called in. ‘The two
boats by which the fish that had been caught were
brought to land thus signify, not the mission to Jews
and to Gentiles respectivcly, but the mission of the
original apostles and that of Paul. That of the former
was to the Jews at first but afterwards was extended to
the Gentiles also, that of Paul was to the Gentiles only.
Jesus from the beginning makes use of Simon's boat ;
but this eventually proves insufficient. (2) Whether
the touch in v. 6 that the nets threatened to break be
simply a graphic decoration of the situation, or whether
it too have an allegorical meaning —namely, that through
ihe mission to the Gentiles the-unity of the church both
before and at the Council of Jerusalem, and in the dispute
between Paul and Peter at Antioch (Gal 2xr-e1) was
threatened with disruption, as, for example, is suggested
by Carpenter {Te First Three Gospels®Ì, 1890, vi. 51,
pp. 206-208)—must remain undecided, as no such mean-
ing is unmistakably suggested by the words. So much
25 this, however, is rightly emphasised by Carpenter —
that the author of Jn.21 found this reference in our
passage ; for his remark in 2, 11 that for all the multi-
tude of fishes the net remained nevertheless unbroken is
clearly intended to be set against that of Lk., and
indicates that the unity of the church had not come to

4575

SIMON PETER

harm. Already in Mt.134y we find the net employed
as a figure for the kingdom of heaven.

Peter's denial of Jesus is a fact as certain as his call.
Even a thorough-going Paulinist would not have in-

141] Vented it against him—quite apart from
μή penial the question whether in the absence of
". any tradition he would have found any
credence had he done so. (4) On the other hand, it is
possible to question whether it happened exactly thrice,
or whether the number three belongs to a later develop-
ment. That the scene gained in dramatic character as
it was handed on by one narrator to another is shown
by Lk. 2260, according to which the eye of Jesus fell on
Peter after the third denial—a circumstance of which
Mk. and Mt. know nothing (as to the cause which
rendered this change possible sce below, $ 19%).
Doubtless, merely in order to be able to explain how the
whole night was passed, the interval between the second
denial and the third is given in Lk. (2259) not as ‘a
little while' (so Mk. 1470 and Mt. 2673), but as ‘about
one hour.’

(3) 811 more insistent is the question as to whether,
and if so in what form, Jesus foretold the denial of
Peter. From the outset we must regard as later
additions the words of Jesus, found only in Lk. (2231/.),
which foretell not only the temptation that is about to
come upon Peter, but also the ultimate stability of his
faith, with the added exhortation: ‘Do thou, when
once thou hast turned again, stablish thy brethren.'

Their principal theme already is that Peter is to be the first to
believe in the resurrection of Jesus (see RESURRECTION-NARRA-
tives, $ 37), and in presence of such a prediction relating to a
more distant future the passing denial of Peter seems like an
insignificant intermezzo. It is difficult to regard as probable
such gentleness of judgmenton the part of Jesus in this so grave
a moment, even should one have no difficulty in attributing to
him such a foreknowledge of the future as is presupposed by Lk.
Besides, in Lk. the prophecy of the denial is Ῥίβκεά in the
supper chamber, not as in Mk. and Mt. ‘on the way to
Gethsemane,

(c) On the other hand, it is by no means improbable
that, on the last evening of his life, in conversing about
what lay before him, Jesus should have expressed a
doubt as to ihe constancy of his disciples, that Peter
should have declared his own with emphasis, and that
the doubt should thereupon have been expressed anew
and perhaps in very drastic form. If Jesus actualiy on
this occasion uttered the prediction that Peter would in
an exceedingly short time deny him, we still are not
compelled to suppose that the prediction was meant
otherwise than conditionally, to some such effect as the
following : ‘should it so happen that thou fall into
grievous temptation to deny me thou wilt not have
constancy enough to resist it.' As for the threefold
repetition there is much reason to apprehend that the
prediciion of Jesus as to this was afterwards made
much more explicit than it had been, in view of what was
known or believed to have actually happened.

(4) The same holds good of the specification of time :
before the cock crows (Mt. 26.34= Lk. 2234}; and in an
intensified degree of that given in Mk. (1430): before
the cock crows twice. Indeed, the additional state-
ment—found only in Mk. (146872)—of the fact that
the cock actually was heard to crow twice, is a clear
sign of the secondary character of our canonical Mk. as
compared with Mt. and Lk. {see GosreLs, $ 119c).

Even the textual critivism of the passage seems to show that
this datum is one which crept only gradually into the text of
Mk. In. 68 the addition καὶ ἀλέκτωρ ἐφώνησεν is so weakly
attested that it is omitted by WH and does not appear even on
the margin; still, there is certainly a hiatus if in τί, 72 we read
‘and straightway the second time the cock crew' without any
previous mention made of the first time.

(e) Lastly, the fact of the cock's having crowed at all
has been sometimes called in question by reason of the
fact that, according to the Mishna (2454 Aammd 77), it

was forbidden to keep fowls in Jerusalem.

It was expressly permitted, however, we read, to purchase
them to be killed, orto receive them as presents for the same pur-
pose ((ὅ. 10 9), and it is testified that on one occasion a cock was
Stoned in Jerusalem because it had Killed a human being (6 child)

4576

SIMON PETER

(Eduyy5th, 61; see all the passages given in Brandt, Zvang.
Gesch., 1893, 32/-),. Thus, the fact of the cock crowing cannot
be shown to be unhistorical ; yet neither can it be shown with
certainty to be historical, ’ Cockerowing (ἀλεκτοροφωνία) is,
according to Mk. 1335, the third of the four night-watches into
which the night was divided by the Romans (see Day, $ 4).
This division înto four is current in the NT (Ml. 6.48= Mt. 1425
Acts 12 4), although the Israelites originally divided the night
into only thiee watches (Judg.T19, cp_Lam.219 Ex. 1624
1S.11 11, and, in all probability, also Lk. 12 38). As the second
Roman night-watch which ended ac midnight is called ‘mid-
night’ (μεσονύκτεον), we must suppose that the cockerowing
from which the third touk its name vriginaliy denoted the time
at which it came to an end, that is, about 3 A,m. The saying
of Jesus could thus very easily have run în this form: ‘before
cockerowing' (i.e. before three o'clock to-morrow morning]
thou shalt have denied me,' without any intention to predict that
directly after the denial a cock should literally crow; and with
equal case might the view have arisen through a misunderstand-
ing, that Jesus had actually foretold this detail, and that the
prediction had been fulfilled.

Amongst the most certainly assured facts of the life

οἵ Peter must be ranked that of the confession he made

son at Cossarea Philippi (Mk, 827-30= Mt.

16 Confession 16,3.20=Lk,9:8-21). (a) Even Wrede

Philiupi (Das Messiasgeheimniss în den Evan-

ppi. Selien, 1901, pp. 115-124, 237-239)

does not venture positively to pronounce it unhistorical

although he also says that one need not shrink from
such a view if it seem to be required.

According to Wrede, Mk. believed that Jesus had kept his

iahship a secret from the people throughout the whole of
his life, but had communicated it to his disciples, though without
producing understanding on their part. Not till after the
resurrection of Jesus, according to Mk., did any real recogni.
tion of what Jesus was begin. Wrede believes that this view of
Mk. is historically false, but nevertheless considers that it
dominates the whole of his gospel, and further, that Mk, is not
conscious of the frequency with which it is traversed by his
repeated statements, according to which the Messiahship of
Jesus all the same did not remain a secret. It must be urged,

\owever, that the confession of Peter is little in harmony with
either the secrecy ohserved about the Messiahship of Jesus or
the failure of the disciples τὸ understand it,

(3) Wrede endeavours, therefore, at least to lessen
the importance of the confession as much as possible in
Mk.'s connection, pointing out that it is only in Mt,
which was written later than Mk., that Jesus put a high
value upon the confession. It is the fact that in Mt.
1618 / only the designation of Peter as a rock can be
regarded as historical, and this, too, without our being
able to be certain that it was given to him just then (see
8 118, MINISTRY, $$ 4, 52, 5). Τί has further to be
Observed that by the form în which the question of Jesus
is put in Mt. the scene is made unintelligible.

Whilst, according to Mk, (and Lk.), Jesus asks ‘ Who do the
people say that (μέ) am?’ he is represented în Me. as having
asked ‘Who do the people say that the son of man is?" Mt.
himself allows us to see that this is not the right form ; forin the
form of the second question of Jesus he coincides with Mk. and
ΤᾺ. : “but ye, who do ye say chat I (ue) am?” Inso far as ‘son
of man is a designation of the Messiah, according to the form
of the first question in Mt., the answer—viz., ‘‘Thou art the
Christ, wouid already have been given by Jesus in the question.

Yet this form of the question presumably is due not
to unhistoricity onMt,'s part, but τὸ intention. Already
in Mt.1023 1240 1341, and especially in 1433 (‘of a
truth thou art the Son of God '), all which passages are
wanting in MK. and Lk., the Messiahship of Jesus has
been proclaimed. At this stage, therefore, the appro
priate question in 16 13 is no longer, Whom do the people
say that I am? but only, Whom, more exactly, do the
people say that he who is already known as the Son of
Man is? Accordingly, in Mt., the answer of Peter
does not run simply as in Mk. {‘ Thou art the Christ,"
σὺ el ὁ Χριστός ; similarly in Lk. ‘the Christ of God,"
τὸν Χριστὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ), but there is added, as the most
important of all, the addition: ‘the son of the living
God' (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντορ). This last title
plainly must be regarded as expressing more than ‘the
Christ‘ (ὁ Χριστός) or than ‘Son of Man,' and therefore
denotes Jesus not as, let us say, in an ethical sense a
Son of God after the manner of the OT, that is, as
one who subordinates his will to the will of God as a
son does in presence of his father, but in a metaphysical
sense as a being proceeding in a supernatural way from

4577

SIMON PETER

God, a meaning which is not necessarily connected
with either ‘Messiah’ or ‘Son of Man.’ Thus we
have here a dogmatic development.

(c) Granted, however, that Mt. in the points just
mentioned goes beyond the original record, it does not
necessarily follow that he has also altered the situation
in an unhistorical sense by the words assigned to Jesus
in 16:7 which are not met with in Mk. or Lk.: ‘flesh
and biood hath not revealed it unto thee but my
Father,' etc.

Even should Wrede be correct in saying that Mk. attaches to
the confession of Peter just as little importance as to the words of
the demoniacs who, on hisepresentation, more than once (1 24 ὃ 7)
applied to Jesus the same predicate as Peter applies here, and
that on this account Jesus does not praise Peter, but, just us in
the case of the demoniacs, merely bids him be silent, this way of
looking at the matter would simply be in each instance only a
consequence of the view attributed by Wrede to Mk. that the
Messiahship of Jesus had to be kept secret.

As a historical fact, however, apart from the repre-
sentation of Mk., the occurrence could in no case have
elicited such a judgment on the part of Jesus. For
even in the representation of Mk. Jesus assuredly does
not act upon the plan of concealing his Messiahship ;
he studiously seeks to elicit an expression of it from the
disciples. It is presupposed in this that they have not
as yet recognised him as Messiah, It is thus a moment
of the greatest possible importance when the words
‘Thou art the Messiah’ are for the first time spoken by
them.

(4) The injunction to tell no man is also, even without
the theory of MK. spoken of above, very readily intelligible
in the mouth of the historical Jesus, inasmuch as he
cannot have been without apprehensions lest the people
should misunderstand his Messiahship, and perhaps set
their hopes on him as one who was to free them from
the yoke of Rome. Nevertheless, the scene retains its
importance as marking a turning-point in the conscious-
ness of the disciples, and can therefore quite appropri-
ately be spoken of as a divine revelation accorded to
Peter. In view of the importance it thus possessed, it is
also easy to believe that it should have engraved itself
upon the memory of the disciples and taken a secure
place în tradition—unless one were to regard it as pure
fiction. Against this, however, as Wrede also has
perceived, there are various considerations, amongst
them this, that it is assigned to a definite locality in the
journey to Ceesarea Philippi, which seems to point to
definite recollection. On the point that Mt, 1127 gives
no ground for doubting the actuality of Peter's con-
fession, see JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, $ 255.

Immediately on Peter's confession follows in all the
synoptists the first prediction by Jesus of his passion,

death, and resurrection (Mk. 831//=
17. Designation Mt.162:= Lk. 922); and in Mk.
As Sai (839 Χ) and Mt, (1622/.) 1: is added
that Peter had reproved his master, but was in turn
rebuked and addressed as Satan. Here it must be
again remarked that not only the predictions of Jesus
regarding his resurrection, but also the detailed predic-
tions of his passion and death are open to grave doubt,
and least probable of 411 is it that precisely at the
moment when Peter had uttered his confession for the
first time-a moment which must have been one of the
most joyful in all his life—yJesus should have expressed
himself as he did (see GosPELS, 8 145€, /). This is
not equivalent to saying that Jesus on no occasion în
the later period of bis public life ever had or expressed
the thought that suffering and death might be in store
for him. On some such occasion may very well have
happened the scene between Peter and his master
which now stands immediately after the great confession.
The expression ‘Satan' by its very strength is its own
guarantee that none of the later narrators could have
invented it; in fact, the entire scene is wanting in the
evangelist to whom tendency-criticism would have found
least difficulty in assigning it (see above, $ 5 ὁ, c).

4578

SIMON PETER

III ACCORDING TO THE FOURTH GosPEL.

If we turn now to the utterances of the Fourth Gospel
18, Legs Fegarding Peter, we shall find that some of
stronzte them rest upon those of the synoptists and
Brain τ have merely received a Johannine colouring ;

dei La but that others, where they contain new

POINTS. niatter, cannot lay claim to historicity.

(a) The nearest approach to the synoptic account
{Mk. 1426-31 and ||) is made by the Johannine in describ-
ing the prediction of Peter's denial(Jn.1333-38); yeteven
here we already see clearly the Johannine colouring.

It is not as in Mk. and Mt. the adjoining reference to the
dreaded scattering of the disciples that gives Peter the occasion
for making his promise never to leave Jesus ; ît is a specifically
Johannine thought which in a quite similar manner has already
been brought forward in 7 33,4 821, and which, moreover, as we
so often find in the Fourth Gospel, lends itself to misunder-
standing as possessing at once an obvious external meaning
and a hidden spiritual sense; ‘Whither I go, ye cannot come.’
Peter, like all the interlocutors of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel,
takes it in the surface-meaning: ‘Lord, whither goest thou?
«+ « « Lord, why cannot I follow thee even now?’ As regards
the time at which this was said, Jn. agrees with Lk. against
Mk. and Με, (see above, $ 154).

(δ) In the account of the arrest of Jesus a legendary
development is apparent in the Fourth Gospel in so far
as here (1810) the name of Malchus the servant of the
high priest is given; it is not mentioned in the synoptists.
Equally legendary perhaps, but perhaps also deliberately
followed, is the other development according to which
Peter is named in the Fourth Gospel as the follower who
wielded the sword whilst the synoptists merely say: ‘A
certain one of them that stood by ᾿ {Mk. 1447), or words
to the same effect.

‘To this, moreover, it has to be added that it is only in the
guoptists that any motive can be found for the stroke it is at

se moment when Jesus is being seized (so Mk. and Mt.) or
about to be seized (so Lk.) în consequence of the treachery of
Judas. In Jn., on the other hand, the entire cohort of 500 (or
1000) men has fallen to the ground Ὁ Jesus voluntarily surrenders
himself and all that he asks of his captors is that his disciples may
he allowed to escape unharmed (18 4-9). Lastly, the word with
which Jesus rebukes the sword.stroke receives a Johannine form.
In Mk. it is not reported at all; Lk. (2251) has'it quite briefiy :
‘Suffer ye thus far’ Thus what lies at the basis of Jn. is Mt.
26 52-54; but in Jn. 1811 this is compressed into the question :
‘The cup which the Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?”
μὲν this question îs set aside from the outset by the Johannine
Christ a thought which the Jesus of the synoptists earnestly
cherishes for a time— rhat involved in the prayer that ‘this cup'
might pass from him—exactly as în 1227, where the words are
to be taken asa question: * What shall I say? (Shall I say)
Father save me from this hour?" (cp JoHN, Son OF ZEBEDER,
ξ 264).

Jn. has left on one side the statement of Lk. (32 51)
that Jesus healed the ear of the servant of the high
priest. Perhaps the miracle seemed to him purposeless
in such a situation, or hardly worthy of the dignity of
the Logos.

(6) That the parallel to the confession of Peter (Mk.
827-30 and [[5)} is to be found în Jn. 666-71 is almost
universally conceded. It is indeed the only scene in
which, as in the synoptists, in answer to a question
expressly addressed to all the twelve disciples, Peter as
their spokesman makes a confession to Jesus ; moreover,
it follows soon after the miracle of the feeding of the
multitude (in Mk. and Mt. after the second miracle).
This makes the variations all the more remarkable.

The place is not in the neighbourhood of Cesarea Philippi
but (according to 6 59) at Capernaum. Peter does not designate
Jesus as the Messiah, nor can he; for this has already been
done by Andrew (141), and indeed still higher predicates have
been already employed by the Baptist (1 15 chi by Nathanael
(1 49), and by Jesus himself (3 13 16 4 26, etc.). The contents of
Peter's confession have thus lost, still more completely than in
Mr. (see $ τό δ), that character of novelty which gives it its his-
torical importance. The expression ‘the holy one of God’
(ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ Θεοῦ) also, employed by Peter, is new only in the
Fourth Gospel, but carries neither in the literal meaning of the
words nor by virtue of the application made of ît in MK.124=
Lk. 434, by the demoniac in the synagogue of Capernaum (cp
‘the holy one,’ ὁ ἅγιος, Rev.37 1Jn.220: ‘Aaron,'the holy
one of the Lord,' ᾿Ααρὼν τὸν ἅγιον κυρίου, Ps. 10616; ‘the holy
and just, è ἅγιος καὶ δίκαιος, Acts 8 14), a predicate transcending
those previously made nse of in the Fourth Gospel. Further:
more, the words of Peter are entirely in the Johannine didactic
style > ‘words of eternal life’ (cp 3 34-36 663 1249/); ‘we have

4579

SIMON PETER

believed and know" (cp 1127173 τ 1π| 416). Finally, we note
the absence of any word of recognition on the part.of Jesus such
as we find in at least Mt. 1617.

(d) According to Jn. 144, Bethsaida is the city of Peter
(and Andrew); according to Mk. 12129= Lk. 43138, as
also according to Mt. 85 14, ij is Capernauni.

In explanation of the discrepancy it is suggested that Peter
(and Andrew) originally belonged to Rethsalda ; or recourse is
even had to the wholly inadmissible exegesis that according to the
change of prepositions in Jn. 1.44 Philip was in virtue of his then
domicile ‘of’ Bethsaida (ἀπὸ Βηθσαιδα) but by birth he was ‘out
of' Capernaum the city of Andrew and Peter (ἐκ τῆς πόλεως
᾿Ανδρέον καὶ Πέτρου), In reality it is even uncertain whether
the naming of Bethsaida has claim or only makes claim to his-
torical accuracy, Cp PuÙiiLir, col. 3700, n. 2.

In the account of the denial of Peter (Jn. 1815-27)—

{a) The most important differences as compared with
the synoptists (Mk. 14 54 66-72 and |is} are that Peter gains

sat ,200ess to the palace of the high priest

19. Denial.‘ inrough the intervention of an ‘other
disciple," and that his repentance is not recorded.
Upon both these points see $ 22, begin. Legendary
development is seen in the touch that he who gives
occasion for Peter's third denial is said to have been one
of the servants of the high priest, being a kinsman of
him whose ear Peter cut off. Furthermore, the series
of the three denials of Peter is broken, not, however, as
in Lk. (2259) between the second and the third, and not
by the simple statement that an interval of about an
hour had elapsed, but between the first and the second,
and this by the account of the whole proceedings in the
palace of Annas and of Jesus's being led away to the
palace of Caiaphas.

(3) Spitta (Zur Gesch. μ᾿ Lit. d. Urchristenthums,
158-168, 1893) conjectures the original order of the
verses to have been : 12.7 19-24 14-18 256-297.

That is to say: Jesus was brought from Gethsemane to the
palace of Annas; here Caiaphas (not Annas) investigated the
case, then Annas sent him to Caiaphas; thereupon arrived first
the ‘other disciple' and thereafier Peter in the courtyard of
Caiaphas (not Annas) and Peter denied his master three times
in unbroken succession When, shortly after the publication of
the work of Spitta, the Syr. sin. became known, ît was found that
in the main it followed the same order, viz. w2, 12/1 24 τά
19-23 16-18 254-27. Thus here also the ‘case is heard before
Caiaphas, but in his own palace, not in that of Annas ; here also
Peter comes into the court of Caiaphas not of Annas ; here also
there is a threefold denial without intervening incident and
7.254 (‘now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself")
which coincides with the close of 2, 18 falls away, but the
entrance of the ‘other disciple’ into the court of Caiaphas does
not immediately precede, but happens some considerabile time
before.

(c) Notwithstanding this very large measure of agree-
ment neither of these two rearrangements of the verses
can be regarded as the original. If it was, as Spitta
thinks, Caiaphas who dealt with the case of Jesus in
the house of Annas, the expression in Ὁ, 24 that it was
Annas who sent Jesus to Caiaphas is as awkward as it
could possibly be. Syr. sin. has in point of fact avoided
this awkwardness by reporting no hearing at the house
of Annas at all In this way, however, the addition in
Syr. sin. of ‘the chief priest’ (τὸν ἀρχιερέα) to Caiaphas
(Καϊάφαν) in v. 24 becomes all the more impossible if
this verse follows immediately upon %. 13 în which
Caiaphas is named as high priest of that year. Before
all others, however, this question will obtrude itself:
In what way, if it be not the original, could the present
order of the verses have arisen?

Spitta's answer is that the copyist's eye wandered from r. 13
τὸ τ. 24 and wrote therefore its continuation (the present 22, 14-
18) by mistake immediately after τ. 13. When he had reached
v.18,that istosay the middle of Peter's threefold denial, he became
aware that he had passed over the entire hearing of Jesus, along
with his removal to the palace of Caiaphas (19-24), and forthwith
introduced these verses into his text immediately after v. 18.
Only after he had done this did he proceed to finish the account
of Peter's denial (2585-27); but with a view to this, in order to
resume the thread that had been dropped, he had first, în the
exercise of his own discretion, to repeat the close of . 18, and
that in the somewhat modified form which we now have in 254.
It is indeed hard to say in what possible sense we can call a
man who goes to work thus a copyist. As if we did not know
from a hundred examples how it was that copyists proceeded
when they happened to have omitted anything : they placed ît
on the margin and inserted merely a care? in the text. "The

4580

SIMON PETER

same observation holds good, of course, ifit was the order of Syr.
sin. and not that of Spitia which the ‘copyist’ altered into that
which we now have. All the more does it require to be borne
in mind that often the case is plainly the other way ; the author
of Syr. sin. has allowed himself the most arbitrary changes of
the text.l

I has to be added, however, that in his case it is
possible to perceive a reason for the changes found in
his text; he wished to make Peter's denial a unity and
to get rid of the repetition which he deemed irksome—
of v. 18 end în v. 252. For the converse procedure, on
the other hand, the production of our present text out
of that of Syr. sin. or that conjectured by Spitta, no
reason can be imagined; and thus Spitta had no
choice but to have recourse to his untenable hypothesis
of a copyist who yet was no copyist nor yet a redactor
either.

(4) Although Syr. sin. and Spitta have thought the
present order of the text capàble of improvement it
nevertheless remains intelligible enough even without
transposition. The new element in Jn. which neither
Syr. sin. nor Spitta could or would remove is the fact
that Jesus before being delivered over to Pilate was
taken to two separate places, to the house of Annas
and to that of Caiaphas.

According to Mk. and Me. he is brought only to the ‘high
priest' (Mk. 1453; Mt. 2657 adds the name of Caiaphas) and
from there taken to Pilate (Mk, 16 1 -- Mt,271/). Mk. and
Mt., however, record two sittings of the synedrium on the case;
the first during the night, the second in the morning. Lk. knows
only the second of these (2265-28 1); in his narrative it is not
till morning that the synedrium meets; in the night Jesus looks
upon Peter after his third denial and chus he is still in the court-
yard, not in the court-room, and in accordance with this repre-
sentation is in the course of the night only mocked and buffeted
(L&k. 22 61-65), which likewise is to be pictured as taking place in
the courtyard. On this view it remains a possibility that Lk.,
like Mk, and Mt., thinks of the morning meeting of the synedrium
as being held in the same high-priestly palace into which Jesus
was brought from the first. The words (Lk. 22 66), ‘they led him
away into their council' (4mjyayov αὐτὸν εἰς τὸ συνέδριον αὐτῶν),
in that case mean only that they led him away (out of the court-
yard) into the chamber of the same palace in which the synedrium
meanwhile had assembled, This interpretation is favoured by
"their' (αὐτῶν). Yet it is also possible that Lk. thinks of the
synedrium as assembling in another house--most easily in the
place of their solemn meetings. The ‘led away’ (ἀπήγαγον) in
2266 will then mean that they led Jesus into another house ; and
the word actually is so used în Mt, 27 2, and still earlier in 26 57

1 Even în the pericope before us, for example, an instance
occurs in 9. 16/ The portress is here called first ‘ the portress’
(ἡ θυρωρός) simply, then afterwards ‘the maid, the portress' (ἢ
παιδίσκη ἡ @vpwpds). This is a noticeable circumstance an
finds its explanation only în this, that when she is mentioned
for the second time, it is said that she charged Peter with being
one of tlie followers of Jesus. According to the synoptists this
was done by a maid (παιδίσκη, Mk. 146 and [|s), and in remi
niscence of this Jn. subsequently added this expression to his
‘portress' (ἡ θυρωρός). Syr. sin., however, has ‘porter’ for
“portress” in . 16 and makes ‘the maid, the portress’ (7 παιδίσκη
ἡ θυρωρός) in Ὁ. 17 into the porter's maid. Asother examples of
arbitrary alterations which (unless where otherwise stated) are
quite peculiar to Syr. sin. we may mention: (Mt. 16.23) ‘ What
do men say concerning me? τοῖο flex ἐς ἐξὲς son of man? (on
this, cp above $ 164); or (Lk. 16 62), ‘and he [t.c., the steward]
sat down quickly and wrote them fifty” and (167), ‘he sat
down immediately [and] wrote them fourscore’ ; or (Jn.857—
with *sah), ‘thou art not fifty years old and 424% Abraham
seen thee?' or Lk. 24, where as in D the last clause, ‘because
he was of the house and family of David, is introduced after
7.5, and, moreover, altered into “because ἔμεν were dot4 οἵ the
house of David.’ Syr. sin. also knows how to make important
changes în the text by simple addition. Examples are: Jn. 663
(it is the spirit that quickeneth Ye dody : Bud ye say the body
profiteth nothing), or 123 (now Mary took an alabaster box of a
pound of ointment of pure good spikenard, of great price, and
Soured it on the head of Jesus while he sat at meat, and she
‘anointed his feet), or Lk. 23 37 (addition : and é4ey Placed also
on his head a crown of thovns). Of additions arbitrarily made
for decoration or smoothing we may give such instances as
(Lk. 11 29), ‘no sign /row: 4ezven shall be given unto them,' or
(Jn.36, at close), ‘decause God ἐς a living spirit’ [Tert. and
codd. of Itala, etc., have simply: gua deus spiritus est), or
(11 39), ‘ Martha said unto him, Lord, wky are ἐμ» 4/tixg αἶσαν
the stone?
who werg standing, came near and raised, or (20 16), ‘and she
understood him and answered saying vinto him: Rabbuli.
And she ran towards him that she might touch him' (last
clause also in yca, the Ferrar codd. 13, 346, 543, 826, 828, syr.
pal., syr. hkl., Vg. MSS mm, gat, armach, Cyril.

4581

Behold, he stinketh'; or (11 41), ‘then #hose mea |

i

SIMON PETER

= Mk. 1453, asalso are ‘led’ (ἤγαγον) in Lk.23 1 and ‘led away”
(ἀπήνεγκαν) Mk. 151. .

(e) In any case Jn. was fully entitled so to understand
it and accordingly to take from Lk. the transference of
Jesus from one house to another.

Only what he thinks of as being the second house to which Jesus
was brought is not the meeting-place of the synedrium ; and on
his premises he is right; for at the time when, according to Lk.
(if this be his meaning), the place was being used, viz. in the
inorning, it was accessible, but it was not accessible in the night-
time, when, according to Ju. Jesus was being transferred (before
cockerowing ; see Jn. 1824 27), as it was situated on the temple
hall (Schirer, ΟΡ ὦ) ἃ 162-164 ; ET ii. 1 190-195) the gates of which
were shut at night. Thus there remains for Jn., as the second
house ta which Jesus could appropriately be brought, only the
palace of the high priest. The house, however, to which Jesus
1s in the first instance brought is also called (Mk. 14 53 and |ls)
that of the high priest. At this point, therefore, came to the
assistance of Jn. the statement in Lk.$ 2 Acts 46, according to
which Annas also was high priest ; and that the evangelist was
following this isapparent (although he nowhere designates Annas
as high priest) in the fact that he calls Caiaphas ‘high priest of
that year” (1149 51 1813), In fact ît has even been held that
Lk. regards Annas, whom, alike in 3.2 and in Acts 46, he places
before Caiap) as, as the real high priest in Jesus' time, and thus
that he thinks with Jn., that Jesus was brought from Gethsemane
direct to the house of Annas.

Be this as it may, in any case Jn. seeks to remove
the discrepancies of the synoptists. He follows Lk.,
as he understands him, in so far as he represents Jesus
as having been brought from one house to another j but
Mk. and Mt. in so far as he represents some hearing of
the case to have taken place during the night, only with-
out the nocturnal meeting of the synedrium affirmed in
MK. 1453= Mt. 2657, and then before the high priest
alone—by whom Jn. understands Annas. In all prob-
ability therefore Jn. thinks of the meeting of the synedrium
as having been in the house of Caiaphas, but without
describing it.

(7) These points once cleared up, we are în a position to
understand the story of Peter's denial in Jn. In making
the denial begin directly after Jesus has been brought in
after bis arrest, Jn. is simply following Lk., who in fact
knows of no hearing of the case at all by night ; in
representing the denial as having been interrupted he
also is following Lk. in so far as in this gospel {Lk.
22.59) the series of the denials is broken by an interval of
something like an hour ; in Jn., however, the interruption
is caused by the account of the first hearing which Jn.,
departing from Lk., takes from Mk. and Mt. Thus it
becomes perfectly intelligible, and not to be regarded as
a copyist's error, that the statement about Peter's
standing at the fire and warming himself is repeated
from 18:8 in 182sa when the story of the denial is
resumed. In precisely the same way Mk. 1467 repeats
from v.54 that Peter was warming himself, and Mt,
2669 from v.58 that he was sitting in the courtyard.
That Peter's arrival in the courtyard and his denial
should at all costs be narrated without interruption
cannot in reason be demanded ; it is not so related even
in Mk. and Mt., and if Jn. allows the interruption to
come in at a later point than they do, this is main]y
due, as has been shown, to the fact that he 15 here at
first following Lk.

The call of Peter is described in the Fourth Gospel

20, Gall, (135-4) în a manner entirely different from

VOAIL that which we find in the synoptists (see
above, $ 13).

(a) It occurs, not by the lake of Galilee, but in the
neighbourhood of the Baptist, who has not yet been cast
into prison (as he has in Mk. 114 Mt. 412 Lk. 319£), but
himself points his disciples to Jesus ; those whom Jesus
wins to his side do not appear as fishermen, but—at
least the first two (1 35-40) and probably Peter also—as
disciples of the Baptist. Peter is not called first, but
only after his brother Andrew and an unnamed person
by whom is almost universally understood the beloved
disciple ; of those who are represented in the synoptists
as then having been called, John {even if it be he that
is intended by the companion of Andrew) remains un-
named, and his brother James is left entirely unnoticed.

4582

SIMON PETER

(3) It would be perfectly useless to try to identify the
two accounts. Harmonistic efforts confine themselves
to the assertion that Jn. is describing an earlier
eccurrence than that recorded in the synoptists. That
in Jn. is spoken of as the ‘call to friendship,'
that in the synoptists as the “call to disciple-
ship’ Any such distinction, however, is quite
arbitrary. The ‘follow me' (ἀκολούθει po) which
Jesus addresses in Jn.143 to Philip, holds good sub-
stantially, it does not need to be said, also for those
called before Philip, for it is hard to see why we are to
regard them as entering into less intimate relations with
Jesus than he. The same verb, however (ἀκολουθεῖν),
stands in Mk. 118 Mt, 420 22 Lk. 51r, where itis the ‘call
to discipleship' that is described. And even apart from
this it would be quite contrary to history that Jn. should
allow it to appear as if those disciples who had been
called opiy to friendship remained henceforward con-
tinually in the company of Jesus (as în point of fact he
does in 22 12 17 22 322 42827 31-38, etc.), if the actual
truth had been that they had again parted from Jesus
and thereafter received from him the new call of which
the synoptists speak. Similarly it would be quite con-
trary to history on the part of the synoptists to represent
the calling of the four disciples as made at first sight
without previous acquaintance on their part with the
master, if the truth really were that three of them had
already been called to friendship by Jesus.

This unhistorical distincrion between the ‘call to friendship*
and the “call to discipleship' is carried to the farthest extreme
when the ‘call to apostleship' is added as a third stage which is
seen for the first time in Mk. 8 14-19 and [5 in the choosing of the
twelve. If we find Jesus already saying to Peter and Andrew
in Mk.1 18 “I will make you to become fishers of men’ (similarly
Mt. 4 19 Lk. 5 10), how are we to describe this if not as a call to
apostleship ? The choosing of the twelve is not to be understood
5 if the four disciples who had already been chosen were now
chosen a second time, and that to a higher dignity, but only in
the sense that che other eight were newly chosen, the four who
had been chosen already being now enumerated along with the
others merely in order to make up a complete list of twelve.

{c} If then the accounts of In. on the one hand and
the synoptists on the other are mutualiy exclusive, it is
necessary to make our choice between them. ὙΠῸ
precise specification of day and hour în Jn. (129 35 3943
21) might seem here to be conclusive evidence that the
Johannine account proceeds from an eyewitness; but
this becomes plainly impossible when it is considered
how here the Baptist and the first disciples are repre-
sented as possessing a knowledge regarding the Messiah-
ship, and indeed also regarding what goes far beyond
this, the divine nature of Jesus, such as in actual fact
they cannot have possessed at least at so early a period,
unless indeed we are prepared to reject as completely
umhistorical the whole picture of the synoptists and
especially the novelty of Peter's confession at Caesarea
Philippi. ‘The supernatural knowledge also regarding
Peter and Nathanael (Jn. 142477) which is attributed
to Jesus is quite inconsistent with the synoptic
representation,

{d) The unhistorical character of the Johannine
‘account has therefore to be conceded even although we
find ourselves unable to explain in detail in every case
how it was that Jn. came to his far-reaching divergences
from the synoptists. So much is clear—that he takes
no trouble whatever to bring himself into line with them,
but seeks to give a representation that is based purely
on ideal considerations. Just as Jesus is already in the
prologue introduced as the Logos of God, and just as
the Baptist straightway proclaims his Godhead, so also
must the disciples be brought to him from the beginning
through their recognition of this truth, and arrive at this
recognition through the agency of the Baptist, whereby
the latter brings to its most effective fulfilment his
function as forerunner of Jesus. ‘He must increase,
but I must decrease' (330); this is the motto of the
whole history of the call; in this also lies the reason
why the first disciples of Jesus must previously have
been disciples of John.

4583

SIMON PETER

(e) A further object In. has in view is the relegation
of Peter to a subordinate place. Elsewhere (see $ 22)
this happens only so far as the beloved disciple is co
cerned; but here we see it also in operation with
reference to Andrew who elsewhere comes forward but
little in the Fourth Gospel.

The cause of this feature lies perbaps în sympathy with the
story of the walk to Emmaus, with regard to which story Thoma
(Genesis d. Joh-Evang., 406-408 [1882]) supposes that it served
Tn. as model. Two disciples come to know Jesus as Messiah;
îhe one is afterwards mentioned by name, the other not ; on their
return to Jerusalem it is found that Jesns has appeared also
to Peter. ‘Thus the last-named takes the third place.

(7) The tenth hour also (Jn. 139) Thoma thinks to be
derived from Lk. (2420); ‘it is towards evening.’

Such combinations, however, are from the nature of the case
uncertain. What is certain is that Jn. reckons the hours of the
day in Jewish fashion (19 14) and thus means here 4 P.M. Others
consider, in view of 1Jn, 218 (‘it is the last hour), that the
author intends to divide the whole development of the world
into twelve periods, which he allegorically calls hours, and that
what he means to say is that the entire development was already
nearing its end when Jesus appeared, whence the pressing
necessity for accepting Christianity. Or it is pointed out that
according to Philo (1 347 532-536 2 183-185, ed. Mangey) is
the number of perfection, with which accordingly Christianity
as the age of perfection begins.

Such a way of interpreting the ‘hour,’ however, does
not harmonise very well with the specification of
individual days in 199. 35.432 σ. In this specification one
may have much greater confidence in discerning the pro-
gress of the narrative from one step in the revelation of
Jesus to another. In any case neither it nor the speci-
fication of the tenth hour, even if no quite satisfactory
explanation of the latter has yet been found, can be
urged as evidence that the author was an eyewitness of
what he describes.

As with the call of the disciples, so also in the case of
the footwashing, the Fourth Evangelist has not supple-

21. Foot- mented a synoptic narrative but has sup-

Μ planted it.

Washing. * (2) Jn.'s silence as to the institution of
the sacrament of the supper would otherwise be inexplic-
able. Equallyinexplicable, however, would be the silence
of the synoptists about the footwashing had this event
actually happened. Even Lk., to whom appeal is
made, in 2224-27 records only the thought which under-
lies the footwashing, not the fact. One may as well
deny the historicity of the synoptists altogether if one is
determined to maintain that they had heard nothing of
so important an action of Jesus which must have im-
pressed itself so indelibly upon the recollection of those
who witnessed it. On the other hand the rise of the
narrative of the footwashing out of the passage just
cited from Lk. (2224-27) is very readily intelligibile, and
that too even without our supposing any deliberate
fiction on the part of the evangelist (sce JOHN, SON OF
ZEBEDEE, $ 35 [/}}. The transaction taken as a
whole is the highest activity of ministering love (131 15
347); în so far as it occurs at a meal, itstands ona
level with a love-feast (ἀγάπη : Jude 12) and thus is a
substitute for the sacramental supper which Jn., by
reason of the data on which he was working, could not
report as having been held on the last evening of the
lifetime of Jesus (see JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, $ 23).

(δὴ) The person of Peter comes into consideration in
connection with a subordinate point only. He hesitates,
out of reverence, about suffering his feet to be washed
by Jesus, but is met with the answer: *if 1 wash thee
not thou hast no part with me’ (138). Whereupon
Peter would have hands and head washed also, but is
told: ‘he that is bathed needeth not save to wash his
feet but is clean every whit ; and ye are clean,’ etc.
(1310). From τ. 8 it follows that the footwashing is
intended to be not a manifestation of love merely, but
also at the same time in some sort a nieans of grace;
from v. 10 it follows that this means of grace Ifas been
preceded by another of a completer character—by which,
especially in view of the expression 'he that is bathed*
(ὁ λελουμένος), one can only understand baptism. The

4584

SIMON PETER

meaning would then be : He that is baptised needs only
a partial renewal of the effect of baptism.

If the effect of baptism is held to be the forgiveness of sins,
the footwashing would represent a means of grace which likewise
brings a forgiveness though not so comprehensive as that of
baptism but oniy of particular sins committed after baptism. It
is quite impossible that by this means of grace should be meant
the sacrificial blood of Jesus. For neither does its action set in
only after haptism nor does ἐς admit of being conceived of as
partial only ; and moreover, in the circle of ideas of the Fourth
Gospel it plays no further part (see JOHN, soN OF ZEBEDEE, $
62 ὦ, begin.) But also the thought of a second repentance
following upon that sealed in baptism, as suggested in Hermas
(Vis. ii. 34, Mand. 4 3), is quite remote. The forgiveness of sins
that constantly needs renewal after baptism is better seen in the
sacrament of the supper, in accordance with Mt. 2628: ‘unto
remission of sins’ With chis it agrees that the eucharist is
repcated, baptism not, and that the footwashing as representing
the agage is intended to be a substitute for the eucharist.

(c) There is nevertheless the objection that forgiveness
of sins does not figure in the Johannine conception of
the eucharist (6 26-63) and just as little in the express
interpretation of the footwashing, which according to
138 is regarded rather as a means of communion with
Jesus. This is the effect of the eucharist in like manner
according to Jn., and thus we are led by this considera-
tion also to the conclusion that by the footwashing the
eucharist is intended. It cannot be denied, however, that
here the figure of cleansing which is involved in the idea
of washing has disappeared, and the picture thus loses
its vividness.

{d) It becomes all the more necessary therefore to
note that in Jn.153 we have in ail probability an
authentic interpretation of the footwashing. ΑΒ ἴῃ 1810
so also here we read: ‘ye are clean," only not ‘by
baptism,' or ‘by the supper,' but, ‘because of the word
which I have spoken unto you.'

This declaration is very like that made în 663. After very
great weight has been laid in 6 53-58 upon physical participation
in the sacramental meal, we find it nevertheless soon depreciated
again in favour of a purely spiritual view which thinks of
fellowship with Christ as realised solely by means of his word :
‘the flesh profiteth nothing ; the words that I have spoken unto
you are spirit and are life.” Just so în 153 also the mere recep-
tion of the words of Jesusis given asthe means of purification in
place ofany sacramental act whatsoever, And this reception of
the word, according to the connection of Jn. 18, consists specially
in fulfilment of the command of love. On this view, 1310
would mean: he who has been baptised is in need of no further
sacramental acts ; all that is needed is that he should follow the
commandment of love. At the same time this does not perfectly
suit either the words or the thought. If it is to fit the words
these ought to run somewhat thus: "he that is bathed needed
not save to wash the feet g/o#4e>5'; and as for the thought—
that which depreciates the value of sacramental acts—one misses
the extension of it which one would expect to baptism also.

{e) The view indicated by 153 is thus better suited by
the reading of N c, several Vg. MSS Orig. and Tert.
according to which ‘except the feet' (ei μὴ τοὺς πόδας)
is wanting. In this case ‘he that is bathed' (ὁ λελου-
pévos) will no longer refer to baptism but to footwashing ;
he who has received the footwashing, that is to say who
has taken to himself the command of love, needs no
sacramental act or any other external institution but is
quite clean.

Yet this view of the passage also is not wholly just to the tenor
of the words. For this one would expect some such text as “he
whose feet are washed needs not to wash hands or head.’ And
further, even if one finds it possible to understand how the
longer reading could have arisen out of the shorter as soon as
‘he chat is bathed'(ò λελουμένος) had come to be taken as
referring to baprism and the footwashing to the supper, at the
same time the converse also is conceivabie — that on account of
the words ‘(he) is clean every whit ' it seemed inappropriate that
the washing of the feet should still be required, and ît was
thought necessary to restore the meaning that washing of a
wholly clean person is no longerat all needful, by deletion of the
words ‘except the feet’ (εἰ μὴ τοὺς πόδας).

At all events, whatever may be the proper interpreta-
tion of the footwashing, it is plain that in it Peter plays
no better part than other persons in the Fourth Gospel,
as for example Thomas (145), or Philip {148), or Judas
the Cananzean (1422), or Nicodemus (34), into whose
mouth an unintelligent saying is put which is afterwards
set right by Jesus (see JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, $ 256).

SIMON PETER

nection with the prediction of Peter's denial (1336-38),

where Peter is corrected for a mis-

na Poter and understanding by Jesus; we have found

disciple him also shown in an unfavourable

"light in so far as the sword-stroke is

attributed to him (1810), and neither his repentance

after his denial, nor any acknowledgement of Jesus after
his confession. is recorded (18.27 670}.

{a) It is to the beloved disciple, however, in particular,
that Peter is subordinated; to him he owes his intro-
duction into the high priest's palace (1816), and only
after him (and Andrew) does he receive his call to the
discipleship (14r /}, and, further, Peter must avail him-
self of his aid (1324) in order to learn who the betrayer
is. If, following the figure of speech which we sce în
Rev. 121-6 13-17, it is the Christian church that is to be
understood by the mother of Jesus as she stands at the
foot of the cross {Jn. 1925}—a view which is rendered
more difficult, it is true, than it would otherwise be by
the presence of other women at the crucifixion—we
should here find evidence of a very great depreciation
of Peter, in the fact that she is committed to the charge,
not of Peter, but of the beloved disciple. So also the
conferring upon all the apostles of the power to remit
sins or to retain them (2023), if we are to suppose it to
have been already known to the Fourth Evangelist that
this power according to Mt.16:9 had been conferred
upon Peter alone {on the age of this passage see
GOSPELS, $$ 136, 151).

(3) It 15 to the account of their visit to the sepulchre,
however (202-10), that we must specially turn, for
elucidation of the mutual relations of Peter and the
beloved disciple. On the unhistorical character of this
incident see GoSsPELS, $ 138, α, e, f Being, as it is,
unhistorical, we may all the more safely assume that
here it is intended to give expression to an idea. This
idea would be perfectly transparent if the precedence of
the one apostle over the other had been recognised
without qualification In point of fact a certain
measure of precedence is assigned to each in turn.
©r rather to Peter in one respect, namely that he is
the first to enter the sepulchre, but to the beloved
disciple in the twofold respect that he 15 the first to
arrive at the sepulchre, and the first to believe in the
resurrection.

Let us begin with what is clearest, When it is said of the
beloved disciple that he believed in the resurrection of Jesus (208),
it is included in this that Peter has not as yet come to do so.
Now, in view of τ Cor. 15 s (and Lk, 24 34) it is quite impossible
to assert that any one arrived earlier than Peter at the con-
viction that Jesus was arisen—unless it had been at the empty
sepulchre ; but the account of this is, as has been shown, un-
historical. 1f, nevertheless, a deeper truth is to be sought in it,
the solution must be found in the conception of faith. Not in
the holding the resurrection of Jesus to be a fact, but only ina
right apprehension of the nature of the resurrection and of the
risen one, can any one have taken precedence of Peter, a
precedente represented as a precedence in time, because the
truth has been clothed in the form of a narrative of a visit to the
grave.

And if it is to the beloved disciple—that is to say,
the ostensible author or guarantor of the Fourth
Gospel {see JOHN, SON OF ZEREDEE, $ 414)—that
this precedence is assigned, we also know wherein it
consists; namely, in the spiritual view of the resur-
rection, according to which the risen one is identical
with the holy spirit {see RESURRECTION- NARRATIVES,
88 τὸς, 29 δ). Only by way of antithesis to this is it
possible to gain a good sense for the statement that
Peter was the first to enter the grave, and the first
to observe all the clothes and their orderly arrange-
ment. In other words, it is not to be denied to him
{see 1 Cor.155 Lk.2434) that he was the first to
ascertain the outward tokens of the resurrection ; herein
he takes a relative precedence.

What has just been said still leaves unexplained the state-
ment that the beloved disciple was the first to reach the
sepulchre. And it would be difficuit to say what precedence
over Peter îs intended to be expressed by this; for when it is

The same thing has already been remarked in con- ἢ stated that he was the first who in the deeper sense ‘ believed,'

4585

4586

SIMON PETER

all has been said which could secure him a precedence over
Peter in the matter itself. It appears, vherefore, that in me
question as to who arrived first at the sepulchre, it is only a
recedence în point of time that is thought οἵ ποῦ, however, as
if the beloved disciple actually had taken precedence of Peter in
any matter of importance, but only in so far as he was at first
held in higher estimation in the church than Peter. The most
significant thing în the parrative is certainly this, that the
beloved disciple in the beginning has precedence over Peter, but
that afterwards Peter takes this precedence from him, and only
in the end does the beloved disciple receive a higher valuation.

Now, it assuredly was not throughout the whole
church that Peter in the first period was held in less
esteem than the beloved disciple, that is to say, than
the John of Asia Minor. We must reflect, however,
that in the Fourth Gospel it is not the entire church,
but only the following of the John of Asia Minor that
is speaking. For the latter it really is true that the
beloved disciple was looked on as the first witness of
Christ, the risen one ; but if it is added that Peter took
his precedence from him, this can only mean that the
estimate, according to which Peter was held to be the
most eminent of all the apostles, had gradually found
acceptance even in those circles which in the first period
had given the first place to John. The purpose
of the passage before us, then, is to restrict this high
estimate of Peter, and to restore to John the place of pre-
eminence.

(c) The last mention in the series of passages which
seek to settle the relation between Peter and the beloved
disciple, is found in chap. 21. Here, however, the
tendency is in the other direction.

Along with other circumstances this also supplies a reason
why we should attribute this chapter to a different authorship
from that of Jn.1-20 (see JoHn, Son or ZEBEDEE, $ 40}
ResurrEctION:NARRATIVES, $$ 5d, 90, 29c). The history of
the external evidence shows that for several decades after its
appearance the Fonrth Gospel found no recognition (Jonn, $8
42-49). In chap. 21, vw. 24 £ clearly reveal the purpose to
remove the mistrust with which it was regarded. ‘This being
so, the remainder of the chapter deserves to be scrutinised, with
the view of finding whether it also subserves the same tendency.
Tn point of fact chis is actually seen to be the case, as soon as
we suppose its depreciation of Peter to have been one of the
causes that militated against the general recognition of the
Gospel.

Therefore we find Peter now rehabilitated to a con-
siderable extent. It is still the beloved disciple, it is true,
who first recognises the risen one in the figure standing în
the morning on the shore (217); but once he has
learned who it is, Peter is the first to hasten towards
him. Further, it is Peter who first goes a-fishing and
who draws the net with its great take unbroken to the
shore (213 ur), Since this net signifies missions in
general, and particularly the mission to the Gentiles,
and its remaining unbroken symbolises the continued
unity of the church (sec above, $ τάς, 4, e, 4), it is
hereby recognised that Peter was the originator and
the most important actor in the missionary activity of
the church, including the mission to the Gentiles, and
the guardian of the unity of the church. The leading
position in the church is still more clearly assigned to
him in the words ‘feed my lambs' ‘tend my
sheep' (2115-17), which are a further development of
Lk. 2232, ‘stablish thy brethren.' Finally, martyrdom
is predicted for him, and this as an hopour (21 18 5).
For the beloved disciple there is left a much more
modest part than he has in chaps. 1-20; he too, not
only Peter, may follow Jesus, if in another manner than
by death ; a longer life is allotted to him than to Peter,
and he has the advantage of bearing written testimony
to the life of Jesus (2120-24).

Let us now seek to gather together the results of the
foregoing discussions of details, and attempt to form

estimate of the character of
23. Character fue
of Peter. (4) It is evident, in the first place,
that we must refuse to avail ourselves of very much of
the material that is usually employed for this purpose.

What value are we to attach to such inferences as that which
deduces from his proposal at the transfiguration to build taber-
nacles for Jesus, Moses, and Elijah, or from the precipitancy

4587

SIMON PETER

with which în Jn.217 he throws himself into the water the
‘impulsiveness’’of Peter; or from his noticing the withering of
the fig tree (Mk. 1121) his powers of observation ; or from his
confession in Lk. 58, ‘I am a sinful man” his humility ; er from
his hesitation about eating unclean animals (Acts 10 14) his little
preparedness to follow a divine leading; or from his action
connected with the draught of fishes in Lk.55 the opposite;
or from his sinking in the attempt to walk on the water his
little faith; or from the opposite wishes he expressed at the
footwashing (Jn. 136-9) his rapid changes of mood; or from his
conduct at the sepulchre his ‘ practical and impetuous ' character,
or more particularly from his being second în the race, yet first
to enter the sepulchre, his greater age as compared with the
beloved disciple, und his greater boldnesst—if the incidents
never really happened? What validity is there in the inference
of the liveliness of his interest from the frequency of his ques-
tions, of his self-seeking nature from his question as to the
future reward for having followed Jesus, of his recklessness
from his use of the sword in Gethsemene, if there can be no
certainty whether it was Peter at all who said or did the things
in question? Or what ground is there for discerning the
rapidity of his decisions and the sanguineness of his tempera»
ment from his following Jesus without previous acquaintance,
if this inference rests not upon actual fact, but merely upon the
excessively abbreviated manner in which the matter has been
handed down to us? It is not at all impossible that many of
these characteristics really did belong to Peter; but it îs not
permissible to deduce them from the NT data just referred to.

(δ) Even when we restrict ourselves to those accounts
which may with confidence be accepted, caution is still
necessary lest we should take more out of them than we
are entitled to do.

“The emphatic remonstrance made by Peter against the idea
οὐ Jesus passion is simply an evidence of a praiseworthy love
and solicitude, such as assuredly every devoted disciple has in
his heart; the reproachfel ‘Satan, thou mindest not the things
of God, but the things of men’ (Mk. 835) is spoken from quite
another point of view, to appreciation of which Peter could not
be expected to have at that time attained. As regards the
contrast between his promise not to be offended by what was to
befall Jesus and his denial so scon afterwards, it will be best for
us to say, Let him who is confident that în a like position he
would show himself stronger than Peter cast the first stone,
Let us refrain, too, from drawing any inference as to character
from his sleep in Gethsemane. Nor can we venture to deduce
from his confession at Cesarea Philippi an inclination to sudden
inspirations, rapid apprehension, and bold expression of new
thoughts; for we do not know how far the confession was

repared for by previous hints of desse (see Jonn, Son or

EBEDEE, ἃ 25.5), or whether it could not have been uttered by
the other disciples also.

(c) We can best arrive at the kernel of Peter's
personality by contemplating the greatest fact of his
whole life, —his faith in Jesus which, in the extra-
ordinary circumstances in which he found himself, led by
psychological laws to his vision of the risen Jesus, As to
this see, more especially, RESURRECTION-NARRATIVES,
837. In this one fact îs concentrated the whole
result of his conviction of the imperishable value of
that which Jesus had been to him, of the gratitude
and reverence which he owed him, and of the un-
conditional trust which he had learned to repose in
him and in his heaveniy father. It is true that the
triumphant struggle of his faith against the over-
powering impression left by the death of Jesus was
helped by something that cannot be reckoned to the
character of Peter--by the vision he had, by his
illusion; and his denial had a share in the production
of this vision. The value of his faith, however, is not
lessened by this; for had it not possessed this super-
eminent strength, the vision could not by the laws of
psychology have arisen.

(4) The stage preliminary to Peter's resurrection-
faith was the confession at Ceesarea Philippi. If his
obedience to Jesus' call at first bears witness merely to
the depth of the impression which the words and
person of Jesus had made upon him, and thus shows
his soul to have had the religious hunger and the
religious receptivity which found their satisfaction ‘in
Jesus, the confession carries us still further. It shows
that under the influence of Jesus Peter was capable of
purifying, elevating, and spiritualising those national
and political ideas which as a Jew he, as matter of
course, had entertained regarding the Messiah, to such
an extent that he was able to discern in Jesus the true
Messiah. That he also, in other ways, showed himself

4588

SIMON PETER

steadfasi and trustworthy, is shown by the surname
Cephas which Jesus gave him; and the leading place
among the apostles which he received even during the
lifetime of Jesus, and maintained in a still greater
degree after his death, is evidence enough that in more
than one direction he must have been a very remarkable
personality. This does not preclude us from observing
that his pre-eminence was also associated with much
weakness. It is, nevertheless, certain that he did and
suffered far more than we now know,

(e) Both sides, the favourable and the unfavonrable,
are seen also in his relation to Paul and the mission to
the Gentiles. His original line of conduct during his
visit to Antioch proves that he was no such bigoted
upholder of the Mosaic law as were James the brother
of Jesus and the Judaists who made their way into the
churches founded by Paul in Galatia (see GALATIANS,
8 13). It must therefore be noted to his credit that he
had grasped the true inwardness of the religion of Jesus
better than they.

Even if, as regards outward conduct, Jesus must, generally"
speaking and apart from questions of Pharisaic strictness,
tegarded as an observer of the law of the fathers—for otherwise
the Judaising zealots for the law couid not have claimed to be
called his disciples at all—in his fandamental principles he was
far beyond the position which would have made salvation in
any way dependent on conformity with that law. The poverty
of spirit, the purity of heart, the love to God and one's neighbour
which he required are all Ca them things for which no observance
of any particular precepts is necessary, and moreover he asserted
with an emphasis that increased the non-obligatory character of
many ceremonial commands (see Gospers, $ 1436). When
accordingly Paul preached the admission of Gentiles within the
pale of Christianity and the ending of the Mosaic law, he showed
a better understanding of the inner meaning of Jesus than the
apostles who actually ate and drank with him.

(7) In some measure this understanding had reached
Peter also. But, unfortunately, not in sufficient
measure. Thus it came to pass that he was outstripped
by Paul, and the later development of the church
depended only upon Paul not upon Peter. Indeed,
instead of following Paul, if perhaps with slower steps,
on the new path of freedom from the law, Peter allowed
himself to be held back by the power of ancient custom
of which James was the embodiment, and to be forced
into the ranks of those who were opposed to Paul. In
this connection are seen the most serious limitations of
his spiritual activities, the absence of consistency in
dealing with the new situation, and want of energy in
opening up the new path. If it had depended on Peter,
he would have preserved Cheistianity as a Jewish sect
and condemned it τὸ a maimed life. The elasticity of
soul which was required for drawing and pursuing the
consequences resulting from the entrance of Christianity
into the Gentile world was certainly not easy of attain-
ment to one in Peter's situation ; but for a true leader
{τ was nevertheless indispensabile. The conflict
with Paul into which Peter was brought by his con.
servative attitude also unfortunately brought with it the
result that, quite apart from the judgment we are called
upon to pronounce as to his intellectual endowments, a
deep shadow falls upon the character of Peter-—deeper
than upon that of Paul. Of Paul we know only that în
his manner of expressing himself as against his Judaistic
opponents he exercised little restraint upon himself
{2 Cor. 1113-15 Gal. δ τα, etc); Peter, on the other hand,
can hardiy be cleared of the charge of— even by actions,
or at the very least by failures to act—having worked
against the activity of Paul (see above, $ 2 [/]).

8. LIFE OUTSIDE PALESTINE; AND DEATH

In the preceding sections the NT data regarding
Peter have been practically exhausted, yet a very impor-
ΜΝ tant part of his life still remains to be

24. MiSBiOmaTY Giscussed— that relating to his activities
" outside the limits of Palestine, and to

his death. Our information under these heads must
thus be drawn almost entirely from the Church fathers
and from legendary works of very doubtful trustworthi-

4589

SIMON PETER

ness. The examination becomes much more compli-
cated and the results much more hypothetical than
those we have hitherto had in hand.

Let us first take a survey of the countries in which
outside of Palestine he is represented as having laboured.!

(a) Origen is the first who tells us that ‘ Peter scems
(ἔοικεν) to have preached to the Jews of the dispersion
in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia
(i.e. the western coast of Asia Minor]' (Core. în Gen.
tom. 3, ed. de la Rue, 224 A; af. Euseb. #£ ili.12).
The very form in which this sentence is cast shows us
that the statement is not based on trustworthy inde-
pendent information, but is merely deduced from
1 Pet.l1.

Nor is this all; the deduction is a very mistaken one, for in
1 14 18 21 29.£, 42 Λ it is clearly said that the readers of the

istle are Gentile Christians and in 112 with equal clearness
Sha t it was not the writer of the epistle who had brought the
gospel to them, Not till we come to 2 Pet. 1 τό is it asserted
that they had been preached to by Peter. On this showing we
should have to suppose that he had come to them at some time
after the composition of the first epistle ; for according to 2 Pet.
81 the second epistle îs addressed to the same readers as the
first. This, however, is inconsistent with the address, accordin,
to which 2 Pet. is directed to the whole of Christendom ; an
Christendom is not here to be restricted, on account of (as it
might at first sight appear) 8 1, to the five provinces named in
1 Pet. 11, which would be inconsistent with the manifest sense
of the words, but contrariwise we must believe the author of
2 Pet. to have presupposed 1 Pet. to have been already addressed
to the whole of Christendom. This presupposition comes before
vs in the Muratorian fragment where (/. 54-59) it is asserted
that from the number of the churches to which Paul addressed
his nine letters—viz., seven—and from the number of the epistles
in the Apocalypse—also seven—we are to perceive that both
writers are addressing themselves in their letters to the entire
church. There are other reasons also for assigning 2 Pet. to the
same date as this fragment, say about 170 ΟΥ̓ 180 A.D.

(δ) The other spheres of activity, in which Peter is
represented as having laboured along with other apostles
are equally questionable. Alongside of such traditions
there is often a simpler form in which Peter is not
mentioned, Thus there readily arises the suspicion that
Peter has been given as a companion to other apostles
by legend merely.

Peter is said to have laboured with_ Philip în Assakia
(Phrygia), with his brother Andrew and Matthias or Matthew
in the country of the Barbarians, that is to say, primarily, by
the Black Sea, so that this legend coincides with a part of that
already noticed under a. As, however, there is also a country. of
the barbarians by the Red Sea, we find Peter as the companion
of Bartholomew in Egypt as well; and finally what is said of
this last apostle is transferred to * Judas Thaddaus, so chat
Peter is made to be the companion of this Judas in Syria.

(c) We are told further that from Egypt Peter also
made journeys to North Africa and to Britain, but in
these cases he was alone.

(d) In Syria Peter appears not only with Judas
Thaddeus, but also without any companion, particularly
in Antioch, Indeed, according t0 Eusebius in his
Chronicle, or în his source ($ 26 e; Lipsius, ii.125-27),
that church was founded by Peter in the second year of
Claudius, that is, in 42 A.D. This is in absolute con-
tradiction with Acts 11 19-26. Noris there any plausible
reason for accepting the activity of Peter in Antioch to
be found in the consideration that he could easily touch
at Antioch in the course of his journeys from Jerusalem
to Asia Minor; andjust as little can we attach weight
to the circumstance that it was precisely in Auntioch
that Simon Macus {g.v. $ 11 δ), whom it was one
of Peter's tasks continually to confute, made his
appearance. Thus it is tempting to conjecture that the
statement as to the appearance of Peter in Antioch rests
upon Gal. 21r-2r, If this conjecture is correct we shall
have here an admirable example of the manner in
which in the making of ecclesiastica! legend the hostile
relations of two apostles are ignored or even changed
into a relation of friendly co-operation (cp $ 40 2).

We learn even that Peter and Paul together in Antioch
consecrated Marcianus as bishop of Syracuse, and Pancratius as
bishop of Tauromenium in Sicily (Lipsius, ii 158/). But it

1 For details here and in what follows we refer once for alito
Lipsius, Afodr. Apost.-Gesck. (1883-1800), and especially în the
first instance to vol. 21, and the Azganeungsheft, 226£

4599

SIMON PETER

is only late authors who assign to Peter the bishopric of Antioch
(Cod. Coislinianus, No. 120 (ed. Grosch, Jena, 1826] for two
years, the Liber Pontificalis [$th and 7th cent.] for seven or ten
years). Origen does not, even when he designates Ignarius
(Hom. 6 ἴα Luc., 111. 938 h A, ed. de la Rue) ‘episcopum
Antiochie post Petrum secundum,’ for these words are to be
understood, in accordance with the expressions of anciént
authors cited below (ἃ 26 £), în such a sense that Peter is not 10
be reckoned as included : so also Lus. ZZ£ ili. 86 2. Euodius,
who is represented as having been appointed by Peter himself
(Const. Apost. vii. 46), passes for the first bishop of Antioch.

(e) It accords with the dating of 1 Pet. (5x3) from
Babylon that Peter should be represented as having
laboured in Babylonia and Persia. Whilst many accounts
have it that he subsequently journeyed to Rome, the
Syrian historians assign to him the lands of the Euphrates
exclusively as his missionary field (Lipsius ii. 16 611-613,
ii. 2r4sf. 175). Cp $ 43.

(7) The statement which has met with widest accept-
ance is that Peter laboured in Rome and suffered
martyrdom there. As to this, see $$ 25-31, 37-41. 45.

(g) The missionary journeys ‘of Peter” through
Macedonia, Greece, Sicily, and Italy are open to the
suspicion that they have been assumed merely in order
to make more clear his migration from Asia Minor to
Rome and that for their details the journeys of Paul
served as a pattern (Lipsius ii. 1x1).

(4) The representation that Peter laboured also in
Gaul and in Spain appears to have arisen out of the
desire of the Roman church to secure for itself the
supremacy over these countries. Pope Innocent I
(402-417) expressly denies that in Italy, Gaul, Spain,
Africa and Sicily, or any of the intermediate islands,
churches were anywhere founded by any one except
priests who had been instituted by Peter or by his
successors (£#isf 252, af. Lipsius, ii. 2217 307).

(ἢ We thus obtain as a preliminary result that apart
from Rome only the claims of Antioch and Babylon or
at most also of the shores of the Biack Sea (Pontus)
have some measure of plausible support in tradition ;
but of these that of Antioch is definitely ruled out by
the data of the NT; for not only is the founding of
the church there by Peter impossible, but also any
lengthened stay there on his part, inasmuch as its
Gentile Christian character was most marked and more-
over it had been witness of his humiliation at the hands
of Paul (Gal. 2-21). As for the claims of Babylon,
see below, $ 30£, 43.

Let us first inquire what are our earliest authorities
for a sojourn of Peter in Rome and his ultimate
martyrdom there. (4) The first whom
yourn In ve can date with certainty is Dionysius,
Rome: earliest1;hop of Corinth (about 170 A.D.).

Witnesses. From a letter of his addressed to the
Church of Rome in the time of the bishopric of Soter
there (about 166-174), in which] he thanks the Romans
for pecuniary help given to members of the Corinthian
church, Eusebius (278 ii. 258) has preserved the follow-
ing passage : ταῦτα καὶ ὑμεῖς διὰ τῆς τοσαύτης νουθεσίας
τὴν ἀπὸ Πέτρου καὶ Παύλου φυτείαν γενηθεῖσαν Ρωμαίων
τε καὶ ἹΚορινθίων συνεκεράσατε. καὶ γὰρ ἄμφω καὶ εἰς τὴν
ἡμετέραν Κόρινθον φντεύσαντες ἡμᾶς ὁμοίως ἐδίδαξαν,
ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ εἰς τὴν Ἰταλίαν ὁμόσε διδάξαντες ἐμαρτύρησαν
κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν καιρόν. ‘So also by this so weighty
admonition? ye have brought together that planting
made by Peter and Paul of the Romans and of the
Corinthians. For, indeed, these two both planted us
in our Corinth, and likewise taught us ; in like manner
also after having taught together in Italy they suffered
martyrdom about the same time.

The meaning of these words is not perfectly clear fcp col.
4345); but so much can be made out—that Dionysius means to

designate the Roman and Corinthian churches alike as founda.
tions of Peter and Paul. This is involved in ‘planting’ (φυτεία)

25. Sojourn în

1 As Eusebius in his enumeration (Z/£ iv. 239) of the epistles
of Dionysius known to him mentions only one to the Romans,
we must suppose this to he the same as that which he had
already made use of (ii. 255).

2 By this is doubrless intended the Epistle of the Roman
church mentioned in iv. 2811, which Dionysius is answering.

4591

SIMON PETER

even if we should prefer for φυτεύσαντες the reading of Syncellus3
φοιτήσαντες. At the same time, che expression εἰς τὴν Ἰταλίαν
stands, in accordance with a lin; aguistie usage which at that date
was widely spread (see Winer,() $ 50 46), for ἐν τῇ Ἰταλίᾳ, for
the participle ‘having taught” (διδάξαντες) belongs to it; and
thus φοιτήσαντες, even if it ought to be regarded as the right
reading, would not furnish the requisite completion to the second
member of the sentence. This being so, the suggestion becomes
natural chat eis. . . Κόρινθον stands for ἐν. Κορίνθῳ, and
thus that φυτεύσαντες cught to be retained— all the more because
it is in keeping with φυτεία. Ὁμόσε means properly ‘towards
one and the same place’; but as we may not bring in
φοιτήσαντες, this will not at all suit the context. Here also then
we must discern another instance of the same confusion as thai
between εἰς and ἐν, in other words ὁμοῦ must be meant, Thus
Dionysius, even if he does not expressly say that Peter and
Paul cazze simultaneously to Corinth and simultaneously to
Rome, nevertheless, as regards Rome at least, states that
they, taught there simultaneously ; in fact ‘in like manner
also’ (ὁμοίως δὰ καῇ indicates very distinctly that he assumes
them to have taughe together in Corinth also.

This last assumption is quite irreconcilable with Acts
181-18 202 Δ; and even were we to suppose that
Dionysius thinks of Peter's visit to Corinth as having
been at a different date from that of Paul, we should
still be at hopeless variance with 1 Cor. 3 10-15 415 (see
$ 2 g), The statement of Dionysius accordingly can
only rest on unwarranted inferenec from what Paul says
regarding the Cephas party in Corinth (1 Cor. 112
darf).

Thus it is of no avail when Hamnack (ACL ii. [=C%reno4.}
12427) seeks to defend Dionysius by arguing that even accord-
ing to Acts @ 14-17) the founding of a church becomes ‘ perfect
only after apostolic labours, so that Dionysius does not by the
language he uses exclude an activity of other missionaries în
Rome before the arrival of Peter and Paul. In the first place,
Harnack's exegesis of the passage in Acts is not exact. What
can be effected by the apostles alone is the bestowal of the Holy
Spirit; that without this the founding of a church is not

erfect” is not said, and does not at alì suit the other case in

which thesame theory is found (19 1-7), This last passage has
nothing at all to do with the founding of a church, but only
with che spiritual gifts of speaking with ‘ tongues” and of
prophecy. But, further, Harnack's defence of Dionysius, even
were it valid, would apply only to what he says about Rome,
not to what he says about Corinth; for, if Dionysius has
followed the theory of Acts as this is ‘expounded by ἜΤΟΣ
in the present case at all events Paul has complied with it,
inasmuch as he brought about the gift of the Holy Spirit at
once in his first ministry there, and thus Peter would have
found no field there for his function as a founder of churches
unless his arrival had been synchronous with that of Paul.

Thus it is impossible to absolve Dionysius from the
charge of having, in the interests of a theory as to the
co-operation of Peter and Paul, grievously distorted the
history of his own church in a point as to which he of
all men must be presumed to have been accurately
informed. How then are we to repose confidence in
such a ‘witness’ when he tells us about Rome?
Perhaps his whole knowledge regarding Rome rests
upon misunderstanding of r.Clem. (below, $ 28), of
which he says (49. Eus, 48 iv. 2311) that it is regularly
read at Corinth in public worship.

(6) In Irenzeus (about 185 A.D.) the most important
passages relating to our present inquiry are the
following. According to Mer. ili. 12 [1] Matthew wrote
his gospel ‘whilst Peter and Paul were preaching the
gospel at Rome and founding the church’ (τοῦ Πέτρου
καὶ τοῦ Παύλου ἐν Ῥώμῃεὐαγγελιξομένων καὶ θεμελιούντων
τὴν ἐκκλησίαν). In iii.3:(2) he speaks of the ‘ very
great, very ancient, and universally known church
founded and constituted at Rome by the two very
glorious apostles Peter and Paul” (maxima et antiquissima
et omnibus cognita a gloriosissimis duobus apostolis
Petro et Paulo Rome fundata et constituta ecclesia).
Here Irenzeus's interest is to prove the apostolica!
succession of bishops. As it would be too laborious a
task to do this for all churches he contents himself
with the case of Rome,

(c) The list of bishops of Rome which Irenzeus
proceeds immediately afterwards to give 32 2)
comes down to his own day (νῦν) and ends with
Eleutherus (about 174-189). It may be presumed that
it was not drawn up for the first time at the date of his
writing.

4592

SIMON PETER

It cannot indeed be maintained that Hegesippus—as his words
in Eus, /£ iv, 223 seem to say—drew up, after his arrival in
Rome, a list of the bishops there down to Anicetus (about 154-
166) as Lightfoot (Aost. fathers, i. [= Clement of Rome] 163./
153/ 202/; 327-333) would have it (see MinistkY, $ 58 c, n. and
Harnacky ACL ii. 1 180-184); but on the other hand according
to Hamnack (04. cià. 184-193) and Erbes (2. f° Kirchengesch.
222-5 [1901]) it is probable that Epiphanius (7/7. 27 6) for his
list of the bishops of Rome made use of the same Roman
original source as Irenasus, and that this, as in Epiphanius,
ended wirh Anicetus, and thus perhaps was drawn up during his
episcopate, or at any rate during that of his successor, Soter,
Vrhardver its date, the form in which the list is now found gives
no certainty as to What is the most important point în this con-
nection— the question, namely, as to when it was that the
reference to Peter and Paul was first introduced. Irenaus begins
his rendering of it thus : ‘The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul),
then, after founding and building up the church, committed the
office of the episcopate into the hands of Linus ΤῸ him
succeeds Anencietus, and after him, in the third place from the
apostles, Clement is allotted the episcopate ' (θεμέλιώσαντες οὖν
καὶ οἰκοδομήσαντες οἱ μακάριοι ἀπόστολοι τὴν ἐκκλησίαν Δένῳ
τὴν τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς λεισουργίαν ἐνεχείρισαν. διαδέχεται δὲ αὐτὸν
᾿Ανέγκλητος" μετὰ τοῦτον δὲ τρίτῳ τόπῳ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων τὴν
ἐπισκοπὴν κληροῦται KAjuns). Thus we find no mention either
of Peter or of Paul asbishop of Rome. 1fClement is designated
as third ‘from the apostles’ (ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων) probably all
that is intended is to accentuate the unbrokenness of the succes.
sion, not to imply that if one chose to include the two apostles
in the reckoning he would be not the third but the fourth or
fifth în the series. Epiphanîus, however, says: ‘In Rome the
first were Peter and Paul, apostles and bishops, thereafter Linus,
thereafter Cletus, thereaîter Clement,’ etc. (ἐν ' Ῥώμῃ, γεγόνασι
πρῶτοι Πέτρος καὶ Παῦλος ἀπόστολοι καὶ ἐπίσκοποι, εἶτα Atvos,
εἶτα Κλῆτος, εἶτα Κλήμης, κιτιλ). Aftera short interruption, he
resumes: ‘The series of bishops in Rome shows the following suc-
cession,— Peter and Paul, Linus and Cletus, Clement,’ etc. (ἡ τῶν
ἦν Ῥώμῃ ἐπισκόπων διαδοχὴ ταύτην ἔχει τὴν ἀκολουθίαν - Πέτρος
καὶ HavAos, Aivos καὶ Κλῆτος, Κλήμης, «.7.A.), If, however,
Epiphanius makes Peter and Pau! bishops of Rome,! then
Irena:us also, or another shortly before him, can have prefixed
their names to the whole list which at an earlier date had begun
simply with Linus, ‘he list of bishops can have been subjected
to the same supplementing process after Irena®us's time also,
before it came into the hands of Epiphanius (died 403), or after
that of Julius Africanus (about 220)or of Hippolytus (abont 234),
the two last mentioned of whom also made use of it, according
to Harnack (188). A list of this kind, from the nature of the
case, was not allowed to remain long unaltered, but could easily
be ‘ completed’ in the course of transcription whenever a copyist
believed he had found a gap in it. Moreover, neither Irenzus
nor Epiphanius, whose editions of the list lie before us as they
wrote them, makes any statement that he is using an external
document, and feels himself under obligation to reproduce it
scrupulously. Thus for us no exact determination of its date is
necessary ; so far as Peter and Paul are concerned it does not
with certainty take us back to a date before Irenzus.

(d) In Clement of Alexandria Peter's sojourn in
Rome is, as with Irenzeus, mentioned in connection
with the writing of a gospel—in this case, however, Mk,
not Mt

From the 7/yfotyposes Eusebius (E vi, 146,£) has preserved
a piece of information which Clement claims to have received
from the presbyters of the olden time (τῶν ἀνέκαθεν πρεσβυ-
πέρων). ‘After that Peter had publicly preached the word in
Rome, and, filled with the spirit, had set forth the gospel (τοῦ
Πέτρου δημοσίᾳ ἐν Ῥώμῃ κηρύξαντος τὸν λόγον καὶ πνεύματε τὸ
εὐαγγέλιον ἐξειπόντος), Mark at the request of many hearers
set down these discourses in writing.” Similarly în the αἰ εἶνε
Brationes on 1 Pet. (ed. Potter, 1007): ‘ Marcus Petri sectator
palam praedicante Petro evangelium Rome,’ etc. In the other
passage where Eusebius transcribes the same matter from the
Hypotyposes of Clement, though somewhat differently (HZ

151/; with regard to which cp Goseet.s, $ 147, end), Rome
ἧς presupposed, through the connection with ii. 145 5, to be
the place. As the Gospel of Mark is alleged to have owed its
origin to the evangelist’s reports of the discourses of Peter, it is
intelligible why Clement should not have mentioned Paul at the
same time, even although he was convinced of the apostles
having been together în Rome,

(e) Pseudo-Cyprian, De Rebagtismate, 17 (Cypr. ed.
Hartel, 390), read in Pali Predicatio as follows: ‘et
post tanta tempora Petrum et Paulum post conlationem
evangelii in Hierusalem et mutuam ‘cogitationem et
altercationem et rerum agendarum dispositionem [the
reference is to Gal. 2 Acts 15] postremo în urbe quasi
tune primum invicem sibi esse cognitos, ἐξ quedam

1 For this very reason if for no other we see that Epiphanius
cannot have preserved the original form of the list. "It also
indicates but little accuracy when he says at one time ‘Linus,
then Cletus” (Δένος εἶτα KAwros), at another ‘ Linus and Cletus *
(Airos καὶ Κλῆτορ), for the latter form of expression denotes, as
we see in ‘Peter and Paul' (Πέτρος καὶ Παῦλος), contempor-
aneous tenure of office.

4593

SIMON PETER

alia hujuscemodi absurde ac turpiter conficta’ {*and
that after such long time, Peter and Paul, after the
collation of the gospel in Jerusalem and the mutual
consideration and discussion and arrangement of things
to be done, had at last in the city, in a certain way,
then for the first time become known to one another ;
and certain other things of this sort, absurdly and
basely feigned')

In spite of the title Pauli Pradicatio this quotation is often
regarded as coming from the book known by the title of
Κήρυγμα Πέτρου, in the belief that the title sometimes ran also :
Preaching of Peter and Paul. Were this correct, we should
have here the oldest testimony to the Roman sojourn of Peter,
it being presupposed that the book was used not only by
Clement of Alexandria but also as early as in the Αἱ ῥοίοσν df
dAvistides (see Harris, Afolegy of Aristides,in TSt, 1186-99;
Harnack, ACZ ii. 1472/.; ® OLD-CHRISTIAN LITERATUKE,
$8 11, 36), But the question of the derivation of the quotation
from’ ît is so uncertain (it is answered negati\ely by von
Dobschiitz, for example, in ΤῸ xi. 113-15 127-131) that we need
not pursue the matter further. ,

(/) The apocryphal Acfa Petri, which relates the
activity and death of Peter at Rome with detail, may
be mentioned at this point as being possibly a witness
of equal age, but must not be taken account of until
after it has been carefully discussed (see $$ 32-39).
So also with the Πράξεις IlavAov from which Origen
(tom. in Jn. 2012, ed. de la Rue, 4322, C) quotes: "as
was said by the Saviour, "1 am going to be crucifed
anew """ {ds ὑπὸ τοῦ σωτῆρος εἰρημένον " ἄνωθεν μέλλω
σταυροῦσθαι) (see $$ 337, 34. 394, c).

We proceed now to the testimonies which come from
a somewhat later date.

(a) Tertullian supplies new data, if not indeed in
adv. Marc. (45 begin.) where he says: ‘Romani . .
quibus evangelium et Petrus et Paulus

so o Roman sanguine quoque suo signatum reli-
νας σοι, querunt,’ or in αῤέζονε, 4, where he

ascribes the possession of the same
salvation to those ‘quos Joannes in Jordane et quos
Petrus in Tiberi tinxit,’ etc., yet certainly in Prescr.
kaeret. 36: ‘habes Romam . . . ubi Petrus passioni
dominicce adaequatur [by crucifixion], ubi Paulus Joannis
[the Baptist's] exitu coronatur' [by beheading], and in
Scorpiece, 15: ‘orientem fidem Roma primus Nero
cruentavit. Tune Petrus ab altero cingitur [}n. 2118 £.]
cum cruci adstringitur ; tune Paulus civitatis Romana
conseguitur nativitatem cum illic martyrii renascitur
generositate,' ‘ Paul acquires the Roman citizenship by
right of birth when he is born again in the nobility of
martyrdom.*

(3) Gaius of Rome (under Zephyrinus, about 198-
217) says in his writing against the Montanist Proculus
(ap. Eus. HE ii. 2567): ‘But 1 am able to show the
*‘trophies’’ of the apostles. For if you will come to
the Vatican or to the Ostean Way, you will find the
‘* trophies” of those who foundéd this church’ (ἐγὼ dè
τὰ τρόπαια τῶν ἀποστόλων ἔχω δεῖξαι. ἐὰν γὰρ ϑελήσῃς
ἀπελθεῖν ἐπὶ τὸν Βατικανὸν ἢ ἐπὶ τὴν ὁδὸν τὴν ᾿Ὡστίαν,
εὑρήσεις τὰ τρόπαια τῶν ταύτην ἱδρυσαμένων τὴν ἐκ-
κλησίαν). By τρόπαια we are to understand here not
* places of burial,' as Eusebius does, but ‘places of
death.'

Even the literal meaning of the word (‘sign of vietory ')admits
this meaning only ; for a martyr gained his victory only at the
place of his death, not at the place of his burial. To under-
stand the meaning ‘sign of victory we have only to make the
further supposition that those who honoured the martyrs were
able to show, at the place of death, some object or other that
marked it out for those who visited the spot, and with which
was associated some reminiscence, whether real or supposed, of
what happened at the martyr's death, Thus in the Vatican was
shown ἃ terebinth, on the road to Ostia a pine tree, beside which
Peter and Paul respectively breathed their last (Lipsius ii. 1 391).

Even apart, however, from its lexical meaning we may learn
that τρόπαια cannot here mean graves. For the bones of the
two apostles were not deposited în the places he mentions til!
long after the time of Gaius; those of Peter after 354, in the
Church of St. Peter, which was built at that date; those of
Paul, according to the list of the degositio martyrwsm, în the
famous chronicle of the year 354, as early as 258 A.D., by the
road to Ostia (and before 354 in che basilica newly built there).
In the same year, however (258; June 29), the relics of Peter,

4594

SIMON PETER

according to the same list, were transferred in casacuwzbas, that
is to say, into the catacombs of the piece of ground beside the
Appian Way, halfan-hour outside of the Porta Appia, in other
words, hard by the present church of San Sebastiano, which
piece of ground was originally the only one that bore the name

ad Catacumbas,' a name which has never as yet been quite
satisfactorily explained. Here an inscription of bishop Damasus
(366-384) ran τ΄

hic habitasse prius sanctos cognoscere debes
nomina quisque 1 Petri pariter Paulique requiris.

So far as Peter is concerned, this agrees with the fact that his
relics had been removed to the church of St. Peter before this
inscription was composed; as regards Paul the statement of
Damasus is not easily reconciled with that of the list referred
to above. Still, even if the list be correct it is certain that the
relics of Paul had not yet, in the time of Gaius, their resting-
bas, by the road to Ostia, and that those of Peter should have

cen removed to the catacombs would be very unlikely, if already
in Gaius's time they had their resting-place at the piace of his
death, namely the Vatican. Οἱ the whole question see Lipsius
ii. 139r-404; Erbes, Ζ, αὶ Kirchengesch, Ἱ (1885) 1-49, and, as
regards the special point, otherwise in ‘Todestage der Apostel
Paulus ἃ, Petrus’ in 7° xix. (= Neue Folge, iv.), 1 (1899)
67-33. Ficker (Z./ Kirchengesch, 22, 1901, 333-342) utterly
denies that th scription relates to the burial of Peter and
Paul. His opinion is that in the view of Damasus they had
during their
was found (cp ‘habitasse,’ and ‘nomina’ not “corpora'). The
inscription, he holds, was directed against the refusal of the
Eastern Church, from 325 A.D. onwards, to accept any decisions
from Rome, and against the argument urged in support of this
refusal that Peter and Paul came from the East (the inscription
in fact says, towards the end: Roma suos potius meruit
defendere cives), Only, as the locality where the inscription was
found was a place of burial, it is very improbable that Damasus
can have believed that Peter and Paul when alive lived here at
half-an-hour's distance from the city.

(c) In immediate continuation of the passage relating
to Peter cited above (8 24 a), Origen proceeds : ‘ Who
also in the end, being in Rome, was crucified head
downwards, having himself desired to suffer in this
way' (ὃς καὶ ἐπὶ τέλει ἐν Ῥώμῃ γενόμενος ἀνεσκολοπίσθη
κατὰ κεφαλῆς, οὕτως αὐτὸς ἀξιώσας παθεῖν) The
Acta Petri (see 8 33£) deals fully with the reasons why
Peter chose this particular manner of death. Asregards
Paul, Origen goes on to say that he suffered martyrdom
in Rome under Nero.

(4) The Philosophumena (dating from about 235 and
ascribed to Hippolytus}, as well as other later writings,
mentions the polemic with Simon, carried on at Rome
by Peter (and Paul), with which we are acquainted
through the apocryphal Acta Petri (and Acta Petri et
Pauli). For details see $ 39 4.

(e) Of later writers we at once mention Eusebius. He
brings together all that has been hitherto mentioned,
and will have it that Peter was bishop of Rome for
twenty-five years, namely from 42-67 A.D. He thus
places the Neronian persecution, in which according
to him also Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom (68
ii, 255), three years too late. Itis of a piece with this
that he supports the theory, which he himself (ΜΓ
v. 1814) takes from the Anti-Montanist Apollonius (about
200 A.D.)—a theory which already finds expression in
the Predicatio Petri (above, $ 25 e; cp. Clem.Al
Strom. vi. 5.43, p. 762, ed. Potter; for other supporters
of it see Harnack, ACZ ii. 1243} —that the apostles had
been commanded by Jesus not to go abroad from
Jerusalem till twelve years after his death. These
twelve years Eusebius reckons as from 30 to 42 A.D. The
variations met with in the different translations of his
Chronicle, no longer extant in Greek, need not trouble us
here, The only point of importance for our inquiry is
that the reckoning of twenty-five Roman years was
found, not invented, by Eusebius. According to
Harnack (ACL ii. 116-129) he used the Chronografky
of Julius Africanus, which closed with the reign of
Elagabalus (218-222 A.D.).

(7) Thus, according to Harnack (2zor, 703 £), the
‘tendency legend,’ that Peter sojourned in Rome for
twenty-five years, arose and ‘became official' between
the time of Îrenzeus, who as yet knew nothing whatever
of Peter's twenty-five Roman years, and that of Julius
Africanus, that îs to say in the episcopate of Victor

1 Quisque here=quicunque=whosoever.

4595

ifetime resided at the spot where the inscription ᾿

SIMON PETER

(about 189-198), or in that of Zephyrinus (about 198-
217).

(g) The consequence of this is that Peter becomes no
longer the founder merely, or joint founder, but the
bishop also of the church of Rome, and that Paul,
whom we still find even in Irenaus, etc, (8 26 a-d), at
his side and on a level with him, is eliminated. ‘This
consequence, however, was developed only gradualiy.

The Roman bishop Calixtus (about 217-222) claimed, as
appears from Tertullian's refutation (Pxdic. 21), the power to
remit or retain sins, on the ground that he was the successor of
Peter who, according to Mt. 1618 Δ, had been invested with
this power. So also his successors affirmed in Cyprian's time:

‘Se successionem Petri tenere * or ὁ per successionem cathedram
Petri habere'; and this is presupposed by Cyprian himself
(δεν, Τ τη 558 5914 Τι3). According to the Epistle of
Clement to James (2) that now stands prefixed to the Pseudo-
Clementine Howz/ies, Peter, in appointing Clement bishop of
Rome, hands over to him his καθέδρα τῶν λόγων, and confers
on him the power of binding and loosing. "The author
(Hippolytus?) of the ‘Little Labyrinth' against the sect of
Artemon (47. Eus. 7£ 5.28) in $ 3 styles Victor as τρισκαι-
δέκατος ἀπὸ Πέτρου ἐν Ῥώμῃ èricrorost—thus no longer, as
Irenzeus phrases ît, ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων.-- (ἡ δ., from Peter and
Paul; see above, $ 250). Yet he continues to call Victor the
thirteenth as Irenzus had called Eleutherus, Victor's prede-
cessor, the twelfih ; thus he does not yer reckon Peter as the
first member of the series, Similarly, Eusebius still counts
Linus as the first bishop of Rome, and in accordance with this,
gives the succeeding bishops the same numeration as Ireneeus
does. While doing ‘so he nevertheless adds (Ὁ ili. 48), μετὰ
Tlérpoy, yet along with this not only μετὰ τὴν Ἰταύλον καὶ Πέτρον
μαρτυρίαν (iii. 2), but also μετὰ Παῦλόν τε καὶ Πέτρον (iii. 21),
ἀπὸ Πέτρου καὶ Παύλον tiv. 1) and, precisely as Irenzeus has it,
ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων (iv. 55 and v. prooem. 1). For more precise
details from Eusebius see Kneller, Z. / #azkol. Theol. 1902,
p. 229/

(4) It is in the Casalogus Liberianus (i.e., the list
of Roman bishops brought down to Liberius, A.D.
3527), forming part of the famous Chrozicle of 354,
îhat Peter is first spoken of unreservedìy as first bishop
of Rome: ‘ post ascensum ejus [Jesu] beatissimus Petrus
episcopatum suscepit’ (but here from 30-55 A.D.).

The Ascensio Jesaie would seem t0 be a still older
witness than any of those we have hitherto discussed,
to the fact of Peter's martyrdom at Rome.

(2) Clemen (ZW7, 1896, 388-415; 1897, 455-465)
held it possible to distinguish and’ isolate in 331-(or

in 921)-422 an apocalypse put into writing

27. AGcensIO before the death of Nero (43. 13-38)
1» which related to Nero's persecution of

the Christians; and in 436, which at that date he
knew only through Dillmann's Latin translation from
the Ethiopic (‘e duodecim in manus eius tradetur '), he
found an allusion to the death of Peter in that reign.

Harnack (ACZ ii. 1714-716) disputed this hypothesis, in-
cluding that relating to Peter; Zeller (ΖῊ Τ᾽, 1896, p. 558-568)
accepted the latter, but like Harnack put the date of composition
much later than Clemen had done, and therefore denied its
trustworthiness as regarded Peter. Clemen at a later date was
able to report (7eo/. Amndschax, 1901, p. 75) that Vernon
Bartlet (ASostolic Age, 1900, p. 524) also had assigned Asc. /es.
813-421 to the last years of Nero, but at the same τίηιε took
the opportunity to add, without further discussion, that he him-
self no longer regarded that dating as probable in view of the
Greck tentsecentiy published ὃν Grenfell and Hunt (demhersi
Pafyri,1, 1900, 1-22). Charles, who malces use of this Greek text
in his edition of Asc. Yes. (1900), holds thar a hiatus in 4 36 ought.
to he filled by the insertion of εἰς and the clause interpreted as
referring to Peter: ‘of the Twelve gne will be delivered into
his hands ({τ]ῶν δώδεκα [εἷς] ταῖς χερσὶν αὐτοῦ {π| εδοθήσεταις,
Harnack also gives his adhesion to this VOTA 1900. p. 98!

£), but adds that the value of the statement regarding Peter δὴ]
‘depend upon its date, and this he prefers to assign rather to the
first half of the chird century, than to any time within the
second (ACL ii. 1574-577).

(ὁ) Charles, however, holds that Asc. 7es. 313 ὅ- 418,
‘the testament of Hezekiah,' ought to be dated between
88 and 100 A.D., not, as in APOCALYPTIC fabove, col.
230), between go and 80 A.D. According to him the
question turns upon 413 (p. 30£).

Charles renders the Ethiopic version, here the only text
available for us, as follows: ‘And many believers and saints,
having seen Him for whom they were hoping, who was crucified,
Jesus the Lord Christ [after that I, Isaiah, had seen Him who
was crucified and ascended], and those also who were believers
in Him—of these few in those days will be left as His servants,
while they flee from desert to desert, awaiting the coming of the
Beloved." Charles adds : ‘we see that two classes of the faithful

4596

SIMON PETER

are discriminated . . . believers who had seen Christ personally,
and believers who had not, . . . Of the two classes our text
declares that few will be left.’ As, however, the first class can-
not well have survived into the second century, this passage
must have been written before 100 A.D. On the other hand, it
has to be remembered that this distinction of two classes could,
if really intended, hardìy be called a good one. ‘The second
class is spoken of as consisting simply of ‘those who were
believers in Him"; but the first class also consists of ‘ believers
(and saints)’ Thus it would hardly seem to have been the
writer's intention to distinguish two classes.

(2) In a private communication Charles now prefers
to read: ‘and many believers and saints 2040 4ad seen
Him . . . and wo 2/50 kept believing in Him,’ eto. By
this conjectural substitution of οἵ for the ὅτε which the
Ethiopic translation presupposes ‘all reference to a second
ciass disappears.' Charles continues to maintain, how-
ever, that the reference is to Jewish Christians who have
personaliy known Jesus. But in this case we are
compellted to ask: Is the persecution of the last days
really to be confined to these alone, and are they alone
to look for the Messiah, and other Christians not?
Besides, the text even as restored by Charles still contains
a very disturbing tautology, ‘many believers and
saints. . . who also kept believing in Him.'

Bousset (Ar4ickris!, 1895, p. 87/7) regards our passage as
more largely interpolated than Charles does, But neither is his
conjecture at all satisfying. As long as we hold by Charles'
text, Zeller's interpretation remains the most probable one, that
‘seeing’ means a knowledge of Christ possessed by all Christians
and not merely by those who were eye-witnesses of his earthly
life (cp Jn. 147 1Jn.36 3Jn. 11), On this interpretation
however all necessity disappears for dating the passage before
100 AD. There are signs of a later origin, such as, for
example, the distinction of bishops from presbyters (MINISTRY,
$8 46, 47, 54 è, ©), which as matter of fact îs clear in the πρεσ-
βύτεροι καὶ ποιμένες of 824 (and also 329 according to the
Ethiopic version), or the representation of the circumstances of
the resurrection of Jesus (815-17), which, at least in so far as
it names Michael (and Gabriel), goes beyond that of the gospel
of Peter even (see RESURRECTION-NARKATIVES, $ 72).

(4) Finally, it does not seem to have occurred to any
one to ask whether or no the most important clause of
all in the passage before us really belongs to the
original text (433: ‘of the Twelve one wilì be delivered
into his hands” Charles (pp. lxix-lxxifi) has rightly
perceived that it is not the Iiving Nero who is regarded
as Antichrist, but the dead one: in the form of Nero,
we read in 424, Beliar {=Satan; 2 Cor. 615, and cp
BeLIAL) will appear and will rule for 3} years,
immediately after which will be the end of the world
(45-18). Of this Nero it cannot be intended to say that
Peter is to fall into his hands in the year 64 A.D.
Except in this one clause—if indeed it is to be referred
to Peter—the whole of the rest of the description is
purely apocalyptic ; Christians will become godless
(8τ- 31), Beliar will come in the form of Nero (42) and
will persecute the plant which the twelve apostles of
the Beloved have planted (Gk. ‘will piant' : φυτεύσουσιν,
430; as to this clause, cp below, e); he will work
miracles, will cause himself to be worshipped as God,
and will be cast into hell by the Lord (Christ ἢ), who
will come down from the seventh heaven (44-14). If
in the middle of all this it is said of one of the twelve
that he will fall into the hands of this Beliar (436),
the one intended must, if the clause is to fit the context,
be one who has survived the death of Nero.

The only notorious instance which the readers could have
found referred to în these purely allusive words would be that
of John wirh his cup of poison and his bath of boiling οἷ! (see
Jokn, Son or ZEBEDEE, $ 86). Yet it is not easy to see why
this atrocity should be referred precisely to Beliar coming in the
form of Nero, This Beliar is a purely apocalyptic form, whose
deeds are with good reason described in quite genera] and
indefinite terms. As real propheey a piediction of any such
detail would be not only bold but also out of keeping with the
apocalyptic character cf the representation of the time of the
end; as valicininm ex eventu ît is equally out of keeping ; and,
besides, the martyrdom of John is not a historical ἔπος hut first
came to be believed at so late a date after the time of the
emperor under whom it is alleged to have occurred (Domitian is
usually named) as 10 make it absolutely impossible that at the
time of the writer this emperor should be spoken of as the last

to reign before the end of the world or that a reign of no more
than 3} years should be assigned to him.

Thus it becomes in fact probable that it is Peter
147 4597

SIMON PETER

rather than John who is intended. In that case, how»
ever, the clause must be regarded as a gloss. It is so
regarded, it will be seen, not with the object of getting
rid of a text that is inconvenient for the view of Peter's
life taken in the present article, but purely for reasons
affecting a right understanding of Asc. 75. The
deletion of the clause would be necessary even if it
related not to Peter but to some other of the apostles
who had suffered martyrdom under Nero.

(e) There are two ways by which the extent of the
gloss can be determined.

If in the entire text the Antichrist is the subject, then it consists
only of the above cited words in 43. If, on the other hand,
we should find ourselves constrained to understand the living
Nero as being the subject of v, 3 (the subject according τὸ %. 2,
end, is ‘ Who himself (even) this king, doris αὐτὸς ὁ βασιλεὺς
οὗτος), then the immediately following expression, v. 34 (‘will
persecute the plant which thetwelve apostles of the Beloved have
planted ἢ must also be reckoned as belonging to the interpola-
tion; for it is quite improbable that between two utterances
regarding Antichrist there should stand one relating to the living
Nero who must nevertheless be dead before Antichrist comes
forward in Nero's form.

Why the clause should have been added by some
ancient reader will become very intelligible if only we
suppose such reader to have understood by Beliar the
actual Nero—as was done at first by Clemen in 1896 £
It thus appears that Asc. Zes. cannot be adduced as an
earlier witness for the belief of the martyrdom of Peter
under Nero than the documents dealt with in preceding
sections.

Contrariwise all the writings of an older date are
profoundly silent on the subject of Peter's Roman

sojourn A detailed examination of
28. 1 Clem. τ Ciem, is at this point called for, party
on account of its fundamental importance, and partly
because it is often taken in the other sense.

(a) After having pointed to the instances in the
OT in which jealousy and envy are seen to have led
to the most direful results, Clement proceeds: V. 1.
᾿Αλλ' ἵνα τῶν ἀρχαίων ὑποδειγμάτων παυσώ-
μεθα, ἔλθωμεν ἐπὶ τοὺς ἔγγιστα γενομένους ἀθλη-
tds' λάβωμεν τῆς γενεᾶς ἡμῶν τὰ γενναῖα ὑποδείγ-
ματα. 2. Διὰ ζῆλον καὶ φθόνον οἱ μέγιστοι καὶ
δικαιότατοι στῦλοι ἐδιώχθησαν καὶ ἕως θανάτον ἤθλησαν.
3. Λάβωμεν πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν ἡμῶν τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς ἀποστό-
λους" 4. Πέτρον, ὃς διὰ ζῆλον ἄδικον οὐχ ἕνα οὐδὲ δύο
ἀλλὰ πλείονας ὑπήνεγκε πόνους, καὶ οὕτω μαρτυρήσας
ἐπορεύθη εἰς τὸν ὀφειλόμενον τύπον τῆς δόξης. 5. Διὰ
ζῆλον καὶ ἔριν Παῦλος ὑπομονῆς βραβεῖον ἔδειξεν" 6.
ἑπτάκις δεσμὰ φορέσας, φυγαδευθείς, λιθασθεὶς, κῆρυξ
γενόμενος ἔν Te τῇ ἀνατολῇ καὶ ἐν τῇ δύσει, τὸ γεν-
ναῖον τῆς πίστεως αὐτοῦ κλέος ἔλαβεν᾽ 7. δικαιοσύνην
διδάξας ὅλον τὸν κόσμον, καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως
ἐλθὼν καὶ μαρτυρήσας ἐπὶ τῶν ἡγουμένων, οὕτως ἀπηλ-
λάγη τοῦ κύσμον καὶ εἰς τὸν ἅγιον τόπον ἐπορεύθη,
ὑπομονῆς γενόμενος μέγιστος ὑπογραμμός. VI. τ΄
Τούτοις τοῖς ἀνδράσιν ὁσίως πολιτευσαμένοις συνηθροίσθη
πολὺ πλῆθος ἐκλεκτῶν, οἵτινες πολλαῖς αἰκίαις καὶ
βασάνοις διὰ ζῆλος παθόντες ὑπόδειγμα κάλλιστον
ἐγένοντο ἐν ἡμῖν. «. Διὰ ζῆλος διωχθεῖσαι γυναῖκες
Δαναΐδες καὶ Δίρκαι, αἰκίσματα δεινὰ καὶ ἀνόσια
παθοῦσαι, ἐπὶ τὸν τῆς πίστεως βέβαιον δρόμον κατήν-
τῆσαν καὶ ἔλαβον γέρας γενναῖον αἱ ἀσθενεῖς τῷ σώματι.

(67) ‘But, ποῖ to dwell on the ancient examples, let us come
to those champions who lived nearest ourselves. Let us take the
noble xamples of our own generation. (2) By reason of
jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous pillars were
‘persecuted, and contended even unto death. (3) Let us set before
our eyes the good apostles; (4) Peter, who by reason of un-
righteous jealousy endured not one nor two but many labours,
and thus having borne his testimony went to his due place of
glory. (5) By reason of jealousy and strife Paul showed the
reward of patient endurance. (6) After that he had been seven
times in bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned,
had preached in the East and in the West, he won the noble
renown of his faith; (7) having taught righteousness to the
whole world and having come to the limit of the West and
having borne his testimony before the rulers, he thus departed
from the world and went unto the holy place, having become
a very great example of patient endurance. (61) Unto these
men of holy lives was gathered a vast multitude of elect ones
who, suffering by reason of jealousy many indignities and

4598

SIMON PETER

tortures, became a most admirable example among us. (2) By
reason of jealousy women being persecuted as Danaids and
Dirca, after that they had suffered cruel and unholy insults,
safely reached che goal in the race of faith and received a nobile
reward, feeble though they were in body.”

(2) The word μαρτυρήσας applied to Paul (57) will
be most fittingly interpreted as meaning, not ‘having
suffered martyrdom' (his death is indicated rather by
the words ἀπηλλάγη τοῦ κόσμου) but rather ' having
borne (oral) testimony” or, at most, ‘having suffered
tortures.’ In the case of Peter, however (54), the first
of these two renderings does not fit well: for οὕτω
μαρτυρήσας seems intended to convey ‘after that he
had borne testimony’ by the ‘labours’ {πόνοι) just
mentioned. ‘These, however, extend over his whole
life as an apostle. That precisely his death was
occasioned by some such ‘labour’ and thus was a
martyrdom is not expressly said and therefore might
be disputed. Still, since Peter is here cited as an
instance of how the greatest ‘ pillars' ‘contended even
unto death' we refrain from doing 50,

(c) In like manner it will be well to concede that
‘among us’ {ἐν ἡμῖν) in 61 does nor mean ‘among us
Christians'— which would be tolerably vague—but
‘among us Romans.’ The reference is τὸ the victims of
the Neronian persecution (62) who were made use of for
the presentation of mythological pieces. Still when it is
said of the Neronian martyrs in Rome that they were
gathered together with Peter and Paul, we are by no
means to draw it as a necessary inference that Peter
and Paul also died in Rome. To ‘was gathered'
(συνηθροίσθη) in 61 what we cught rather to supply
will be ‘to the due place of glory' (eis τὸν ὀφειλόμενον
τόπον τῆς δόξης) or ‘to the holy place' (εἰς τὰν ἅγιον
τόπον) of 547. Thus the common meeting-place
referred to is not Rome but heaven, and accordingly the
present passage says nothing as to the place of death.

(4) Neither in 51 does the author give any reason to
suppose that he is thinking of all as having one and the
same place of death. The oneness that unites those
about to be mentioned and separates them from those
who have been mentioned already is characterised as a
oneness of time only : ‘who lived nearest . our own
ξοπετγαιίοπ' (τοὺς ἔγγιστα γενομένους... τῆς γενεᾶς ἡμῶν).

(e) As the writer is at Rome, by the ‘limit of the
west! (τέρμα τῆς δύσεως, 57) to which Paul came it
would seem as if Spain must be meant, The fact,
however, of a journey of Paul to Spain is, if the present
passage be left out of account, nowhere asserted before
the fourth century except in the Muratorian fragment
(22. 38, 39) and în the pre-Catholic Act2 Petri (see
below, $ 334), and'in view of the silence of the other
witnesses is very much exposed to, the suspicion of
being merely an inference from Rom. 1524 28, where
Paul expresses the intention of extending his journey
from Rome to Spain. Eusebius (Z7£ ii. 222) speaks of
a missionary activity of Paul after the captivity spoken
of in Acts 2830 Δ, but does not say where, and adds
that thereafter Paul came once more to Rome and
suffered martyrdom there. In the immediately follow-
ing context (223-8) he refers the ‘first hearing' (πρώτῃ
ἀπολογία) of 2 Tim. 416 to the first Roman captivity.
Here too, in view of the silence of other witnesses,
there arises inevitably a strong suspicion that the dis-
crimination of two captivities may have been suggested
by this passage merely, whilst nevertheless πρώτῃ
ἀπολογία in the nature of things ought to mean merely
a first ‘appearance’ or ‘hearing' as distinct from a
second in the course of the same captivity, since the
whole passage 49-18 is speaking of the details of a
single captivity. For this inference not Eusebius but
some one who preceded him must be held responsible ;
he himself introduces the whole story with a λόγος ἔχει
{'the story goes'). If, however, Eusebius, who elsewhere
‘puts forthso much that is falsewith the greatestassurance,
here uses so cautious an expression as this, the matter,
we may rest assured, is questionable in the highest degree,

4599

SIMON PETER

Harnack (ACZ ii. 1 239,7) characterises the liberation of Paul
from his first Roman captivity (and the journey to Spain) asan
‘assured fact’ (gesicherte Thatsache). * His reasons aTe—apari
from sò répua τῆς δύσεως here-certain genuine fragments of
Paul preserved in the Pastoral Epistles (2 l'im. 115.18 4 g-2r
Tit. 3 12,5), for which one can find no room in the earlier lìfe of
Paul (ἃ very precarious hypothesis, to say the least) and also
chronological considerations according to which the first captivity
came to an end in 5g A.D. whilst the martyrdom of Paul in the
Neronian persecution (July, 64 A.D.) is an ‘ascertained fact”
This last fact has no other ‘secure’ basis on which to rest than
Harnacies interpretation of our present passage in 1 Clem, and
the ‘definite pieces of information’ (CZ ii.l 710) referred to
above ($ 23/5) of which Harnack himself wrote ποῖ so very long
ago (on 1 Clem.54: 1876): ‘posteriore tempore atctores
martyrii Petri vel itineris Romani, quorum testimonium nullias
fere pretii est, sunt Dionysius Corinthius, Gajus Romanus, ον
Irenaus,' εἰς. Ifthese testimonies are of hardly any value with
reference to Peter it is difficult to see that they are entitled τὸ
much confidence in what they say about Paul,—so far at least
85 the persons of the witnesses are concerned. The reckoning,
however, which is suggested alternatively for adoption under
CuronoLocY, 88 64-80, according to whick the first Roman
captivity ends în 59 a.D., Harnack is able to maintain (238)
only at the cost of assuming that Tacitus is wrong by a year as
to the age of the imperial prince Britannicus. ” Spitta (Zxr
Gesch. u. Lîr. d, Urchristentk. i. [1893) 1-108 iil. 1 [r900})
postulates the liberation of Paul from his two-years' Roman
captivity in the interests of a very bold division of the Epistle
to the Romans into two separate cpistles, the first of which was
written by Paul before, and the second (12 1-15 7 16 1-20) after,
his first sojourn în Rome. Conservative theology with almost
complete unanimity postulates this liberation in the interests of
the genuineness of the Pastoral Epistles. In that case, however,
the Journey into Spain is only an embarrassment, as the Epistleg
in question puesuppose rather fresh journeys of the apostle in
the East (x Tim.13 314 413 Tit.15812): but these in corn
are excluded by Acts δύ τς (1 know that ye all... shall sce
my face no more’), a saying which the author, even if it had
renched him by tradition asa genuine utterance of Paul, would
certainly have altered or omitted if ît had not come true.

(7 The expression ‘the limit of the west” (τὸ τέρμα
τῆς δύσεως) itself would necessarily denote Spain only
on the assumption that it cannot be taken otherwise
than in a purely geographical sense. Since Paul,
however, is the subject of the sentence, the writer can
very possibly have meant a point that was for Zi: the
westward limit of his activities, in which case there is
no longer any necessity to hold that Spain—-otherwise
so poorly attested as a field of Paul's activities—is
meant. The writer, indeed, had he been very anxìous
to make it quite clear that Rome and Rome alone was
intended, could have added ‘his’ (αὐτοῦ) to ‘limit’
(τέρμα); but it so bappens that it is good Greek
precisely to refrain from doing so. ‘The passage is as
every one sees highly rhetorical in character.

This being so it could surprise no one if the author, although
himself a Roman, with Paul's starting-point in mind, calls
Rome ‘the limit of the west,’ just as in Acts18 47 it îs called
‘the uttermost part of the earth’ (ἔσχατον τῆς yîs), and just as
in Ps. Sal. (17 14 [12]) Pompeius sends his captive Jews ‘as far
as the west' ζέως ἐπὶ δυσμῶν») or as Ignatius (44 Rem.22) is
transported ‘to west from east' (εἰς δύσιν ἀπὸ ἀνατολῆς), In:
Clem. itself ‘east and west ' (ἀνατολὴ καὶ δύσι) are used shortly
before (56) as geographical indications of the range of Paul's
activities, but from this it by no means follows that “the limit of
the west” must here be taken in an absolute sense and without
any reference to the apostle’s point of departure. In 1 Clem. 57
‘having taught righteousness unto the whole world (δικαιοσύνην.
διδάξας ὅλον τὸν κόσμον) only repeats what was expressed in the
preceding clause by ‘having preached in the east and în the
west' (κήρυξ γενόμενος ἔν τε τῇ ἀνατολῇ καὶ ἐν τῇ δύσει) and
similarìy the phrase immediately following this last ‘won che
noble renown which wasthe reward of his faith (τὸ γενναῖον τῆς.
πίστεως αὐτοῦ κλέος ἔλαβεν) gives already a hint of his martyrdom
which is more fully described in the succeeding section. Thus
it is entirely in accordance with the structure of the whole
writing if by ‘having come to the limit of the west' nothing
new is intended but only a renewed reference to the apostle's
sojourn in Rome. Another important point is that none of the
church fathers has found Spain in our present passage ; other-
wise Eusebius at least would not have left unnamed the place
where Paul was believed to have laboured between his first and
his second captivity, and the others would not bave kept
complete silence as to his liberation from the first. ,

(£) If on the other hand Spain were meant it would
in that case became almost necessary to understand by
the rulers (ἡγούμενοι) before whom Paul bore his
testimony the Spanish civil authorities. There is nota
single tradition, however, in favour of Spain as the
place of Paul's martyrdom. ‘That Rome was the place

is nowhere doubted. The rulers (ἡγούμενοι) can,

4600

SIMON PETER

according to the usage of 1 Clem. (see MINISTRY,
$ 476, middie), mean any high political authority ; but
if Rome is referred to, the emperor and his advisers will
be meant,

(4) We now come to the most important point--
which is, that the entire passage before us is designed
to set forth a parallel between Peter and Paul. ‘Thus
it becomes necessary to pay special attention to the
points in which the parallel is not carried cut. Now,

at the very outset, we notice that the sufferings of !

Paul in the service of the gospel are much more fully
particularised than those of Peter. We may be certain
that the author would have been equally detailed in
the case of Peter had this been in his power. [5 it
possible that in Rome so litile that is definite should
have been known if he had actually died there? In
the case of Peter, further, no parallel at all to Paul's

‘coming to the limit of the west' and his 'bearing
testimony before the rulers’ is ‘offered. Had it been
Spain that was in question, we should not have wondered
to find that the same things could not be said of Peter as
of Paul; but from what has been said in the foregoing
paragraphs of this section, it will be seen that ît is with
Rome that we are dealing, and in this case it naturaliy
becomes a point of great importance to notice that
what is said is said of Paul alone, Yet, even if ‘the
limit of the west* were to be taken as meaning Spain,
we should still have to reckon with the fact that the
author of the epistle was not in a position to say of
Peter that he had borne testimony ‘ before the rulers.”
Even should ‘the rulers’ denote, not the emperor and
his advisers but some other high authority, it is clear
that the author knew nothing of any 'witnessing'
(μαρτυρεῖν) of Peter before such an authority. How
willingly would he not have adduced it had any such
tradition been within his reach! For he names Peter
even before Paul. The phrase 'rulers,' however,
makes it still more clear than does ‘limit of the west,'
that as regards Paul both must be sought in Rome.
This being so, the fact that only of Paul is it said that
he was ‘a preacher in the east and in the west” (κῆρυξ
ἔν τε τῇ ἀνατολῇ καὶ ἐν τῇ δύσει) acquires a new signifi-
cance. In short, this writer was ignorant, not only of
any 'witnessing' (μαρτυρεῖν) before the authorities (in
Rome) on Peter's part, but also of any missionary
activity of his at all in the west; yet he wrote in Rome
about 93-97 A.D. (at latest, but not probably, about
120 A.D. See GALATIANS, $ 9 [but cp also OLD-
CHRISTIAN LITERATURE, 8 267).

(ἢ This conelusion, however clear in itself, is often
resisted on the ground that no other place than Rome
is ever mentioned in tradition as the scene of Peter's
martydom, and that it would be too extraordinary if
Clement, while knowing the fact of Peter's martyrdom,
should be ignorant of the place of it. But neither
objection is conclusive.

If, Jet us suppose, Peter had perished while travelling in a
distant land, at some obscure place, not as the result of ordinary
process of law, but perhaps in some gopuler tamult, and if also
such companions as he may have had perished along with him,
then information of his death could reach his fellow-Christians
only by report; and if, even at a later date, no Christian church
arose at the place where it occurred, no local tradition as to his
end had any chance of surviving. Let us only suppose, for
example, that Paul had died of the stoning at Lystra (Acts
14 19) or of that with which he was threatened at Iconium(14 s),
and either was unaccompanied or was accompanied even in
death—what should we, what could Clement—have known as
to the place of his death? Yet, indeed, there îs no need for
supposing such an extreme case as this, It is very conceivable
that Clement actually did know the place of Peter's death, and
yet did not name it because this was not required for his
purpose. In the case of Paul he does not judge it in the least
important to name the place; all he thinks worth com-
memorating is that his appearance was made before the ‘rulers'
(ἡγούμενοι), and in this way only indirectly do we learn the
locality. That of Peter's death he could pass over all the more
easily because he could take it for granted that his readers at
Corinth knew iît just as well as himself. It must not be for-

gorea that his object is not to tell them anything new, but to
1w profitable exhortation for them from known facts.

(4) It is therefore quite useless to conjecture that Peter
q60r

SIMON PETER

and Paul alone are selected out of the number of the
apostles (notwithstanding that James the son of Zebedee
might also have been mentioned: Acts 122), only
because they were specially well known in Rome.
Even if this were the reason, it still would be no proof
of Peter's having ever been in Rome: even without
this he was famous enough. What is more to the
point is that both apostles were known in Corinth-—in
a general way as well known as at Rome—and over
and above this in a special manner, because the church
there had been founded by the one, whilst the other
had been chosen by a party there as its head (1 Cor.
1τῷ 322).

(2 If Peter's death was not at Rome, then neither
was it during the Neronian persecution, which so far as
we know did not extend beyond that city. Even if it
had so extended, however, Peter could not be regarded
as one of its victims, according to the passage now
under discussion, for in the provinces the persecution
would naturally break cut later than in Rome, whilst
Peter and Paul, according to the order followed, and
the ‘ gathering’ (συνηθροίσθη) of 61, preceded the great
multitude of Nero's martyrs. 17 they died in Rome we
should have to think of this as happening immediately
on the outbreak of the persecution. This, however, as
we have seen, does not apply to Peter ; and even in the
case of Paul we have no right to assume it, although he
did die in Rome,

The prevailing opinion, that if ît was in 64 A.D., it was în
consequence of the Neronian persecution that Paui was con-
demned to death, is veryrash, The judicial procedure of Rome
was not so utterly arbitrary as would be implied were it true
that a prisoner who was kept day and night chained to a soldier
should be found guilty of fire-raising, or of incitation thereto.
The process against Paul followed its own course. That in the
general hostility to Christians it was hurried on is likely enough,
but hardly so rapidly that Paul should have preceded the great
bulk of the Neronian martyrs.

At a date subsequent also to that of 1 Ciem. we
find allusions to the martyrdom of Peter, but without

mention of the place. (αὴ It is not
ne, certain, it is true, whether ]n.1336
martyrdom b*lOngs to this category. When Jesus
with place says: ‘Whither 1 go thou canst not
unsperified, (0ll0w me now' he means his going τὸ
* heaven, as is clear from 734 821 {to
both of which passages express reference is made in
1333}; and that it is into heaven that Peter is to follow
him has its parallel in 1724. Nevertheless, it is open
to us to understand also that the manner of the enter-
ing into heaven, that is, the manner of death, is to be
the same for Peter as for Jesus. 1337 may contain an
allusion to this when Peter says “1 will lay down my
life for thee.” It would be quite in keeping were we to
understand the words of Jesus as meaning : * Thou canst
not follow me in this manner now, but later thou shalt
be able.” The question, therefore, comes to be whether
the writer already knew of the martyrdom of Peter.
On the assumption that the martyrdom is historical, it
is very probable that he did. But even if it was
legendary, the author, who wrote about 132-140 A.D.,
could very easily have heard about it. The question,
however, whether he thought of the death of Peter
as having happened in Rome, will depend for its answer
on our determination ofthe date at which this opinion
‘rose. He himself gives no indication.

(δὴ) Jn.21, the addition of a later hand (8 22c),
certainly speaks of the martyrdom ; whether at Rome
or no is a question to be decided in the same manner
asina

(c) 2 Pet.114 refers back to Jn.21:87 Nowhere
else, so far as we know, did Jesus say to Peter that
‘the putting off of his tabernacle cometh swifily,' and
în view of the late date of 2 Pet. (see $ 24 e) its author's
acquaintance with Jn.21 is very possibile, as aiso his
acquaintance with the tradition that Peter had suffered
martyrdom in Rome.

(4) In the Muratorian fragment the fassio Petri

4602

SIMON PETER

is referred to in ἃ 37, and that, according to the almost
universally accepted restoration of the text (‘semota
passione Petri evidenter declarat’), as one of the evenîs
by his silence as to which the writer of Acts makes
it clear that he has incorporated in his book only such
‘occurrences as had happened in his presence. Thus
here also the martyrdom of Peter is regarded as a known
event, and can very easily have been conceived of by
the author (who wrote between 170 and 200 A.D.} as
having happened in Rome. Only, as he says nothing
as to this, the passage before us is not any more decisive
on the question in hand, than the other three which
have been already considered.

(e) In Rev. 1820 (*rejoice over her, thou heaven, and
ye saints, and ye apostles, and ye prophets '} the apostles
seem to be thought of as in heaven, and must therefore,
according to 69-11, have been thought of as martyrs.
We may be certain, however, that not all the twelve
apostles became martyrs, not to speak of the saints and
Christian prophets of whom this would equally hold
good. The passage is thus too exaggerated to justify
us în inferring the martyrdom of Peter with certainty.

(7) In Macarius Magnes {Asocrit 322; about 400
A.D.) the heathen with whom he is in controversy says
that Peter made a disgraceful escape from prison in
Jerusalem (Acts125-19), and was afterwards crucified
after having been able to carry out the command of
Jesus, ‘feed my lambs' (Jn.21x5), for only a few
months. Harnack (7ZZ, 1902, 604) will have it that
this heathen was Porphyry, the learned opponent of the
Christians in Rome (οὐ, A.D. 304) and that what he
says regarding the few months and the death by
crucifixion has reference to Rome (in 44 the same
opponent of Macarius mentions the beheading of Paul
in Rome, and thereafter, without specifying the place,
the crucifixion of Peter) and is drawn from satisfactory
Roman tradition, Carl Schmidt (below $ 49), 167-171,
observes, however, and with justice, that in Porphyry's
time Peter's twenty-five years’ sojourn in Rome had long
been a recognised belief (so also Harnack himself; above,
8 26[7]}, and on this ground supposes that Porphyry
is drawing from the Acta Petri, according to which Peter
arrives in Rome and dies in the interval between Paul's
departure from Rome and his return; and in fact the
«divine prediction of the death of Paul in Rome (below,
$ 33 a) is the answer to the request of his followers that
he (Paul) should not absent himself from Rome for
more than a year.

All the more important in our present investigation
are those writings which are silent upon the sojourn in

sil Rome, and, so far as they were written

so Renee after 64 AD. also upon the martyrdom

sojourn (and of Peter, although some such reference

might have been expected in them. At

markyrdom). τὴς same time, this does not hold good of
all of them in an equal degree.

(a) The Epistle to the Romans excludes with the
utmost decisiveness the idea that at the time of its
composition Peter was in Rome, or even without
staying in Rome was exercising any sort of super-
vision over the church there, Had it been otherwise,
Paul would most certainly have referred to the fact.
He is at very great pains to indicate his right to labour
in Rome. We may not here refer to his arrangement
with the three ‘ pillar' apostles at the council of Jeru-
salem (Gal. 29: ‘you to the Jews, we to the Gentiles'};
for this arrangement not only was capable of various
interpretations, but had also shown itself to be un-
workable (COUNCIL, $ 9). The practice of the Judaists,
however, who forced their way into the churches founded
by Paul and sought to turn them against him, had led
him to formulate another principle by which division of
labour in the mission field might be regulated—this,
namely, that na missionary ought to invade the field
once taken possession of by another (‘not to glory in
other men's labours'; 2 Cor.10r5f). When, how-

4603

SIMON PETER

ever, he excuses and justifies his intention of visiting
Rome, notwithstanding this principle, he always does so,
1 5-15 1520-29, as towards the church, whilst if Peter had
been its head he ought to have done so in the first
instance as towards him.

©n the assumption that 1520-24, along with the whole, or
parts, of chap. 15 (and 16) comes from a later time, it has
sometimes been thought possible that here already the opinion
of Peter's bishapric of Rome is presupposed. The expressions,
however, are worded so generally that any such conjecture does
not admit of verification, even when the late date of the section
is assumed.

(3) The Epistle to the Philippians, which according
to 1x3 422 was very probably written in Rome, makes
no mention of Peter. True, Paul had not exactly any
urgent occasion to mention him in this particular epistle.
Nevertheless, one may hazard a conjecture that 115-18
would have been somewhat less sharply worded had
Peter been then at the head of the church in Rome
(the still sharper passage 32-6 does not come into
account here, as in all probability it is directed, not
against Jewish Christians as 115-18 is, but against non-
Christian Jews, and, in fact, against Jews of this class
in Philippi).

(c) If the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians
were written during the captivity in Coesarea, they do
not need to be referred to here. On the assumption of
their genuineness, however, it is equally possible that
they may have been written from Rome. In that case,
however, the apostle had no more pressing occasion, so
far as his correspondents were concerned, for mentioning
Peter {on the supposition that he also was at Rome)
than he had ἴῃ writing to the Philippians (the Epistle
to the Ephesians, if we are to maintain its genuineness,
we must necessarily regard as a circular writing). If,
on the other hand, these episties are not genuine but
really date from the period of Gnosticism between 100
and 130 (see MINISTRY, $ 254, n.}, it has to be noticed
that in Col. 410 there is a greeting from Mark who is
held to have been the interpreter of Peter, yet none
from Peter himself. We cannot, nevertheless, securely
infer from this that the Roman sojourn of Peter was
unknown to this writer.

Not only does he not say that the epistle which he îs writing
under Paul's name is meant to be taken as having been written
from Rome (the piace of composition remains obscure); the
absence of mention of Peter can also have its explanation in the
fact that the writer cared only for Paul, not for Peter, and that
he therefore introduced into his letter greetings only from such
persons as, like Mark, had been fellow-labourers with Paul
{unless, indeed, the list of greetings in 410-15 be a genuine
fragment of Paul, for the details of which we must not hold the
postrapostolic author of the whole epistle responsible).

The case of the Epistle to the Ephesians is similar.
It too says nothing regarding its place of composition.
In presence of the great interest it expresses in the unity
of the church, and especially in the complete fusion of
Jewish and Gentile Christians (122 / 43-6 21-22, etc.),
there was, in point of fact, an opportunity for allusion
to the contimon activities of Paul and Peter. But as it
avoids personal matters almost entirely, and designates
the apostles and NT prophets în general as the founda-
tion of the church and as holy (220 35), we cannot
venture on any far-reaching inferences from the absence
of any mention of Peter, and in particular must not
infer with confidence that the author knew nothing of
Peter's Roman sojourn.

{d) The second Epistle to Timothy is expressly dated
from the captivity in Rome (18 τό £ 29), and names Mark
along with other missionary companions of Paul (4 τι),
although perhaps (just as with Colossians) in a genuine
fragment of Paul. Some mention of Peter (if his
Roman sojourn was already known) would have been
appropriate alike in the case of the genuineness of the
epistle and in that of its spuriousness, but cannot be
expected with certainty even on the latter alternative—
which is certainly the one to be chosen{see MINISTRY, $54
[cp also ΤΙΜΌΤΗΥ, îi. $ 16]}—-since 2 Tim. unreservedly
declares itself to be a ‘ Pauline" writing and an instruction

4604

SIMON PETER

addressed to a disciple of the apostle, and sees the
unity of the church în its doctrine and organisation,
not in what can be said about the persons of its
founders,

(e) In Acts one of the main objects is to draw a
parallel between Peter and Paul {see AcTSs, $ 4). A
Joint activity of the two in Rome would have been the
best crown which the author could possibly have given
to this work, Indeed, even without the contempor-
aneous presence of Paul, the arrival in the metropolis
of the world of Peter, who with Paul passes as the real
originator of missions to the Gentiles (101-11 18 167-11),
must have seemed equally important with that of Paul,
which is even made the subject of repeated predictions
(192: 2811). If Peter is to be held to have come to
Rome nevertheless, this is conceivable only as having
happened afier Paul's death, which the author did not
wish to refer to for political reasons (see AcTS, $ 3 i.),
or on the supposition that the meeting of the two was a
hostile one, and therefore will have been passed over by
the author in the same silence with which he passed
over the encounter at Antioch (Gal. 21r-e1). As for
this latter supposition, however, it is surely an odd
procedure to excogitate a possibility, in order, thereby,
to support a tradition which declares precisely the
opposite of the possibility supposed —namely, a har-
monious co-operation between the two apostles. If
we disregard this attempt, we must infer that in the
author's time, that 15 to say, somewhere between 105
{r10) and 130 (see AcTs, $ 16), nothing was known of
a contemporary activity of the two apostles in Rome.
On the other hand, there remains the possibility that
Peter arrrived in Rome after the death of Paul; only,
neither is this vouched for by any tradition.

(f) The Shepherd of Hermas, which was written in
Rome about 140 A.D., makes no mention of Peter,
Nor yet, it must be added, of Paul. A book of so
apocalyptic a character is, in fact, not to be supposed to
concern itself with personal details from a past time,
It is worthy of note that the rock (and the doors) of
the tower which represents the church, are interpreted
as meaning the Son of God (Sim. ix. 121, in agreement
with 1 Cor. 104 and Jn.1079). ‘This, however, proves
only that the author was still unacquainted with Mt,
16:18—or that he has not allowed himself to be influ-
enced by it,

(£) All the more eloquent is the silence of Justin
Martyr, who wrote in Rome about 152, as to the Roman
sojourn of Peter. He has much to say regarding the
sojourn there of Simon Magus, but nothing of Peter's
polemic against him, of which we are to hear so much
by and by (8$ 33, 34. 402).

(4) Papias (2, Eus. 72 iii. 3915) reports, as one of
the communications of ‘the presbyter,' that Mark accom-
panied Peter as interpreter ; but it is very rash to assume
that in making this statement Papias had Rome in his
mind (see MARK, col. 2939, n. 1). If Papias wrote late
enough he could have heard of the presence of Peter
there ; but of this he in point of fact says nothing. In
particular, the agreement of Papias with the statement
‘about Mark which Eusebius (4 ii. 152; cp GOSPELS,
$ 808) records has to be taken merely in accordance
with the words cited in the other passage and by no
means to be extended to everything which Eusebius
introduces here with a ‘they say' {φασίν), and which, by
the connection with ii. 145, must in fact be interpreted
as referring to Rome (8 25 4). Stili more certainly wrong
would it be to extend the agreement of Papias also to
what follows in ii. 152 after the mention of his name,
where we read ‘it is said’ (gact») that Peter in his First
Epistle means Rome by ‘ Babylon.”

(2) Ignatius writes to the Romans (43): “1 do not
enjoin you, as Peter and Paul did' (οὐχ ὡς Πέτρος καὶ
ΤΙαῦλος διατάσσομαι ὑμῖν). Ifthis was ἴῃ 170-180 A.D.
(see MINISTRY, $ 53, δ- ἐ), we might suppose the phrase
quoted to rest on the assumption that Peter and Paul

4605

SIMON PETER

had personally laid their oral injunctions upon the
Roman church, since, so far as written precepts are
concerned, this could be said only of Paul, not of Peter.
When Ignatius is addressing other churches he expresses
the same thought without mention of Peter and Paul
(ad Eph.81, ad Trall.33). Nevertheless we cannot
positively affirm that the expression in the Epistle of
Ignatius to the Romans inherentiy, and thus even if
written at an earlier date, contains the presupposition
that Peter had once personally visited Rome. As what
he means to say is simply, ‘I do not address myself to
you as one having authority,' it was very natural to
mention by way of example two famous names that did
carry authority, even if they had not personally quite
equal importance for the readers.

(4) τ Pet. may here be noticed by way of appendix.
Whether it is relevant to the discussion will depend on
‘our interpretation of it, and this we are not yet able to
settle (cp $ 42). Babylon is in the Apocalypse ‘the
great city’ (Rev. 18 ro 51), ‘the mother of the harlots and
of the abominations of the earth, drunken with the blood
of the saints, ruling over the kings of the earth, sitting
upon seven hills’ (175, 18 9)—in other words, Rome.
It is certain, however, that no such mysterious name
could have been bestowed upon the world-metropolis
before the beginning of the Neronian persecution, and
we may conjecture that it first owed its currency among
Christians to the Apocalypse itself, Should 1 Pet., there-
fore, have been written before, or at the beginning of, the
Neronian persecution, we may conclude either that the
writer could not possibly have intended Rome by Babylon
or at least that in referring to ît by this name he could
not count upon being understood.' This he could do, if
he wrote at a later date. But this possibility by no means
excludes the other, that he may have meant the literal
Babylon on the Euphrates.

Thac this city was at that date wholly uni
a too literal understanding of Pausanias (viti, 88 3 [cp i. 163)):
οὐδέν τὶ ἦν ei μὴ τεῖχος, ‘nothing is left but the walls') and
Pliny (22 vi. 26 [80] 122): ‘ad solitudinem rediit.’ Cp Lucian,
Charon, 23: “Yonder îs Babylon, the city with the noble
towers, the city of vast compass; but soon it too, like Nineveh,
will be sought for în vain.”. According to Strabo (xvi.15, p.
738 or 1073) the city was only ‘desert for the most part’
{ἔρημος ἡ πολλή) ; according to Diodorus (ii. 99) a small portion
was inhabited. To understand rightly what is meant one must
bear in mind the enormous compass (360-385 stadia, some 40 m.}
of the city according to Diodorus (ii. 73) and Strabo (/.c.).
Under Claudius the hatred of the Babylonians compelled che
Jews in Babylon to take refuge in Seleucia ; but there also their
arrival stirred up fresh hatred and they were put to death to the
number of more than so,o0o (Jos. Ax. xii. 98, $$ 371-376).

Before entering upon the difficult field of the apocryphal
literature it will be convenient to sum up the results of
31. Provisional 05. Preceding discussions of passages

conclusione, !" the NT and the fathers, .

(a) A twenty-five years' sojourn of
Peter in Rome is out of the question. ‘Romans and Acts
are decisive against it ($ 30 @, 6). Further, the manner
in which Peter's presence in Jerusalem as a resident is
taken for granted in Acts 15 and Gal. 21-10 in connection
with the Council of Jerusalem, as also in Gal. 21x-er in
connection with his subsequent visit to Antioch, cannot
be satisfactorily explained by the favourite theory of pro-
longed interruptions of his Roman sojourn.

(3) As Rom., Acts (and Phil.) show (8 30 2, ὁ, e), Peter
had never been at Rome at all at any date before or during
Paul's sojourn there.

(e) Peter's bishopric in Rome ($ 26, 4) is excluded
by the fact that throughout the first century and indeed
even down to the time of Hermas (about 140 A.D.), and
particularly in Rome, no such thing as monarchical
episcopacy existed at all (see MINISTRY, 88 46 δ, 47}, as
also by this, that according to Gal, 29 Peter's wish was
to associate only with Jews and Jewish Christians, and
according to vv. 11-21 he was not in a position to take
any tenable place in a mixed community. As bishop
of the mixed community in Rome he would have been
exposed to the same difficulties as in Antioch, and would

4606

ibited rests upon

SIMON PETER

soon have made himself as impossible in the one place
as in the other.

(4) The theory also, that along with the other original
apostles Peter remained for twelve years in Jerusalem
and thereafter set out on missionary journeys is false,
not only because it leads chronologically to a displace-
ment of the Neronian persecution (bringing it down to
67 A.D.; see 8 26e)—an error which would admit of
rectification by a curtailment of the twenty-five Roman
years—but also because it presupposes that the original
apostles, contrary to Gal. 29, had carried on missions to
the επί εξ, The twelve years, however, are themselves
‘open to suspicion, not merely because twelve is a sacred
number, but also because it could be easily arrived at
by computation from Acts 123 17-24. Herod Agrippa 1.
died in 44 A.D. ; shortly before, after his liberation from
prison, Peter left Jerusalem. Thus it was possible to
arrive at a sojourn of twelve years in Jerusalem for Peter
in the first instance, and then, schematically, to extend
the same determination of time to all the rest of the
original apostles.

(e) Of all the spheres of activity assigned by tradition
to Peter outside of Palestine, the only one that deserves
serious consideration along with Rome is Babylonia
($ 24). In virtue of its large Jewish population Baby-
lonia was very well suited to be a mission field for the
apostle, and in a certain view of the passage is also pre-
supposed to have been so in 1 Pet. 513 ($$ 30 ὦ, 42, 43).

(7) Clement of Rome, incomparably the most im-
portant witness (8. 28). is decisively against a Roman
sojourn of Peter. All that can be deduced from him is
not indeed as anything certainly attested but yet as some-
thing which need not be gainsaid—only Peter's martry-
dom, but outside of Rome and away from the western
world altogether. Nor are we carried any further by
the notices of his martyrdom enumerated in $ 29 where
no place is specified.

(4) 1f Peter suffered martyrdom it by no means follows
from this mere fact, as Harnack represents the matter
(ACL ii. 1710), that the martyrdom was in Rome.

We cannot even assent to Harnack's first sentence as certain,
‘if the fact of the martyrdom was at that time notorious, the

ace of it was also known ' (see $ 28 7); and his second sentence,

but never has any other church than the Roman laid claim to
the martyrdom of Peter,’ loses its demonstrative force as soon
as the event is for a moment supposed to have happened at a
place where, during, say, the next hundred years, no Christian
church existed. ‘The assumption is often made that for the
martyrdom of any apostle a Christian persecution, or at least
some formal process against the individual martyr, was requisite.
Surely it would be well to remember 2 Cor. 11 25/5, ‘once I was
stoned . . . in perils from my countrymen, in perils from the
Gentiles.’ Ata place where an apostle had died in chis manner
memory of the occurrence would naturaliy be less vivid and
tenacious than it would be in a place where there was a
Christian church, and could easily drop into the background
and finally fall into complete oblivion when the opinion became
widely diffused that Peter had died in Rome. See, further,
under (2), and $ 408,

{4) Justin (about 152 A.D.) knows nothing of the
Roman sojourn of Peier ($ 30g). This circumstance
ought also to induce caution în finding a testimony for
such a sojourn in Clement of Rome.

{#) Of the authors dealt with up to this point Dio-
nysius of Corinth (about 170 A.D.} is the first to assert
2 Roman sojourn. Only, he does it in connection with
so much matter that is fabulous that his ‘distinct state-
ment’ (so Harnack, 710) must thereby be held to lose
alì credibility ($ 254) The other statement, in all
respects parallel to the assertion of Dionysius, that Peter
founded the church of Antioch ($ 244), is characterised
by Harnack himself (705 £} as “a gross falsification of
history.’

(4) The list of Roman bishops seems to have the
advantage over Dionysius that it rests on local tradition.
Yet we have no certainty that it bore the names of Peter
‘and Paul at its head before the time of Irenaeus (8 25 c).

(ἢ Ne value can be attached to the statements of
Gaius as to the places of death of Peter and Paul (8 26 δ)
because in his time, or even ten years before his time,

4607

SIMON PETER

the second stage of the Roman Peter-tradition, the
‘tendency legend’ of the twenty-five years' duration of
his sojourn, had already, according to Harnack, ‘ become
official’ (8 26 e, 7).

(1) It is not of Peter alone, but almost without ex-
ception, of Peter and Paul together, that the exponents
of the above tradition affirm a sojourn (eventually even,
in fact, an arrival together) and a martyrdom in Rome
(8 25/.). If Clement of Alexandria mentions only Peter,
there is a special reason for this ($ 25 d), and also în
Origen (8. 26) we have no reason to doubt that he
thought of Peter as having died at Rome under Nero just
as he expressly asserts that Paul did. If one decide
in favour of Rome as the place of Peter's death (but see
above, 2.4}, there is no longer any direct possibility of
disproving that this event was practically contempor-
aneous with the death of Paul. This circumstance,
however, is of no significance ; for the presence together
of Peter and Paul in Rome during the period described
în Acts (and Philippians; see $ 302, δ) is practically
excluded, and thus can continue to be affirmed only
when. the hypothesis of a second captivity of Paul is
called in—-a hypothesis which is quite unhistorical ($ 28
€, f). See further, under 2, and $ 418.

{r) Our decision must therefore decidedly be that
Peter never was in Rome at all.

We read in Harnack (309,f), ‘it is here presupposed [that is
to say, throughout the whole of ACZ], and never once has it
been sought to prove that Peter really did come to Rome and
suffered martyrdom there. This fact; so far as 1 am aware, is
not disputed save by those who give credence to ἃ certain
ancient Simon-romance, and in accordance with this affirm that
Peter was brought to Rome by ‘tendency-legend’ in order to
controvert, in the pirlo metropolis also, Simon-Paul who had
taken his journey thither' (see below, $ 404,4). This assertion
must now so far, at any rate, be qualified by the fact that at
teast one profane historian of repute, namely, Soltau (below, δ),
has come forward in support of the condemned thesis. Also,
the preceding discussion shows thus much at least, that our
conclusion has been arrived at without any resort at all to the
Simon-romance.

It rests essentially upon a particular view of 1 Clem.
and Ignatius ($$ 28, 30 7) whom Harnack himself calls
‘two very strong, though not absolutely secure, supports
of the martyrdom, or of the sojourn of Peter in Rome,”
upon a distrust of the ‘testimony’ of Dionysius of Corinth
and his companions which was formerly shared (see
above, $ 28 e) by Harnack himself, and upon a due re-
gard to Justin’s evidence, upon which Harnack is quite
silent. Just as, according ta Harnack, the ‘ tendency-
legend' of Peter's twenty-five years’ sojourn in Rome
became official between 189 and 217 A.D., so also in
our view the fable of the simultaneous presence of Peter
and Paul in Rome and the martyrdom of Peter there
became official between 182 and 170 AD.

(0) A point upon which the foregoing discussions have
shed but little light is the question as to how this result
came about, and as to whether this fable also deserves
the name of tendency-legend. Soltau, who uses the
above sources only, points out (pp. 26. 41=494 f 509 ;
below, $ 49) how strong was the effort on the part of
individual churches to be in a position to claim an apostle
as their founder (see JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, $ 6).

Now, the Jewish Christians în Rome, in theîr lively struggle
against the Paulinists there, had chosen Peter after his death as
their spiritual head, and thus the belief was nourished that he
had really once been in Rome at least as a martyr. According
to the theory of Acts (814-17), upheld also by Harnack, he
thereby came at the same time to appear to be the founder of
that church. Towards this belief another element, Soltau
thinks, may have co-operated, namely, that Mark the interpreter
of Peter lived subsequently in Rome, and thus through him the
Romans possessed the pure doctrine of Peter. Mark, however,
figures in Rome in tradition only in his quality of interpreter of
Peter. ‘The historian who, like Soltau, denies a sojourn in
Rome to Peter cannot maintain it for Mark. That the use of
Acts814-17 in this connection is illegirimate has been already
argued above ($ 23 a).

Soltau's other conjectures of a special kind have
also but little probability, and in the interests of his
point of view it would perhaps be better to rest
satisfied with the general contention that churches were

4608

SIMON PETER

eager to have apostles as their founders, and in the case
of Rome, the world-metropolis, there was a special
reason for wishing to be able to claim the two most
prominent names of alì, especially as these represented
the two main currents of doctrine and practice within
the church (see MinIsTRY, 8 36). To this Erbes (Z. αὶ
Kirchengesch.22 [1901] 215-224) adds, besides fuller
elaborations of this fundamental thought, the easy mis-
understanding of 1 Clem. 5 and of ‘Babylon’ in 1 Pet.
513 (see 88 28, 304; but also $$ 39 e, 44 a). In fact even
in the absence of still more special reasons for the rise of
the fable of the Roman sojourn and martyrdom of Peter
it would be necessary to maintain its fabulous character ;
for, rightly understood, all the witnesses testify with
overpowering weight against it. The apocryphal litera-
ture, however, regarding Peter, with which we have not
yet dealt, will yield perhaps more light.

(2} The points on which further light would be specially
welcome are these: Did the belief in Peter's Roman
sojourn and martyrdom exist earlier than 170? Did it
exist, outside of Rome, even before Justin? In fine,
did it exist so early that it can already lie at the founda-
tion of 1Pet.513? Is it possible to account for its
origin in spite of its erronecusness more completely than
has up to this point been done; and, particularly, to
explain also why hitherto we have met with Peter in
Rome almost always only in association with Paul, and
why his martyrdom is reported from no other locality
than Rome (see above, #7, g}?

Of the apocryphal writings relating to Peter the first

82. The to be considered are those which admit

di of being grouped under the general
Apocryphal designation of Acta Petri, in other
Po vola words, as accounts of the missionary
lite activities of Peter and of the close of
M@IAIY: his life. Of these, three groups are to
be distinguished.

(α) The first group is pronounced Gnostic by Lipsius
(ii. 184-284, and particularly 258-270), and Zahn {GescA.
d. NTlichen Kanons, 2 832-835 [1892]), but Catholic by
Harnack (401 ii. 1549-560), Erbes (Z. f Airchen-
gesch., 1901, 22 163-171), and Cari Schmidt (below,
$ 49), rir-151. That they are wholly Catholic,
however, the three last-named scholars are unable
to affirm. As the settlement of the question is not
indispensable for our present purpose, let us call
them—to choose a neutral designation—the pre-
Catholic Acta Petri. The employment of this designa-
tion must not be taken as meaning that the Acts in
question are actually of earlier date than the Catholic
ones—a question which in point of fact is doubtiul (see
83 35-37, 394)—but only that their standpoint is less in
correspondence with the Catholic than that of the
Catholic Acta Petri et Pauli. Another widely spread,
though not completely prevalent, name for them is
Περίοδοι Πέτρου. A characteristic story from them—
that of a talking dog ($ 33 4)—is known to Commodian
(about 250 A.D.i Carm. Apol. 617-620 [623-626]).
The date is assigned concurrently by Lipsius (275) and
Zaùn (841) to 160-170 A.D., whilst Erbes gives ît as
190, Carl Schmidt (pp. 99-109) as 200-210, £.e., shortly
before the PZi/osophumena (above, $ 26d), and Harnack
places it as late as the middle of the third century.! At
the same time, it has to be noted that, in assigning
the date he does, Lipsius means only that of the
origin of the writing that lies at the foundation of our
Acta Petri, the date of their present form being in his

1 Apart from other indications, Hamnack relies upon the
argument that the end of Simon Magus is told în a different
way in the P4ilosoghumena (ὃ 20; about 233 A.D.) from that in
which it is told in the Acta Petri (he caused himself to be buried
by his disciples, promising that he would rise again on the third
day; but be did not rise after all; cp belom. & 344, Simon
Macus, $5[/]). All 1hat this proves, however, is that the
author is following another tradition, not that the Acta Petri
were not yet in existence. The author of the Philosofhumena
asa zealous confuter of heretics had even strong reason for mis-
trusting the information of the Acta.

4609

SIMON PETER

@pinion later: for example the Acts of the so-called
Pseudo-Linus (see below, no. 7) he places (172 f:}
between 400 and 450 A.D. Zahn (833) as against this
disputes the contention that the Acta at an earlier date
had a different form from their present, and Harnack
holds that there is no reason at all for assuming a
Gnostic basis for them; it is merely an abstract possi-
bility (559). Now, Eusebius (2 iii, 32} includes the
Acts of Peter (Πράξεις Πέτρου) among those writings
which were never handed down in Catholic circles, and
with this agrees his general survey of the NT literature
in ili. 254 6, according to which the Acts of Paul (Πράξεις
Παύλου) belong to the Antilegomena, in other words to
his middle class (so also iii. 35), whilst on the other
hand the ‘Acts of Andrew and John and the other
apostles' (Πράξεις ᾿Ανδρέου καὶ 'Iwdrrov καὶ τῶν ἄλλων
ἀποστόλων) --ἰποΞ6 of Peter thus included—belong to
his last class, that of books written by heretics in the
name of apostles, and never cited by any Catholic
writer, but ‘altogether strange and impious’ (ἄτοπα
πάντη καὶ δυσσεβῆ). In accordance with this is the
very close relationship, if not identity of authorship
which Lipsius (265 Δ, 272} and Zahn (860 £), again
in agreement, find between our Acta and the Gnostic
Acts {Πράξει5), or Circuits (Ilepfodo:) of John and other
apostles, attributed to Leucius (Charinus). James
(Apocr. Anecd, 2 pp. xxiv-xxviii ; in Texts and Studies,
5, 1897) positively affirms the identity of the author
of the Leucian Acta Johannis with the author of the
Acta Petri, whilst Carl Schmidt, 90-99, explains the
agreement from use of the Acta Johannis by the author
of the Acta Petri. Franko (ΖΛ ΤῊ, 1902, 315-335)
seeks to support the Gnostic character of the original
form of the Acta Petri by means of a pronouncedly
Gnostic fragment which he translates from the Ecclesi-
astical Slavonic. Thus for every one who does not hold
the present form of the Acta Petri to be Gnostic, there is
very urgent occasion for finding, if possible, a Gnostic
primary form of it. 80 far as our present purpose is
concerned, however, we may dispense with further
detailed inquiry as to this point.

The principal writings in which those pre-Catholic Acta Petri
have been preserved for us are as follows : (1) Actus Petri cum
Simone, from Paul's departure from Rome for Spain, and the
arrival of Peter in Rome, until the death of Peter; in
Latin, in a MS at Vercelli, therefore known also as Actus Petri
Vercellenses. (2) The conclusion of these Acta, namely the end
of Peter's contention with Simon, and the entire martyrdom of
Peter, exists in Greek in a Codex at Mount Athos. (3) The
martyrdom alone, also in Greek, is found in a Codex at Patmos,
To the same family belong further (4) an Ecclesiastical
Slavonic, (5) a Coptic, and (6) an Ethiopic translation. ΑἹ six
have been edited (or collated) in Acta Ayost. βοῦν, 1,2) ed.
Lipsius (and Bonnet), 1891, 45-103; no. 3 for the first time in
JET, 1886, pp. 86-106 175 Of the other family, which, apart
from its divergences, is distinguished by its more copious style
of natration. ne porsess Ὁ) the martyrdom of Peter which is
ascribed to Linus the first bishop of Rome (see above, $ 25.0) (in
Acta Apost. Apocr. 1-22). Lastly there is—closely related as
regards details of rhe text—(8) Ile Passio Apostolorum Petri
et Pauli which is incorporated with the Latin recension of
Josephus' /ewisk War, dating from 367-375 (or about 395?) A.D.,
‘and which also includes certain everits before the martyrdom of
Peter.l As for the contents, everything of a non-Catholic nature
hes Been so carefully removed that Me text belongs rather to
the next following class. ‘The mutual-dependence of the texts
just mentioned has been determined by Zahn (834-839, 845,
n. 2), followed by Harnack, otherwise than it is by Lipsius
(109-173, 194-200); this, however, may be left out of account in
Our present investigation.

(3) The Catholic Acta (see Lipsius, 284-366) are, as
already seen in Pseudo-Hegesippus {see above, « [8]),
not Acts of Peter only, but Acts of Peter and Paul.
Both contend conjointly with Simon Magus in Rome
and there suffer martyrdom.

(3) The Latin form, in which this writing is wrongly attributed
to a certain Marcellos who is named ἀπ it, dates from the

sixth century (Lips. i. 169). It begins: ‘Cum venisset Paulus
Romam.' The parallel 15 (2) the Greek text in a codex of the

1 This Latin recension is entitled ‘ Hegesippus [a distortion
of Josephus]de excidio Hierosolym.' edd. Weberet Cesar, 1864.
The section forms bk. ili., chap. 2, and is to he found also ina
Marburg Universitatsprogramm (Goth Aug. 1860; cp Lipsius,
194-200; Schirer, G/V 1173 £).

4610

SIMON PETER

library of St. Mark in Venice, beginning: ἐλθόντος εἰς τὴν
Ῥώμην τοῦ ἁγίου ΤΙαύλον. Both are met with injuxtaposition in
Acta Apost. Afocr. 1 x18-177. Ibid. 178-222 is found (3) a
longer Greek text in which, in particular, at the beginning
eccurs a description of Paul's journey through Italy, beginning :
ἐγένετο μετὰ τὸ ἐξελθεῖν τὸν ἅγιον Παῦλον ἀπὸ Παυδομελέτης
(this name is obtained by combination of Καῦδα or Κλαῦδα and
Μελίτη, Acts 27 16 28 1), No. 2 exhibits, according to Lipsius
(884-296), the relatively original form, which, however, is not older
than about 450 A.D. (310-313). On the other hand he supposes
that there had been a Catholic original form of this account pf
Peter and Paul, which arose soon after the middle of the second
century, and thus approximately at the same time with the pre-
Catholic Acta Petri, and may have been known, of the Fathers
cited in $ 26, to at least Tertuilian, Origen, and Eusebius (pp. 331-
358). Erbes (Z. αὶ Airchengesch. 22, 1901, 174-182) tries even
to make it out to be older than the pre-Catholic Acta Petri
which he assigns to about 190 AD, and would fain find traces of
its employment as early as in the Preedicatio Pauli in Pseudo-
Cyprian (above, $ 25), whilst according to Lipsius (325-327,
337-339) it has only in isolated points preserved traditions of
older date than the pre-Catholic Acta Petri.

(€) The third main group is made up of the following
three compilations.

(0 A Latin Passio Petri et Pauli in a MS of the Laurentian
Library at Florence, relating to the conflicts with Simon, and
the martyrdom of the two apostles, beginning with the words ‘in
diebus illis, cum introissent Romam beatus Petruset Paulus"; in
Acta Apost. Apocr. 1 223-234 (2) a ‘ Passion of the holy and
chief apostles Peter and Paul, which forms a special section of
the Ecclesiastical Slavonic translation mentioned above (under
44); (3) the ‘Virtutes Petri” and the ‘ Virtutes Pauli” în the collec-
tion of apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, wrongly attributed to
the alleged disciple of the apostles Abdias and entitled ‘Historia
certaminis apostolici,’ or ‘Historia apostolica,’ bks. 1 and 2,
printed, e.g., in Fabricius, Codex afocryAhus NT,2, begin. Al
these pieces are, according to Lipsius (356-390), too recent to be
ofimportance for our present investigation.

Of the abundant contents of this literature only the
most important points can here be noted,

(&) According to the pre-Catholic Acta Petri, Paul journeys
at the divine command from Rome into Spain, afterit as been

roclaime a voice from heaven that
33. Contenta of ἧς will ahervards be put to death in
pre-Catholic Rome by Nero (ch. 1). After some days
Acta Petri, it becomes known in Rome that a wonder-
"worker named Simon, who calls himself
the great power of God (rragname vivtuem dei) is at Aricia.
On the following evening he appears before the gate of Rome,
over which he has promised to fly, disappears and then appears
once more on the other side of the gate. Short]y after, he gains
so great repute that even almost alì che Christians go over to
him (4)
(ὦ

imultaneonsly God lays his command on Peter, on the
expity of the twelve years during which he had been ordered to
stay în Jerusalem after the death of Jesus (above, 56 266, 314),
to Jonrney to Rome by way of Cesarea in order to contend with
Simon (5). Here Peter, who has been eagerly awaited by those
who have remained faithful, and is joyfully welcomed, goes to
the house of Marcellus a former disciple of Paul and present
follower of Simon, and by means of a dog that speaks with
human voice, causes Simon to be summoned forth ($ 322).
Marcellus comes cut and acknowledges his sin, that he has
been devoted to Simon and has even set up to him a statue
with the inscription, ‘Simoni juveni deo' (9) The dog,
which Simon within the house has asked to deny his
presence, foretells to Simon the inimticus δέ corruttor vie
veritatis the impending curse, but outside the house promises
Peter a hard struggle with Simon, and dies (12) Challenged
to a further miracle, Peter takes from a window a ‘sarda’
(pickled sardine), throws it into a pooì and makes it swim
ἔλα δ; something very similar is related of Jesus when he was
three years of age in the Latin Gospel of Thomas [14; see
Evange. apocr. ed. Tischendorf,() 164/41).

(€) Peter tells that while he was still'in Jerusalem, Simon bad
stayed with a rich woman in Judxa, named Eubola, and by
means of two of his companions whom he had made invisible,
had robbed her of all her gold, and soon afterwards had offered.
a portion of it, a golden Satytiscus, to a goldsmith named
Agrippinus, for sale. Peter, warned beforehand in a vision,
had them arrested; Simon thereupon disappeared altogether
from Judzza (17).

(4) A disputation between Simon and Peter in the presence
of senators, officers of state, and the whole people, is arranged
for in the forum. Peter begins to the effect that Simon is con-
demned (refrekensun: cp Simon Magus, $ 4a). Hereproaches
him with concealing the fact that for his theft from Eubola
(above, c) he has been driven from Judaa. ‘Didst thou not'
he continues, ‘in Jerusalem (sic) fall'at my feet and at those of
Paul (s57c) when thou beheldest the healings wrought by us, and
say: I beseech you accept from me a price, as much as you will,
that I may be able to lay on my hands and do like deeds of
power’ (virtutes: cp Simon Magus, $ 10). Simon makes
answer by disputing the divinity of Jesus inasmuch as one who
is born and crucified, and has a Lord, cannot be God (23).

(€) Peter now again challenges Simon to work a miracle,
saying that he himself will then counterwork it (24). The

461τι

SIMON PETER

profeot Agrippa causes one of his people to come forward and
ids Simon put him to death, but Peter to bring him to life
again. Simon whispers into the car of the vonth, who there-

n dies. Peter bids Agrippa take the hand of the dead man
who again returns to life (25,£). Peter also raises from the dead
the son of a widow (25, 27), but when requested by the mother
of the dead Senator Nicostratus to do the like for her son,
suggests that this should be undertaken by Simon. Simon
accordingiy bends over the dead man's head and shows the
people how he raises himself up, lifts his head and moves, and
opens his eyes, Peter further demands, however, that Simon
shali cause him to speak and walk. After Simon has been driven
away from the corpse hy the prefect, it lies lifeless as before.
Peter brings Nicostratus back to life after having begged the
people not to burn Simon as they were proposing to do (28).

(7) After some days Simon promises to fly to God in presence
of alî the people, Next day he actually does fiy aloft above all
the temples and hills of the city. Peter prays to Christ to make
him fall, but allow only one leg to be Isrokcen, And this is what
actually happens. Simon dies of his injury at Terracina (32).

(€) Induced by Peter's preaching, the four concubines of the

refect Agrippa—namely Agrippina, Nicaria (Linus: Eucharia),
Euphemia, Doris (Linus : Dionis)}— break off their relations with
him (33=Linus 2, where, however, Peter has previously been
thrown into prison by Nero, because the time of his heavenly
reward ὅταν, nigl) fn like manner Xantippe the wife of
Albinus, a friend of the emperor, withdraws from the society of
her husband. The two men accordingly resolve upon the ruin
of Peter (34= Linus 3). Xantippe causes him to be informed of
this, and Peter agrees to flee. Outside the city gate Jesus
meets him. Peter asks: Domine, quo vadis? Jesus answer
Romam vento iterum crucifigi. Peter changes his mind and
joyfully turns back (35= Linus 3-6). Agrippa sentences him to

e crucified (36= Linus 8), Arrived at the cross, Peter begs to
be fastened to it with his head downwards, and, his request
having been carried out, expounds at some length the mystery
of the cross, especially that of crucifixion with head downward
(7 /=Linus 12), and dies. Marcellus carries off the body and
buries ît in his own (Marcellus’s) tomb (40= Linus 16).

(4) Nero is wroth with Agrippa for acting on his own respon»
sibility, he himself having riedirated still worse things for Peter
(according to Linus, on account of the loss of his friend Simon),
and for a time refuses to speak to him (according to Linus,
Agrippa loses his office and dies under the torments of the
divine judgment). Nero’s rage flames forth against the
Christians who remain; whereupon there appears to him în
the night an angel who severely chastises him (according to
Linus, at the instance of Peter who likewise appears to him)
so that he ceases from his persecution of the Christians (4r
Linus 17).

In the case of the Catholic Acta Petri et Pauli we
shall pass over, along with many other things, the
additions of the longer Greek text.! ΟΥ̓ the common
points the most important are the following.

(ἃ) When Paul comes to Rome (from Spain, according to the
shoiter Greek text ; from Gaudomelete, according to the longer;

‘see $ 325) the Jews beg him to vindicate his
84. Contents -ncesiral faith and to controvert Peter, who

of Catholic ἐδ done away with the whole Mosaic law
Acta, Petri (ch. 1). Paul declares himself a true Jew
et Pauli, ‘ho holds by the Sabbath and the true

circumcision (below, $ 396), and promises to
bring Peter's doctrine to the test (2). The two have a joyfol
meeting (3). Next day Paul reconciles the Jewish and Gentile
Christians, who have been disputing about the pre-eminence în
the Kingdom of God, by pointing to the promise to Abraham
which applies to both (5-7). To the same effect Peter preaches
(B.£), and with great results, so that the Jewish rulers of the
synagogue and the pagan priesthood stir ip the people against
them and seek to bring Simon the magician into honour.

(ὦ In consequence of the preaching of Peter, Livia (Octavia
perhaps is meant) the wife of Nero, and Agrippina the wife of
the prefect Agrippa (în $ 33 [4] she is his concubine) withdraw
themselves from the society of their husbands (10).

(© Simon performs feats of witchcraft, also before Nero {he
flies, for example, through the air); Peter works miracles of
healing, casting out of devils and raising of the dead (31-15).
Nero causes both, along with Paul, to be brought before him,
and hears them. As Peter appeals (16-18) to the written report
of Pilate to the emperor Claudius (sic), Nero causes it to be
read aloud (9.07). Peter asks that Simon shall read his
thoughts, but chis Simon is unable to do (22-27), complaining also
that Peter had already treated him thus in [πάσα and alt
Palestine and Carsarea (28), Simon reminds tHe emperor that
he (Simon) had caused himself to be beheaded and had risen
from the dead, thus proving himself to be Son of God. The
fact, however, was that în the dark place where the beheading
happened he brought it about that a ram was beheaded în his
stead (31 4).

(d) At two separate points in these proceedings Nero asks
Paul why he is saying nothing. On the first of these occasions
Paul simply wars the Emperor against Simon (29); on the

1 The account, wich which it begins, of Paul's journey through
Italy ($ 328 3), extends over twenty-one chapters. Therefore the
numbering of the chapters of this text will always be higher by
twenty-one than that given in our citations here.

46τα

SIMON PETER

second, în answer to Nero's express question, he gives informa. |
tion as to his doctrine which consists in inculcation of all the
virtues and of monotheism (33-38). Peter confirms all this (39)
and Paul again in turn confirms rhe words of Peter (41).

(6) Simon continually brings forward new charges, amongst
others the charge that Peter and Paul are circumcised (40-42).
Peter propounds the counter-question, why then is Simon also
circumcised, and himself answers it to the effect that he had to
deceive the people in order to succeed with them and that he had
to give himself out to be a Jew (42). Simon declares that he
was cireumcised because such was at that time God's command
(44). Paul asks why, if, according to this, circumcision is a good
thing, Simon has given over circumcised persons τὸ juagment
and to death (45). When Peter describes the Christian doctrine
as being faith in God the Father in Christ along with the Holy
Ghost, and the creator of all things, Simon declares that he
himself is this God (48).

() Simon pledges himself on the following day to fly into
heaven (49 £ and also 30). At Simon's wish Nero for this
purpose Causes a wooden tower to De erected on the Campus
Martius and on the following day the whole people and all the
official persons, with Peter and Paul, come together (51). Paul
says to Peter that his own task is to pray but that Peter is to
carry out all that is needful since he has been first chosen by
the Lord to be an apostle (52). Simon promises, when he shail
have flown into heaven, to cause Nero also to be carried thither
by his angels, and begins to fly (s3/). Paul says to Peter:
Why delayest thou? Do that which thou hast in mind (55).
Peter adjures the angels of Satan who are bearing up Simon, to
let him fall. Simon falls upon the Via Sacra and breaks into
four pieces (56; the Latin and the longer Greek text add that
thereby [by his blood, is doubtless meant] he joined together
four flînt stones which can still be seen to the present day in
proof of the triumph of the apostles).

(£) Nero causes Peter and Paul to be put în irons, and
Simon's body in the expectation of his rising again to be
carefully attended to for three days (57). He orders Peter and
Paul to be chastised with iron rods and then to be put to death
in the ‘naumachia’ (or circus, in which also naval displays were
given), but finds the advice of the prefect Agrippa very reason
able, that Peter as the author of the death of Simon ought to
be crucified, but Paul as comparatively innocent to be beheaded.
In Paul's case this sentence is carried out on the road to Ostia
(58); Peter at his own request is crucified head downwards
(δο). From his cross he reproves the people, who are wishing
to kill Nero and relates how a few days before, in his flight
from the devices of Agrippa, he himxelf had been met by Jesus,
who had said he wished το bs crucified in place of Peter (61).
Peter then dies (62).

(4) Forthwith come on the scene prominent men who had
jouraeyed from Jerusalem on the apostles' account ; these along
‘with Marcellus, che former follower of Simon, bury the body of
Peter under the terebinth hard by the Naumachia on the
Vatican (63), These Jerusalemites foretold the soon approach-
ing death of Nero. ‘In point of fact, in consequence of a
popular tumult, Nero had to fly into the wilderness, where he
died of hunger and cold; his body was devoured by wild
beasts (6475).

({) Certain pious men from the East sought to carry off the
relics of the martyrs: with the result that an carthquake
immediately ensued în Rome, and the inhabitants attacked the
Orientals, who at once took flight. ‘The Romans deposited the
relics 3 R. m. outside the city (the Latin and longer Greek texts
add: at a piace named Catacumbas on the Appian Way) and
watched over them for one year and seven months; at the expiry
of which time they brought them to the final resting-place which
had meanwhile been in preparation (66. The death-day of
both apostles was June 29 (67).

Many points in these interesting compositions invite
inquiry ; but we must here confine ourselves to the one
fundamental question, that, namely,
as to the relative priority of the pre-
caio the | Catholic and the Catholic Acts. If we

ἌΠΟ AelS. re to settle the point as to whether
Peter ever was in Rome, it is of the utmost importance
to know which of the two assertions, that he was there
along with Paul, and that he was not, was the original
one. {a) Now here it would be quite useless to
put the question as if it were whether the priority
belongs altogether to the pre-Catholie Acts or altogether
to the Catholic. In a literature which exhibits so little
inward unity almost every indication of posteriority
admits of being regarded as a later interpolation, and
so can be deprived of its evidential value.

In the pre-Catholic Acts Agrippa and Marcellus are two
leading figures, in the Catholic their appearance is quite
incidental; at the same time, however, in the Catholic Acts
the machinations of Agrippa against Peter, an the fact of the
earlier attachment of Marcellus to Simon are mentioned,
although it is only in the pre-Catholic Acts that they are really
described (88 34 ὁ, σ᾿ 4, 33 6). Peter's flight and his meeting with
Jesus are în the Catholic Acts introduced in an awkward way

35. Conclusion

85 told by Peter himself while on the cross ; in the pre-Catholic

4613

SIMON PETER

Acts they are related by the author himself in their proper
place. But al! these and similar unevennesses in the Catholic
Acts can be traced back to later interpolation.

(3) One such interpolation is plainly seen in the
episode of the men who come from Jerusalem 'on
the apostles' accowtnt* and bury Peter ($ 344, è).

According to the representation as it stands at present, the
pious men from the East who wish to carry off the relics appear
to be distinct from these. Piety, it must be said, shows itself
much less in robbing than în burying ; but on the other hand the
coming from the East suggests much less the motive of burial
than chat of plunder. If this be so, not two classes of persons
from the East were intended, but only one, and the story is an
indication that the body of Peter had not originally its resting-
place in Rome but in the East. lt is only from the Roman
point of view that the proposed removal is thought of as a
robbery ; in reality it is a verled reminiscence ofthe fact that the
apostle died in the East. Butas the whole story is an appendix
merely, and moreover has been distorted by redactions, it is
impossible to build anything on it. It would seem to be meant
to explain either why for a while it was impossible to show any
burial: place of Peter in Rome or why it was shown not at the
spot where he died but outside the city in the piece of ground
ad Catacumbas (see further, Erbes, Z./. X.-G.22 [1901], 196-200).

{c) The difference between Peter and Paul in the
manner of their death and in the place of it (also
according to Gaius, see $ 268) is noticeable, especially
as for the beheading of Paul his Roman citizenship
which could have been adduced, is not. After Nero
has ordered (κελεύω) the same manner of death for the
two apostles, the opposite advice of Agrippa and its
success cannot but seem strange. It seems intended to
explain the fact that two separate places of death of the
apostles were known, This fact raises doubts as to the
simultaneity of their deaths and thus tells against the
priority of the contents of the Catholic as compared
with the pre-Catholic Acts. Against the priority of the
whole book it cannot, however, have this effect, as this
feature can easily have been introduced later,

(4) Let us therefore fix our attention in the first
instance upon one point that is really central, namely
the tendency of the Catholic Acts. It is quite
manifestly Petro-Pauline, ‘The appearance as if Paul
will have to come forward against the preaching of
Peter we may be sure has been deliberately produced at
the outset, in order that the complete agreement
between the two may afterwards become all the more
conspicuous. Peter confirms all that is said by Paul,
and conversely. The controversies between Jewish and
Gentile Christians are set to rest by both. Both carry
on a joint polemie against Simon, and both are on this
account together condemned to death.

(e) Although, however, Paul in the doctrinal dis-
cussions is represented as completely on a level with
Peter, it cannot at all be denied that in the conflicts
with Simon the part he plays is quite subordinate. In
these everything of importance is said and done by
Peter. In order to have any part at all, Paul has to be
twice asked by Nero why he says nothing, and even
then he does not intervene in the action with Simon,
but merely expatiates upon his own doctrine. The few
words which are put into his mouth in the further
dealings with Simon cannot alter our judgment that his
figure came only at a later stage into the picture which
originally brought Peter alone face to face with Simon.
This conclusion is confirmed in the best possible way
by what Agrippa says in arguing for a different sentence,
that Paul is relatively innocent and therefore deserves a
milder punishment, as it is also by the facts that only
eleven words, neither more nor fewer, are devoted to
the account of his beheading, and that it is nowhere
said that he was buried. Here accordingly we have
one point at any rate in which the posteriority of the
main contents of the Catholic Acts as compared with
the pre-Catholie is clearly discernible, Cp further Simon
MAGUS, $ 54.

Or are we to suppose, nevertheless, that the pre-
Catholic Acts, on this principal point at least--that of
Peter's presence in Rome without that of Paul—are the
more recent? The circumstance that, in their begin-

4614

SIMON PETER

ning as it has come down to us, Paul travels from
Rome to Spain shortly before Simon, and after him
Peter, come to Rome, and that Peter
dies before the return of Paul to Rome,
dom the Pre which bas already been predicted

* (833), can be taken as showing that
the author deliberately wished to set aside the con-
temporaneous presence of the two in Rome as that was
reported in the Catholic Acts, At the same time,
should one choose to take it so, it would be necessary
to be able to show some reason which could have led
him to wish this,

(4) No such reason is to be found in the dogmatie
sphere, as if Peter and Paul were not at one in their
doctrine and the author therefore did not wish to make
them come upon the scene together. Of any in-
compatibility in their doctrine this author knows as
little as does the writer of the Catholic Acts; on the
contrary, Peter is anxiousÌy expected in Rome by Paul's
disciples (8 335). -

(δ) On the other hand there is much that is attractive,
at first sight, in the view of Erbes (Z. αὶ Airchengesch.
22 [1901], 176-179) that Paul was in the pre-Catholic
Acts taken away from Rome from the same motive as
we have already (above, $ 26 g) seen to be operative
in the time after lrenzeus. Peter had to be the sole
head of the church of Rome, in order to be able to
figure as the first bishop there. If, however, the
author really had this interest at heart, we shall have
to pronounce his mode of giving effect to it to be
very unskilful; for in the account he gives Paul is in
Rome both before and after Peter, and after an explicit
prediction suffers the death of a martyr there ($ 334).

{c) On the assumption of so specifically Roman an
interest as this we should further expect to find that the
pre-Catholic Acts would in other respects also betray
the same interest. But of anything of the sort there is
surprisingly litile. ‘The burial-place of Peter is here
the private tomb of Marcellus ($ 33), not, as in the
Catholic Acts (see $ 34 #), a famous site like the tere-
binth on the Vatican, where he is said to have died.
Further, we find nothing about any functions of Peter
which could be regarded as episcopal.

(4) It is clear, on the contrary, that the author's
interest is in his stories as such, without reference to the
scene where they were enacted. He takes manifest
delight in the grotesque miracles of his hero, of which
only a limited ‘selection has been given above ($ 33,
5, e. f); but these could just as well have been trans-
ferred to any other place without diminution of the
author's interest in them. Moreover the detailed parts
of his narrative are but little united by any common
idea,

36. Conelusiona

The death of Peter is, strictly speaking, traced to his con.
version of Agrippa's concubines and Albinus's wife to sexual
abstinence ; his action against Simon is added as a motive for it
only in Pseudo-Linus ($ 33 4); indeed, the imprisonment of
Peter, related only by Pscudo-Linus, before the ‘conversion of
those ladies is simply traced. back to the consideration that the
time has now drawn near in which bis faith and his labours
claim their reward (8 338)

(e) The authors interest really attaches itself to
Rome in two points only. The final issue of the whole
is that Nero desists from persecution of the Christians
(8 334), and the coutroversy with Simon brings Peter to
Rome for the reason that Simon is presupposed as
active there before him. Yet even here it is hard to
discover anything which might answer to the episcopal
position of Peter in Rome. The cessation of the
persecution is not brought about by the living Peter,
but only after his death (and only according to Pseudo-
Linus through the appearance of Peter in Nero's
vision by night); the bringing of Peter to Rome is
connected with the person of Simon, and Simon is
controverted by Peter everywhere, not in Rome merely ;
he is expressly stated (8 33c, 4) to have been already
controverted by him in Judea.

4615

SIMON PETER

(7) Further it has to be remembered, that the
contenis, in respect alike of doctrine and of pre
suppositions, though by some designated as Catholic,
are nevertheless by others regarded as Gnostic (8 324)
and thus cannot easily be brought into connection
with the main Catholic ‘tendency’ already alluded
to, to establish for Rome some sort of episcopal
dignity of Peter. Elements to be taken into account in
this connection are such as these: the mystery of the
cross, the docetic Christology, the background of
miracle, the use of apocryphal citations, and the like,
of but little of which were we able to take account in
$ 33. See in Lipsius, li, 1258-270.

(@) There is a further point, in connection with which
one might be inclined to suppose that a simultaneous

i presence of Paul along with Peter in
81. Arrival Rome had been deliberately suppressed
παδονι dling to DY the author of the pre-Catholic Acts in
ras Ε the interests of his theory about Peter as

POPHAI the head of the church of Rome; the

point, namely, that Peter is represented
as having come to Rome as early as in the second year
of Claudius, in other words, in 42 A.D.

So Lidemann, Prot. Kirchenzeitung, 1887, p. 0597; similarly
also Harnack, ACZ ii. 1705, with the difference that he mentions
no definite name (least of all the author of the pre-Catholic
Acts, which he assigns to about 250 4.D.), but only a drift of
things that began to set in about 200 A.D., and that he seems to
assume with less definiteness than Liidemann a conscious
purpose in the alteration of the history. This view is worthy
of attention, if only because by means of this dating the twenty.
five years of Peters Roman sojourn are made possible (8 266),
yet also because such an artificial separation of two persons
would find an analogo in the procedure, which în all proba-
bility the writer of the canonical book of Acts has followed in
antedating the appearance of Simon (89-24), and the collection
brought by Paul to Jerusalem (1127-30 1225). See Simon
MAGUS, $ 14 4, δ.

Only, here also we must call attention. as before
(8 36 δ), to the unskilfulness with which in that case the
author of the pre-Catholic Acts has carried out this
purpose, supposing he had it. Not only, according
to him, îs Paul by express prophecy to come to Rome
after Peter's death and ‘suffer martyrdom there, but he
is represented as having also been in Rome before Peter,
in other words, before 42 A. Ὁ. ($33 a). What, therefore,
can be clearly made out here is not any tendency but only
gross ignorance or indifference regarding chronology ;
for before 42 a.D. Paul had at best only entered upon
his first missionary journey, and not even the Council
of Jerusalem had yet taken place,

(3) Therefore, also, no value can be attached to the
conjecture of Erbes (above, 8 364), that the author
betrays his knowledge of the conjoint activity of Peter
and Paul against Sinion at Rome and his purpose to deny
it, by the statement that it was in Jerusalem that the two
together encountered Simon (8 33 4).

If Jerusalem can be a slip of memory for Samaria, equall
well can Paul be a slip of memory for John. If any sue
y

tendency as is supposed by Lidemann and Èrbes was operative,

it must have led not merely to the obliteration of traces of Paul's
presence in the conflict with Simon in Rome, but to the oblitera-
tion of his presence in Rome altogether, or—if this was no
longer possible, in view of the too, frmiy established tradition
of his death there—at least of his presence in Rome before
Peter.

(ὦ As for the real origin of the fundamentally
erroneous dating of Peter's arrival in Rome in 42 A.D.,
it has, in the first instance, to be noted that we first
hear of such a date in the Chronicle of Eusebius, but
must carry this back to its source (8 26€). From an
earlier period we have the datum established, that for
twelve years after the death of Jesus, in other words,
from 30 to 42 A.D., Peter remained along with the
other ‘apostles in Jerusalem (8$ 26 e, 314). About
the same time, or perhaps still earlier, Justin informs
us, but without specification of any definite year, that
Simon the Magician came to Rome in the reign of
Claudius ; this is repeated by lrenacus (i. 16[23]:), and,
indirectiy, by Eusebius when {/ZZii. 146) he says of

4616

SIMON PETER

Peter, without fixing the year, that ‘he came to Rome
in that same reign of Claudius' in which Simon came.
According to ii. 171, Peter in the reign of Claudius must
there have met Philo, who, according to ii. 188, had
already come to Rome in the reign of Gaius Caligula.

(4) On this point the most important views are as
follows :—

Investigation would be superfluous, if Kreyenbihl (Zuare.
d. Wakyheit, 1{1900] 200) were right Im his conjecture that by
Claudius it was Claudius Nero who was originally meant
(Nero was adopted by his predecessor Claudius). This, how-
ever, is surely too bold. arnack (ACZ ii.1242) thinks the
definite date of 42 a.D. for the arrival of Peter in Rome
cannot come from the date given for Simon Magus, since
for the latter no definite year was assigned; but that it
can only be derived from the tradition of the twelve years'
sojoum în Jerusalem (30-42 A.D.). On p. 705 he says that
the twenty-five years' Sojourn in Rome ‘is derived from the
admittedìy questionable Simon-Magus-Peter-Clement tradition
which brings Simon to Rome in the reign of Claudius, . . .
Legend brought Peter as his opponent to Rome in like manner
under Claudius, and then left him there. If this Jatter view is
not în contradiction with that quoted immediately before, the
reference back to the tradition concerning Simon Magus cannot
apply to the exact period of 42-67 A.D., and therefore neither
‘also to the precise year of 42 as the date of Peter's arrival, but
only to the vaguer statement that his arrival fell în the reign of
Claudius ; the precise year, as we have seen, must, according to
Harnack, be computed merely from the twelve years in Jeru-
salem. Lipsius (ii. 168) had merely stated this last view, adding
that with this datum for Peter the approximately similar date
of Simon Magus was also given. Lidemann (above, a), starting
from the view shared by him with Lipsius, that Simon's appear
ance in Rome was unhistorical, and that all that is said regarding
this had been derived from statements regarding Paul (see Simon
MacuS, 88.470, 12, end), incictsthat the Simon legend must have
assigned the appearance of Simon Magus in Rome, like that
of Paul, to some date under Nero, and finds just for this reason
a ‘tendency -change in the dating under the reign of Claudius.
Only, when it is the meeting of Peter with Simon that is in
question, there come into competition, on Lidemann's presup
positions also, two conflicting dates, as scon as that of Paul,
which determines that of Simon, and that of Peter do not
from the first coincide. In shaping the tradition, therefore, a
choice had to be made, and this in the present instance can
easily have fallen in favour of that of Peter, should the author
have judged this view the more trustworthy.

(e) For our present main purpose, that of deter-
mining the question of priority as between the pre-
Catholic and the Catholic Acts, it results anew from
what has been said that we are under no necessity to
ascribe with Liidemann a ‘tendency’-change of dates
to the pre-Catholic Acts, or with Harnack even to
regard the statement of Dionysius of Corinth (above,
$ 254) as to the {approximately} contemporancous
arrival and martyrdom of Peter and Paulin Rome as
fitting in with history and as supported by earlier
testimony, Even from the side of the Catholic. Acts
no objection can be raised against the date 42 A.D.,
8.5 having been assigned without ‘tendency,' for Peter's
arrival in Rome. According to the Catholic Acts
Peter is in Rome before Paul; for how long before
is not stated. ‘This can be taken as an after-effect
of the statement that he was there from 42 A.D.,
‘and the subsequent arrival of Paul can be explained
by means of the ‘tendency,’ which we shall discuss
in a later section (see $ 40 δ), to make him appear
in Rome along with Peter, just as the statement of
Dionysius of Corinth is capable of being understood as
a further development of the same tendency, to the
extent of making the arrival of the two (nearly) simul-
taneous, Justin alone constitutes a serious objection
against Lipsius's derivation of the date 42 A.D.; for
all that he does is to place Simon in Rome in the time
of Claudius without saying a word about his conflict
with Peter. Upon this point, however, we shall best
be able to form a judgment in another connection (see
(88 39[/], 40 d).

The statements as to the day of death of Peter and
38. Day of death Paul also promise light on the

rding to the question 85 to the relative priority
Apocryplial Act, οἵ the pre-Catholie and Catholic
* Acts. (a) 29th June, which is given

at the close of the Catholic Acts for both apostles, not

4617

SIMON PETER

only fits in exceedingly ill with the Neronian persecution
to which the martyrdoms are so readily referred—it
arose out of the burning of Rome in July 64—but also
rests upon a confusion. For 29th June is the day of the
removal of the relics of the two apostles which took place
in 258 a.D. (above, 8 26 δ). ‘The confusion is found first
in the Afartyrology of Jerome. Another commemora-
tion is on 22nd February. So far as Peter is concerned,
the day on which he assumed the episcopal office, in
Rome or în Antioch, is said to be intended (cp Lipsius,
il. 1 404-408). According to Erbes {TU 191), it is the
ttue anniversary of Paul's death (a rather bold assump-
tion), whilst for Peter its historical character cannot be
at all established,

(δ) It would be natural to suppose, if the same day
of the same month is given for the death of the two
apostles, that the year must, of course, be also the
same. A whole series of ecclesiastical writers from
Prudentius onwards (last half of 4th cent. }, however,
place the death of Paul exactly a year later than that
of Peter, others only a day later, namely on goth June
{see Lipsius, ii, 1236-244).

Harnack (ACL ἢ. 1708,/) leaves the last-mentioned date (a
day later) unnoticed, and argues from the identity of the month.
date chat che difference of the year-date is incredible. He there-
fore supposes that the death year of the one apostle was from the
fourth century onwards for some unknown reason separated
from that of the other. He himself sees that this is a very
difficult hypothesis, and would be inclined rather to hold the
identification of the two years to be the secondary stage, ‘were
it not chat the legend has as a consfanz element the identity of
the days.’ In making this remark, then, he has simply left out
ofacconnt not only the dating, which separates the iwo events
by only a single day, but also the pre-Catholic Acts altogether,
for these not only presuppose quite different years for the deaths
of Peter and of Paul, but also quite different days, since they do
not name any day at all. Im order to suggest something or
other which could possibly have led to a later separation of the
years originally regarded as identical, Harnack refers to ‘various
sorts of legends about the death of the apostles which are
unknown to us, and adds: ‘Lipsius thinks of old Gnostic
περίοδοι Πέτρον καὶ Παύλον, but none such ever existed.'

‘hether they existed we do not need to inquire here, for it îs
by no means the case that Lipsius relies upon writings that can
only be hypothetically inferred; he builds upon our pre
Catholic Acts, which even for Harnack himselfexist, if not froma
date earlier than about 250 A.p., yet at all events from more
than 100 years before Prudentius,

{c) As soon as due heed is paid to this, it becomes
clear that the separation of the deaths of the two
apostles by a year or a day is nothing but a compromise
between the church's assertion of the simultaneousness
of the two events, and the opposite tradition set down
in the pre-Catholic Acts. On Harnack's own principle,
accordingly, we must regard the coalescence of the days
85 the secondary stage, and on this point also the pre-
Catholic Acts have preserved the older stage as com-
pared with the Catholic Acts.

Whoever regards the simultaneousness of the two apostles’
appearances in Rome and their conjoint conflict with Simon as
the secondary form of the tradition (8 37e)is all the less in ἃ
position 10 doubt that this form of the tradinion must necessarily

ave carried with it that of the coincidence of their deaths.

That the difference of the days goes back to non-Catholic
sources (to which our pre-Catholic Acts are to be reckoned
according τὸ $ 36 [/]) is expressly stated în the decree of Pope
Gelasius (29, af. Credner, Zur Gesch. δ, Kanons, 1847, PP.
το, = τοῦ 4) dating from ihe year 494, yet perhaps even from
the time of Damasus, 382 A.D.: [Paulus] qui non diverso, ut
heeretici garriunt, sed uno tempore, uno eodemque die gloriosa
morte cam Petro in urbe Roma sub Cesare Nerone agonizans
coronatus est.

Having reached this point, let us now endeavour to
sum up the provisional conclusions that seem to
be deducible from our study of the

89. Conclusion Apocryphal Acts, in the same manner

Abe al 88 Bas already been done in $ 31
pocrvPhal from the data of the NT and Church

fathers. (4) In the most important
points we have seen that the contents of the pre-
Catholic Acts are the more original as compared with
those of the Catholic ; namely, that Peter without Paul

4618

SIMON PETER

engaged in controversy with Simon in Rome and
suffered martyrdom. This, however, is confirmed by
the Catholic Acts also, inasmuch as we can see that in
them Paul has been introduced into the picture as the
fellow combatant of Peter against Simon only by an
after-thought (8. 352). In view of this fact, one would
have to postulate the existence of some such representa-
tion as that of the pre-Catholic Acts as a foundation for
that of the Catholic, even if it were not actually extant.
AIl the less is there any reason for trying to discover in
the pre-Catholic Acts ‘tendencies’ by which they would
be shown to be secondary as compared with the
Catholic Acts.

Let it be added that the Acta Pauli do not alter our judgment
upon the two Acta now under discussion. They tell us (in Acta
afost. afocr, 1 104-117) that Paul, awaited by Luke and Titus,
came (returned ?) to Rome, revived from the dead Patroclus the
cup-bearer of Nero, preached Christ to Nero himself, and was
for this sentenced by him to death ; all this without any mention
at all of Peter and Simon.

(3) Even if we refrain from trying to frame ἃ hypo-
thesis as to the relative priority of the several Acts {or
their sources) regarded as literary monuments (8 352), the
priority of the most important points in the contents
of the pre-Catholic Acts is, nevertheless, a result of
very great importance. In spite of this priority it
remains open to us to hold that the oldest forms of pre-
Catholic and Catholic Acts alike arose approximately
at the same date, but in different Christian circles
(8 325), and both of them in the time before the rise of
the idea of the Roman bishopric of Peter, and thus
before about 189-217 A.D. ($ 26[/]). This last idea is
discountenanced, not only by the pre-Catholic Acts
(8 365-£), but also quite as much by the Catholic with
their co-ordination of Peter and Paul (8 35d).

(c) The theological views and presuppositions also
alike of the pre-Catholic Acts ($ 36 [/}) and of the
Catholic, fit into the same period (from about 160 A.D.
onwards). The essence of Christianity is in the Catholic
Acts summed up in belief in one God and his son Jesus
Christ, and in an earnest morality, and salvation is sought,
quite as in Didackè, 93 102 f., in recognition of the truth
and in the life eternal ; Peter, precisely as in the canonical
book of Acts (see AcTs, $$ 4, 7), does away with the
Mosaic law, and Paul appears as a true Jew, with the
sole difference that he substitutes for the fleshly circum-
cision the circumcision of the heart (Rom. 228 41: f
against Gal. 52 Δ}, etc. (8 34 2, 4, e, and more fully in
Lipsius, ii. 1350-3358). The interest also in composing
the differences of view between Jewish and Gentile
Christians (7254. 340-349) was no longer a lively one in
the later time. The Acta Pauli (above, a) likewise
belongs to this same period.

(d) Thus it is in itself a possible thing that many,
even of the older of the Church fathers mentioned in
$$ 25/, 29, may have drawn upon our apocryphal
Acts: e.g., Dionysius of Corinth, Ireneus, Tertullian,
Gaius from the Catholic; the Muratorian fragmentist
and Clement of Alexandria, who do not name Paul
along with Peter, from the pre-Catholic Acts (as for
Clem.Alex., however, cp 88 25 d, 41 δ), the Philo-
sophumena from both, since in a very significant way
we find it following both traditions within the com-
pass of a single line (620): Simon ‘journeying as far
also as Rome, fell in with the apostles, whom Peter
opposed in many ways” (ἕως καὶ τῆς Ῥώμης ἐπιδημήσας:
ἀντέπεσε τοῖς ἀποστόλοις πρὸς ὃν πολλὰ Πέτρος ἀντι-
κατέστηγ.} Αἴ the same time in no single case can one
be sure that the fathers named had really come by their
information by reading and not by oral communication,
and thus it becomes impossible to fix the date of com-
position of the Acts by that of any of these Fathers,

1 The Didascalia apostolorum (69), the Apostolic Constitie-
tions (89), Eusebius (HZ ii, 146-15 τὴ, and others (see Lipsius,
il 321, n. 5) #lso mention Peter alone as the controverter of

mon.

4619

SIMON PETER

(e) It has already been stated in $ 317 as one of our
results that, so far as the evidence of the NT and the
Church Fathers goes, Peter never was in Rome at all.
The question now emerges anew, whether our examina-
tion of the apocryphal Acts supplies any fresh material
which might help us to understand how it, nevertheless,
came about that tradition carried him there. ‘The new
element we find in these Acts is the importance which is
attached in them to the conflict with Simon. On this
account, Erbes (Z. f Airchengesch. 22, 1901, pp. 12-
16, 177-179) makes the following combination :—Since
Simon was, according to Acts 89-24, confuted by Peter
in Samaria and, according to Justin (sce Simon MAGuUS,
$ 2a), attained to divine honours in Rome, in the con-
viction that these could not have continued for any
time, it was assumed for Rome also that Simon was
confuted by Peter there, As further, according to the
Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul, which together with
the (apocryphal) third Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians
belonging to it, has been shown to be a constituent part
of the Acta Pauli, Simon made his appearance in
Corinth also, and led astray members of the church
there, on which account Stephanus (so here for Stephanas:
cp 1 Cor. 116 161517} and his fellow-writers beg the
speedy return of Paul, it was found fitting to represent
Paul as the opponent, not here only, but also in Rome.
Such motives can, indeed, have been operative, and
must be added to those mentioned in $ gro.

(7) Nevertheless, these motives do not solve every
question. According to Erbes, they can have become
operative only when, through Justin, there had become
widely spread the mistaken notion that a statue had
been erected to Simon in Rome. The question whether
the formation of a legend of this kind was possible at a
still earlier date is thus wholly foreclosed. Rightly, it
would seem, since Justin mentions only Simon in Rome,
but neither Peter nor Paul as his opponents (8 37 6,
end). It will be shown, however, later ($ 40 a, δ) that
there are conditions which point to a much earlier date
for the origin of the legend. Their investigation is only
hindered by the position of Erbes,

(9) All that has hitherto been said still leaves unex-
plained one matter which, nevertheless, is plainly one
of primary importance în the Catholic Acts : the Petro-
Pauline interest. Why was it so urgently necessary to
accentuate the harmonious agreement of Peter and
Paul? Who was there to dispute this after the middle
of the second century had been passed? With this, in
turn, is connected the further question: Why was it so
urgently necessary to controvert Simon? Why is it
that we learn from the NT so little concerning him if
he had been in the East, and in Rome, even from pre
Pauline times, so formidable an enemy of Christianity ?
Are the two questions perhaps so intimately connected
that one and the same cause rendered necessary the
confuting of Simon, and the bringing into prominence of
the harmony between Peter aud Paul? For further
light upon this, we must try to find new material. Thus,
‘eur examination of the apocryphal Acts ends not so
much in solution of our main problem, as in the raising
of new questions regarding Peter's Roman sojourn.

The body of literature still remaining for our con-
sideration with reference to the question whether Peter

was ever in Rome, consists of the

40. Inference scudo-Clementine Morzilies and Re-

from ps.-Clem. iti We δορὶ ith
Hom. and Recog, Cgnitions. (a) We begin wit

the following results derived from a

careful examination elsewhere {see Simon MAGUS, $$

1 Carl Schmidt has obtained this result from a Coptic transla-
tion not yet published. See his communication în the Mewen
Heidelberger Jahrbb., 1897, pp. 117-124, and Harnack's review
of it in TLZ, 1897, pp. 625-629. For the Corinthian correspond-
ence, see, for example, Carrière et. Berger, La corresfondence
apocryphe de St. Paul et des Corinthiens, Paris, 1891 (reprint
from Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie, 891, pp. 333-351).
ὃρ Zam, Gesch. d. NTlichen Kanons. 2 592-611 1016-1019

1892].

4620

SIMON PETER

3.1, 9-11). ‘The Simon who is opposed in these
Writings by Peter was originally the apostle Paul, yet
in a form which has been distorted by the hostility of
the authors. Only later were Gnostic features added
to him, and thus in his figure the Gnosticism of the
second century was controverted. ‘This does not con-
cern us here. The fundamental idea was that Peter
must everywhere follow ' Simon ' {who seeks in his travels
to win adherents for himself everywhere) în order to
refute his pernicious doctrines by disputations, and to
outdo his magical arts by still greater wonders. If not
in writing, yet at all events oraliy, there was current a
coherent, comprehensive form of this romance in
which Peter foliowed ‘Simon ' to Rome also.

(5) The thesis which has been based on this founda-
tion since the days of Baur is the following. Peter
was never in Rome. It was merely the idea of the
romance—that he had to follow ‘ Simon” everywhere—
that led to the assertion of his having come to Rome
also. ‘This was, in the end, accepted for a fact în
churchly circles also, and this all the more readily
because it subserved churchly interests. For, since
Paul had notoriously been in Rome, it now became
possible to appeal to the activity of both these leading
apostles in the metropolis, ‘Their mutual relation was,
of course, represented as one of the most absolute
agreement, Thus, to the assertion that Peter had
withstood Simon, it ceased to be possible to attach the
original meaning, according to which Simon stood for
Paul; Simon must figure as a third person, and Paul
could range himself on the side of Peter. So the
Catholic Acts and the Church fathers from Dionysius
of Corinth (about 170 A.D.} onwards. Some of them
name only Peter as the opponent of Simon in Rome
($ 30 d), just as the pre-Catholic Acts do. This stage
in the development of the legend is now definitely per-
ceived to be the earlier.

(2) The whole development, however, is seen to
present a perversion of historical truth such as it would
be almost impossible to surpass, and which throws a
lurid light upon the hostility to history, as well as upon
the power, of the idea of a Catholic church. For some-
thing analogous see $ 24 d. Even although we are not
at this distance of time able to say with certainty how
far the churchmen who had a hand in this transforma-
tion were conscious of the falsification of history which
was being brought about by their action, the effect of
it, at all events, was that the Catholic church, while
gratefully accepting from sources so questionable as
in its view the Clementines were, the statement of the
presence of Peter contemporaneously with Paul in
Rome, at the same time changed the mutually hostile
attitude of the two apostles into a friendly one, and
gained from a very hostile and embittered exaggeration
of the real antagonism between Peter and Paul the best
foundation it could show for its claim to world-wide
dominion.

(4) To many students this combination appears from
the very outset inadmissible, because they are unable
to believe in the possibility of a falsification so gross
and audacious as that of representing Peter as having
been in Rome if this was really not the fact. As
against this, however, it must be borne in mind that
the statement in question was not at first put forward as
the assertion of a fact, but merely as an incident in a
romance the authors of which had not the remotest
notion that strict adherence to historical fact could be
reasonably demanded of them and whose only thought
was as to how they could give fullest utterance to their
hatred of Paul.

It is Justin, ἴα particular, who shows how this romance came
to be regarded as actual history only by slow degrees. Justin
took from it the datum that Simon had actually appeared in
Rome, and in fact he was able to credit it because it seemed to
him to be attested by the statue which he found in Rome. The
other datum, that Peter also had been in Rome and come into
conflict with Simon, he did not accept—in all probability because

4621

SIMON PETER

it did not seem to him to be supported by the traditions with
which he had become acquainted in Rome itself (cp $$ 30£,
314, 376, 3917], Simon Macus, $ 116,7).

How this feature in the romances should on the
other hand afterwards have come to be accepted as
history is not difficult to understand, when we reflect
how admirably it subserved the idea of the Catholic
church and remember, further, that the Pauline features
of the figure of Simon had already been greatly dis-
guised by the Gnostic touches that had been added τὸ
them.

(€) Soltau, who does not accept this whole combination never.
theless concedes (p. 35) that the Simon-legend if it did not give
rise to that of Peter's Roman sojourn, at all events favoured its
spread; and Hamack (above, $ 374), who accepts Peter's Roman
sojourn as historically true, declares nevertheless that the Simon
legend had the effect of causing Peter's arrival in Rome to be
assigned along with that of Simon himself to about 42 A.D.
That mere ideas, though historically unfounded, were enough
to produce a false representation that Peter had come to Rome
is assumed by Soltau and Erbes (above, 88 310, 396) în a process
of reasoning which is not nearly so simple or cogent as that by
inference from the Momzilies and Recognitions which is now
under discussion. Thus we need not shrink from it. Soltau
KA 10) says further that the Roman sojoum of Peter is incredible

also because according to the apocryphal Acts it is full of the
wildest fables about the conflict with Simon. The combination
we are now contending for goes only a single step farther and
finds in these fables the foundation and not merely the adorn»
ments of the unhistorical statement that Peter had been in
Rome.

The only assertion calling for serious attention here
is that which claims for the tradition as to Peter's
Roman sojourn that it arose independ-
ei ently of the Simon legend. (@)
*. First of all, it is pointed out that no
Church father affirms that Peter and Paul came to Rome
sîmultaneously. We shall not insist, in reply, that
Dionysius of Corinth (above, $ 254) is not very far from
making this affirmation. What ἰ more to the point is
that neither also does the Simon-legend say, or need to
say, that Peter's arrival at all places was simultaneous
with that of Simon. In fact it rather gives to Simon in
each case some space of time within which he may win
the people over to his side, and only after this has
happened does it bring Peter upon the scene (cp, for the
pre-Catholic Acis, above, $ 334, 4). Moreover, as soon
as it is Peter and Paul who have to be dealt with, there
come into consideration a variety of historical data
which cannot be brought together at one point of time
so easily as would be the case with incidents in a mere
romance (above, $ 374). Besides, for the Catholic use
that is made of this romance, it is no longer a simul-
taneous arrival but merely some sort of contemporane-
Οὐ activity of the two apostles that is of interest. Thus
even considerable intervals between the arrivals of the
two apostles would not of themselves be any evidence
that the allegation of their having been in Rome together
does not rest upon the Simon romance.

(3) What would be more important would be the
existence of a tradition which spoke only of the presence
of Peter in Rome, without mentioning that of Paul.
Such a tradition seems to be found in Clement of
Alexandria ; but, as has already been shown (above,
$ 254), since Clement in the connection in which he
was writing had no occasion to mention Paul, it does
not follow that he was not aware of his activity con-
temporaneously with Peter. In the pre-Catholic Acts
{above, $ 33 e) Paul sets out from Rome before Peter's
arrival there, and is represented as returning only after
the death of the latter. Here accordingly is a case
where we actually find Peter without Paul in Rome.
Not, however, without Simon; and this is the im-
portant thing. In one form or another Paul in Rome
is always by his side, as a foe or as a friend. There
exists no tradition regarding Peter in Rome, which
rested content with bringing him personally to Rome;
every such tradition connects with his presence there
some declaration as to his relations with Paul. It is

4622

SIMON PETER

this circumstance that gives so great inherent probability
to the supposition that the allegation of his peaceful co-
operation with Paul in Rome {which, even irrespective
of the pseudo-Clementine ozzi/ies and £ecognitions,
we have already found to be inadmissible : see $ 312)
arises from a transformation of the tradition as to his
conflict with Paul in the same place,

The transformation cannot possibly have taken place in the
opposite direction. In such a case the conflict with Simon
would have first begun to be alleged at a date 50 late as would
render it impossible that Simon could be Paul, Paul having by
this time come to be held in general reverence. . If, therefore,
the transformation in this direction were to be insisted on, it
would be necessary first of all to set aside everything that has
been brought forward in Stuoy Macus (ἢ 4) with'a view to
showing that Simon is a caricature of Paul.

(6) Thus we are precluded also from attaching value,
as evidences for a tradition independent of the Simon
legend, to those passages of the Church fathers which
mention the contemporaneous activity of Peter and Paul
in Rome without at the same time mentioning Simon
Magus.

In those passages ît is already the transformed Simon legend
which we have, It can take che form of representing Peter and
Paul as making common cause against Simon (so the Catholic
Acts, the 2’Azlosofkumena, etc. ; above, 88 34, 264, e); but it
does not need to do so. Inasmuch as on this presupposition
Simon at once appears as a Gnostic merely, he loses for the
Church fathers all that independent interest which he possesses
în the Simon romance. Moreover, in many cases the connection
does not admit of his being mentioned. Such passages accord-
ingly prove still less than do the converse cases ἴῃ which Simon
is spoken of as being in Rome without Peter (see Simon MAGUS,
$ 11, 6,/

(4) The only kind of evidence that would be con-
clusive in the matter, would be the production of a
statement relating to the presence of Peter in Rome,
which could be shown to belong to a time when the
Simon-legend could not yet have exercised an influence
on the shaping of the history, Such a statement, how-
ever, is to be found neither in Clement of Rome (above,
$ 28), nor în any of the other writers named in $ 29/
At the same time, if one reflects that the Simon legend
could have begun to exert its influence even in its oral
form (sce Simon Magus, $ roe), and thus during
and shortly after the lifetime of Paul, it will be seen
that the attempt to find a testimony to the presence of
Peter in Rome which shall be wholly independent of it
must be regarded as hopeless from the outset,

Only 1 Pet. offers any inducements to any such
attempt (cp above, $ 304). {a) In fact, however,
this epistle cannot supply us with a

48. pabrlon decisive answer that Rome is meant by
Rome? Babylon. Neither, indeed, it is true,

with a secure negative answer. Stress
has often been laid upon the consideration that the
order of the provinces to which it is addressed—
Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia (i.e. the W. coast
of Asia Minor) and Bithynia—is not a suitable one if
the epistle was written from Rome. But neither is it
suitable if Babylon was the place of origin; it is not
arranged in such a way that the five provinces can be
brought into line on any hypothesis as to the writer's
view-point. Yet neither does the mention of Babylon
(5:3) contain the slightest hint that the name is to be
taken in any secondary sense.

, The case is quite different when in 4 Ezra 1 1—that îs to say,
in an apocalypse Babylon on the Euphrates, where Salathiel;
the father of Zerubbabel, is living in the thirtieth year after the
destruction of Jerusalem, e. in 557 B.c., is named with some
sort of suggestion that the statement is to be taken as a veiled
one, and that in reality, the book having been written towards
the end of the first Christian century, Rome cught to be under-
stood. In like manner the case is different from that of 1 Pet.,
if, according to a Sibylline prophecy (5 137-142 158/ [138-143
159 £]) Nero, ‘the great king of great Rome, . . shall fee from
Babylon” (τἧς μεγάλης Ῥώμης βασιλεὺς péyas .. . φεύξεται
ix Βαβυλῶνος), and a great star shall fall into the sea, ‘and shall
burn up the deep sea and Babylon itself and the land of Italy*
(καὶ φλέξει πόντον βαθὺν αὐτήν τε Βαβυλῶνα Ἰταλέης γαῖάν τε).
Here care is taken by the naming of Rome and Italy to warn the
reader that he îs not to suppose Babylon on the Euphrates to be
meant, just as in Rev. 17 15 by the note that the many waters on

4623

SIMON PETER

which the great whore—-i.e., according to 17 5, Babylon—sits
(17 1) are nations, and not literal waters,

(δ) In the case of 1 Pet. the position of matters is
that a decision as to the presence of Peter in Rome
cannot be gained by interpreting Babylon one way or
other, but contrariwise our interpretation of what is
intended by Babylon will be determined by our inde-
pendent conclusion on the other point. Η now we bear
in mind that in Rome itself, as late as 152 A.D., Justin
knew nothing of Peter's having been there (above, $ 30),
and thus that the Simon-romance which brought Peter
to Rome was not yet at that date in church circles taken
for history, it becomes extremely improbable that this
romance should have been accepted in 112 A.D. by the
author of 1 Pet. {on the date see CHRISTIAN, $ 8) and
made the basis of his designation of the place of writing,
although it had been in circulation in strict Jewish
Christian circles from'a time when Paul was still alive,
or at any rate shortly after his death, If this be so,
then the dating from Babylon tells us at once where
it was that about 112 A.D. Peter's chief activity was
supposed to have been exercised between his departure
from Jerusalem and his death ; and it tells us so even
if it should so happen that the Epistle was really after
ali composed in Rome.

Thus we are thrown back upon the scattered notices
referred to above (8 24) regarding the various fields of

sn Activity, apart from Rome, which
bay Vr tradition has assigned to Peter.
tolo È (a) Amongallthese, only Babyloniaand
conmiies | perhaps also the Black Sea coast can
mini bi feta be considered seriously. According
Aslon-Held. +0 1ipsius (1611613) the tradition that
Peter laboured along with his brother Andrew on the
shores of the Black Sea goes as far back as to the second
century. x Pet., however, in its allusion to Babylon as
a mission-field of Peter takes us still farther back than
any of the apocryphal Acts of the Apostles made use
of by Lipsius.

(5) Itis specially interesting t0 observe that according
to late redactions (for exampie, in Epiphanius Monachus
in the gth cent.) Peter takes leave of Andrew in order
to travel westward, and that thereafter the other apostle
called Simon, surnamed Zelotes or the Canaanite,
suddenly appears as Andrew's companion. The journey
into the West plainly originates in the wish to bring the
tradition of Peter's activity in Asia into connection with
that regarding his labours in Rome. The appearance
of the second Simon on the other hand, points to a
substitution for Simon Peter, Whilst at first there was
no idea that any other than Simon Peter was intended,
it was inevitable, as soon as the later idea of his de-
parture for the West had come to be accepted, that the
Simon who was named in the subsequent course of
these tales of the apostles should be taken to be Simon
the Canaanite.

(ἢ The same vacillation between the names of Peter
and the Canaanite recurs also in what is said about
Babylonia, According to the Acts of Judas Thaddaeus,
Peter laboured with Judas in (Syria and) Mesopotamia ;
according to other accounts (chiefly western}, Simon
the Canaanite laboured along with Judas in Babylonia
as well as in Persia, and they suffer martyrdom together
in Suanir in Colchis. By this last statement the tradi-
tion as to Babylonia and Persia is thus brought into
combination with that as to the coast lands of the Black
Sea (abové, «). Lipsius conjectures that here also Simon
the Canaanite was erroneously taken for Simon Peter
after the triumph of the tradition that Peter had laboured
in Rome (i. 27 30 611-613, ii. 2145 / 175-177).

(4) Seufert (ZIVT, 1885, 150) urges against this, that the
combination would be convincing only if evidence for the
Babylonian sojourn of Peter earlier than the date of 1 Pet. could
be adduced ; otherwise, it remains possible that in 1 Pet. Rome
is meant by Babylon, and thus that Peter's sojoum in Rome
was at that time presupposed, but that afterwards in conse-

guence of a literal interpretation of τ Pet. ὅ τ his place of
sojoumn was removed to Babylon, while at a stili later date, with

4624

SIMON PETER

a view to harmony with the tradition of his Roman sojourn,
Simon the Canaanite was put in his place as sojourning în
Babyion. We shall not here urge how difficult must at any
time have been a literai interpretation of ‘ Babylon" in 1 Pet.

513, if Rome had already come to be so generaily accepted as
the scene of Peter's labours, that the author could have counted
on being understood, although he chose to designate it by the
word Babylon. The essential point is this: on the view which
is being here upheld, Babylon must have been meant literally
by the author of 1 Pet., because at that carly date he had not
as yet any idea of Peter as having ever been in Rome; in
harmony with this view are those apocryphal Acts which repre-
sent him as labouring in Babylonia, so that the substitution of
Simon the Canaanite în his place is found to be due to a subse-
quent alteration.

Even if Babylonia was Peter's most important field
of labour, it does not by any means immediately follow
ὡς that he died there, If it is certain
#4. Where did παῖ he did not die in Rome, there is
Peter die? li the more reason for asking whether
any other place can be named with any probability.
ἴω) Erbes (Zischr. fl Airehengesch. 22, 1901, 180
219) names Jerusalem.

In the pre-Catholic Acts it is not Nero who sentences Peter
to death but the city-prefect Agrippa. By > Agrippa, i it is argued,
cannot be intended the M. Vipsanius Agrippa who died in
τῷ μια, Along with Agrippa is mentioned, as a persecutor of
Peter, the emperor's friend Albinus, whose wife withdrew her-
self ffom his society from motives of chastity (above, 8 334).
In this Albinus Erbes discerns the procurator Albinus fo
succeeded Festus in Judeea in 62 a.D., and who had a faithful
high-toned wife; while Agrippa on the other hand he identifies
with King Agrippa IL. who was master of north-eastern Palestine
from 53 to rco A.D. (see Heron, $ 13). King Agrippa is not
known to have been married, and Erbes presumes his domestic
circumstances to have been Similar to those of the Agrippa of
the pre-Catholic Acts. It is in Palestine only, not in Rome,
that the two men can be shown to have been contemporaries j
the city-prefect of Rome in a Latin recension of the Passio
Petri et Pauli (chap. 13, in Acta Afost. Afocr.1233; also, we
add, in cod. M of the rincipal form of this Passio Petri et Pauli
[chap. 58) discussed above, $ 326 r)is named not Agrippa but
Clement. But further, King Agrippa IL has been confused
with Herod Agrippa L'who, according to Acts 12 3, cast Peter
into prison in Jerusalem. It is his liberation from this captivity,
Erbes thinks, which constitutes the basis of what is related in
the Catholic and pre-Catholic Acts as to Peter's flight from
Rome (above, $$ 345, 338). As to his death, on the other hand,
Erbes conjectures ἐμεῖς reality Peter suffered crucifixion under
Albinus towards the end of 64 A.D., and that Mt. 2334 contains
an allusion to this fact. Among the messengers of Jesus of
whom he says to the Jews, ‘some of them shall ye Kill, "allusion
is made to James the elder(Acts 122): it îs Paul who is alluded
το in the words ‘some of them shall ye scourge in your syna-
gogues and persecute from city to city,’ and he whom the Jews

*shall crucify’ is not the second bishop of Jerusalem, Simeon
the son of Clopas, whose crucifixion (under Trajan, according
to Hegesippus in Euseb., Z7£ ili, 822) falls too late to allow
the possibility of its being referred to in Mt., but Simon Peter.
Erbes, that is to say, accepts as historical the statement which
Fusebius (A/7£ 8 11) introduces with a λόγος κατέχει --ο the
force of which formula see above, $ 28e)--that after the death
of James the Just in 62 A.D., all the surviving apostles met in
derusalemi in order to choose ἃ successor to James--namely the

imeon referred to above. Peter after this continued in Terue
salem until the outbreak of Nero's persecution of the Christians
in Rome, and in Jerusaleni as a result of the activity aroused
in zealous procurators by this persecution, he was crucified hy
Albinus. τ was in this manner, it is urged, that it became

ossible for Peter to be regarded as one of Nero's victims, and
[τὴ death to be at the same time transferred erroneously to
Rome. The twofold destruction of Jerusalem, first by Titus
and afierwards by Hadrian, explains how it was possible that
the fact of its having been the scene of Peter's death should
pass out of memory. The whole combination, however, not-
withstanding other arguments, brought by Erbes to its support,
which cannot be recapitulated here, is much too bold for ac-
ceptance.

(3) On the other hand, there is no difficulty in the
supposition already set forth ($$ 287, 319}, that Peter
met his death in an unknown and obscure place,
perhaps without legal process, perhaps on a journey,
perhaps without any companion, so that no tradition
regarding it survived which could have asserted itself
against the steadily advancing belief that he had died
in Rome, Here accordingly we must rest, as we have
no more detailed accounts, in particular none from
Clement of Rome, from whom we should most naturàlly
have expected them. When Soltau lays it down (pp.
23 25) that no one disputes the martyrdom of Peter in

4625

SIMON PETER

the time of the Neronian persecution, though it was
not în Rome, the date is by no means to be accepted,

But neither have we any other means of learning the date of
Peter's death. in particular, we may not say with Krenkel
(Josephus u. Lucas, 1894, p. 183, n. 3) that he must have died
before Paul's last journey to Jerusalem because Paul, according
to Acts 2] 19, at that date found no one but James at the heal of
the Church there,

"Fhat Peter never was in Rome has already been
inferred from the NT and the Church fathers (8 31).
Discussion of the apoeryphal Acts
showed, further, that Peter's presence
in Rome was presupposed in Church
‘da Circles not merely after 170 A.D. but

denth outeide perhaps even from as early a date as

* 160 A.D., that the purpose of his
presence there is to be sought entirely in the conflict
with Simon Magus (and in the martyrdom), and also,
50 far as the Catholic Acts are concerned, in the desire
to bring into prominence his harmonious accord with
Paul ($ 39). Not till we came to the pseudo-Clementine
Aomilies and Recognitions, however, were we able to
perceive that under the name of Simon it was originally
Paul that was controverted, and that nothing but the
fundamental idea of the Simon-romance that Peter must
necessarily follow ‘Simon ' everywhere gave rise to the
allegation that he had come to Rome also. It is these
writings, moreover, that first point the way clearly to a
recognition of the fact that in the apocryphal Acts also
the figure of Simon has an anti-Pauline basis (SIMON
Magus, $ 5). At the same time it was also through
the Momilies and Recognitions that we first became
aware that the harmonious co-operation of Paul with
Peter in Rome was a fundamentally altered form of
their hostile meeting in Rome reported in the romance
—an alteration made in the interests of the Catholic
church. Lastly, they showed us that this romance
had already arisen and begun to take shape in the
lifetime of Paul and the period immediately follow-
ing. In church circles, however, it did not find ac-
ceptance until Gnostic features also had been given to
Simon and thereby the Pauline features had been so
greatly obscured that it became possible to assume a
harmonious instead of a hostile conjunction of Paul with
Peter in Rome, ‘Thus we see that the key to the whole
riddle is found only în the Momilies and Recognitions,
and how great is the injustice done to themselves in
the complete neglect of these by those scholars, like
Erbes and Soltau, who seek to reach the right con-
clusion that Peter never was in Rome by other and much
less conclusive arguments, or who like Harnack accept
the tradition of the presence of Peter in Rome as true
history.

45. Conclusion
as to Peter's
activity and

But also the anti-Pauline basis of the Acta Petri is com-
pletely misknown when Carl Schmidt (below, $ 49), 88-90, arguing
correctly from the view of Harnack, declares it to be an ‘assured
result’ that the whole legend contained in it about the meeting
between Simon Magus and Peter has been derived by the author
from combination of what Justin says about Simon with the fact of
the Roman martyrdom of Peter, adding that Simon is exclusively
the magician, and that the author remains without any idea
that Paul is concealed under this mask, because the Pseudo-
Clementines were not yet in existence.

In truth the interest of the Catholîc church succeeded
very well, thanks to great skill, persistence, and un-
serupulosity, in obscuring the actual
46, Import facts of the case (cp the suppression of
the Roman the tradition according to which Barnabas
Church Was the first preacher of the gospel in
". Rome; BARNABAS, $ 4}; yet it is not

wholly impossible for us to bring them again to light.
Still, the whole question, after all, is a purely historical
one. A claim on the part of the bishop of Rome to
supreme authority over the world would not be
established even if it were a fact that Peter had been in
Rome or that Mt.1618/ as well as ΕΚ. 2232 or Jn.
2115-17 were genuine. In 8 26, 4 it has been shown
how late was the date at which Peter came to be

4626

SIMON PETER

regarded as bishop of Rome in spite of this pre-
supposition, In Peter's lifetime there were no
monarchical bishops at all (MINISTRY, 88 462, 47), and
even if there had been, his office was that of an apostie,
never that of bishop. And even if he had been bishop,
his special dignity would not have passed over to his
successor ; for apart from the fact that the apostolical
succession was not believed in till a date long after the
lifetime of Peter (MimisTRY, $ 37), it is in itself an
empty dectrine. Tertullian has well expressed this as
against Calixtus of Rome (Pxdiz. 21, middle): ‘qualis
es, evertens atque commutans manifestam domini
intentionem personaliter hoc [Mt, 1618 31 Petro con-
ferentem δ᾿
Only a brief account of later traditions can be given. The
wife of Peter (1 Cor. 94 /) is said to have been a daughter of
Aristobulus, brother of Barnabas. Peter by
47. Later prayer inflicts gout on his own daughter Petro.
traditions. nilla in order to preserve her from danger with
which she is threatened on account of her beauty.
To show that he has the power to do so he heals her, but
forthwith permits the malady to retum. This is related in a
Coptic fengment with the subscription πράξεις Πέτρου (discussed
by Carl Schmidt [below, $ 40], 1-25 and already in S84 #7, 1896,
pa 841f) Thus the conjecture of Lipsius (ii. 1203-206) is con:
irmed that the Acts of Nereus and Achilles and the Acts of
Philip from which he adduces the same story derived it from
the old πράξεις Πέτρου. Yet the Coptic fragment gives the
beginning to the effect that ἃ heathen, Ptolem®us, had carried
off the daughter of Peter (here she does not yet bear the name
‘ Petronilla 7, but brought her back when she had lost her health.
Clement of Alexandria clearly knew the story, as he says (Sfromz.
36, ὃ 52, p. 535, ed. Potter; also ad. Eus. ΑΓΕ iii. 80 1), ‘for
Peter indeed ari Philip botti became fathers: and only with re;
gard to Philip adds, ‘ Philip also gave his daughters to husbands'
(see Piiie, $ 46, col, 3609) According to Strowz. Tir
$ 63, pi #69 (ai. Eus. ΜῈ ili. 302) Peters wife suffered
martyrdom before his eyes. He himself is said to have been
bald (cp the ‘tonsura Petri’), For a detailed description of his
appearance, from John Malalas after older authorities, see
Lipsius, ii. 1213, n 1. Of the miracles of Peter reference may
be made here to that mentioned in the ‘ Acta Petri et Andrea*
according to which, in order to convince a certain rich man
named Onesiphorus of the truth of Christianity, he causes a
camel to go twice through the eye of a needle, and afterwards,
‘again twice, another camel with a woman of loose character on
its back,
We possess no genuine writings of Peter ; nor can the speeches
attributed to him in Acts lay any claim to puthenticity notwith-
str Standing their archaic colouring ($ 4.5, ACTS,
48. Writings 3 14). On the Canonical Fpistles see PETER
attributed CEFISTLES), and CHRISTIAN, $ 8 i also, on
. 2 Pet., above, $ 244. As apocryphal writings
to Peter. ΡΟΣ n book af Acts (not howdver, claimine
to be by him), a Gospel, a ‘Preaching' (Κήρυγμα) and an
Apocalypse are enumerated by Eusebius (47% Ni. 82). CP
APOCRYPHA, 88 264 301 312; Zahn, Gesck. d, N7lichen
Kanons, 2742-751, 810-832: Harnack, ACL, il. 1470475,
622-625. On the ‘Preaching’ of Peter see also above, $ 25 Ζ.
Of the gospel of Peter the second half is fully considered under
RESURRECTION-NARRATIVES, $ 5 ef passi. Lastly, mention
must be made of the Epistle of Peter to James prefixed to the
pseudo-Clementine Homzilies, on which see Simon MAGus,

$15

On the life of Peter generally see the Bible Dictionaries ; also
Harnack in £20) and the literature relating to the life of
n Jesus and the apostolic age. Of Catholic
49. Literature. accounts may be named {the very title is
characteristic) that of Janvier, Mistoire de
St. Pievre, prince des aétres et premier page (Tours, 1902).
‘Against the Roman sojourn of Peter: Batr, 76. Ζέρελν. fr
Theol., 1831 d, pp. 136-206, and Paulus, 1845, pp. 212-243=
(21, 1866, pp. 243-272; Lipsius, Ckronol. der ròm. Bischbfe,
1869, especially pp. 162-167, Quellen der v6m. Petrussage, 1872,
JIPT, 1876, pp, 561-645, and Apokr, Ap.-Gesch. ii. 1,1887;
Hausrath, W7icke Zi-gesch. 3, 1874, pp. 326:346=(2ì, 1877,
pp. 131-153: Zeller, ΖΗ ΤΊ 1876, pp. 31-56; Erbes, TÙ 191,
Todestage d. Paulus u. Petrus," 1899, and Z.7: Kirchengesck.
22, 1901, Ρρ. 1-47, 161-224; Soltau, Petrus in Rora, in ‘Samm.
lung gemeinverstiindl, wissensch. Vortrage' edd. Virchow and
Holtzendorf, Hît, 349= Neue Folge, Serie 15, 1900, pp. 469-509.
In support of the Roman sojourn of Peter see iligenfelà, ΖΦ,
1872, PP. 349372; 1876, pp. 57-80; 1877, pp. 486-508; Joh.
Delitzsch, SÉ Ar. 1874, pp. 213-260; Schmid (Roman Cath.),
Petrus in Rom, Lucerne, 1879; Lightfoot, Afostolic Fathers
i. (S. Clement of Rome), 2 481-502 CS. Peter in Rome") and
also 1 201-345 (‘ Early Roman Succession’); Harnack, ACL ii
(=Chronol.) l 240243, 703-710 σέ passiz; Clemen, Preuss.
Jakrbb. τοῦ (Oct.-Dec. 1901) 405-417; Kneller, Ζ. αὶ #athoZ
Theo. 1902, pp. 33-69, 225-246, and (against Erbes) 351-361;
Carl Schmidt, τῆς ‘alten Petrusakten,' in 7) 24 (-ἰ Ν εις
Folge ix) 1, 1603 (a work which did not appear until the present

article was already in print). Cp also Simon Macus, $ 15.

P. W. 5.

4627

‘ SIMRI

SIMRI (*VI90), 1 Ch. 2610 AV, RV SEIMRI (g.v.).

SIN (Ὁ; for ©'s readings see below) an Egyptian
city, Ez.30:5: ‘and I will pour my fury upon Sin
(AV, Pelusium), the strength of Egypt.” It stands
parallel to Noph-Memphis {v. 13), Pathros, Zoan-Tanis
and No-Thebes (v. 14), in direct parallelism to No
(Cornill: Noph-Memphis after 48), Verse 16 groups
together Sin {but &—except Q which has Zais as in
v. 15—Syene, and thus with great probability Cornill,
jo; see SYENE), No, and Noph; in ὑφ. 17 fi less
important cities are enumerated. ΑΒ inv. 16 @ seems
to be right, only τ. 15 remains for Sin. Nothing can
be concluded from the parallelisms, especially because
the text (No occurs 3 times in the present Hebrew text)
has been corrupted in several places, except that Sin
must have been a very important city; in view of the
parallelism with Memphis (68, see above), it would seem
to belong to northern Egypt. More important is the
designation ‘strength (ἘΝ stronghold, riyo} of Egypt,'
which seems to point to the eastern frontier of the Delta,
(955 renders Zaw {accusative of Sais or transliteration ?),
GA Tavw (of course incorrectly, as Tanis is ZOAN, 9.0},
Vg. Pelusium. Modern scholars have always adhered
to the Vulgate's identification with Pelusium, because
Pelusium would meet the requirements best and because
of the Aramaic word séydr, Syriac seyénd ‘ mud,' which
seemed to furnish the Semitic equivalent for the Greek
Hmyovowr—i.e., mud-city (cp Lutetia). This identi-
fication has been often repeated by Egyptologists (still
by Steindorff, Beitrige sur Assyr. 1599 as late as 1890),
but on the basis of erroneous conclusions Brugsch {ict
Geogr. 1091; ‘cp Ditmichen, Gesck. Aeg. 263) had
assumed that Coptic ome, ‘dirt, mud,' furnished the
etymology for the great fortified frontier-city Amze(?),
and that the latter, consequently, was Pelusium. The
city in question—4we(6))—had its official etymology
rather from a word meaning ‘ prince of Lower Egypt';
but this might have been artificial The city itself
was, however, discovered by the excavations and investi-
gations of Petrie and Griffith, at the modern Nebisheh,
8 miles SE of Tanis; cp Petrie, Zazis II. {On the
proposed identification with Tahpanhes, see TAH-
PANHES.) For the identification Pelusium-Sin there
remains only the fact that Pelusium {or a fort near
it?) is called by some Arabic sources (eA- 7izek (i.e
piece of clay, lump of mud); but this seems to be
only a translation of the Greek name or a popular
etymology of Pelusium which also Strabo (803) derives
from the muddy surroundings.? At any rate, a com-
parison of the words Sir or the Aramaic sydn with
Arabic #72 is inadmissibie for the Semitist. Pelusium,
besides, does not seem to have had any importance
before Greek times; Herodotus (2141, etc.) knows
ît as the entrance to Egypt, and in this capacity it
appears in many Greek writers; but no hieroglyphic
name for it has been found so far, and it is not unlikely
that cities more to the East (see above on Amet-
Nebisheh) had formerly the strategic position of Pelu-
sium. According to Strabo (803), Pelusium was 20 m.
distant from the sea; in his time it was much decayed,
although later it was still the seat of a Coptic bishop.
The Coptic name was ttepemoyN: Arabic Far(a)ma.
The easternmost branch of the Nile was known as
the Pelusiac ; the Pelusiac mouth is now dried up com-
pletely. and the insignificant ruins of the ancient city are
situated in the desert.?

It will be seen, therefore, that the popular identifica-
tion with Pelusium rests on very feeble grounds. Jerome
(see above) was most likely guided by the Aramaic

1 The ambiguous letter | had here the value of Aleph, to

judge from demotic transcriptions.

2 Other cl; l writers think of mythical persons such as
Peleus, Pelusius, etc. See Wiedemann's excellent commentary
on Herodotus ( p. 89).

8 On these and the history of the city see Wiedemann, τεῦ sufr.

4628

SIN, WILDERNESS OF

etymology given in bis time to the old name by Jewish
scholars. It seems quite plausible that Ezekiel's Sin
was a fortress similar to (perhaps not very far from)
Petusium, but of a somewhat ephemeral importance. In
the critical sixth century B.c., fortitications and garrisons
along the entrance to Egypt between the sea and the
modern Ballah-lakes seem to have changed ronsider-
ably, and even before the great revolution caused by
the Persian conquest in 525 B.C., the withdrawal of the
large garrison to a better location may have reduced a
populous city to the position of an obscure village.
This must have been the case with Ezekiel's Sin, as &
could no longer identify it.1 W. Μ. M.
[Cp Crit, δι, on Ezek, 29 10 30 14-16, where an underlying
Oy is supposed. That Ezekiel's prophecies have been worked

over by a redactor who changed the geographical setting, is
pointed out in ProeHET, $ 27. The ‘ Shunem' supposed to be
referred to would be that in the Negeb. See SHUNEM.]

SIN, WILDERNESS OF (Ὁ 5270), Ex. 161, εἴς,
See GEOGRAPHY, $ 7, and WANDERINGS.

SIN OFFERING (NNDN), Lev. 43,
SACRIFICE, $$ 28 7

SINAI AND HOREB

Hebrew traditions (8 10/).
Oldest Arab. civilisation ($ 12).
Moses story ($ 13).

Mount variously placed (88 14-

εἰ, See

Two names (8 1).
Cosmological theory (8 2).
Bearing on Horeb-Sinai ($ 3).
Babylon and Egypt ($ 4).
Musri @ 5).

Minzeans and Sabeeans ($ 6).
Magan and Meluba @ 7).
Amarna period (8 8).

Ma'in (89).

Sinai is the usual name for the mountain where,
according to one tradition, Yahwè had his seat and
where, accordingly, Moses received the divine com-
mands. Sinai is, therefore, the mountain of the giving
of the law.

Even the most superficial observation does not fail
to note that the mountain where Yahwéè dwells has also

another name—Horeb. In pre-critical

Ὁ The GWo days the explanation offered and accepted

"was either that Horeb was the name of
the whole range and Sinai that of the individual
mountain, or, alternatively, that Horeb designated the
northern part of the range and Sinai the southern, and
more especially the highest point of this. Criticism
shows that the various sources can be sharply dis-
tinguished. (4) Horebisthe name of the mountain where
Vahwè has his seat în E {the principal passage is Ex.
31; next come 176, where it occurs in a passage of the
natute of a gloss, and 386. In the last cited passage,
however, the words ‘from Mt. Horeb'? are out of
place, having been introduced into the text from the
margin ; it properly belongs to the E section 337-1r,
and more particularly to v. 9: ‘when Moses entered
into the tent the pillar of cloud descended /rom Mount
Horeb and stood at the door of the tent'). In this as
elsewhere E is followed by D, and the mountain is
called Horeb throughout in Dt. (16 410 etc.) except in
the older non-deuteronomic song (332), the opening
portion of which is a counterpart to the Song of Deborah
{Judg.53/, cp Ps.68). (δ) On the other hand the
mountain of Yahwé is called Sinai—generally Mt. Sinai
Goro min J (Ex. 19rr 344) and P_(Ex. 16: 24:6
342832 Lev, 251 264627 34), A ‘wilderness of Sinai'
(‘0 Sano) is spoken of only in P (Ex.19rf Lev.738
Νυ. 1τὰρ 91). This is in agreement with the fact that
Sinai came to be the more usual name, the later form
of the tradition having as usual gained the upper hand.

We have no information from the older times regard-
ing the Sinaitic Peninsula and the adjacent parts (see

16).
Early sacred places (ἢ 17).
Serbal and J. Masa (ἢ 18).
Gal. 425 (8 19).

Various views (8 20).

1 δ᾽5 reading Saîs (*p) for po would furnish a good emend-
ation, but is forbidden by the place being described as a fortress.

2 20m “mp. There is nothing in the Hebrew correspanding
to RV's ‘onward.'

148 4629

SINAI AND HOREB

below), and it is, therefore, impossible to speak with
any definiteness as to the relative frequency of the two
names or their connotations. On the other hand, we
are able to arrive at a quite clear perception of the idea
that was connected with their use in the circle of legend
and of the facts which caused the change of usage.

In the thought of the ancient East every land that
can be looked upon as a geographical or political unity
—and so also ‘the promised land'—is
th regarded as a reflected image of the

sati a. ear and of the cosmos (4.179 176);
expounded. he points which fix the limits of the
earth as a whole must, therefore, reappear also in the
lesser cosmos, the country, and once more, again, in
the district. It is precisely by this that the land is
shown to be a natural unityr—.e., a unity determined
and ordained by God, According as a twofold or a
fourfold division is adopted, the earth is defined by two
or four points: E. and W., or N. and S., or else E.,
S., W., and N. So also the year and the day are
divided into two halves or four quarters in accordance
with the corresponding points in the course of the sun.
Any one of these two or four points can be taken as the
beginning of the year or of the course of the sun; the
year can begin in spring as in Babylon, or în winter as
with us (following Egyptian-Roman reckoning), in
autumn as în the time before the rise of Babylon (end
of the third millenium B.c.) in Hither Asia, and, there-
fore, with the Canaanites and the Israelites ; lastly, in
summer, The beginning selected corresponds with the
nature of the divinity who is principally worshipped.
Because Marduk is the god of spring the year is held to
begin with spring, and because in the W. the western
{&.e., the autumn) god prevails, an autumn new year
prevails in western lands, including Canaan, as long as
there is independence.

In this connection between the year—i.e., the course
of the sun—and geographical ‘conceptions we can
already discern the essential character of all oriental
religion and science, which is to regard all that is and
all that happens as flowing from the activity of the
deity. But the deity reveals himself primarily and
before aught else in the heavenly bodies and their
motions ; for the deities of Babylon and of all Hither
Asia—as the OT itse!f abundantly shows—without ex-
ception bear an astral character.! The heavenly bodies
which most plainly reflect the deity in its working, in
other words the most conspicuous forms of the divine
manifestation, or, in ordinary language, the gods prin-
cipally worshipped are the moon, the sun, and the five
planets. Their periods of revolution mark the divisions
of time—month, year, and larger cycles—and compel
attention by their importance for the course of natural
life (Gen. 114 822). In the Babylonian view of these
seven great divinities the planet Venus is associated
with the moon and the sun, so that the three together
become rulers of the Zodiac (the $upe4 famf—i.e., the
highway of heaven, along which the seven travel).
«Ἧς (Bel) appointed Sin, Sama, and Istar to rule in
the Zodiac.’ ‘These three have each of them four
quarter or two half phases; for Venus, as an inner
planet, shows the same phases as the moon, and the
positions of the sun in the two or four seasons of the
year are reckoned also as phases. ὙΠῸ four remaining
planets represent each one phase (one quarter) of the
greater stars; thus Jupiter (Marduk)=thé spring-sun,
Mars (Ninib)=the summer sun, Mercury (Nabu)=the
harvest sun, and Saturn (Nergal)= the winter sun.

To each of these four planets accordingiy belongs one
of the four points which regulate the sun's course and
thus the universal order. When the division is by two,
Mars and Saturn are eliminated ; the reckoning in that
case is by the two solar phases from equinox to equinox
(spring to autumn, or autumn to spring). The sun,

1 For what follows cp Wi. 403185 7, and în Der alte
Oricnt,3, parts 2 and 3.

2. Cosmological

4630

SINAI AND HOREB

moreover, is regarded as the god of the underworld, for
the stars as they approach the sun become invisible, in
other words, have their ‘abode in the underworld.
Now, this ‘ underworld’ aspect of the sun corresponds
to Saturn (Nergal), the winter sun or the god of the
underworld (Pluto). To the moon accordingiy (since
the full moon is in opposition to the sun) belongs the
opposite pole of the universe and the opposite planet
Mars (Ninib), which represents the summer sun. By a
complete reversal of all our modern notions, the sun is
the deity of winter or the underworld, the moon the
deity of summer and the upper world.

Now when the sun takes up the position which
properly belongs to it în the universe, that is, when it is
a winter sun, it is at the most sozzher/y point of its
course in the zodiac ; and the corresponding full moon
being in opposition is at the most northerly point. In
other words, the sun is at the Saturn-sun point, the S.
pole of the ecliptic, the moon at the Mars-moon point,
the N, pole of the ecliptic. ν

The course of nature shows a similar cycle; day is
succeeded by night, summer by winter, and in the
larger periods of time, the acon, a similar procession is
repeated, Everything that happens is divine ordering,
the godhead is constantiy manifesting itself anew in
changed attitudes and changed activities. Thus Marduk
becomes Nabu in autumn, and conversely. The same
holds good of the N. and S. phase (summer and winter)
of the sun or of the godhead in general; they pass each
into its opposite. Further, the four (or two} quarters of
the world present themselves in various aspects accord-
ing to the character of the worship exercised at each
given place, and according to the different methods of
reckoning there employed, The Babylonian view, with
the Marduk (or spring-) cult, takes as its point of
orientation (Mohammedan #2/2) the E. (=that which
is before, up), and thus for it the N. is to the left, the
S. to the right, and the W. behind. To the older
view, which faces westward, the N. is to the right and
the S. to the left. Thus arises for a later time the
possibility of an interchange of diametrically opposite
points, according to the point of view assumed by each
writer in his theory. Hence the phenomenon constantiy
observed in all forms of mythology, and therefore also
of cosmology, that opposites pass into one another, that
a given form bears also the marks of its antithesis.

The selection of the two names, Horeb and Sinai,
and their cosmologica] meaning thus become clear. As
soon as scholars discovered the import-
ance of the moon worship in ancient

Horeb aid Rabyionia, and the name of the moon-

* — goddess Sin, the explanation of the
name Sinai as Mountain of the Moon became natural.
Proof, indeed, for this explanation of the word can be
had only when the significance of this mountain in the
cosmic scheme as a whole has been made out; but this
is accomplished precisely by means of the other name
of the mountain of Yahwè—Horeb.

The earth—and so also on a smaller scale each land
and each separate district—is imagined as a mountain
with_two summits,] the ‘mountain of the countries’ of
the Babylonians and Assyrians (fad mdédte, ursag kur-
Zurra). According to the orientation in each case (and
as regulated by this the time at which the year was held
to begin, and so forth) these two points are conceived of
as E. and W. (equinoctial), or as N. and S. (solstitial).
The E. (or N.) point is that of the light half of the day
or year, the W. {or S.) that of the dark half. For
when the sun is in the E. the day {or the year) begins,
when it is at the northern point of its path it is midday
or midsummer, and so on. This is the thought which
lies at the bottom of the religious observances on
Ebal and Gerizim® (Dt.1129 2717 Josh.830/}):

1 Cp Hommel, Aufétze u. Abhandlungen, 3447; Winckler
in MUG, 1901, 241, 283. ᾿
ΖΦ Bothare brought intoconnection with the goddess worshipped

463:

3. Bearing on

SINAI AND HOREB

Gerizim is the mount of blessing, Ebal that of cursing,
that is, of the light and dark halves respectively, of
good and evil omen (right and left are the lucky or
unlucky sides according to the orientation); on each
mountain stand six tribes, for each half of the year has
six signs of the zodiac or six months,1

When the two summits of the $ad matàte are the
N. and S. points of the cosmos they belong respectively
to the moon and to the sun. If Sinai takes its name
from the moon-goddess Sin, Horeb is derived from the
sun, for the name means Mountain of Glowing, Heat
(ann and sin), the sun at the most northerìy part of its
course (our sign of cancer, summer-solstice) is the glowing
sun. Thus Sinai and Horeb both express like cosmo-
logica] conceptions.

Making the moon point the most northerly of the
ecliptic belongs to the old Babylonian order of ideas,

according to which the moon stands
‘ Babylon ANA at the head of the pantheon and the
δΥΡῦ. sun is regarded as god of the under-
world. The opposite is also equally admissible, the
moon being regarded as the star of the night and the sun
as the power that quickens nature, as the star of the upper
world, and as supreme deity. In this last interpreta-
tion, and, indeed, as the sole expression of the god-
head, Chuen-aten (Amen-hotep IV., see EGYPT, $ 56)
sought to carry out a monotheistic worship of the sun.
This would be of importance if it were held proven that
it is Chuen-aten that is intended by the Pharaoh of
Joseph.? It would seem, in any case, as if a like view
underlay the designation of Sinai (as of Horeb), for the
mountain upon which Yahwè reveals himself lies on the
S. of the promised land. If, now, Vahwè has his
dwelling on the moon-mountain situated in the S.,
clearly the underlying cosmic orientation is the Egyptian
one which regards the S. as being above (corresponding
to the course of the Nile), whilst the Babylonians had
the conception (corresponding also to the course of the
Euphrates) according to which it is the N. that is above
—the N. pole of the cosmos, as also of the ecliptic
{this last the moon-point). For the highest godhead
dwelis above on the summit of the Sad mAtàte. To it,
therefore, belongs the highest part of the ecliptic (the
path of the sun} as of the sky ; the portion which lies to
the N. of the zodiac and thus around the N. pole.
The Egyptian view presupposes the opposite conception,
and, therefore, looks for aìl these things in the S.

The assumption, accordingly, which should look for
the seat of the highest godhead in the S. of the country,
would rest more upon Egyptian conceptions, though at
the same time for the present we must hold fast that
the Egyptian doctrine and the Babylonian alike are
daughters of a common view of the universe, and that
their relation to this is somewhat the same as that of
the political doctrine of two modern-European civilised
states to European culture and conception of the
‘universe ; diverse in details, the views of the two are on
the whole identical. It is in agreement with this that
the rise of the nation of Israel is carried back by legend
to Egypt: and that the region where the nation found
its god——-i.e., the expression of its political unification
and its political-religious right to an independent exist-
ence as a people, in other words, to sovereignty—was
stili known to legend as Musri (see Mizraim, MOSES).
Egypt and Musri alike are also in the Babylonian con-

at Shechem, who is identica! with Tammuz—i.e., the god of the
two halves of the year. Joseph and Joshua are the correspond-
ing heroic figures: Wi. G/275/ 96/7. Joseph is mentioned
principally in connection with Shechem, Joshua's life-work cul.
minates in Shechem (Josh, 34. For Joshua the attainment of
Shechem is what the arrival at Mt. Nebo was for Moses;
Marduk (Moses) dies when the sun reaches the western point
where che kingdom of Nabu (winter half of the year) begins.

ì The number twelve always symboliscs the twelve signs of
the zodiac.

2 The deduction would be that the doctrine of Yahwism con-
sciousty links itself on to this monotheism as its predecessor τ
see KA76) 211.

4632

SINAI AND HOREB

ception the land of the sun, representing as they do the
8. so far as the carth is concerned; but the S. of the
sky is the celestial underworld where the sun has his place
during winter, and thus in the Babylonian conception
in the case of a revelation of the deity in Musri a reference
to the Egyptian doctrine of the sun is presupposed.

Fresh light would certainly be shed on this side of
the question should we ever come into possession of

Musri fuller information as to the state of civilisa-

δ. Muszi. ;ion and the religious and political con-
ditions of the region in question {Musri) in early times.
In the present state of our knowledge all that can be
affirmed is that, the higher the antiquity we reach, the
higher also the civilisation so far as the ancient orient
is concerned. The Amarna period—that which comes
under consideration in the present discussion —already
seems to presuppose a retrogression so far as Palestine
is concerned, and this would imply like conditions for
the S. also. It is quite a mistake to picture to oneself
the Sinaitic peninsula and the adjoining parts of Arabia
as having then been under the same conditions as
prevail to-day. We already know enough to justify us
in affirming that these parts in ancient times were not
wholiy given up to nomads, and that the country
possessed ordered institutions and seats of advanced
civilisation. ‘The Nabatsean state about the time of
the Christian era, and that of the Ghassanids at a later
period had their earlier predecessors (see 4 ΤΊ) 1367).
All of them were states in touch with the civilisation of
their respective periods— pre-eminently with that of
Egypt and Assyria-Babylonia —just as much as that
Nabateean kingdom with which we are in some measure
acquainted through the monuments that have come
down to our day and through the notices in classical
authors. It ἴδ by no means impossible that we may
yet come into possession of monumental evidence with
regard to the region of ancient Musri dating from times
which we at present ordinarily think of as completely
without either history or civilisation. This, at least, is
even already clear, that long before the period assumed
for the sojourn of the Israelites oriental civilisation had
been at work in these parts in a higher degree than was
at a later date shown by Islam.!

Above all, it has to be pointed out that we are in no
position to decide definitely as to the state of civilisation

6. Minwans of those regions during the times in

and Sabweans. question, as long. as the countless re
cords of S. Arabia, the inscriptions of
the Minceans and the Sabaeans, have not been made
accessible and investigated. The commercial states of
S. Arabia exercised political ascendency also in these
regions at the time when they flourished ; they extended
their civilising influence as far as to the havens of the
Philistines and the gates of Damascus,” and even left
behind them in those parts a civilisation that can be
directly traced to them.* Very specially it is from the
Minaean-Sabeean inseriptions that, after what the cunei-
form inscriptions and Egyptian documents have yielded
or may yet yield, we may hope for glimpses alike into the
political relations of the Sinaitic peninsula and adjacent
regions, and still more into their civilisation—in other
words into the spiritual development of the peoples and
times by which the occurrences of the period of Israel’s
sojourn in Sinai were determined. It is chiefiy on
these inscriptions that we must depend for any know-
ledge as to the civilisation and manner of thinking
the” genius (geàs4, geni) —of the Semitic peoples în that
quarter, where they received their purest development,
and from which, in a certain sense, the tribes of Israel
also τοοῖς their origin (1.4 719) 8).

1 Against the notion of Arabia and the ‘Arabian spirit’ as
being the sole basis of ‘Semitism’ see Winckler, ‘ Arabisch-
Semitisch-Orientalisch' in A/V/G, r90r, 4-5.

2 The ‘Harra' inscriptions are in an alphabet which shows a
prevailingly S. Arabian influence.

3 Cp the ‘Libyan’ inscriptions (ed. Ὁ. H. Miiller, £si
graghische Denkmdler aus Arabien, x889).

4633

SINAI AND HOREB

All that we as yet have come to know in the way of
actual historical fact regarding the Sinaitic peninsula
and adjacent regions, is still in the highest degree in-
adequate. ‘The oldest monuments are the Egyptian
inscriptions in Wady Maghara and those of Sarbit el-
Khidem (EcyPT, $ 45). The Pharaohs designate the
people whom they have subjugated there by the name
of Mentu. The still extant mines show how it was that
the much prized me/fef (malachite, or 'kupfergràn')
was obtained. The oldest known Pharaohs exploited
the country for this: Snefre (first king of the Fourth
Dynasty), Chufu {Cheops, the builder of the Great
Pyramid), various kings of the Fifth and the Sixth
Dynasty, Usertesen II. and Amenemhe't of the twelfih ;
the last whose name is recorded in any inscription is
Rameses II

Babylonian references can be adduced only in a
general way in so far as already in the earliest times we
have evidence ‘of a lively commerce
aa en between Babylonia and the whole of

** Arabia; the information in our possession
does not enable us to go into details. ‘The Babylonian
designation for Arabia is ‘ Magan and Meluba' and the
two expressions are used distinctively, the one (Magan)
to denote the eastern and southern part-that situated
nearest to Babylonia, the other (Melua) to denote the
N. and W. The district of Sinai would thus form part
of Meluba, It need hardly be said that in the many
centuries of Babylonian-Assyrian history the relations
with the two countries waxed and waned in importance
with the fluctuations in political power and in the
developments of trade; so also did the degree of
knowledge regarding the regions of which we are
speaking vary and the connotation of the names grow
or shrink. ‘Thus at certain times what was spoken of
as Meluba will have been not much more than the
northern fringe and the road to Egypt. The derivation
of the name of the characteristic product of the Sinaitic
peninsula—malachite—from Meluha seems obvious.

The ideas of antiquity as to the form of the earth are
very far removed from the actual facts. Thus it is an
essential element in the Babylonian conception that the
whole of the southern part of the earth is regarded asa
continuous territory stretching from utmost Nubia
(Ethiopia) through South Arabia to India. ‘The Red
Sea and the Persian Gulf have nothing like their true
importance assigned to them, Thus if ' Magan and
Meluba' in the widest sense covers the whole of what
lies to the S. we must include in Magan India and in
Meluba Ethiopia (£47°9 137), This will explain how
it is ihat Cush, the name of the upper valley of the
Nile—-thus the land to the S. of Musri=Egypt—
designates also those lands which in Arabia are situated
to the S, of Musri.

It is often possible, therefore, in cases where there
are no special indications to guide us, for us to be in
doubt as to what special regions ought to be understood
by the names Magan, Meluba, Ku$, Musri—precisely
as we are when we hear ‘America’ or ‘ Africa" vaguely
mentioned, It is thus beyond our power to determine
with precision whence it was that Gudea prince of
Laga$ derived the material for his buildings which was
brought (we are told) from ‘ Magan * and from ‘ Meluba.'
We cannot be sure whether the usual opinion, which
takes Sinai with its malachite to be meant by Melubha
as the mountain of the s472/% stone (11. R. στα è 17), îs
correct, for we are not in a position to say what the
samtu stone really is.

‘The Amarna Letters seem to show that, essentialiy, the
Egyptian sovereignty did not extend beyond the borders

of southern Palestine. This is in agree-

ur ment with the supposition that it was
᾿ "precisely in these times that the newly
immigrating tribes of the ‘ Hebrews® from North Arabia,
to which also the Israelites. belonged, pressed forward
‘ into the regions of civilisation. We may take it,

4634

SINAI AND HOREB

accordingly, that this period was marked by a retrogres-
sion from the prosperity of a somewhat earlier time, It
is impossible to tell with any certainty who were the
‘Meluba- people’ whom Rib-Addi, prince of Gebal,
summoned to his aid along with the Egyptians; it is,
however, likely, in the known circumstances, that the
Egyptian troops did not consist in the main of bands
of Bedouins from Sinai and Midian; more probably
Nubians are intended. n

With the single exception of the inscription of

Rameses II, in Wadi Maghara we have no information
«x from these times relating to the regions at
9. Man. present under consideration; but this is
precisely the period which covers the time of Israel's
sojourn în Sinai. It is what usually and naturally
happens; of times during which great states have not
dominated the border lands we hear nothing. So far
as our present light carries us, however, it would seem
that to this period also belongs the development of the
power of the S. Arabian kingdom of Ma'in (Minzeans).
For this kingdom was annihilated sometime in the
eighth or seventh century 8.C., and its beginnings must
therefore be carried back at least as far as to the
thirteenth century.! A period of weakness in the great
civilised states has also always been favourable to
the rise of petty states and to the development of
separate kingdoms on the borders of the region of
civilisation ; and a period of prosperity in the trading
states of S. Arabia so far as we are able to trace
their history also occurred precisely at such a time.
We may venture, therefore, to hope some time or
other to obtain some information regarding the
regions of Sinai from the inscriptions of the Minzeans
just as we are indebted to a Minazean inscription of
about the ninth century for an illustration of the con-
ditions prevailing on the S. Palestinian borders (Halévy,
535=Glaser, 1155).® We must, accordingly, figure to
ourselves the Minzean rule in those parts as having been
after the manner of that of the Nabataans. Just as
these bore rule in the Sinaitic peninsula and left settle-
ments and inscriptions behind them, so we may be
certain that the rule of the Minaeans had a deter-
mining influence on the civilisation and therefore also
on the religion of those parts. As the Mineean rule in
εἰ] in N. Arabia has left its traces în numerous
inscriptions, so we must suppose Minzean settlements
to have existed all along the caravan routes to Palestine
and to Egypt.

We must conceive of the relations between the regions
of Sinai and 5. Arabia in those days, then, somewhat
after the analogy supplied by Islam; they were not
a mere El Dorado of Bedouin tribes who had remained
stationary in some primitive phase of development and
had remained wholly untouched by the civilisation of the
orient and its knowledge (which is identical with its
religion). Of course we are to believe that Bedouin
tribes also did live there, and these were doubtless not
genuine representatives of old oriental civilisation exactly
asthe peasant of to-day does not represent modern science
and philosophy ; but they were just as far from remaining
untouched by it as any section of a population can be
from remaining altogether outside of the influences of
an enveloping civilisation. And the higher the oldest
civilisation, the more lasting must have been its effect
upon all sections of the population. True, the Bedouia
is never anything but a bad Moslem; still he is one;
his religious and other conceptions are influenced by
Islam, and if anywhere among the Bedouins of Arabia
any intellectual or political movement, any impulse
towards higher forms of development arises, it must in
these days associate itself with Islam, just as in those
days any similar movement was inevitably associated

1 KATA) τὰς O. Weber in MG, 1901, 1.

2 See Winkler, ‘ Mu.ri-Xoluga-Ma'în” in AVG, 1898, 1;
Hommel, Axfidfce τ, Abhandl 230 ff. (Hommel would give
the inscription an earlier date).

4635

SINAI AND HOREB

with the doctrines which then dominated the East and
Arabia with it.
Tradition itself brings this out very clearly in so far as
it has not been artificially shaped with the design of
representing the nation of Israel as a
10. ebrew purely religious community, but still
* proceeds upon the ordinary presupposi-
tions as to the national conditions of national life;
the older tradition does so. To the sphere of Musri
belongs the region of Midian and this last comes
within the sphere of influence of the S. Arabian states.
The Elohist! here also exhibits the original and
natural view. He presupposes that Israel was heathen
before Moses? and that Yahwè first revealed himself
to Moses during his sojourn at Horeb before the
Exodus (Ex. 39-14). In E JeTHRO the father-in-law of
Moses—whom, however, the author never calls priest of
Midian #—still appears quite clearly in a réle which con-
nects him with the worship of the god of the place—the
Yahwè of Horeb (Ex. 18). When the Yahwist proceeds
to make him priest of Midian he is giving true expression
to the dependence of Mosaism on the civilisation pre-
vailing there (writing of course from the standpoint of
his own time —the eighth century-when Musri actually
was a state ; see /04 7°) although in turn he suppresses
the old representation, made by the Elohist, οἵ a con-
nection between Yahwè and the older culture of these
regions in favour of a more spiritualised doctrine thrown
into stronger contrast with the ancient religions.

Every historical delineation, however, can only depict
past conditions in terms of the conceptions of the

historian's own time. Our oldest source
11. Value of can indeed conceive and set forth the
subjects it deals with in the lively colours
of its own age ; but the question as to the value of the
historical contents of its narrative is to be carefully
distinguished from that as to the correctness of its
apprehension and representation of the milieu. The
historical value of the accounts themselves is to be
judged of solely by the antiquity of the date--£.e., by
the possibility of a genuine historical tradition. The
date at which the sources E and J were finally fixed in
writing is to be sought somewhere in the eighth century ;
how far these in turn rest on written authorities—the
only ones possessing historical validity —we do not
know; but in no case can they be supposed to go so far
back as to the days before the monarchy. An oral or
popular tradition about earlier times possesses no direct
historical value; no people preserves definite recollec-
tions of its career going more than two or three gener-
ations back, What any Israelitic or Judahite source
hands down to us from the tradition of its own people
must always be judged therefore by reference to the
possibility of historical —z.e., written —sources having
been used (AA 713) 204 7). What does not rest upon
these possesses no other value than that of the purely
theoretical doctrine of an ancient writer upon a subject
of which he knew nothing. And such theories are of
course of less value, not more, than those of modern
science.

A Judahite-Israelite historical tradition in the sense
just indicated is excluded for the times of the sojourn
in Sinai; even were we to regard these as historical we
could not carry the tradition back to the Sinaitic time.
On the other hand, in the present case, as with the
whole body of tradition relating to the patriarchal period

1 According to the present writer's view the oldest source ;
see ANA 78).

2 Stade, GI//1r31; Gen. 35; Josh, 24.

3 Whether his name was Jethro in E, or whether he was not
rather called Hobab the Kénite may be left an open question.
On Hobab see Nu. 1029 Jude: 116411, For our present
inquiry it is indifferent which name belongs to E and which to

. The view which speaksof him as a Kenite appears to be the
older and in that case would belong to E. This, however,
would imply that Horeb was thought of as being not in the
Sinaitic peninsula but much nearer the Israeiite territory, in the
region of the tribe of Kain {cp $ 15).

4636

SINAI AND HOREB

(Κ᾿ 479 as above), we huve always to apply the dis-
tinction drawn between ‘nation’ in the ethnological sense
and the same word in its £u/furgeschichtlick and there-
fore also its religious sense. In the view of antiquity and
therefore of Judah there was no such distinction, and
hitherto the tradition has always been followed, The
nation is alone the bearer of religion, of truth, of civilisa-
tion, and thus of the right that alone is divine, and all
tradition as all thought is valid for this people alone,
alongside of which no others possess any right in any
truth. In reality every nation, like every individual,
belongs to the world around it in all its ideas and in the
treasures of its material and spiritual possessions. The
nation of Israel is therefore in an ethnological sense to
be distinguished from that spiritual movement —or
religion—of which it is represented by tradition as
having been the bearer, but in which in its purity
neither a complete nor an exclusive part can be claimed
by the nation as an ethnological whole. The religious
idea in its purity was grasped only by the spiritual
leaders in Israel, and these, as we now know, and as
indecd is in itself selflevident and in accordance with
the nature of things, stood in spiritual connection with
those of the great civilised nations. It is therefore
possible that for the Sinai-period, as well as for the rest
of the body of patriarchal legend, the historical tradition
at bottom has a connection with older extraneous
sources, a connection, the object of which is to set forth
the relations between the religion of Yahwè in its
principles and the religious and spiritual movements of
the leading lands of civilisation: Abraham comes from
Babylon; Joseph goes to Egypt; the revelation of
religion, the close of the development, takes place in the
region of a third civilisation, and is brought into clearly
expressed connection therewith in the oldest tradition
by means of the figure of Jethro. Thus

12. Oldest for the special question as to how we are
Arabian ᾿ς picture τὸ ourselves the life of the
civilisation.

tribes of Israel before the immigration we
are again led back to investigation of the history of the
oldest Arabian civilisation. Whether we may venture
to hope for a satisfactory answer to this question,
whether we shall ever find in that quarter the definite
starting- point for those movements of a combined
religious and political nature which are presupposed in
the figure and the activity of a Moses, may perhaps
seem doubtful when it is considered how far we still are
even in the case of the Babylonians, notwithstanding
the much greater fulness of the information we actually
possess or may still hope for, from having reached any
indication as to the historical facts of which perhaps
tradition is taking account in what it hands down to us
respecting Abraham and Jacob. Possibly we are some-
what better off în the case of Joseph (see JOSEPH,
col, 2591).

Thus, for any conception as to the general lie of
things, the conditions under which this great movement
{to assume its historicity) may possibly have been
brought about, we must be content to fall back upon
historical parallels ; and these are very numerous. The
first rise of Islam, and many of the religious political
movements within Islam, enable us to form a conception
of the manner in which also the national unification of
Israel must have come about. The nation must have
a god, and therefore also a worship; in this manner
only does it come to possess a claim to an independent
existence as a political unity. ὙΠῸ law according t0
which it lives and without which a nation cannot exist
is in all oriental antiquity revealed by God and in
every case resis upon (divinely imparted) knowledge.
AII knowledge and all law is thus of divine origin,
—is religion. Hence political movements generally
assume a prevailingly religious character, the secular
demands being based upon divine right. So it was
with Mohammed and many other prophets in Islam;
so also in our own Middle Ages down to the Reformation.

4637

SINAI AND HOREB

The activity of Moses—or, if you will, the
political developments which form the groundwork of
the Moses legend—must be regarded
18. The Moses; having been a movement of this
BHOFY: sort. The Sinai-period would in that
case represent in some sense the crowning of the work,
the giving of the charter, in a word the political
organisation of the movement. As such it is repre-
sented even in the legend, and there can be no doubt
about the matter. For the theophany, etc., see MOSES,
$ 13.

‘The attempt at a historical criticism of the Exodus
legend and its culminating point the legislation at
Sinai, proceeds on the assumption that the Bedouin
manner of life with its forms of organisation must
supply also the key to any historical contents this
episode may have as also to those of the whole legend
of the early history of Israel. The ‘Semitic pevples’
are regarded as ‘ nomads’ who develop their distinctive
views and so also their religion from the midst of their
primitive surroundings. The essence of their forms of
‘organisation is held to find its clearest expression in the
Arab Bedouin life as this is disclosed to us in Arabian
poetry and in the tradition of Islam based upon this.

On this view the form of organisation that lies at the
root of the Israelite national consciousness is the tribal.
It is indisputable that this is the view presented also in
the OT, and that Israel also in actual fact, exactly like
other peoples of the East in a similar comparatively low
stage of culture, is not unacquainted with this view and
this form of organisation, This being so, the god who
was to be the God of Israel, had of necessity to
be the god of the leading tribe which laid hold on
the hegemony, and thus made its tribal god into a
national god in the same way as its chief or sheik
raised himself to the position of king of the nation.
Stade (GZZ 1131) supposes Kain to have been such a
tribe, because the father-in-law of Moses (see above) the
priest is brought into connection with Kain. Carrying
this further, we should then have to suppose that the
sanctuary of the god, and thus the tribal centre of
worship, must be thought of as being at the place which
the corresponding legend thinks of as Sinai {Wi GZ
1297)

‘This, however, would give only the one side of the
legend, that which corresponds to the ethnological
character of the entire conception, and looks upon the
nation of Israel through the eyes of antiquity. All that
follows from this is that in Judah-Israel, that is to say
in the historical period or period of the monarchy, a
tribe, royal honse, and worship was in the ascendant
which traced its home to the Sinai-region. The
religious or &uliurgeschichtlich side of the question
will have to be kept quite separate. Whence did the
worship, which is that of the nation of Israel in the
kulturgeschichilick sense, receive its real contents, its
doctrine? Legend answers the question with the word
revelation; but if the matter is looked at from the
historical and genetic point of view, it is necessary to
assume a doctrine which had grown up on the soil of
the ancient civilisations. For it is peoples of civilisation,
not nomads and peasants, that develop new and
higher ideas in the struggle with those of a lower and
now no longer sufficient view of the world—Religion,
i.e., ethic and law.

The question which arises out of the possibility that
Sinai or Horeb had been the centre of worship of a

:nas, Clan or tribe that bad the predominance
14 Bini: in Judah-Israel leads us to consideration
of the position of this mountain. For

variously

placed ©Yen though we are able to prove that

cosmological ideas are here involved,
many analogous phenomena show that the localities so
viewed need not necessarily be pure figments af theory,
that, on the contrary, a localisation of these theo-
retical ideas is the general rule. As is usually the case,

4638

SINAI AND HOREB

however, so also in the present instance,.a comparison
of the different sources shows that relative objects of
worship, or the carthly copies of heavenly places, are
located by the various sources or traditions in very
diverse situations, This holds good of the mountain
upon which Yahwè dwells, exactly as it holds good of
any other seat of deity, Every nation, or every tribe,
must necessarily point to it within its own domain;
but, as in every nation and state various strata of
culture and population are represented, and în the
course of time also various doctrines arise, so, in like
manner, different localisations can be handed down in
the various strata of the tradition. A classical example
of this is presented by Mts. Ebal and Gerizim (see
above, $ 3. The tradition (7) which places them
beside Shechem has held its ground victoriously. In
their cosmic meaning, however, as the two summits of
the Mountain of the World, they can be shown to have
been held in reverence also in other seats of worship,
in the territory of other gods as well as at Shechem
(Ephraim). So, for example, in the domain of worship
of the once more extensive tribe (Winckler, G/ 2) of
Benjamin, in the region of Bethel. This is the meaning
of the gloss in Dt.1130 (cp GERIZIM, $ 2): they are
situated near the Gilgal, the political centre of Benjamin
which stands in connection with the sanctuary of Bethel.
Ebal and Gerizim are other names for Jachin and
Boaz in so far as these stand for definite cosmological
ideas (N. and S., or E. and W. point) precisely as
Sinai and Horeb do. Thus no difficulty ought to be
felt if the mountain of Yahwè also is placed in various
16. Pre- localities. The view which brings it into
zili connection with the Kenite tribe and which
SRILIG we must regard as the oldest, doubtless has

in mind not the Sinaitic peninsula, but the region to the
S. of Judah, that is to say Edom. This still finds clear
expression in the Song of Deborah (Judg. 54): ‘Yahwè,
when thou goest forth from Se'ir and comest down from
the mountain (mir = Ass. Ja44; see FIELD, 1)of Edom' ;
similarly also in Dt.332! (see PaRAN, and cp We.
Prol.8 359, and Di. ad /oc.). In like manner 1 K. 198
originally placed Horeb {thus belonging to E, the
oldest source on which Dt. rests) in the region of
Edom, that is, of Ken, for Elijah cannot have under-
taken any remote desert journey when he is already
at the point of fainting at the close of a single day.?
The forty days were first introduced in order to estab-
lish a parallelism with the Moses-legend.® The words
of the Song of Deborah (Judg. δ 5) indicate that even the
tradition which used the name Sinai was influenced by the
same view with regard to its situation. This would go
to show that the Yahwistic tradition also—for Dt. follows
E {cp. $ 1) looked at matters in the same light. Jand
E, however, comprise the whole tradition which comes
from the times of Judah's national existence. This
would be in entire agreement with all that we have to
presuppose for a period, the conceptions of which
must have confined themselves within the limits of the
16, Post. 45 158] and possible. The free play of fancy,
N ili as well as the enlargement of the claims of
sullo. Judah to territory outside of its proper
limits, could first come to their rights only after the
nation had been torn away from its native soil, when
Judah had come to be no longer a nation but only a
Teligious community, the sphere of whose activity was

1 [Cp Dt. 3316, where Renan, Wellhausen, and Steuernagel
read “Ὁ ‘398, ‘he who dwells in Sinai.]

2 Wi. G/123; Smend, AT?iche Rel-gesch.(2) 35. [See also
PropHET, 88 79. Kittel (Z74, Αἰ ὅν. 150) still supposes the
Horeb of the narrative to be in the Sinaitic peninsula ; 50 too
von Gall, Altisrael. Kulistatten, 15 (cp Ritter, Erdbunde,(2)
vili. 2, Abschn. 1, p. 576) A somewhat keener criticism of
the text, however, is adverse to this view (see Crif. Biò. on
1 K.198). Cp the remark on col, 1272, lines 14/7/—T. K. c.]

3 Ex.2418[P]. The forty days of absence in the wilderness
(cp the temptation of Jesus). On the significance of the number
see Wi. G/ 28385 (cp NUMBER, $ 8}

4639

SINAI AND HOREB

limited only by the bounds of the civilisation of Hither
Asia,

The writing which arose out of such ideas as these is
what is now known as P; we could, almost, therefore,
have guessed beforehand that the transference of the
cosmie idea of Sinai as the seat of Yahwè to the
Sinaitic peninsula proceeds from this source or from
the view upon which this source is based, It finally
became the basis for a conception of Israel—of its
proper significance and of its past—which could never
have arisen in the times in which Judah had a
national existence. All those alterations and trans-
positions of geographical ideas which extend Israel's
power far beyond its historical frontiers! are post-
exilie. ‘With this it would agree that the list of stages,
the precise itinerary of Israel's journey to Sinai and
from Sinai to Canaan, is peculiar to P.

The localisation of the Mt. of God in the Sinai
peninsula must thus at the earliest belong to a late—
that is, post-exilic—date. Thus we cannot assign to it a
historical value, nor can it prove anything for the know-
ledge of the older views of Israel, or of the religious and
cosmographical conceptions of Judah before the exile.
For the intellectual contents of the Judaism codified by
P, however, the inquiry as to the site assumed for the
mountain by P would be unimportant; the essential
thing to notice is that it has been transferred from
regions which the national consciousness had regarded
as adjoining (in the S.) to regions more remote.

Yet in this case we must also leave it open as a
possibility that the transposition was not made in a
wholly arbitrary manner. The old orientals knew
their world, and even the waste mountain massif of
Sinai was not for them a mere iand of fairy tales in which
all things are possible. Just as little as the localisation
of Ebal and Gerizim beside Shechem or beside the
Gilgal (Bethel) was possible without some definite point
of attachment in the adjacent cults, would it have been
possible for the mountain of Yahwè to be transferred to
the Sinaitic peninsula without a similar reference.

On this point, also, history fails us as well as the data
of archseology ; we possess no fact from the older time
which would enable us to prove the existence of a centre
of worship in the peninsula of Sinai. About this time,
in all likelihood, Kedar (&.477) ruled in the then
Musri and Meluha as predecessors of the Nabatecans.
In view of the likeness of all oriental worships in their
fundamental thought, it is very easily possible that in
pre-Christian times also the same spots which Judaism
pointed to as its Sinai, and Christianity afterwards
took over were already holy. What we can learn
of the cults of those regions shows the same forms of
worship and secret doctrine as Christianity has taken
over from the ancient st. ‘The worship of the
morning-star (Lucifer—:.e., the 'Athtar of the southern

Arabs) is to be supposed to have ex-

17. ἘΒΤῚΥ isted there from the earliest Minzcan
«sacred places. iinves, and all subsequent conquerors
successively took it over in its essential features. ‘Athtar,
however, is, alike in substance and in form, essentially
identical with the Marduk of Babylon. Marduk is the
spring sun and the morning sun, which is also repre-
sented by the kindred body which is the morning star,
according as the sun is regarded—as in Babylon——as a
masculine divinity, and the morning planet ÎStar as the
feminine, or 'Athtar is regarded as masculine and the
sun as feminine—as with the Arabs (see 470). The
worship of the morning star is borne witness t0 by St.
Nilus about 400 A.D. as being that of the Saracens of
the Sinaitic peninsula, and the Nabataean DuSara merely
gave to the primeval deity a Nabatzzan name. The
mystic doctrines of his worship are exactly the same as
those of the vernal god at 311 his seats and the same
as were taken over by Christianity. Thus Isidore

1 The conception of Aram as Damascus, of ‘eber ha-nahar as
Syria, and so forth. See Wi. G/2.

4640 -

SINAI AND HOREB

Characenus (see Hesychius, σοῦ. Aovrapns) knows him
as ‘ Dionysus,' that is, the son of the virgin Semele,'
who as summer and winter deity is the Tammuz of
the Canaanites—i.e., the Marduk (and Nebo) of the
Babylonians, the Horus of the Egyptians (417, 1901,
p. 278). This is not, as might perhaps be thought, a
copying of Christian doctrine; on the contrary, both
alike spring from the same root, the primeva! oriental
one. So too, we hear in the regions of the Sinai
peninsula down to the time of Mohammed, at Elusa
Halasa) of the worship of the alone God who is wor-
shipped as diu-'/%a/asa and whose designation ulti-
mately means, as indicated, the only God.! Here,
also, ihe assumption of ‘ Christian influence ' is merely a
distortion of the question; we are dealing with ancient
oriental doctrines and seats of worship which, with new
masters, changed only their names, not their forms or
the fundamental thoughts underlying them. H, accord-
ingly, that writing and body of doctrine of Judaism
which sets forth monotheism in its strictest and most
abstract presentation, namely P, removed the seat of
Yahwé to the peninsula of Sinai, it may very well have
connected it with actual seats of worship which in their
worship set forth doctrines similar to those of Elusa.
Thus arises, finally, the question as to the value ta
be attached to the identification of the mountain in the
Sinaitic peninsula for which the claim is

18. Berbl made that it was the mountain of revela-
SOA tion. If what has already been said be

accepted, the only possible question is as
to an identification of the doctrine of late exilic Judaism
with localities that had already, at an earlier date, been
rendered sacred by a worship that was analogous so far
as outward form was concerned.

By tradition two mountains have from the first been
put forward, each as having been the mountain of
revelation, and the question between them has continued
under discussion down to the present day; these are
Mt. Serbal in the W. and Jebel Musa in the heart of
the mountain z245s2/ of the peninsula.

If we are to attach any value to the tradition at all,
then unquestionably Mt. Serbal has most to be said in
its favour. The oldest witnesses, from Eusebius down
to Cosmas Indopleustes, testify to it, and the numerous
lauras or monastic settlements show that the first
centuries of Christianity paid honour to the holy sites
in Serbal and in Wady Firàn near the episcopal town
of Pheiràn situated there (which is mentioned by
Ptolemy in the second century). Jebel Musa was first
declared to be a holy place by Justinian (527-565), who
there founded a church in honour of St. Mary the
Virgin. There is no earlier tradition in its favour, On
the other hand, the reasons are transparently clear why,
from henceforth, the dignity thus conferred upon the
new site should remain with it.

The monastic settlements on Serbal were exposed to the
attacks of the Saracens and were more than once devastated by
them (so, for example, in 373 and again in 395 or 411, of which
latter incident Ammonius and Nilus have given us accounts as
eye-witnesses). Justinian supplied to his argument în favour of
the sacred site thè necessary support by erecting a fort also which
gave the monks the protection they needed against the Bedowins,
so that they gradually withdrew from Mt. Serbal to the safer
neighbourhood of Jebel Misa. The true reason for the
abandonment of Serbal and the transference of its associations
elsewhere, however, is most likely to be sought in the fact that
in the πέτα century the monks of Pharan were threatened by the
orthodox synods as Monothelete and Monophysite heretics,

Justinian's measure was therefore dictated by policy and was
Simply a confirmation of the decisions of the councils.

Even if we choose to assume a connection of the
post-exilic but pre-Justinian identification with the
institutions of an older cultus, the sole witnesses that
we have, the Nabatoean, testify decidedly for Serbal.

1 See ΔΓ, rgor, p. 278, on the meaning of dhd’I-halasa în

the same sense as Mohammed's ablas (Sur. 112). Elusa-Halasa

according to Tuch (cp WRS, Rel. Sere). On Halasa see

Palmer, Desert o/ #6 Exodus, 423 [also Βέκερ, Neorp, $ 7,
1RLAGÌ,

4641

SINAI AND HOREB

Many Sinaitic inseriptions,! which essentialiy contain
merely the names of passing pilgrims and date from
Nabateean times onwards, are found in by far the
greatest numbers in the Wady Mokatteb {Valley of
Inscriptions) of the Serbal group; the Mosa group
comes far bchind it in this. The inscriptions cannot,
however, be regarded as the idle scribblings of passing
trade caravans; without a doubt they are connected
with the sanctity of the spot, and for the most part are
the work of pilgrims.

If in these circumstances the question as to what
mountain was thought of in later times is, in itself con-
sidered, one of little profit, we have the additional
difficulty which stands in the way of the identification
of the other sites which might be supposed to be made
certain by the narrative of Exodus (Rephidim, etc.).
It is doubtless true, indeed, that Judaism, like the
ancient East in general, had a definite conception regard-
ing the lands of which it spoke. 16, accordingly, any
one wanted to describe a definite route as that of the
Exodus, he was quite able to do so. But the Exodus-
legend, like all OT narratives, is full of mythological
allusions, and in order to bring in these there is never any
aversion to that arbitrariness which is so irreconcilable
with our modern ideas of geographical fidelity. If
Sinai was thought of as the carthly image of a definite
cosmical idea then must also the legend—which also
lay before P—indicate on the way to Sinai the corre-
sponding phenomena of the heavenly path to the cul-
minating point of the universe; but it may well be
questioned whether, when this was being done in a
representation so condensed and so excerpt-like as that
of P, sufficient points of attachment would be given to
render possible a comparison between the writer's
representation and the actual geographical facts.

For the partisans of Jebel Musa there stili remains
the secondary question whether the actual Jebel Musa
itself was the mountain of the giving of the law, or
whether (so Robinson) this is not rather to be sought in
the Ras es-SafsAf, NW of Tebel Mi

From the point of view of historical criticism the Sinai ques-
tion has, in common with so many other questions of biblical
archasology and geography, received but little attention That
the separate particulars regarding the occurrences and dates of
the Sinai episode have but a limited attestation lies in the nature
of the legends themselves, and in the form of their development.
It is, however, upon an uncritical faith in these that ali those
researches and constructions rest, of which the most important
are those of Lepsius (Reise von 7heben nach der Halbinsel des
Sinai), and the works of travel by Burckhardt, Riippell, Fraas,
Robinson, Palmer. The geographical details are presented
clearly but uncritically in Ebers (Durck Gosen 2421 Sinaî). As
the Sinai-peninsula is pretty frequently visited by tourists, the
handbooks also (see, e.g., Baed, 242,19) 1901) give the needful
particulars as to the topography of the region. An attempt to
apply the principles of geographical and historical possibility to
the explanation of the biblical narratives was made by Greene,
The Hebrew Migration from Egypt (2 ed. London, 1883).
The stay in Egypt is, as usual, taken to be historical, and then
it is conclusively shown that ἃ 4o-years stay in the desert and
the march through the Sinaitic peninsula are impossible, that
therefore an exodus from Egypt to Palestine cannot have heen
achieved otherwise than by the ordinary caravan-route (Greene
proves his point ; only, the real historical impossibility lies rather
in what he assumes : the stay in Egypt). Although he takes no
account of variety of sources (cp $ 10} Charles Beke (/iscoveries
of Sinai in Arabia and of Misian, London, 1878) is led so far
by his sound sense on the right track in his attempts at identifica
ton as to find Sinai in the territory of Midian. Only, here too,
all the data of the legend are treated as available for geographi-
cal definition.

The allegorical interpretation of Sinai as Hagar by
Paul in Gal. 429 rests doubtless upon the same astro-

logica] and cosmological identifications

19. Gal 425.25 does the double name of the moun-

tain. For if there is also a play upon the name of
Hagar, that in the writer's mind cannot be the Arab.
4agar (' stone')—for this does not mean rock—but the

1 The Sinaitic inscriptions are discussed by M. A. Levy în
ZDMG 14 (x860), 363-480, after the copies of Lepsius in Den.
medler aus Agyften τι, Athiopien, etc., 6 Blatt 14-21 (Inscrip-
tions of Wady Mokatteb). The inscriptions have been collected
by Euting, Sinaitische /uschriften, Berlin, 1891.

4642

SINIM, THE LAND OF

Arab. 449», ‘midday.’ i.e., culmination point.! ‘Thus it
becomes synonymous with Horeb. ‘The culmination
point—i.e., the N. point of the ecliptic—corresponds,
however, in the old cosmology to the N. point of the
Universe (the N. pole), and this is represented upon
earth by the terrestrial Jerusalem, of which the heavenly
antitype is the heavenly Jerusalem (συνστοιχεῖ dè τῇ νῦν
Ἰερουσαλήμ). Η. W.

[Von Gall (A/#sr. Awltstitten, 15) regards the iden-

tification of Horeb and Sinai as a post-exilic confusion
iena (see Mal. 322 Ps. 10619) Originally
Ν they were distinct. Horeb lay in the
Sinaitic peninsula, Sinai in Midian, on
the W. coast of Arabia (cp We. 270/18) 359; Moore,
Judges, x40, 179; Stade, Entst. des Volkes Israel, 12).
But see remarks above on 1 K. 198, and cp Mosrs, $ 5.
Not all critics, however, admit that the prevalent
opinion is free from serious objections. Holzinger
(KHC, Ex., p. 66) remarks that there are difficulties
attending all attempts to locate the mountain of legisla-
tion. If we had only Judg. 54 before us, we should
naturally seek for the mountain near Kadesh; at any
rate, 1 K. 198 does not favour a site in the Sinaitic
peninsula. Captain A. E. Haynes, R.E. {of the
Palmer Search Expedition) placed Mt. Sinai in the
desert of E-Tîh, on the way from Egypt to Kadesh
(PEFO, 1896, p. 1757). Sayce (Cri Mon. 263 f.)
considers a site in the Sinaitic peninsula to be excluded
by the presence of an Egyptian garrison in charge of
the mines, and places Sinai in the eastern mountains of
Seir. Cheyne (Z. Zi5., col, 3208) prefers some moun-
tain-group near Kadesh on text-critical grounds, which
favour the supposition that the Moses-clan was admitted
to the jus connubii and to religious communion by a
tribe of Misrites {not Midianites) or Kenites which
dwelt near Kadesh.?

As to the zazes ‘Sinai’ and ‘Horeb’ the most
different theories have been offered. Gesenius (7Zes.
9480) suggests ‘muddy ’ as opposed to avi ‘dry.’ The
usual critical theory connects »p with po, ‘Sin,’ the
moon-god ; the plausibility of this is manifest (see $ 3),
even without referring to the fact that as late as the end
of the sixth century A.D. moon-worship was practised
by heathen Arabs in the Sinai peninsula (Bathg. Zeit.
105; ZDMG 82027). The article Zin, however, sug-
gests another explanation; both jx and po may be
corruptions of Saynw (parallel corruptions are frequent) ;
consequentiy ‘pp may be a corruption of Sxype.® This
would correspond to 31}, regarded as a corruption of
Sab» (see Moses, $ 5); tradition knew no other name
for the sacred mountain than ‘Jerahmeelite,' ‘Ishmaelite.*
A more obvious explanation is ‘drought’ {from y/39n,
‘to be dry), or as Winckler explains, ‘ glowing (heat }";
see ἃ 3, end. Lagarde, however {Uesers. 85), con-
nects with Aram. πη, “10 plough."-—T. K. C.] H.w.

SINIM, THE LAND OF (Ὁ) YIN; FH ITEPCON
[BNAQ]; serra australis; Pesh. palm), Is. 4912t,
Formerly biblical geographers were inclined to see here
ἃ reference to China—the land of the Sinae or Thinae
ofthe geographer Ptolemy (Ar. and Syr. sin). Itwas not
supposed that the writer knew of Jewish exiles in China,
but that he wished to express the idea that from the
very farthest possible point the children of Zion should
return. The theory, first suggested by Arias Montanus
{x6th cent.), has been both defended and opposed with

1 [On the reading of Gal. 425, and on the bearing of the text-
critical problem on the question here discussed, see HacAR, $ 3.]

3 The theory is that this is the view of things out of which
the representation in our Hebrew text has arisen. It is based
on a new criticism of the form of the Moses-narrative.

3 The alternative would be to connect ‘bpyng with the name
of the Babylonian Moon-god. The same connexion would then
have to be supposed for che other members of the group of (prob.

ably) related names—Swipe, Savage; bmw biny (cp Savr,
SWogaL, SueMUgL).. On the ground of numerous phenomena,
not all of which are indicated in the present work, the writer
hesitates to suppose this connection.

4643

SINITE

much learning (see Strauss-Torney in Del. 765. 5}

‘6887, cp (4887; Che., Proph. [5.8 2z0f.; Terrien

de Lacouperie,! 201 [1886-7], 45/ 183 27}, but the
philological and historical difficulties have decided recent
critics against it {see Dillm,-Kittel, Duhm, Che. in
SBOT, Marti), China became known too late, and
we should expect myy. In accordance with his theory

of the place of composition, Duhm thinks of the
‘ Pheenician Sinites” mentioned in Gen. 1017; Kloster-
mann, Cheyne (in SZ07), and Marti would read mo
and see a reference to SYENE [g.v.]—i.e., Assouan on
the Nile.

If however (1) the view expressed elsewhere ( PROPHET,
$ 43) is correct, and the Prophecy of Restoration relates
to the return of the Jews from a N. Arabian captivity,
and if (2) the geographical horizon of Gen. 10 has been
expanded, so that only a keen observer can discern its
original limitation to the Negeb and Arabia, the problem
of 'Sinim’ is solved, and the remark of Skinner and
Marti that it is a hopeless enigma is refuted.

Critically investigated, the ethnic names of Gen. 10 15-18
rich ‘have been transformed by che redactor) are probably as
Renae (or Kain), Missur, Rehoboth, Ishmaelite, Arammite,
Geshurite, Horite, Jerahmeelite, Sinite, Aradite (or Arpadite?),
Misrite, Maacathite.

That the name ‘ Sin‘ was firmiy rooted in the Negeb
is shown by the occurrence of ‘Sin’ for a wilderness
(Ex. 161) and of ‘Sinai’ (in Musri; see Moses, 8
14, SINAI, $$ 4, 15) for a mountain. From this point
of view, Duhm's theory was a step towards the true
solution. Whether, however, Sin, Sini, Sinim are
original, and connected with Sin the Babylonian moon-
god, may be questioned. Analogy favours the view
that Sin like Zin (}5) isa corruption of Sxyng» (Ishmael) ;
see SINAI, $ 20, and cp SHEM.

Filling up one obvious lacuna, the passage now
becomes—

Lo, these come from Jerahmeel (ὈΝΌΠ Ὁ),

‘And lo, these from Zaphon,2

And [lo, these] from Arabia (pr35yt),

And these from the land of Sinim (or, Ishmael?).

T.K.C.

SINITE (2}5-- ἐδ., the Sinite; ACENNAION [AEL},
ceinaloy [105. Azz. i 62]; δεν υμ), a Canaanite
{Phcenician) tribe, Gen. 1017=1 Ch. 115 (om. B, acen-
νει [L]}. In Ass. insor. (Siarnz), as well as in OT,
the name is grouped with Arka (ARKITE), and
Simirra (ZEMARITE), in the former sometimes also
with Usnw (eg, ABI. 172 ii. 2726) which Fried. Del.
(Par. 282) proposes to find în Αια αὐ el-Hosn NE.
of Tripoli and W. of Zems. In spite of the different
sibilant it isno doubt the same as the land of Si-a-za-aî,8
mentioned in the monolith of Shalmaneser II., im-
mediately after Irkanat (ARKITE, πὶ 1), Arvad, and
Usanat (cp Usnu); the king bears the characteristic
name Adunuballi (cp Syama CZSÎ. no. 138, ete.). It
is less certain whether Sin is to be found in the list of
N. Syrian cities visited by Thotmes I1I.4

Apart from such help as the above evidence yields,
the site of ‘Sin' is uncertain. The identification with
Syn near the Nakr ‘Ara (see GEOGRAPHY, $ 16 [2])
finds some support in the Targ. rendering ‘Orthosia,”

1 This clever and much-regretted scholar thought of the tribes
of the Sina on the slopes of the Hindu-cush. ‘They are enumer»
ated in the laws of Manu, in the Mababhîrata, the great epos
of India, in the La/ifa vistara, in the Ramayana, the Puranas,
and elsewhere, a body of evidence which goes back to the times
before the Christian era.’ They are now, it is added, five in
number, and stili live in the same or nearly the same region.

2 Duhm and Marti (cp also SBO7)omit jînsp, as an inter.

polation from Ps.1073. This arises from their not rightly
understanding gs (see ΖΑΡΗΟΝ), and învolves iuserting a new

stichus, porn nypo mbin See Cri. Bib.

ὃ So Craig, X81172194; theolder reading is Sf-z4-n2-aî, cp
KAT τοῦ.

4 Viz. : Safna-r-4a:9 (207) and Sgi'nora-gon-ng (20): the
former may mean ‘Sin the hinder' (cp Ass. ara; ‘behind ’);
see WMM, ds. x. Zvr. 280.

4644

SION

the ruins of which town are probably situated a little to
the S. of the Na4r‘Arga (see OrTHOSIA). This, how-
ever, seems too close to ‘Ar#e, and it might be
better to look further N, and find a trace of the name
in the Na4res-Sin (or Nahr-el-Melek)" about two hours
N. from Briniy&s on the road to e/-Ladi#iyek (Laodicea) ;
so Baed.0) 4rr. But the Ass. siazzu (=sianz) pre-
supposes the form ‘wp (cp Fr. Del. Zc.), which is
certainly older and presumably more correct than the
MT yo (with which @ Vg. agree), and the ditficulty
of reconciling the two forms is a grave objection to the
identifications hitherto proposed. The same applies
also to the suggested connection with the fortress of
Sinna (Strabo, xvi. 1118; Di.; ΒΒ). S.A. Ὁ.

SION. τ΄ NP; cuon[BAF] σιων [1]; Dt. 448.
See SIRION.

2. σίων, 1 Macc. 437, eto. See Zion.

SIPHMOTE (ΓΕ [GI.], NIMAW [Β8.}}, one of
the places where David, when in Ziklag, had allies, σ S.
30284 (cage [B], but also, in a doublet [sce 7. 29]
caperi cadamewc [A] σεφειλλὼθ [L]). The idea
that the name may be connected with ong {Nu
8410 f.) is rejected by Wellhausen as impossible. But
there is reason to think that the geographical references
both of Nu. 8342-12 and of 1 S. 3027-31 have been mis-
understood and consequentiy misrepresented by the
editor ; originally both passages referred probably to
the Negeb (cp RIBLAH).

Tu Nu. 3411 Shepham and Riblah (£e., probably Jerahmeel)
are mentioned together. So ἴοο in 1 5, 30 29 (62) σαῴεκ, which

corresponds with Siphmoth, is mentioned after κειμαθ (=
Maacath, a region in the Negeb), and in 2. 28 MT and @ agree

in combining Siphmoth (σαφει) with Eshtemoa (εσθειε {7 28),
θειμαθ ἴν. 20)) and Racal (xapprros)—-i.e., Jerahmeel. We also
find a gentilic SHrramtte (g.7.], which certainly belongs to the
far Sì This view may require us to substitute ‘ Rehoboth' for
*Hebron' as David's first centre after leaving 'Ziklag,’ and to
suppose ‘ Eshtemoa to be identical with Smema [g.z.]. It isat
any rate plausible. T.R.C

SIPPAI (0), a Rephaite slain by Sibbechai the
Hushathite: 1Ch. 204(cagoyT[B] cep@i[A] campi
[L]). la 25. 2118 he appears as Saph (n9; σεῴ [B],
vede [A]), The Pesh. in the superscription prefixed to
Ps. 143 [144] has: ‘To David, when he slew Asaph
[Saph] brother of Gulyaàd [Goliath]! (cp (8). In2S.
2118 (δι reads érdrate . . . τοὺς ἐπισυνηγμένους τῶν
ἀπογόνων... which, as Klostermann has shown, pre-
supposes the form ‘spg (a name analogous to the further
abbreviated AsAPH), and this may be near the correct
readìng, & being easily dropped after the final + of ‘530.

SIRACH. The present article will deal with those
portions of the Hebrew text of Ben-Sira that have been
published since the completion of the article
1 patent ECCLESIASTICUS {March 1900}. To the
materia], 1iSt of new fragments given there (col. 1166,
* n. 4) we have up to this time (Jan. 1903)
to add only 1831-33 1912 205-713 87 19 22 24 26 published,
with facsimile, translation, and annotations, by M.
Gaster in /02 for July 1900. The material now pub-
lished includes 354-166 1831-33 1912 205-713 258513
17-24 26124 3011-8333 8359-3827 3915-5130: abont two-
thirds of the whole book.
The new fragments agree in the main in character
with those previously known, but also
si NeW differ from them in some interesting par-
gment8 riculars.

(2) Adler fragment—The passage published by
Adler, 729-121 {AAdie), js written astichometricaliy,
agreeing in this regard with MS A of Schechter and
Taylor (ASch-}. The text is corrupt; but in most cases
it is possible to emend it with considerable probability.
It has one kèré (82) and one marginal note (1013), and
over several words (101, etc.) are placed dots indicating

1 This suggests that Sin has derived îts name from the moon.
god (Sin),

4645

SIRACH

the necessity of correction. 93 ΛΚ 102 116-8 are provided
with vowel-points and accents, and a few other words
are pointed in whole or in part.! It thus appears that
the passage has been revised by a scribe who, un-
fortunately, did not possess the material or the ability
to correct the more serious errors of the text. Doublets
occur in 81 93 10306,4-31 1125272,6 11270,4-28; in
81 the second clause is corrupt in the first couplet, correct
in the second, and, as the first clause of the second
couplet is nearly identica! with the Syriac (5) —employ-
ing the word ngp in a Syriac non-Hebrew sense—the
verse may have bcen revised in accordance with the
Syriac, or it may offer a variant reading which was
followed by S; 1030c,d is defective, τ. 31 is complete
and independent of & and S; 1125=$, v. 27α, ὁ τ- (5
nearly (emend H v5y to veg); 11270, Ξε 5, 7. 8=6
nearly (6 renders n=ng badly by ‘children '). The
agreement of the two couplets of a doublet with & and
S respectively may suggest imitation of these versions
by H, and in some cases doubtless there has been
imitation.® On the other hand, in a number of couplets,
as 733 (unless jn is error for jn) 8675111416 94 τι 5
10 571017 7. 22 1128, in spite of the occurrence of a
couple of Syriasms, it is clear that the text of H is not
dependent on 45. or S. The obvious cases of depen-
dence are rare, and the impression made by the passage
as a whole is that it represents a genuine, though cor-
rupt, Hebrew text.

That the MS has passed through the hands of an Aramaic-
speaking scribe is shown by the occurrence of Syriasms: nyp
(81), min (8 τα), τὴν apparently (9 14), and probably 1m5 by &eD
(θ 18, cp S now by 301).8 There is no case of an Arabism in the
present text; but there is an indication that in the text from
which our S was made the word pin occurred în the sense of
‘create’: in 1018 H reads: ‘pride is not becoming* (mai), for
which @ has, ‘pride was not created' (323), whilst the be of
S represents Heb. pbr; it would seem, therefore, that in some
Heb. MS or MSS pbr was employed in the sense of wxz.î An
example (8 1) of apparent translation from Syriac is given above,
and a probable second example is found in 1125c, which seems
to be a corrupted doublet (man for xy). For quotations from
tale porzion of Ben-Sira in Saadia and the Talmud, see below

3)

(3) Levi fragment. —The fragment 8624-38: (CLéri),
edited by Lévi in ΑΖ), Jan.-March 1900, with facsimile,
translation, and annotations, offers a new recension of
material already published (by Schechter and Taylor in
their ‘Ben-Sira,' and G. Margoliouth in /Q0A, Oct.
1899}. Unlike the latter it is written astichometrically ;
this, however, is a difference to which no importance
can be attached. 11 abounds in scribal errors, has harsh
constructions (as in 371), and employs late Hebrew
expressions (for example, 7.1, 372, in the sense of ‘grief,
misfortune ').5 In general, however, it is superior to
the text of MS B of Schechter and G. Margoliouth. It
sometimes accounts for the errors of the versions; for
example, its νὰν #17) in 8626 shows how the readings

εὐζώνῳ and Ma faop arose. In a couple of cases

1 Snadia remarks that the text of BS known to him was pro-
vided, like the biblica! books, with vowel-points and accents.
1f the statement is to be taken literally it points to a MS written
more carefully than those that have come down to us.

2 On the interpretation of doublets see the remarks of Né1deke
in ZATW, 1900, p.1. D.S. Margoliouth in ΚΕ χῷ. 7) April 1902,
calls attention to a doublet in Ben-Zev's translation of Ben-Sira
(40 16), in which one cauplet agrees with 5, and the other with (δ.

3 «pon 0 9) is probably scribal miswriting for jpopn.

4 So Levi in ΣΟ Κ᾽, Oct. 1900. Noldeke (ZA ΤῊΣ, 1900, p. )and
Houtsma (7%.7, 1900) hold that pòn=‘create’ is a genuine
Hebrew stem. "The fundamenta! Sense of the stem may be
‘divide, cut up’ (as Nideke suggests), whence, on the one hand,
‘number, arrange, create,’ and, on the other hand, ‘destroy.’
These meanings are variously distributed in the Semitic
languages; but no North-Semitic dialect, as far as our documents
go, employs the stem în the sense ‘create’—this particular sense
is found only in Arabic, in which it is the usual one, Still the

lîty of this sense in Hebrew must be admitted. Cp
ig, Die Originalitàt d. heb. Sivachtextes, 69/, and Ryssel
in δ, Ar, 1907, P. 579.

δ 7 bere appears to be identica! with Aram. jyy ‘anxiety*
ΚΟΥ che writing [0 may represent a local pronunciation, or
may be a scribal error for pia.

4646

SIRACH

{37 26 28) L agrees with H against 65. ‘The most interest.
ing feature of this fragment is that in many cases its text
is identical with the margina! readings of MS B, whence
it appears that these readings are not the emendations
of the scribe but are derived from another MS. This
MS was not identica] with CLévi since it sometimes differs
from this latter ; but the two are derived from one earlier
text. It is probable (as Lévi points out) that the
marginal readings in the rest of B (the Cowley-Neubauer
fragment) come from the same or a similar source, and
we thus have an indication of the existence of a third
family of Ben-Sira manuscripts in addition to those
represented by A and B.

{c) Selections.—Still a different type of text is presented
by three fragments containing selections from Ben-Sira :
one, containing 4239 30 £ 54-79-13 36192 2517-19 22-24
26124 and bits of 2581320 f published, with annota-
tions, by Schechter (in 70 Δ᾽, April 1900); a second,
containing 6184192835 71461720 αὶ 23-25, published,
with translation and annotations, by Lévi (in RZ/,
Jan.-March 1900); and a third, containing 1831 (one
Word) 32 f 191 5 205-7 3719222426 2013, published,
with facsimile, translation, and annotations, by Gaster
{in /@&, July 1900). Possibly a number of such
selections existed ; this would be a natural result of the
popularity of the book. Groups of couplets, taken from
different parts of Ben-Sira, occur in the Talmud; for
example, in Sazkedriz, 1008. In such cases the object
is to bring together the aphorisms relating to some one
subject (wornen and the household in Sar4. 1008); these
need not have been taken, and probably were not taken,
from a book of extracts ; but they may have suggested
the compilation of such books. In the fragments under
consideration, whilst the couplets show a variety of
subjects, a certain unity is observable; in that of
Schechter the chief points are the desirableness of moral
firmness and the wickedness of women ; in that of Lévi,
the pursuit of wisdom and the cultivation of humility ;
in that of Gaster, the characteristics of the wise man.
For the sake of distinetion these books of extracts may
be designated by the letter E.

The Schechter fragment (ES, = his ΟἹ is in tolcrably
good form, having only two badly corrupted passages,
Sir and 5ia(i)a (=36190), It accords now with the
Greek, now with the Syriac, differing in this regard
sometimes in the same couplet.! Often it goes its own
way, being sometimes (as in 512) of a curtness that
suggests originality ; and its irregular oscillation between
€ and S indicates that it is not based on either of these
versions. It is in general agreement with the Greek in
several cases in which MS AS agrees with the
Syriac.

‘The Lévi fragment (ET, = his D)coincides in material
with part of MS AScì, and gives a better text than that
of the latter. From 618 to 7 20 it is nearer to (5 than to
S, and in the remaining couplets is nearer to S. It is
carefully written; there are two or three scribal mis-
writings of letters, and a word is omitted in 76 and
probably also in 721. Τί contains no Syriasms or
Arabisms, and has the tone of an independent text,

The Gaster fragment (ES2ù) resembles FS in
‘agreeing sometimes with (5, sometimes with S. In
several couplets {1832 191 206) it serves to explain
the errors of ore or both of the versions ; clearly in
some cases these last are free renderings of H. The
Hebrew text is corrupt or defective in 1925 205, and
has apparently one Syriasm (3719, nom for bom).

With the light got from the new fragments we may
now speak more definitely than was possible two years
A ago of the conclusions to be drawn
3. GemuineneS8. from the whole of the Ben-Sira Hebrew

» material. In the first place, we may
consider the facts that make for the genuineness of the

1 In 2517 Ît agrees with @&AVI in the expression ‘like a bear,”
while 5 and 5 read ‘like sackeloth ; if ἄρκος is Gk. corruption
of σάκκον, H here follows a Greek text.

4647

SIRACH

Hebrew text—that is to say, against the supposition
that it is a translation from versions.

(4) Talmud. —lhe question of the quotations from
Ben-Sira în the Talmud is complicated by the corrup-
tions of the Talmud text as well as by the peculiar habits
of the Talmudic doctors: their frequent disregard of
literalness, and their fondness for grouping clauses or
couplets from different parts of the book and adding or
interweaving passages from the canonical books. Their
citations are not necessarily authority for the wording of
the original, but may testify to a form or forms current
in the Talmudic period, and may help to establish the
original text.!

There are indications (though, for the reasons men-
tioned above, these are not clear) that the two Tatmuds,
the Jerusalem and the Babylonian, had, in some cases
at least, different texts of Ben-Sira. ‘Thus in 321 Talm.
Jer. Hag. 776, agrees with H in the first word {where
Talm. Bab. and Saad. have a different word} and also
in the last word, but in the rest of the couplet has a
wholly different reading (perhaps based on Job118)?;
in the same passage Bab. Talm. ag. 134 (and so Midr,
Rab., Gen. 8} has a doublet, in which the first couplet
is identical with the form in @ and 5, whilst the second,
although diverging from Jer. Talm., &, 5, and H,
agrees with H and Saad. in one peculiar expression
(rin) i in this doublet we may have an indication of
at least two forms of the Ben-Sira text in the fifth century,
one of which is here represented by (δ and 5, and the
other by H (there being also in this latter scribal variants);
possibly, however, both couplets are original, and H has
taken one, and @ the other. In 717 the ‘hope' of H
is supported by 40/4 47 (against & and $ ‘fate’), but
Aboth and the versions agree in reading ‘ humble thyself'
instead of H ‘ humble pride’ ; in both cases the readings
of the versions are the better, A noteworthy group of
selections from Ecclus, 9 occurs in Talm. Bab. Send.
1008, Yèbdm. 635, the order of lines being: 82, 35, 94,5
{in part), 8 (to which is added Prov. 7266); 8a=H
(emended), & (5. being different); 36 {where H has a
doublet) agrees in part with one form of H, in part with
the other ; in 9 the text of Bab, Talm. seems to be in
disorder, or to be very free ; it has ‘ beside her' {πον}
instead of ‘with a married woman' (&, S, and, by
emendation, H n>y:), and ‘to mingle' instead of ‘do
not drink'; 8c is a slightly expanded form of emended
H (=S). In 1113 294 1825 the Talmudic text is sub-
stantially the same as that of H and 45, S. Itis in
general more correctly written than H, which is full of
scribal blunders; yet the two are sufficiently alike to
suggest that our H rests on a genuine Hebrew text.
We cannot be surprised at scribal errors, doublets,
©missions, and additions in a text of the tenth or the
eleventh century when we find similar occurrences in the
Talmud as well as in the versions.4

(3) Saadia.—The resemblance between Saadia and
H is very close, the differences between the two being
little more than variations of diction, and the advantage
lying sometimes with one, sometimes with the other ; in
55f (H van, Saad. ny) and 66(H bya, Saad. πο) the
wording of H is the better, but in 664 the order of words
in Saadia is the more correct; on the other hand, in 67
1311 the Aramaic pro) of H is probably to be emended
into the πρὸ and now of Saadia. He appears to have

1 On the quotations in the Talmud and Saadia, in addition to
the authors mentioned above, col. 1172, n, 2, see Bacher (JO,
Jan, 1900), Edersheim (in Wace), Lévi (Cone. and REY and
JOR) and Ryssel (in Kautzsch's Adobryzhen and S& &r.,
1901-1902) ; cp Schechter in /0X 3 and 4.

2 Bacher suggests that Jer. Talm. pan is an erroneous com.
pletion of the abbreviation ‘an, which should be read prin:

3 Rashi, nSys Lys. The text of Bab. Talm. should perhaps
be emended after H and the versions. But in 7.9, where H has
only ‘strong drink” and @NAC only ‘wine' (S ‘old wine'), Bab.
Talm. has both terms, possibly accounting for the differences
between H, δ, and S.

4 n the Syriac of Ecclus. 987. see Lévi, in /OX, Oct, 1900
8£

4648

Ρ.

SIRACH

had a text that was substantially identical with ours;
his citations may be considered to establish, as far as
they go, a text of the tenth century, though of its history
we know nothing.! Its special similarity to that of our
Hebrew MSS may be a result of the proximity in time
of the two. Saadia also quotes as from the '" Wisdom of
Eleazar ben Irai' a passage that is found in our Ben-Sira
(321), and the text quoted by him differs from that of
our Hebrew in only a couple of unimportant forms (H
mebo, Saad. sbabz; Η w moi Saad. “gg2);2 the
natural conclusion is that the book of Eleazar ben Irai
(if this name really belongs to a separate author and is
not a corruption of ‘ Eleazar ben Sira') contained ex-
tracts from Ben-Sira or from some work based on Ben-
Sira.

{c) Relation of H to @ and S.—It îs a common
remark that the Hebrew MSS of BS fall into two
divisions : those that more resemble the Greek, and
those that are nearer the Syriac ; to the former division
belongs the B-group, to the latter the A-group. This
classification holds în a general way, but may easily be
pressed too far. Even in the earlier A and B material
there are a number of passages that are adverse to such
a classification, and many more appear in the new
fragments. ‘The division into these two classes has,
however, been held to indicate that our Hebrew is a
translation from the Greek or the Syriac. With the
new material at our disposal it may be said that this
supposition, as an explanation of the Hebrew as a whole,
seems to be definitely excluded. It appears to De set
aside by the irregularity of the accordance of H with (δ
or S, by its not infrequent divergence from and correc-
tion of both the versions, by its relation to the quotations
in the Talmud and Saadia, and by its tone, which in
many places is free and independent and is characterised
by an aphoristic curtness that a translator would not be
likely to attain. ‘We must rather account for the general
relation between H and the versions by supposing that
H is the descendant of early texts, some of which
were the basis of €, others the basis of S. The
‘omissions in $ call for fuller treatment than they have
yet reccived, ‘They may be due in part to the frequent
fondness of this version for clearness and condensation,
in part to the defectiveness of the MS from which it was
made.

{d) Diction.—The testimony of the new fragments
confirms the judgment of the language expressed under
EccLESIASTICUS. After allowance has been made for
obvious scribal errors the diction of H does not ditfer
materially from that of Koheleth. Aramaisms and New-
Hebrew forms and expressions may well have been em-
ployed by Ben-Sira himself {such forms occur even in the
Book of Proverbs), and, as regards the fragments, there
was no time, from 200 R.C. to 1000 A.D., when Jewish
scribes would not be likely to insert familiar Aramaic
words—the more that the text of Ben-Sira was not pro-
tected by canonica! sanctity, The vocabulary of the
fragmosts furnishes abundant material for lexicographical
research.8 ‘The limits of the ‘ New-Hebrew' vocabulary
are not sharply defined ; at present it is hardly possible
to ἄγαν the line distinct]ly between ‘ Neohebraisms” and
* Syriasms,' and there is a similar indistinetness (though
a Îess clearly marked one) as to Arabisms. In respect
of purity of style the fragments differ among themselves :

1 The question whether the ‘Sefer ha-Galuy” Ga which the
citations occur) is the work of Saadia is discussed by D, Mar-
goliouth, Harkavy, and Bacher in /0R 12 (1899-1900). There
seems to be no good reason to doub its genuineness.

2 Here, as elsewhere, Saadia is nearer than H to the cla:
usage ; the scribes of H (except in CLévi and AAdier) are fond
‘of the short rel. pron. w. But this usage, though distinctive for
a given MS, is not a mark of the date of a Ren-Sira text, since
it îs common in late OT writings and in the Talmud.

8 On this point cp the Comms. of Lévi and Ryssel; the
articles of Néldeke and Houtsma (see above, col. 4632 n. 4);
Schwally, Zdioticon d. Christl-pal. Aram. (1893); Fraenkel,
in MGW7, 1899; Jacob, in ΖΑ͂ ΤῊΡ, 1902; art. ARAMAIC

LanGuace, above, col. 281; and various discussions in /08
and RE/.

4649

SIRACH

CLé is relatively free from faults; parts of A and B
are greatly disfigured. The blemishes testify mostly to
the number of hands through which the MSS have
passed, not to the work of a translator. The aphoristic
curtness of style of the fragments has been referred to
above.

©n the other hand, whilst the fragments produce a
general impression of originality, the text appears in

some passages to have been translated

4. Employment from ὃς contormed to that of a Version

of Versions . 7

and Talmud. © of the ‘falmud. Some instances of

probable and apparent imitation of

Versions are mentioned above (ECCLESIASTICUS, $ 5),
and others have been pointed ont by critics; most of
the examples cited relate to the Syriac, a few only to
the Greek.! These cases, which are relatively not
numerous, do not prove a general translation or
imitation, but exhibit the procedures of particular scribes
in the passages in which they occur. The same remark
is to be made of cases in which H appears to follow the
Talmud ;? such imitations by late scribes are natural.
The corruptions of the BS text began early and con-
tinued a long time; there was little to restrain the
fancies and the negligencè of copyists. ‘l'aking into
consideration the two sets of facts—-the evidences of
originality and the evidences of slavish imitation—the
more reasonable conclusion seems to be that the text of
the fragments is in general genuine, but full of cor-
ruptions,

It is hardly possible at present to make a helpful
classification of the Heb. MSS of Ben-Sira ; for such a

. classification we nced more Heb.
©, Claggifica- material, An obvious and simple
OSS 90. principle of division would be the rela-

tion of the fragments to the two main
groups of Greek texts (@a< εἴς, and (68 εἰς.) or to the
two Greek and the Syriac, But, in addition to the fact
that the relations of the versional texts to one another
and to the original Hebrew are not clear, there is the
difficulty that the fragments show a confusing variety of
similarity and dissimilarity to the Versions and to one
another. ‘This is true of all the Heb. ΜΒ so far
published : in the same paragraph, and even in the
same couplet, the text sometimes turns from one
version to another, or, abandoning both, goes its own
independent way. It 15 obvious that ît has experienced
a variety of fortunes, and that, whilst it sometimes
corrects the Versions or îs corrected by them, it in some
cases goes baok to sources different from theirs. It
can be, therefore, only a rough classification that is
based on resemblances to the Versions. The direct
testimony to the Hebrew text is contained in the Talmud
(about 700 years after the composition of Ben-Sira's
book) and Saadia (about 400 years after the Talmud).
The Ta!lmudic readings differ a good deal from our H,
but Saadia îs substantially identical with the latter ; the
differences between the citations în the Talmud and
those in Saadia may be taken to represent roughly the
changes undergone by the Heb. text in the interval
between the two. The text of the Talmud is in general
accord with the unglossed Greek (€*}, but is free from
the scribal variations that crept into the latter ; it may,
thus, represent a Hcbrew text (perhaps as early as the
zud cent. of our era) which was in substantial accord
with the Gk. text that underlay our two main Gk.
recensions. This Heb. text was probably the basis

1 On the acrostic, 5113-30, see Taylor, în Schechter and
Taylors Wisdom of Ber Stra, p. ἱκκνὶ & Lévi, in ΚΕ.
1899, gives a number of cases of imitation, © But 4620 îs not a
case in point. Η qui is not a translation of corrapt 5, but a
variant of earlier H mx, which was a scribe's corruption of
original H_nvyna. If H had translated S (mr), it would
have written my, See MZ7 39188

® A probable example is given by Professor Levi, in /OR, ca.
1900, p. 15, and another by Professor Margoliouth, in £.7,
Apri 1962. Cp Bacher, in /OR, vol. τῷ (1899- 1900), Ῥ.

4650

SIRAH, WELL OF

of our fragments. We may suppose that the Heb.
(handed down through Jewish circles) and the Gk.
(made 132 B.c., and transmitted by Alexandrian
Jews and by Christians) did not differ materially
from each other in the second century a.D. After
that time they went their separate ways: the Gk.
(under what circumstances we know not) fell into
two divisions, with one of which the Syriac stood in
some close relation;! the Heb. was not similarly
divided into families, but was roughly treated by scribes,
who obscured its readings, and in a few cases copied or
imitated the Versions, especially the Syr.? Our
Hebrew fragments, after they have been freed, as far as
possible, from scribal errors, must be classified accord-
ing to the degree of their purity or impurity, and
according to their peculiarities of diction* Such a
classification, however, yields no very striking or
important results—the differences between the fragments
in correctness and style are not great. They must be
examined and judged every one for itself. So far, they
have not contributed much to the restitution of the
original text in passages in which the Versions are
obscure. They often confirm one or more of the Versions,
and sometimes correct or explain words or lines; but
in general the text of Ben-Sira remains nearly as it was
before the discovery of the fragments. These, however,
apart from the emendation of the text, have called forth
renewed study of the book, and have added to the
vocabulary of the Hebrew language.
In addition to the works on Ben-Sira given above (col. 1178)
the following may be mentioned :—Raebiger, LfAice agocr.
(1839); Paubanion i in Theol, Stud. 4 (1886);
6. Literature, Houtsma, in 74.7 843 (1900); Ryssel's
Comm. in St. Kr. (1900-02) (completion of
his comm. on the Hebrew text); Grimme; Mzres et strofhes d.
2 fragments heb. d. Manuscrit A, d. l'Ecclés. (Fr. trans.) {1901};
‘artz, Die Scholien d. Greg. Abulf. Bar-Heb. 3. Weiskheitb,
d. Josua ὃ. Sira (1892): and various short arts. in JQR, REY;
ZATW, Rev. Bibl, TA. Rundschau. HT
SIRAH, WELL OF (ΠῚ ΘΠ “13, ‘walled cistern'?
cp on "ND, PRISON, $ 2 (9)), 2 S. 326, the name of the
spot from which Abner was enticed back to Hebron, after
he had concluded his interview with David {see ABNER),
and had set out on his return journey northward.
Josephus calls it Bn[plonpa—i.e., mo asn—and says that
it was 20 stadia from Hebron (Art vii. 15). Rosen
has called attention (Z24/G 12486) to a spring and
reservoir, situated about a mile out of Hebron, a few
steps to the W. of the old northern road, and now
called ‘Ain Sara. Grove (22,1% s.v. 'Sirah') and
Conder (Terfvork 286) agree that this may be the
ancient ‘well of {the) Sirah’; indeed, Conder goes so
far as to say that ‘this may be considered one of the few
genuine sites in the neighbourhood of Hebron.' It is
true, the original form of the name may have been
man, Sehirah ({.6., ‘enclosed'?), for GA gives (ἀπὸ
τοῦ φρέατος) τοῦ σεειραμ, where w may of course be
disregarded (cp σηλωμ-- Shiloh), G° . . . gp. σεειρα,
Vg. a cisternà Sira; Targ, anvbi xmin; Aq. ἀπὸ
τοῦ λάκκου τῆς ἀποστάσεως (man) It is more prob-
able, however, that ‘Hassirah* covers over some
gentilic or ethnic, and if ‘ Hebron' is a corruption of
‘ + Rehoboth, and David's first kingdom was really in the
as some recent articles in the present work
pena some gentilic or ethnic of the Negeb—such 85
“mea, Ashhur (cp pin, Heres)—is to be expected.
T.K.C.
SIRION (Ὑν, in: caniwp [BAFL] in Dt, ;
0 HramtHmenoc [BNARTU]—i.e., NP}, in Ps.), a
*Sidorian’ or Pheenician designation of Hermon, Dt.

1 tor some illustrations of the diversities of Gk. readings see
N. Peters, ‘Die sahidisch-Koptische Uebersete. ἃ, B. Ecclus.*
575 ἐπ Bibl Stud, 8 3 (1898).

The acrostic, 5113-30, seems to be the only example of
copying on a large scale ; the other cases, not numerous, affect
only single words or expressions.

On palzzographic peculiarities see Schechter, in Schechter
and Tavlor's Ben Sira, and Gaster in /0£ for July, 1900.

4651

SKIRT

89 Ps. 296, Itis also recognised by Pesh. in Dt. 4.48 ("1
for IN); and in Jer. 18140, by Gràtz and Cornili,
according to whoni, to show the unnaturalness of
Israel's desertion of Yahwè, Jeremiah asks, ‘ Does the
snow of Lebanon melt away (amy) from the rock of

Sirion* {read rin isp for mie ©, ‘from the rock of the

field’)? It is not clear, however, that ‘Sirion’ is the
right form; it is hardly confirmed by the Ass. sirara
(KA420) 159, 184; cp Del. Par, τοῦ, 103 /).

It is probable that ‘ Hermon” was also a designation of the
mountains of ‘ Jerahmeel.' Dt, 38/7, in its original form, seems
to have described the territory of Cusham, where OG (g.2.)
reigned; similarly Dt. 448. ‘Sirion’ can now be explained.
Like ‘ Hermon,' it represents an ethnic— perhaps basi (Israel).

T.K.C

SIBAMAI, RV ΒΙΒΜΑΙ (5, or ODI [see Gi.];

cocoma: [BA], cacamei [L]), a Jerahmeelite;
τ Ch, 240

Bacthgen (Beitr. 65) and Kittelon 1 Ch. Lc. call attention to
the Ph. name ‘pp in a bilingual where Gr. has ceouaos; and
Baethgen, following Renan, accepts pot as 2 divine name.
But in spite of Kittel's implied suggestioni (see Suattum, 3) it
may well be questioned whether Sismai can be=ppp 12y ‘servant
of (the god) Sisam." Of all the other names in 1 Ch. 234-41
there is hardly one which cannot be at once with some confidence
pronounced to be a clan-name. The names which follow Sismai
are Shallum, Jekamiah, and Elishama, names which may
plausibly be regarded as related to Ishmael and Jerahmeel.
bip and pop have sometimes arisen by corruption out of
ΤῊΞ and D'YAD; it Îs possible that ‘DDD represents ὍΝ "one
from Cusham'(=the N. Arabian Cush). Cp je (Sheshan),
v. 34, the name of a Misrite slave, which may represent jy9
(Cushan); sce, however, SHESHAN. τ. Κ' οἱ

*D, $ 51; on meaning, see below;
ceicapa [B], cicapa [AL]; in Judg. 520, 14A [A]).

1. The leader of the Canaanites opposed to Deborah
and Barak (Judg. 4 £). The narrative, however, is
inconsistent, and presents Sisera în a twofold aspect;
according to the poem (5) he is the greatest of the
confederate Canaanite kings, whilst the prose account
(4) represents him merely as the general! of Jabin
king of Hazor, and as having his abode in Kadesh (so
Mard., see HAROSHETH). See further DEBORAH and
SHAMGAR, In the latter article the difficult name
Sisera is considered ; it has probably not a Hittite but
a N. Arabian origin. If the Nethinim are really (see
Che. Amer. J. of Theol., July r9or, pp. 433 πὴ
Ethanites or N. Arabians, the explanation here offered
will be confirmed (see, however, NETHINIM). See 2,
below. The royal city of Sisera (or Jabin) is (ex
kyp.) not the Hittite city Kadesh (see HAROSHETH)
but the place known as Kadesh-barnea {Kadesh-jerah-
meel).

2 Me name of a family of (post-exilic) Nethinim: Ezra 253
(Bom. σισαραία] [AL]); Neh.T 55 (σεισαραθ [A], σέσει, [BR],
im. L]); 1 Ésd. 532 (oepap [BA], ASERER (AV), SERAR [RV]).

SISINNES {cicinNHc), ‘governor of Syria (Ceele-
syria) and Pheenicia,' 1 Esd. 67 71. The name is also
that of a faithful courtier of Darius, Arr. i. 253 vii. 64
(Zirwns). On its possible origin, see TATNAI (the
corresponding name in Ezra, Neh.).

SISMAI (Ὁ). 1 Ch. 24ot RV, AV SISAMAI.
SISTRA. See Music, 8 3 (3).

SITNAH (MDW?; εχθριὰ [ADL, om. ΕἼ), the name
of one of the contested wells in the story of Isaac and
Abimelech, Gen. 2621. ‘The name still lingers; see
REHOBOTH,

SITHRI ("®MNY), Ex. 622 ἘΝ, AV ZITHRI.

SIVAN (Ὁ; Esth. 89; Bar. 18).
82

SKIRT. τ. ἐπὶ Da (Ex. 2833 ΕΝ [AV <hem'], 15,
6: Ἀν [EV ‘train 1.2 The word, like the cognate

1 This seems to be not original; cp JaBIN and see JupGES,

87
2 In Is.61 the Tg. and & avoid the anthropomorphism of the

4652

See MONTH,

SKULL

do0e1 (babi, Is. 472t, RV ‘train') is derived from a root
meaning ‘to hang down.’ It is only the mantle that
has a skirt or train, and in this lies the whole point of
Is. 472; the ‘tender and delicate maidens remove the
veil and flowing robe to perform the work of slaves.

2. bandph, 3, rather ‘corner’ or loose-flowing end. See
FxincES, and cp SAcK.

3. deh, ΠΒ, See COLLAR, 2 (col. 838).

BEULL. See CALVARY, GOLGOTHA.

BLAUGHTERMEN (Gen. 3736 AVm®, etc,).
EXECUTIONER, I.

SLAVERY. The word does not occur in EV.
‘Slave’ is found only twice in AV (Jer. 214, and here only in
italics as an explanation of ΠῚΞ Pb» ['home-born slave]; Rev.
18 13 for σωμάτων), and twice in RV (Dt. 2114 247, 5 TAYNI,
*deal with as a slave [marg. chattel]’; AV ‘make merchandise
of), The Heb. 3up, εὗδε, is rendered ‘scrvant' (1 K. 239etc.).

Aniong the Hebrews, as in the ancient world in
general, there was no such thing as free labour in the

modern sense; men-servants and maid-
pra servants were the property of their
ὙΠ masters—in other words, were slaves.
We must carefully dissociate this word, however, from
certain ideas inseparably connected with it in the modern
Christian world. In the Hebrew conception there was
no such profound difference between the slave's relation
to the head of the house, and that held by the other
members of the family. Free-born wives and free-born
children are legally all alike under the power of the
master of the house. The father can sell his children
as well as his slaves to another Israelite. ‘The slaves
are not regarded as beings of an inferior order, but are
true members of the family, and, though destitute of
civil rights, are nevertheless regarded as fellowmen,
and, indeed, if of Israelite descent, are held in as high
esteem as freemen who at the same time are foreigners.
Considered in itself, therefore, there is no degradation
attaching to slavery. This is Sufficiently shown by the
one notorious fact that a man would not infrequently
sell himself into slavery, and voluntarily remain in that
condition.

In the legal and actual standing of the slave the

point whether he was an Israelite or not was exceedingly
2. Slaves: their important. The bulk of the slaves
position, etc. in ancient Israel would seem to have
belonged to the non-Israelite cate
gory. In the main they had become slaves—as all
ancient law sanctioned--through the fortune of war.
There existed, indeed, also in Israel the barbarous
custom of the 4érem (see Ban). The war being re-
garded as a war of Yahwè, the entire booty was often
devoted ‘to Vahwè' ; that is to say, every living thing
was put to death, and every lifeless thing destroyed (see,
eg, 15.15). In the otherwise humane Dt. even,
only the women and children of conquered towns are
to be spared—i.e., made slaves. Desire of gain doubt-
less often interposed as a practical corrective of this
cruel precept, and it is probable that, as a rule, the
custom was to turn to account as slaves the men as
well as the women (τ 5.15 1 K. 2039 etc.) Israelites
also, we may be sure, had frequent opportunities, if so
minded, for buying slaves in foreign markets. Their
Phceenician neighbours, with whom they always had
active commercial relations, were famous throughout
antiquity as slave-dealers (cp Am. 16). The ‘strangers
within the gates' must also, occasionally at least, have
found themselves compelled to sell themselves or their
children. And, lastly, the slave population was con-
stantly augmented by the birth of children to slaves in
the home of their master—-the γδξαδ Sdyi/£ (ma vb) of
Gen. 1414—children who, of course, were themselves
also slaves.
‘The masters right of property in his slaves of foreign

LA.

See

figure by rendering nvp* 1 (“the brilliancy of his glory) and
δόξα respectively,

4653

SLAVERY

origin was unlimited. He could sell them, or give
them away to Israelites or non-Israelites
8. Master and 5 he chose. Yet these slaves, too,
Slave. were by no means left absolutely
defenceless to the caprice of their owner. The old
consuetudinary law interposed energetically on their
behalf. The master was not entitled to kill them ; the
killing of a slave was a punishable offence—a provision
which becomes all the more noticeable when it is
remembered that in the case of children the father did
possess a limited power of life and death {see Law anD
Justice, $$ ro 14). With the Greeks and Romans this
power was, as regards slaves, a matter of course. The
master's right of punishment was, in Israel, further
restricted, and the slave protected from serious mal-
treatment, by the rule that the slave became entitled to
his freedom if his master in chastising him had done
him some lasting bodily injury, such as the loss of an
eye or of a tooth (Εχ. 3156 2). Even in such cases,
indeed, the principle that the slave was the property of
his master was not lost sight of. The law exempted the
master from punishment if an interval of at least a day
had elapsed between the maltreatment of the slave and
his death. The presumption was that the death had
not been intended, and it was held that the master had
suffered penalty enough in the loss of his property, ‘ for
he is his money" (Ex. 21 20[21]). The killing or maiming
of another man's slave was also regarded only as injury
done to property, for which compensation was required.
‘Thus, if a slave were gored by a vicious ox the owner
of the ox had to pay a compensation of thirty shekels to
the owner of the dead slave for his negligence in not
looking after an ox known to be dangerous, {The sum
mentioned clearly represents the average value of a
good slave at the time of the enaciment.) The owner
of the ox was not liable to any further penalty, however,
though when a free man was killed in like circumstances
the case was one of murder and the owner of the ox
was punished with death (Ex, 21287). The runaway
slave also enjoyed the protection of ancient custom.
The prohibition of extradition indeed is not met with in
express terms earlier than Dt. (2315); but we may
safely take it that ancient custom, at least, did not
require extradition as a matter of course. The decision
in each case, as it arose, lay in the discretion of the city
to which the fugitive had betaken himself. Shimei, for
example, must în person come and fetch his siaves who
had fled to Gath (1K.239/). Lastly, the slave was
protected against over-driving by the institution of the
Sabbath, which, in the view of the ancient law-giver,
aimed specially at the benefit of slaves and the lower
animals (Ex. 2312 Dt. 512 25}.

The legal position of the foreign female slave was
still better. She was often her master's concubine —as
is shown by the loan-word prleges (159; Gr. παλλακί5),
which the Hebrews doubtless got from the Pheenicians,
Di. (21107) gives precise regulations for the case of an
Israelite owner who seeks thus to appropriate a female
captive. He is not allowed to take her at once;
she must after coming into his house shave her head
and pare her nails and bewail her father and mother for
a full month, after which her master may espouse her.
This regulation, also, we may safely assume to have

rested on ancient custom.

It must further be remembered that to ancient feeling there
was nothing degrading in the idea of the master of a female
slave being lord also of her body, any more than there now is
in modern Islam. As is shown elsewhere (see MARRIAGE, $ 1),
the freewoman also became a wife by purchase, and there is no
essential difference in the position of a secondary wife. The
position of the concubine is superior to that of che ordinary slave
in this, that her master is not at liberty to sell her again. As
Tegards the foreign concubine indeed this is expressly Îaid down
only in Deuteronomy : her master must free her if he desires to
put her away. But this also certainiy comes from ancient
practice common to the Israelites with other Semitic peoples.
Even now it is held among the Arabs to be a shameful thing for
a master to sell a slave who has been his concubine, especially if
she have borne children to him; and this had the sanction of
antiquity even in Mohammed's time (cp WRS, Kir. 73).

4654

SLAVERY

Slaves of Israelite descent were in the minority.
Kidnapping of slaves within the tribes of Israel was
severely prohibited both by law and by ancient usage
(Ex. 2116), though this did not prevent its occasional
occurrence (Gen. 37267), in which case, however, it
was prudent to send the victims abroad. ‘There were,
héwever, other ways in which Israelites could become
the property of Israelites. ’lhe Hebrew parent was at
liberty to sell his children into slavery, only not to a
foreigner; and doubtless there were many cases in
which poor men availed themselves of this right (Ex.
2177). The insolvent debtor also was sold {2 K. 4:
Am. 26 86 Neh, 558), So too the convicted thief,
who was unable to make good his theft (Ex. 222f);
according to Josephus (Ax%. iv. 82} he was in this case
given to the person he had robbed {cp a provision in the
law of the twelve tables). Finally, in cases of great
poverty, a last resort was for a man to declare himself
and his family the property of some well-t0-do person
{Lev. 2539 47). What is related of the patriarch Jacob
may also have frequently occurred; a suitor who was
unable to pay the τεῦξαν or purchase-money demanded
for the bride would voluntarily hire himself as a slave
for a fixed time to the father of the girl (Gen. 2918; cp
MARRIAGE, $ 1),

The position of such Israelite slaves was considerably
better than that of those of foreign origin. The main
difference, so far as the Jaw was con-
cerned, lay in this, that the foreign
slave remained a slave all his life, whilst the Hebrew slave
had a legal right to manumission, and within a definite
time had to be released for nothing. According to the
Book of the Covenant the slavery of an Israelite lasted
six years; in the seventh year he again became free
(Ex. 21: 7). The story of Jacob warrants the con-
jecture that in the original custom the Hebrew slave
served for seven full years, and that later, under the
influence of the Sabbatical idea, the beginning cf the
seventh year was taken as fixing the date of the release
(cp Stade, GV/1378). By the seventh year of course is
meant, not the Sabbatical year of a still later time, but
a relative term reckoned from the date of the beginning
of the bondage. Ifthe slave had brought a wife along
with him, she, and doubiless also their children, became
free along with himself. If, however, he had entered
into bondage alone and afterwards as a slave had
received a wife from his master, she and also the
children remained the property of the master (Ex.
217). Manifestly, în the case of a wife being given
to a slave, only a foreign woman could be intended ;
for the Hebrew female slave the master had either to
take to himself or give to his son (see below), A
characteristic light on the whole position of the Hebrew
slave is shed by another fact ; the law can presume that
in many cases the slave will prefer not to use his legal
right to bis liberty, but will voluntarily elect to remain
in bondage. The rule just mentioned, reguiating the
retention of wife and children, must ffequently have
produced such cases; another cause will be mentioned
later. 1fthe slave desired to remain with his master in
perpetuity, his master was to bring him before ‘&16hîm ’
and there fix his ear with an awl to the door-post (Ex.
215/; cp Di. 15:6/). Interpreters are not agreed as to
whether by ‘ &10hîm” we are to understand the sanctuary,
and that the declaration could only be duly made
there. See col. 3224, note 2, Deuteronomy says
nothing about the sanctuary, but doubtless assumes that
the ceremony will be in the house of the master. This
might be a result of the concentration of the cultus at
Jerusalem ; but ît might equally well be held to show
that neither also did the ancient custom reflected in the
Book of the Covenant prescribe a ceremony at the
sanctuary, and that by ‘&lòhim' are meant the house-
hold gods, the Penates which in old times were found

4. Manumission.

1 [See Nowack, #4 177, and especially Eerdmans, 74.7,

‘De beteekenis van elohim in het Bondsboek,' 28 272,7 (1894).1 ὁ

4655

SLAVERY

in every house (cp e.g., 15.1913; see TERAPHIM).
The ceremony can have had no other meaning than
that the ear of the slave—that is, his obedience—is
firmly nailed to this house and pledged to it for ali time
coming.

Elsewhere also boring the ears is met with as a sign of slavery τ
δῆς, among the Mesopotamians (Juv. 1104), Arabs (Petr. Saf
τοῦ), the Lydians (Xen. 47x45. ii. 1 31), and others (see Di. on
Ex. 2155)

Deuteronomy advances a step (1513 £), and requires
of the master that he shall not send his slave away
empty but shall give him a liberal present from flock
and threshing-fioor and winepress. Here we catch
sight of another motive which may have often induced
the slave to remain in voluntary bondage : the emanci.
pated slave, if quite destitute, was in worse case ina
state of freedom than before—left to his own resources,
exposed to every hardship and oppression ΤῸ the
man who had no land of his own the position of a free
working man, or any other favourable opportunity of
earning a livelihood, was hardly attainable at all, or, if
attainable, only to a very limited degree. Many a man
might therefore prefer slavery with comfort to freedom
with destitution. ‘The precepts of Deuteronomy are
not complied with. ὙΠῸ legislator himself feels that he
is leaving much to the discretion of masters, and therefore
exhorts them all the more earnestly (ν. 18): “It shall
not seem hard to thee; . . . for Yahwè thy God shall
bless thee {therefore] in all that thou doest.' What we
read in Jer. 848 7 1 significant of much; in the time
of a great distress, when Jerusalem was under siege,
Zedekiah ordered the inhabitants of the city to free
their Israelite bondmen and bondwomen, und so to
fulfil the commandment that had been so neglected.
But hardly had deliverance come and the siege been
raised before the liberated slaves were again reduced to
bondage.

P will not have any such thing as slavery for an

Israelite. If an Ilsraelite finds himself driven by
poverty to sell himself into slavery, he is
Di θα of not în reality to be regarded as a slave, but

asa free wage-earneror g?r (Lev. 25/3539).
For all Israelites together are the servants of Yahwè, who
brought the nation up out of the land of Egypt; they
must not therefore treat one another as slaves (Lev.
2542). In the matter of emancipation, indeed, the
law had to yield to the force of custom ; but the eman-
cipation of the Hebrew slave was no longer to occur in
the seventh year of his slavery, but only in the year of
Jubilee, every fiftieth year. Im this year (sce JUBNLEE)
all land reverts to its original owner ; the liberated slave
thus has the means of subsistence secured for himself
and his family.

The attempt (Oehler, PRE) 14341 £)to interpret this lawas
having in view only those siaves who, when the year of Jubilee
came, had not yet been six years în bondage, and chat thus che
Jubilee release coexists as an institution with that of the seven-
Years’ release, finds no support in the text itself; neither can we
(80 Di.) interpret the law as relating only to those slaves who,
previously, at the seventh year's release, had voluntarily τος
mmained in bondage, and who now in any case have to go free in
the year of Jubilee; had this been meant, it would have been
sai

It is only in the case of his having been compelled to
sell himself to a gèr or foreigner in the land that the
law offers the Israelite the possibility of an earlier release
{in such a case he cannot reckon on the same brotherly
treatment as with a brother Israelite). Here a redemp-
tion was possible, the right of which belonged not only
to the nearest kinsman, the brother or uncle on the
father's side, but also to the bondman himself if in the
meanvwhile he had come into possession of means. ὙΠῸ
price of redemption also was fixed by law, and in a
sense very favourable to the slave or his redeemer. The
purchase-money originaliy paid by his present owner
was to be regarded as a sort of hire paid in advance for
the years of service from the date of purchase till the
next jubilee,1 and above this a sum proportionate to the

1 An indirect confirmation of what has already been said—

4656

SLAVERY

time which may have been spent up to the time of the
Tubilee year was to be paid as redemption-money, so
much for each year (Lev. 25477). Such a regulation
clearly presupposes post-exilic ‘conditions. Before the
exile the case of an Israelite being compelled to sell
himself to a foreigner was hardly conceivable. The
foreigners in the land were few, and were themselves
in a position more closely approaching that of the slave
than that of the freeman (see Law AND JU:
$ 144). Since the exile, however, ἃ large non-Jewish
population had settled in Judzea, and, to the great
mortification of the Jews, had attained a position of
wealth and prosperity in marked contrast with that
of the poor returning exiles.

In so far as these laws are bound up with the idea of
a year of jubilee they of course were never carried into
practical effect any more than the year itself was ob-
served, But the idea underlying them nevertheless
gained the upper hand ; the idea, namely, that for an
Israelite to own his brother Israelite as a slave is irre-
concilable with the essential nature of the theocracy.
The poor who had sunk to such a degree of poveriy
realised the ignominy of such a position as they had
never done before; essentially they knew themselves
the equals of their rich brethren and the possessors of
equal privileges. ‘When in Nehemiah's day the severe
stress of the times had compelled numbers of the poorer
people to pledge themselves and their children to their
richer brethren to save themselves from starvation, the
situation was shocking to them, and they turned to
Nehemiah. Nehemiah took their part, censured the
nobles and wealthier classes for their impiety, and
succeeded in inducing them to free their poor brethren
from their mortgages (Neh. 517). This fundamental
principle—--that no Jew can ever be a slave—was taken
over by the later Talmudic law ; even the thief, who
had been sold for his crime, was not to be regarded as a
slave (see Winter, of. cit.10/7). And when the manifold
wars of Seleucids and Ptolemies again and again reduced
multitudes of Jews to slavery under heathen masters,
their redemption was regarded as a sacred duty and a
meritorious service {1 Mace, 841 2 Mace, 811).

The same legal principles apply substantially to the Israelite
female slave ; but in the older period the release at the end of
the seven years could not app. the woman being her master'scon-
cubine. Ifan Israelite girl was sold by her father to a master
which of course happened only when he was unable to sell her
τὸ a husband-—the purchaser was bound to treat her as his wife in
respect of "food and raiment and duty of marriage.” If he failed
in any of these respects, he had to set her at liberty for nothing.
It the purchaser did not desire to marry her at all, he could give
her to his son as concubine. 1f however, he did not wish this
either, then he could sefl her only to a purchaser who wished
her for a concubine, not to a foreigner; but, holding this

sosition, she could not become a freewoman in the seventh year.
Riot till'we reach che time of D do we find the privilege of release
in the seventh year claimed for her withthe option of voiuntarily
remaining in slavery. It appears that in the time of D the
ancient custom according to which the female slave had the
pesition. of concubine no longer prevailed. According to
‘l'almudic decisions a wife can never be sold as a slave; but the
father had the right to sell his daughter as long as she was under
marriageable age (cp Winter, o/. cit.).

From what has been said it will be manifest that the
lot of slaves, in its legal aspects, was not specially

hard, and custom, even if in various
6. Retrospeck. re:rects often coming short of the law,
in other important respects demanded more, From
everything that we read about slaves we gather that they
were treated as members of the family, and that the
head cared for their well-being as for that of his own
children. ‘The whole manner of their relations with
their masters shows that they were treated, not as
dumb, driven creatures, but as men with minds of their
own which they were free to express,

Saul is indebied to his slave for his information about Samuel
the seer and his importance, and it is his slave who lends him
the prophet's fee (18,98). Itis a slave who advises Abigail

SLING

to make peace with David—quite against the will of the master
of the house—and she follows his advice (τ 8.25 14 7). Eliezer
in the patriarchal legend figures as the comptroller ‘of the house-
hold, and is invested with a sort of guardianship over Isaac, the
son of the house (Gen. 241°). Compare also the relation of
Ziba to Meribbaal, Jonathan's son (2 5.917. 161/7.), The
slave could even matry the daughter of the house ( Ch. 2 34/4),
and, failing a son, become the heir (Gen, 1527). -

In the last resort ihis favourable position of slaves
arose from the fact that as members of the family they
were admitted to the family worship, To the ancient
view this came as a matter of course. The slave could
not have his own worship, his own god ; as housemate
he must necessarily participate in the worship of the
master of the house. So Eliezer prays to ‘the God of
his master Abraham” (Gen. 2412, etc.), The Priestly
Code expressiy demands the circumcision of slaves
{Gen. 1712), This, too, must have been in ancient
times a matter of course. Otherwise the alien slave
would have been a continual source of religious pollution
for the whole house. This also is the tacit presupposi-
tion of Deuteronomy when în its humane concern for
the slave it requires that he be allowed to participate in
sacrifice and feast (1218 1611). The non-Israelite, the
uncircumcised person, could not possibly be admitted
to a share in the sacrificial meal. ‘The slave, being
admitted to the family worship, becomes {in the earliest
times when ancestor-worship comes in) capable of con-
tinuing this worship and thus of inheriting (see above).
It is in this standing which the slave enjoys as a co-reli-
gionist and fellow-worshipper that the most powerful
possible motive is found for his master to treat him with
kindness and fatherly care, just as to-day, in Islam,
slaves as fellow-believers are treated with all humane-
ness. The brotherhood in the faith in Islam now, as
in Israel of old, is not, as unfortunately it has come to
be in the Christian world, a mere empty phrase, but a
very real force.

See, besides the handbooks of Hebrew archaeology, Michaelis,
dos. Recht, δ 127 Ὶ Saalschitz, Das mosaische Recht, 2536 71

ce the articles on slavery in Winer, Schenkel,

7. Bibliography. Riehm, Herzog-Plitt, Guthe; the mono-

graphs by Mielziner (Die Verkdltnisse der

Sklaven bei den alter” HeBy86rn, 1856), Mandi (Das Skleven-

recht des AT, 1886), Grinfeld (Die Stellung der Sklaven bei

den fuden nach bibi. u. talmud, Quellen, 1886), Winter (Die

Stellung der Sklaven bei den Juden în vechilicher wu.
geselischafilicher Beriehung nach falm. Quellen, 1886).

LB

SLEEVE (DE), Gen. 373 7 2 S. 1318 Ἐν πε See
Tonio, 8 1.

SLIME (90, acpaAroc!; in Ex. acqarto-
micca), 2447, as distinguished from 44mer, ‘ mortar,
clay,' always denotes the raw material, RV®E- correctly
‘ bitumen‘ (Gen. 113 1410 [where Var. Bib. suggests
‘naphtha ‘], Ex. 237 {see PrTcH]). On the philology of
the two terms see Fraenkel, Araz:. Fremdw. 161, andon
the biblical passages cited, see BABEL [TOWER ΟΡ],
Sopom AND GOMORRAH, and Moses, 8 3 (col. 3207),
respectivelv, and cp generally BABYLONIA, $ 15; BITU-
MEN; CLAY; DEAD SkA, $6; MORTER.

BLING. Two Hebrew words have been so rendered.
Op. Ala", σφενδόνη [πετροβόλος in 700 41 20], fienda ; 15.
17 40/50 2529 2 Ch. 26 14 Job 41 20 Zech. 9 15 Ecclus. 47 4.

2. MOD, margimal, σφενδόνη, Prov. 268%, AV and RVug.
(ΕΥ̓͂ ‘heap of stones’; so Frankenberg) ‘The least im-
probable translation is that of AV' (Toy, ad doc.) ; but the sense
of ‘sling’ seems incapable of proof. Like moiin Ps. 6828 the
word is probably corrupt.

3. σφενδόνη, 1 Macc. 651 (‘instruments for casting fire and
stones, and pieces to cast darts and slings"), See SIEGE, $ 4.

[In 1S, 14145, the text of which in MT is corrupt (as ἃ refer.
ence to AV and RV will suggest), @ introduces a mention of
* pehbles, apparently meaning sling stones. The words are ἐν
βολίσι καὶ [ev πετροβόλοις καὶ ἐν] κόχλαξιν τοῦ πεδίου. For
2 65 (6 seems to have read Mn ‘233, "and with flînts (of
the plain). But this does not at all suit. We must look further.
There are many parallels for this correction of mg ws (ΕΥ̓͂ ‘in

that the law knows nothing of a release în the seventh year.
Otherwise the reckoning would have to refer τὸ the seventh year
also, and not merely to the year of Jubilee.

4657

1 Derivation unknown. Possibiy Semitic, though the sug-
gested connection with the root found în the Heb. £dp42/, ‘be-
smear,* does not commend itself.

4658

SLING

an acre of land'; cp AcRE), into 3829, ‘the garrison' (see

v. ts). The scribe first wrote 5yp, and then, having omitted che
article, wrote it again more correctly ἢν. Out of Is57 150)
by transposition and corrptrion, ΠΊΩΝ arose. * Pebbles'
(ἀόχλαξ) also appears in 1 Macc, 1073; slingers, it is implied,
would find a lack of sling-stones in the Philistian plain (cp
FLINT)—T.K.C.]

From its simplicity, it might have been inferred that
the sling (y5p), an improvement upon the simple act of
throwing stones,! was one of the earliest forms of
weapon. It is not surprising, therefore, to find that
it was employed in quite remote times by shepherds
as a protection against wild animals, by agriculturists
to drive away birds (Wilk. Arc. Eg. 1381), and also by
hunters (Dennis, Ci/ies and Cemeteries of Etruria, 1312
{1878]), and by the light-armed soldier În warfare (i5i4.
la10; for the Arabians cp Doughty, Ar. Des. 2176).
In Palestine the shepherd carried ἃ sling, in addition to
his staff, and a bag to hold his smooth stone bullets
(τ 5. 17.490}; and the Benjamite warriors are supposed
to have been renowned for their effective use of this
weapon, employing it as well with the left hand as
with the right ‘(cp Judg. 2016 1 Ch. 122). In Judità
97 it is mentioned as one of the weapons in which the
Assyrians trusted.

We possess illustrations of the sling from Egypt, from
Assyria (Layard, Nizevek [1852], 332), and from
Rome. The Egyptian slinger is in the act of throwing
(Wilk. 1210). The sling is made of a plaited thong,?
the centre being broad enough to form a receptacie (59,

4aph, 152529) for the stone. One end seems to be
attached to the hand, the other being simply held ; the
part of the sling in which the stone is lodged is loosely
supported by the other hand. The sling îs swung over
the head (cp Ecclus. 474), apparentìy with some such
motion as in bowling, the loose end fiying into the air.
The stones are carried in a bag which hangs from the
shoulder. In the illustration from Rome the sling
(Yunda) seems to be of the same kind (see Rich, Dicz.
under ‘funda'); but only one hand is employed, whilst
the stones are held in a fold of the slinger's mantle by
the other. The slingers seem to have worn, as a rule,5
no armour, and to have carried no other weapons
(Erman, Arc. Eg. 524; cp Rich, under ‘ Funditores'),
A. Lang (Homer and the Epic, 375f.) explains why
there are so few references to the sling in Homer
(see // 18 599 716) by the remark that Homer ‘ scarcely
ever speaks at all of the equipment of the light-armed
crowd’; the sling ‘was the weapon of the unarmed
masses, as of David in Israel.” .

The sling is still used in Syria, in Egypt, and în Arabia. Vou
may still come upon young Syrian shepherds practising with their
slings (see, e, Harper, 7 Scrifture Lande, 140); Doughty
speaks of Arab boys ‘armed as it were against some savage
beast with slings in their hands' (47. Des. 1432), but Thomson
(Land and Book [1894], 572) only saw it used at Hasbeiya, on
Mount Hermon, by boys in ‘mimic warfare,”

It was long in use among Ruropeans, too, even the simplest
form of it (see above) surviving. Thus it was used by the
Anglo-Saxons, though ‘ whether for warfare or the chase alone,
it is not easy to determine' (Hewitt, Ancient Arzonr in
Europe, 158/., fig. on p. 59), Hewitt also gives later instances
(1156; see the interesting plates, xxvii. 1. 1i.); it was used in
battle as late as the sixteenth century (3605). M. A.C.

1 ΒΕ) skilfully exercised by the Arabs (Doughty, 47. Des.
2.238 402), as it was amongst the N. American Indians (School-
craft, as quoted in Keller, Lake Diwve/Zings [ET], 1141; ‘there
is evidence to show that, as an amusement, it was ‘very
common amongst the ancient races”). The practice seems 10
have continued, even among the Romans, in addition to the
other ; the accensì, as distinguished from the fundifores, threw
the stones with their hands (see Rich, Dic4 under ‘Fundi-
tores'),

2 Slings were also made of ‘twisted hair, sometimes human
bair' (Schliemann, σε, 437 [1880].

3 Cp Keller, Late Dewellings [ET], 1141, "broader in the
middle, in order to keep the projectile as in a hood or cap.”

4 ‘Like the bow, the sling gained its real importance after the
Carthaginian wars, owing to the skill of the Balearic allies*
(Ὁ. Haeffer, The Life of the Grecks and Romans [ET], 574£)-

3 There were, no donbt, exceptions. YV. Haeffer, The
Life of the Grechs and Romans {ETI, 574. Va

4659

SMYRNA

SLUICE (NI). Is 1910 AV, after Tg. Most
moderns render, ‘all those who work /or Aire (13) will
be grieved {*m1x, cp POOL, 1) in soul’ So virtually RV.

SMITH. τ. wi; see HANDICRAFTS, $ 1; cp
CHaRASHIM. ᾿
2. ὭΌ, smasger; 2K. 24116 Jer. 241292, everywhere || Ὁ ἽΠ

(. above).

SMYRNA (cmypna ΜΗ, zm. Ti, Rev. lit; ἐν
Σμύρνῃ, Rev. 28).! Smyrna is a very ancient town ; its
τ history falls into two αἰδβιίποι periods,

k dad associated with two distinct sites. Old

* Smyrna (ἢ παλαιὰ Σμύρνα, Strabo, 646;
cp Paus. vii. ὅτ) stood at the NE. corner of the bay
under Mt. Sipylos above the alluvial plain of the mod.
Burnabat, It was said to have been built by the
Amazons (Strabo, 550}, in whom we may trace a
tradition of the Hittite occupation of Lydia. To them
also was ascribed the foundation of Ephesus, Cyme, and
Myrina,?

The Amazons were primarily the priestesses of that Asiatic
nature-goddess whose worship the Hittites introduced into
western Asia Minor (see EpHesus, Diana) Upon the arrival
of the Greeks in Asia Minor the town was occupied by the
northern section, who are called the Eolians; but the Colo
phonians seized it by treachery, and thenceforth it ranked as an
Tonic city (Herod. 1150). Its position gave it the command of
the trade of the valley of the Hermus which flows into its gulf,
and made it the most powerful rival of the Lydian capital,
Sardis, which lay on the middle Hermus, about 54 R. πὶ; to the
East. Hence a primary object of the policy of the Lydian
dynasty of the Mermnada: was to make themselves masters of
Smyrna and the other Greek towns on the coast (see LyDIA).

Smyrna successfully resisted the attack of Gyges
(Paus. iv. 215 ix. 292), but succumbed to that of
Alyattes (about 580 5.6. ; Herod, 116) Smyrna was
destroyed, and its inbabitants dispersed in villages; ‘it
was organised on the native Anatolian village system,
not asa Greek πόλες᾽ (Rams, Z/ist. Geog. AM 62, n.; cp
Strabo, 646, Λυδῶν δὲ κατασπασάντων τὴν Σμύρναν
περὶ τετρακόσια ἔτη διετέλεσεν οἰκουμένη κωμηδὸν).
The trade of Smyrna was taken over by Phoceea, which,
like the other Greek towns, was absorbed in the Lydian
empire; when Phoceea in its turn was destroyed by the
Persians, Ephesus became the chief commercial city in
this region. Some of the extant early electrum or gold
coins with the lion type, usually classed as issued by
Sardis, may really be mementoes of the early com-
mercial greatness of Smyrna (so Rams. οὗ. εἶδ, 62).

Alexander the Great, warned, it is said, by a vision
{Paus. vii, 51), conceived the design of restoring Smyrna
uo 858 city. This design was actually
2. The new city. carried into effect by his successors
Antigonus and Lysimachus; the earliest undoubtedly
Smyrneean coins are in fact tetradrachms of Lysimachus,
bearing the turreted head of Cybele with whose worship
Smyrna was always prominently associated. New
Smyrna thus arose, nearly three hundred years after its
destruction. ‘The new site, about three miles (Strabo,
634, περὶ εἴκοσι σταδίους) S. ot the old site, was on the
shore of the gulf, at the foot of Mount Pagos, the last
western member of that chain of hills which, under
various names (Olympus, Tmolus), divides the valley
of the Hermus from that of the Cayster. ‘The natural
beauty of the mountain-girt plain was remarked by the
ancients.3

The architecture of the city was worthy of its setting.
The streets were laid out in straight lines at right angles

1 Σμύρναν îs read în the ‘western' text for Μύρρα in Acts27 5
in D. The more ancient form of the name, down to the end of
Trajan, was Ζμύρνα or Ἱμύρνα: later it was written în the
familiar form Σμύρνα (Cuvpra). See the coins, and cp Furneaux,
note on Tac. Ann. 863.

2 The part of Ephesus which owed its foundation to the
Amazons was called Samorna or Smyrna (Strabo, 633). And
Myrina îs evidently the same word, initial Σ being lost, as in
μιαρός for σμικρός Cayce on Herod, 1 r5).

Pliny, 474/531 ‘montes Asie nobilissimi in hoc tractu fere
È Glican se’; Strabo, 646, καλλίστη τῶν πασῶν, μὲρος μέν τι
ὄρει τετειχισμένον, κυτιλ.

4660

SMYRNA

to one another, after the system of Hippodamus of Miletus,
who had so taid out Thurii (443 8.5.) and the Piracus
for Pericles (for the Ἱπποδάμειος τρόπος see Aristot. Pol
4 (7) τι = 1330 8, τα (Ὁ. Extending from the temple of
Cybele, the * Golden Street” ran right Across the city to rhe
opposite temple of ‘Zeus upon the Heights’ The only
drawback was that, being unprovided with drains, the streets
were sometimes flooded by storm-water (Strabo, 646). Many
temples (those of Cybele, Zeus, the Nemeses, Apollo, Asklepios,
and Aphrodite Stratonikis were the chief), a Stadium, an
Odeum, a Public Library, an Howrerium dedicated to Homer,
a Theatre (one of the largest in Asia Minor), and several two:
storied Stoai (Strabo, Zc. στοαί τε μεγάλαι τετράγωνοι, ἐπίπεδοί
τε καὶ ὑπερῷοι) made Smyrna one of the most magnificent cities
of the East. Few remains of this ancient splendour survive.

Smyrna also possessed a good harbour, which could be closed
(Strabo, Lc. λιμὴν Aewrrds). Apart from the prosperity arising
from the fact that the bulk of the trade of the Hermus valley
passed through its port, the territory of Smyrna was very fertile
and produced much wille.

‘The people of New Smyrna were gifted with political
sagacity which stood them in good stead in dealing with
the Seleucidre and afterwards with the Romans. ‘The
decree is still extant (243 B.C.) in which mention is
made of the temple of Aphrodite Stratonikis, which was
{by a sort of false etymology or play upon words)
associated with the honour paid by the Smyrnezans to
Stratonice, wife of Antiochus I. {see C/G 3137 = Hicks,
Manual, no. 176). In return, Seleucus ÎL declared
both the tempie and the city to have rights of asylum,
By this pronouncement the city was removed from his
jurisdiction and probably exempted from the necessity
of providing troops or of receiving his garrisons (see
Holm, Οὐ. Zist., ET, 4.49). During the war with
Antiochus the Great the Smyrnseans embraced the
Roman cause and were, upon its conclusion, granted |
the privileges of a civitas (sine faedere) libera et immunis |
for their loyalty (cp Polyb. 2148 and C/G 3202, 3204 £.).

When the Romans finally occupied Asia, Smyrna became the
centre of a conventus juridicus which embraced the region from
Myrina to Teos and the skirts of Mount Sipylos as far as
Magnesia (Pliny, ΑΓ 531; Οἷς, Pro AZeec. 29), In the war
with Mithridates îr retained its loyal attitude (cp Tac. Awx. 4 56),
The sole exception to the course of prosperity. arose when
Trebonius, one of Ceesar's murderers, took refuge within its walls
and was besieged by Dolabella, who finally ca sprored, the city
and put Trebonius to death (Strabo, 646; Dio Cass. 47 29 Cic.
Phi 2).

According to Tacitus (4x7. 456), the Smyrnzeans had,
as early as the consulship of Marcus Porcius Cato (195
k.c.), erected a temple dedicated to Reza. On the
ground of their constant loyalty, and this display of it,
they made claim before Tiberius in 26 A.b. to the
privilege of erecting a temple to the emperor. Out of
the list of the contending Asiatic cities Sardis and
Smyrna were preferred, and Smyrna won the day (see |
NEocoROS). ‘There is extant a Smyrneean coin bearing |
on the obverse a figure of Tiberius in the centre of a |
temple, with the inscription Σεβαστὸς Τιβέριος (Eckh. |
2
254). ᾿

It is not surprising to find, therefore, that, Asia Minor
being under the Empire the ‘paradise of municipal ἢ
vanity (Mommsen, £G 5302), Smyrna vied with its !
neighbours in the accumulation and assertion of empty |
tiles. Like Sardis, Pergamos, and other cities (see
Momms.-Marq. Rém. Staatsverw. 1343), she held the
title of metropolis.

Her great rival in this respect was Ephesns, who enjoyed the
high. sounding titles πρώτῃ πασῶν καὶ μεγίστη, and μητρόπολις

τῆς ᾿Ασίας. What exactiy the possession of the title πρώτη
implied that the mutual strife for this ‘primacy' (rpwreia)

should have been so keen (cp Aristides, Or; 1771, Dind.; Dio |

Chrys. O». 2 148 R.) is not certainly known ; but probably it was
connected with the question of precedence at the games of the
κοινὸν ᾿Ασίας (sce AStaRcH). The strife between Smyrna and
Ephesus continued until the emperor Antoninus settled the
dispute (Philostr. 0/., ed. Kayser, p. 28124, καὶ ἀπῆλθεν ἡ
Σμύρνα τὰ πρωτεῖα νικῶσα).
The coinage of Smyma richiy illustrates the above points.
From the time of its ruin by Alyattes to that of its restoration,
there was of course no issue of coins. The usual silver coins of
Roman Asia, the Cisfogzori, în the case of Smyrna bear the |
legend zMvr, with the head ‘of Cybele as a symbol. The im-
perial coins bear the honoraty titles Νεωκόρων ; πρώτων ᾿Ασίας, |
Or πρώτων ᾿Ασίας γ᾽ νεωκόρων τῶν σεβαστῶν κάλλει καὶ μεγέθει,
he third Neocorate here asserted begins towards the end of
ept. Severus). Certain οοίης bearing a figure of Homer seated !

149 4661

SNAIL

were called Ὁμήρεια (Strabo, 646), and perhaps reproduced
some statue in the Homes. In addition to the worship of
the Sipylene Mother (Cybele) to which the epithet Σιπυληνή on
certain coins refers, the cult of the Nemeses was largely
practised in Smyrna, and on some coins are seen figures of two
Nemeses appearing in a vision to Alexander and charging him
to restore the city (Paus. vit.51/) The Griffin, a frequent
Smyrneean type, symbolises this worship, just as the Lion
symbolises that of Cybele.

Points of contact between the above and the address
in Rev. 28 £ are not very obvious, though not entirely

wanting. Probably many phrases would
3. NT refer: fall upon the ears of those for whom the
* message was intended, with a force which
is now quite lost. Especially may this have been the
case at Smyrna, where much importance was attached to
a method of divination from chance phrases (Paus,
ix.}17, ‘divination by means of voices . . . is, to my
knowledge, more employed by the people of Smyrna
than by any other such people'). Outside the walls
there was a ‘sanetuary of voices.' It has been sug-
gested, therefore, that the words with which the message
opens would come with peculiar force to those who
perhaps had heard similar phrases in the pagan mysteries.
Similarly, the phrase ‘crown of life’ (Ὁ, το, τὸν στέφανον
τῆς {wîjs) must inevitably have suggested or have been
suggested by a prominent feature of life at Smyrna—
the public Games (cp Paus. vi. 1437 for a striking in-
cident occurring at one of the celebrations held at
Smyrna, in 68 Α.Ὁ.}. It was on such an occasion
that the Asiarch Philippus was forced by popular clamour
to doom the aged Polycarp to death (τς A.D.). The
Games were characteristic of pagan life, and socially,
though not politically, they would serve as an effective
touchstone of sentiment. The fact that on the occasion
of Polycarp's martyrdom the Jews also took part in
accusirg him of enmity to the state religion, is strikingly
in accord with the words of Rev. 29, where the Jews
of Smyrna are called ‘a synagogue of Satan” “He
that overcometh’ must also be used with reference to
the gymnastic and other contests familiar to the Smyr-
neans. It would, however, probably be a mistake to
confine the suggestiveness of the phraseology too
narrowly.

The ‘crown of life,' for example, may also have associations
connected with the complimentary crown bestowed upon
municipal and other officials for good service. It is also note-
worthy that many Smyrnaan coins show a wreath or crown
within which is the Lion symbol, or a magistrate's name or
monogram (see illustration in Head, Z/ist. Nere. 509), This
emblem also might enter into the complex 5 association of the
words, which it is the task of historical imagination to revivify.

Smyrna, now Zswir, is the commercial capital of Turkey.
Plan, with very full account of ancient remains and modera
town, in Murray's Handbook of Asia Minor, g0f. For the
older Smyrna, see Curtius, Leif». 3. Gesck. und Topographie
Kileinasiens, Berì. 1872. W.]. W.

SNAIL occurs twice in the OT as the translation of
two terms.

1. BIN, Zdmef (Lev. 1130), where, however, some kind of
LizarD (g.2.) is meant (ΕΥ̓͂ ‘sand.lizard’).

2. bibayi, ἐαδόδα! (Ps. 588 [9]}, a word of uncertain

etymology, which is found in the Targ. under the form
x55xn. The rendering ‘snail' is probable and is sup-
ported by the Talm. S#a33afk, 776, where Rashi, in
his commentary, explains it by Zimzace. Ewald, with
less probability, follows & and Vg. (κηρός, cerz) and
renders ‘melted wax.' Some land snail is probably
referred to, and the allusion to its melting away may
have reference to the trail of slime which the molluse
leaves behind it as it crawls, or may refer to the retire-
ment of these animals into cracks and crevices, where
they are no more seen, at the approach of the dry
season. The land and freshwater mollusca of Syria
are fairly numerous and varied, and it is interesting to
note that the Dead Sea contains no molluses, whilst the
sea of Tiberias has a rich molluscan fauna. Bliss {A
Afound of Many Cities, 110) found a quantity of snail
shells ; ‘snails had doubtless been used for food.’ [A

4662

SNARE

strong protest is raised against the prevalent view of the
text of this passage by Cheyne, 2». 3.1
AE S.S. A, Ὁ,

SNARE. For Upi, mor; MD, pos; DIM, φούλοῖ
also βρόχος (=73425) and παγίς (-Ξεσξδξ and pat), see FowL,
$9. For nia, 2050424, see NET, 4, and for N33W, sébdka4
(Job 188 AV), see NET, 5. For NDS, ῥάβανᾳ (Lam. 347 AV),
<p Pr, 7.

ΒΝΟῊ (9, sez; Bib.-Aram. 10h, δας, Ass.
talgu; χιων) Likeraîn and hail, the snow was tradi-
tionally supposed to be kept în store-chambers în the
sky (Job 8822). It is at God's command that it falls
{Job 376 Ecclus. 48 13); it is he who ‘p/ue8s μέ snow
like wool° (Ps. 14716, read pnin). Its sure effect in

fertilising the ground supplies a figure for the certainty
of prophecy (15, 55107); its brilliant whiteness, for the
clear complexion of those exempt from agricultural toil
(Lam. 47), for a conscience free from the sense of guilt
(Ps. 6179] 15. 1.18), for the appearance of lepers {Ex.
46 Nu. 1210 2 K.527), for the shining raiment (Dan.
79) and hair (Rev. 114) of a heavenly or divine being.
No less than five references to snow occur in the Book
of Job. In describing the treachery of his friends, Job
refers to the ice and snow which help to swell the
streams from the mountains in spring! (Job 616); and
twice again he refers to the snow water (930 2419 [not
in 6)}

O rase “it snowed on Zalmon” (so Driver, Par, Ps.
Ps. 6814 [15] ἴ5 puzzling; we should have expected “on Hermon.*

Appearances point strongly to the view that the passage is cor-
τυρὶ. See ZALMON.
A beautiful proverb (Prov, 2513) reminds us how
enduring Oriental customs are.
Like the cooling of snow [in a drink] in time of harvest,

Is a trustworthy messenger to him who has sent him;
He refreshes the soul of his ford.

©One could think that this proverb had been written
in Damascus; sherbet cooled with snow was hardly
a summer drink at Jerusalem.
‘summer’ to an ordinary citizen of Jerusalem suggested
incongruous ideas (see Prov. 261, (8 δρόσος). Jeremiah
refers to the eternal snows of Lebanon (Jer. 1814; see
SirIoN), and in the eulogy of the pattern woman it îs
said (Prov. 31212} that she needs not to be afraid even
of ‘snow’ (i.e, of the coldest days of winter) for her
houschold because ‘they are clothed with scarlet' (or,
‘with double clothing'; see CoLours, 8 14). Ina
famous passage (2 S. 2320= 1 Ch. 1122} Benaish, the son
of Jehoiada, is said to have slain, not only two lion-like
men of Moab {so AV) and a ‘goodly* Misrite {see
MizraIM, $ 2 5, col. 3164), but also ‘a lion in the
midst of a pit in time of snow.’ Why the snow is
referred to, however, is not clear. An old French
Hebraist (Vatable in Cril. Sac. 22462) says it is because
lions are strongest in the winter. The Hebrew,
however, has not ‘in time of snow,' but ‘in the
day of the snow'—i.e., on some one day on which
heavy snow had fallen.'? Such a snowfall might be
mentioned as something remarkable from its rarity. In
1 Mace. 1322 we read of ‘a very great snow’ which
hindered the movements of Trypho, the opponent of
Jonathan and Simon the Maccabees. It is conceivable
that a lion ‘had strayed up the Judeean hills from
Jordan, and had been caught in a sudden snowstorm*
{GASm. #G 65), and that Benaiah went down into the
cistern into which the animal had fallen and killed it;
but the passage is full of textual errors.

Klostermann and Budde read thus (cp ARIEL}

‘The same (Benaiah) slew two young lions near their lair;4

he also went down and slew the (parent) lion in the midst of the
pit on the day of the snow More probably, however, the

1 Cp Geikie, The Holy Land and the Bible, 124.
2 ὧδ, however, has no mention of snow.
3 H. P. Smith ‘gives the very improbable sense, ‘He used to

go down (19°) and smite the lions in the pit on snowy days.”
4 nssnodx ΚΣ va (Klo,, Bu.).

4663

Indeed, ‘snow’ and ;

so

passage records the slaying of two Jerahmeelites (bung, mn
in Maacatb-'arab-i.e., Arabian Maacath, on the day (i.e,
famous battle) of Ishmael. See Crif. 226,

South of Hebron snow is rare, and along the sea-
board of Philistia and Sharon, as well as in the Jordan
valley, it is altogether unknown. In Jerusalem ît is to
be seen in the streets two winters in three ; but it soon
disappears. Very snowy winters, however, do occur.

In the winter of 1857 the snow was 8 inches deep and covered
the eastern plaîns for a fortnight. The results were disastrous.1
Nearly a fourth of the houses of Damascus were injured, and
some of the flat-roofed bazaars and mosques were left in heaps
of ruins. The winter of 1879 was still more remarkable; 17
inches of snow, eyen where there was no drift, are recorded.?

T.K.C.

SNUFFDISHES (MIMMO), Ex. 25.38 εἰς, See CEN-

SER, 2; CANDLESTICK, $ 2,

SNUFFERS. 1. NINA (VUDI, ‘to pluck'?),

sézammerità, 1RK τὸ 2K.1213014] 2514 Jer.5218 2Ch.
4224, Cp CANDLESTICK, $ 2.

2. DIIRID, melkahdyim, Ex. 87 23. ἘΝ ‘tongs.’ See Toncs,
CANDLESTICK, $ 2; Cooxino, $ 4

80 (ND; φηγὼρ [B]. cwa [A], on @* see below ;
Vg. Sza). In 2.174 we read ‘the king of Assyria
found conspiracy in Hoshea, for he had sent messengers
to So, king of Egypt.” ‘This happened in, or directly
before, 725 B.C. Egyptologists formerly looked to the
first two names of the Ethiopian or twenty-fifih dynasty
of Egypt, Shabaka or his successor Shabataka. In ac-
cordance with an erroneous chronology, that dynasty
was believed to have begun în 728, and the conquest
of Egypt and Hoshea's embassy seemed to coincide
very remarkably.* In the first place, however, the names
of Skaba(or bi)ta (Sabahu in cuneiform transcription,
Sabakòn in Herod 2137, and in Manetho) or S4ade
(or δὲγέαξα (Sebichos, Manetho) could not satisfactorily
be compared with So, which would have been an
unparalleled mutilation, not to mention the insuperable
difficulty of Egyptian ὅ as Semitic s. In the second
place the chronology must now be considered impossible.
We know, as the only firm point for the chronology of
the Ethiopian kings, that Tirhaka-Tahf(a)rkò died in
668/67 and that his successor (Tandamani) was expelled
from Egypt during the following year. Manetho gives
to the first three Ethiopian kings, 40 (Africanus) or 44
years (Syncellus), Herodotus so years to the only
Ethiopian king whom he knows, Diodorus 36 years to
all four kings, The monuments insure 12+26 (not
more) +3+3 (alleged, and not counted) years to the
dynasty. The maximum for the beginning of the
Ethiopian family in Egypt would thus be 712 ; probably
it is rather to be assumed some years later (about 709 ?).
Consequently, Samaria had been destroyed and Hoshea
had perished before the Ethiopians conquered Egypt.
As kings of Ethiopia alone, they could not come into
consideration for Syrian politics. Winekler (MVAG,
1898, p. 29) has made it probable that Shabaka, the
Ethiopian conqueror of Fgypt, lived in peace with As-
syria, exchanging presents with Sennacherib. Further-
more, we should expect the title ‘ king of Kush-Ethiopia'
in the case of the alieged -Ethiopian ruler, or Pharaoh
in the case of a true Egyptian prince.

The cuneiform inscriptions of Sargon tell us of Si#'e,
a iurtanu—i.e., general or viceroy—of Pir'u, king of
Musri, who vainly assisted the rebellion of Hanunu of
Gaza against Assyria and suffered a complete defeat at
Raphia (Rapizi) in 720 by Sargon. We see from the
cuneiform orthography that the biblical form So cught
to he vocalised .Sewe or, better still, that the w is a
corruption for b and the original reading was Sib'e.
Winckler's first suggestion of the possibility that this
Sib'e was not a petty Egyptian prince but a Musrite, a

1]; 1, Porter (Kitto, Coe; ΒΡ, Lit 8199)
2 Geikie, The Holy Land and the Bible,2 58.
8 The present writer was still under this impression when pre.
paring the article EcvPT (8 66 a). Wiedemann (Cesc. Aeg. 587)
compared So with the fabulous Sethon of Herodotus.

4664

SOAP

representative of the king Pir'u (not Pharaoh) of Musri

i.e., Northern Arabin—wasin 40# 126 (cp Ο 1 170};
in ΚΟ, 1898, pt. i., he finally treated it as certain
{sce now AU4 78 146). The correctness of this view is
evident (cp Hosuka, col. 2127), although the old,
impossible theory (see above) is still frequently found
repeated,

Very remarkable is the form of 2 K. 174 în 6%, which
substitutes for So, ‘ Adramelech, the Ethiopian, residing
in Egypt” (᾿Αδραμελεχ τὸν Αἰθίοπα τὸν κατοικοῦντα ἐν
Αἰγύπτῳ). Seductive as this piece of information looks
—only the name Adramelech could never be treated as
an Egyptian or Ethiopian name—it is shown by the
data of the cuneiform inscriptions to be an exegetical
addition, quite in harmony with the paraphrastic char-
acter of € which presents such an analogy to the
‘Fargum. It is quite remarkable that the Jewish
scholars who inserted this addition knew enough about
the history of Egypt to think of that Ethiopian dynasty
(the date of which they, like modern Egyptologists, put
too high, see above) and to conclude that an Egyptian
ally of Israel could have been only a governor under
the king, residing in remote Napata. This imperfect
(cp the date and the impossible name Adramelech)
knowledge cannot be accepted, however, as historical
evidence outweighing the direct testimony of the monu-
ments. {See further Criz. Bib.] W. M. M.

SOAP, or SOPE, in modern language, means a

compound of certain fatty acids with soda or potash,
the potash forining the ‘soft.' the soda the ‘hard'
soaps of commerce. Soap is believed to have been iîn-
vented by the Gauls, and became known to the Romans
at a comparatively late date. Pliny says /fif ex sedo ef
cinere, and that the best is prepared from goat-tallow
and the ashes of the beech-tree. | A soap-boiling estab-
lishment with soap in a good state of preservation has
been excavated at Pompeii.
The word ‘soap’ is used in EV to translate the Heb.
Bòrith (ποτὰ, a derivation of αὐ τι, cp Ἴϑ, ‘cleanness’)
in two passages (Jer. 222 Mal. 32t)! which allude to the
cleansing of the person and of fabrics respectively. It
is not possible to ascertain exactly what substance, or
substances, are intended. As a rule the ancients
cleansed themselves by oiling their bodies and scraping
their skins, and by baths, and they cleaned their clothes
by rubbing with wood ashes and natural earths, such as
fuller's earth, carbonates of sodium, etc. They cleansed
their wine and oil casks and their marble statues with
potash lyes.® Natural carbonate of soda (see NITRE)
was also used, as well as the juices of certain plants
{see below) which, owing to the presence of saforzz,
form a soap-like lather with water. See LyE, NITRE.

Canon ‘Tristram states that considerable quantities of soft
soap are, at the present day, manufactured in Palestine by boil-
ing olive oil with potash, procured by burning several species of
Salicornia (glass wort) and Sasola (salt wort), especially
S. Kalî, which abounà in the neighbourhoad of the Dead Sca
and in the salt marshes which fringe the coast. Cp Low, 43.

A. E. 5,

SOCHO (51), 1 Ch, 418 AV, RV Soco, a name in
the genealogy of the δ᾽ π8 JUDAH, cp ΒΟΟΟΗ͂, 1.

SOCOH (5% in Josh. ΑἸ. but Kr, înîas inch,
where RV has Soco; în S. and K. πο [Kt.] γπν [Kr.]; coxe
(BAL).

1. A town in the Shephelah of Judah, grouped with
Jarmuth, Adullam, Azekah, etc.; (Josh. 1535 σαώχω
[B]). and mentioned with Azekah in the description of
the encampment of the Philistines in 18.171 (cp
EPHES-DAMMIM), where AV has Shochoh ([e{s] σοκχωθ *

1 In both passages & has ποία or ποά, &* by a curious mistake
in Mal 82 πλοῖα (‘grass’); Vg. im Jer. has ἀεγόανε dorilk, in
Mal. Aerba fillonusn.

2 Fullers also used putrid urine, which was so offensive that
they were compelled to live beyond the walls or in remote parts
of the city of Rome.

3 The reading Σοκχωθ represents a plur. form; cp Eus. OS

29332 (Foxxw: κῶμαί εἰσί dio... ἡ μὲν ἀνωτέρα, ἡ δὲ κατωτέρα
Σοκχωθ χρηματίζουσαι) and Jer. ἐδ. 15121. . . unus ἴῃ monte
4665

i

SODOM AND GOMORRAH

[BL], εἰσογχω [A], Jos. Απέ, νἱ. 9.1 swxovs). Socoh
was fortifed by Rehoboam {2Ch.117 Shoco AV,
σοκχωθ [BA], σόκχω [L], cwxw [Jos. Ax viîi, 101]),
but, according to the Chronicler, was taken by the Philis-
tinesinthe reignof Ahaz {2Ch. 28 18[Shocho AV, σοκχωθ
[L]). The site intended is no doubt esh-Shuweikeh (as
if a diminutive form of miti). The ruins which bear this
name occupy a strong position (1145 ft. above the sea
level) on the S. side of the great valley of Elah (see ELAH,
VALLEY UF), at the point where the Wady es-Sùr becomes
the Wady es-Sant (cp GASm. #7G 2287; Che. 4ids, 85).
Perhaps this Socoh was the birthplace of the Antigonus
who came after Simon the Righteous and preached dis-
interested obedience ( Pirkz Αἰ σία, 13, inps paris).
‘Fhe gentilie is plausibly found in the ‘Sucathites®
{Socathites) of 1 Ch. 255; see JABEZ.

[The trend of the present writer's criticism, however, is to show
that the geography of the OT narratives has often been mis-
understood and consequently misrepresented by the redactors
spoken of above. Saul's struggle with the arch-enemies of his
people (the Zarephathites, miscalled the Phiilistines ; see SAUL,
$ 46) was in the Negeb. The fight described in 15.17 was in
the valley(?) of Jerahmeel ἰόντες 4a-'z/24, and 'é#hes damminò
near Maacah— which belongs to Jerahmeel'—and Azekah. A
Socoh, or perhaps rather Maacali, in the Negeb was probably
meant in the other passages referred to above, as they were

originally read. The Sucathites too (1 Ch. 255) should rather
be designated the ‘ Maacathites' See SHARGETHAL.

τ. K. C.]

2. A second town of this name is grouped with
Shamir, jattir, etc., in the mountain distriet of Judah
(Josh. 1548 σωχα [B]), and is identified with another es4-
Shkuweikeh, situated 10 m. SW. of Hebron and E. of
the Wady el-Khalil (82195). According to the
ordinary view of the sphere of action of Solomon's
twelve prefects (see, however, SOLOMON, $ 6, note 1)
this is probably the Socoh which formed part of the
prefecture of BENHESED [g.v.] (τ Κ᾿ 4το RV, AV
Sochoh, σοχλω [A], σομηνχαζα [KAL]? σαμηνχα [B],
ἀμηχα [1.}}}.

The Egypt. se-e-kà, $a-0-46 in the list of SoSenk can hardly be
identified” with either of the above. From its position in this
list a more northerly situation seems necessary (cp WMM

| As. u. Eur. 160,5. 166).

SODA (ἼΠ2), Prov. 2520 Ἐνπιξ., EV NITRE (g.7.).
Cp Soap.

SODI (ΠΟ; coyA[elt [BAFIL]}, father of Gaddiel,
Zebulunite (Nu. 13 το).

SODOM AND GOMORRAH

Biblical references (δ 1).
Critical analysis (8 2).
Lot-story not historical (& 3).
Possible classification (δ 4). esult ($ 10).
Difficulties (8 5). Religious suggestions ($ στ),
Text of Gen. 19:24£, etc. (8 6). Literature (ἢ 12). .
Sonpom (DIO; coloma [BNADEOZTI], plur.),
cosom[elita: Gen. 194, and GomorkaH (MY, ro-
moppa [BAL], in OT sing. and plur. ;
in NT (AV GoMoRRHA) plur., except
in Mt. 10 15 according to Treg. [but not Ti. WH], with
CDPL [DL romopac, so romopa Jer. 2314 N)), two
cities represented in the traditional text of Gen. 1310-12
1925 as situated in the ‘Circle (133, AV ‘ plain," ΕΝ
‘ Plain ') of Jordan,” and less distinetly in 143 as in the
Vale of SibDIM (9.7.). According to the same test, the
kings of Sodom and Gomorrah and their allies were de-
feated by CHEDOR-LAOMER, king of Elam, and his allies,
who carried away both the people and the goods of Sodom
and Gomorrah, but were forced to give these up by the
rapid intervention of the warrior ‘ Abram the Hebrew *
(Gen. 14116) In Gen.1816-33 191-29 we have the
account of (1) a dialogue between Abraham and, first
of all, the Flohim who visited him, and then Yahwè
alone, respecting the fate said to be impending over

New theory (ἢ 7).
Stuckems ‘dry ' deluge (ἢ 8).
‘udg. 19 15-30 (ἢ 9).

1. References.

et alter in campo situs, qui Sochoth nuncupantur, Both Fuse.
bius and Jerome strangely confuse Socoh with Succoth-benoth
GK.1730).

4666

SODOM AND GOMORRAH

*Sodom and Gomorrah'! (virtually equivalent to
*Sodom'); (2) the circumstances leading up to the cul-
minating act of wickedness committed in Sodom ; and
(3) the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and other
cities, and the escape of Lot and his two daughters.
The sin of Sodom is often referred to as typical of
horrible and obstinate wickedness, 15.1 τὸ 39 Jer. 2314
Dt. 3232; and its destruction as a warning, Is. 179 1319
Jer. 4918 Zeph. 29 Dt. 2922 Am. 411 Lam, 46 (for EV's
‘iniquity‘ and ‘sin’ read ‘ punishment '). Sometimes,
too, it is mentioned alone as the destroyed guilty city,
Gen. 1913 (‘this place’ =Sodom) Is. 17 39 Lam. 46 {cp
Gen. 14:77 [but in v. 17 6° inserts καὶ Bar. γομ. 1, where
the king of Sodom figures alone); but Gomorrah
is often mentioned too, Gen. 1310 1820 192428 Is.
19 f. 13:19 Jer. 2314 Απι. 4τι Zeph. 29 Dt. 3232.
‘ Neighbour cities’ are also referred to in Jer. 4918
5040; cp Ezek. 1646 7 (‘Sodom and her daughters').
In Hos, 118 Admah and Zeboim, and in Dt. 29 23 [22]
Soedom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim are given as
the ruined cities ; cp Gen. 1019 and 142, where in like
manner these four cities are mentioned together. [πὶ
Wisd. 106 the inexact phrase " Pentapolis' is used (see
ἘΝ) The description of the sin of Sodom in Ezek.
1649 504 is evidently based on the legend known to us
from Gen, 19, and similarly that of the punishment in
Dt. 2923[22] agrees with that given in the traditional
text of Gen. 1924-26. Allusions to the fate of Sodom
appear to occur în Ps. 116 [but see below] 14010[xx]
Job 1815 15.849 £ Jer. 2016 Ezek. 3822. Curiously
enough, in a geographical passage (Gen. 1019), Sodom
and Gomorrah and Admah and Zeboim are spoken of
as if still in existence. These are the data relative to
the history of Sodom and the other cities supplied by
the traditional text.

The references to Sodom (Gomorrah is rarely added) in the
Apocrypha and in the NT are as follows—2 Esd. 28 57 736
Ecclus. 168 Wisd. 19 14 Mi. 10 το (Mk. 6r1 [not in best texts]
Lk. 10 12) Lk.17 29 Rom. 9.29 (quotation) 2 Pet. 25 Jude7 Rev.
118 (cp Ezek. 23 3, etc.).

Before proceeding further it is necessary to refer
briefiy to the critical analysis of the section in which
the Sodom-story is contained (Gen. 18-
1928). That v. 28 belongs to the Priestly
Writer is admitted ; its true place is prob-
‘ably after 1312 {P), which states that ‘Lot dwelt in
the cities of 5397’ {rather bannw, ‘Jerafimeel'). With
regard to the rest of the section, it is admitted that there
has been a prolonged process of editorial manipulation.
©nly thus indeed can we account for the singular com-
bination of passages which refer to Vahwé as the
speaker and actor with otler passages which indicate
three men as charged with representative divine func-
tions, and for the not less singular fact (1) that whereas
Abraham's hospitality is claimed by ‘three men,' Lot
receives into his house only two men, who are called
in the present text of 191 ‘the two mal'akiz: (EV
‘angels'),' and (2) that in 1917, wbereas the first verb is
in the plural (‘when ##ey had brought them forth '),
the second is in the singular {' ἀξ said’; so again, 7. 21).
It was long ago suggested (and the same idea has
lately been worked out by Kraetzschmar?) that chere
have been imperfectly fused together two versions of the
story of ‘Sodom,' in one of which Yahwè was said to
have appeared in a single human form, and in the other
in a group of men; whether we regard these men as
‘&lohim’ {cp Gen, 126 322 117) or divine beings, the
chief of whom is Yahwè, or as ““παὶ dkim' (commonly
rendered ‘angels ’), does not affect the critical inquiry.
It is impossible, however, to work out this theory to a
satisfactory result; the original narrative may have
been modified by editors, but we cannot to any large

1 Regretfully we abstaîn from drawing out the beauties of
the story in chap. 18. For parallels to the divine visit see
Grimm, Dewtsche Mylhologie, pp. xxxiv-xxxvii, and 312; cp

- also Hom. 04.17 485

2 ‘Der Mythos von Sodoms Ende,’ Z4TW1T81-92; cp Mew

World, 1236.

4667

SODOM AND GOMORRAH

extent admit the theory of independent literary strata,
Fripp, therefore, was justified in attempting to show!
that in the earliest form of the story Yahwè himself was
the only speaker and agent. Comparing this story,
however, with analogous stories in Genesis and else-
where, it is much more natural to suppose that in its
original form three men—i.e,, three ' δι ῖπι '—were
spoken of, and that the distinction between Yahwè (who
remained—see 18 225—to talk with Abraham) and the
‘two mal'akim' who went to ‘Sodom’ was due to the
same later writer who, as Wellhausen (C4/27 /)} has
rendered probable, introduced 1817-19 and 224-338, a
passage which reveals the existence in the writer's mind
of doubts as to the divine justice, such as we know to
have been felt among the Jews in later times. There is
also reason to think that the references to Lot’s wife
(19 15/. 26; contrast v. 12) and the whole of the Zoar
episode, together with the account of the birth of Moab
and Ben-ammi {?), are later insertions, though by no
means so late as the two insertions in ch. 18 mentioned
above,?

Here, however, we are chiefly concerned with tbe
contents of the Lot-story (ch. 19). We are told that as
a punishment for disregard of the sacred

È Lot. law of hospitality, and for a deadly sin
posi] committed at least in intention, ‘Yahwè

rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah
brimstone and fire from Yahwè out of heaven, and over-
threw those cities, and all the Plain, and all the inhabit-
ants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground"
(1924 / ΕΝ} Is it possible to explain the origin and
meaning of this story, accepting provisionaliy the form
in which it is given in the traditional text? ὃ

That the story is historical (however laxly the word
be interpreted) ought to be at once denied by those
who have read the earlier legends of Genesis in the
light of the comparative critical method. If the Deluge
is not historical, and if Abraham and Lot are ultimately
the creations of the popular imagination, how can the
strange story in Gen. 19, for which, as we shall see,
there are so many parallels in folk-lore, be regarded as
historical? It is surely no answer to appeal to the
accordance of the phenomena of the catastrophe of
Sodom with: those which have bappened elsewhere in
‘similar geological formations,’ or to the justification
of the traditional description of that catastrophe by
‘authorities in natural science' (but not in historical
criticism) and by some competent critics of the OT.
For the narratives of the Hebrew Origires must be ac-
cepted or rejected as wholes, Plausible as Dawson's
view4 may be, that the description of the catastrophe
of Sodom is that of ‘a bitumen or petroleum eruption,
similar to those which on a small scale have been so
destructive in the region of Canada and the United
States of America,’ and the more ambitious theory of
Blanckenhorn,° that the catastrophe, which was a real
though not a historical event, began with an earthquake,
continued with igneous eruptions, and ended with the
covering of the sunken cities by the waters of the Dead
Sea, it would require great laxity of literary interpreta-
tion to assert that this is what either the Yahwistic
narrative, or the earliest references in the prophets,
intend. As Lucien Gautier remarks {above, col. 1046),
‘The text of Genesis speaks of a rain of fire and brim-
stone and a pillar of smoke rising to heaven, but neither

1 Composition of the Book of Genesis, 50-53(1892), and ZA ΤῊ
12.53.2, (1892).

2 Im an essay in the New WorZ4, 1243, only the geological
myth in τ. 26 relative to the pillar of salt is regarded as an ac-
cretion. , Gunkel (2 Α΄, Gen. 188 2) holds that Lot's wife played
no part in the original story, and that the Zoar episode is also
a later insertion, but he claims vr. 306-38 for the original story.

3 Knohel hasyat any rate, noticed that the Sodom catastrophe
closes the second stage in the early narrative, corresponding to
the Deluge,

O Eapocitor, 1886 (1), p. 74; Modern Science in Bible Lands,

6.

486.
δ΄ Z DPI (sce end of article).
4668

SODOM AND GOMORRAH

of an earthquake, nor of an igneous eruption, nor of
an inundation.’ Nor can we venture to pick and choose
among the details of the story in Gen. 19.

Ἰς is of no more use to justify with some plausibility two or
three expressions in a part of the Sodom-story by means of
* lore than to make it out to be, modestly put, not
impos ble thac® Chedorlaomer, king of Elam,' may have invaded
Palestine at a time when Abraham may have lived. If ‘authori.
ties in natural science’ sometimes speak as if Gen. 19 were în
part historical! (more plausibly, based on a tradition of a real
occurrence), we must remember that historical criticism and
natural science are both studies which require a special training,
and if critics of the OT even in the nineteenth century have
thought that they could (here and in the Deluge-story) disengage
a true tradition of a prehistorie natural fact from the mass of
superimposed legend, one may remark in explanation that these
critics belong to a transitional period, and that the criticism of
to-day has to throw off the weaknesses which it has inherited
from the past.

The chief extra-biblical passage in which distinet
reference is made to the destruction of the cities as
historical is in Strabo (xvi, 244), where, after describing
the rugged and burnt-up rocks, exuding pitch, round
about Μοασάδα (i.e, the stupendous rock-fortress
Masada, near the SW, shore of the Dead Sea), the
geographer mentions the native tradition that here
thirteen cities once fiourished. The ample circuit of
Sodom their capital can, he says, still be traced. In
consequence of an earthquake, and of an eruption of
hot springs, charged with bitumen and sulphur, the
lake advanced suddenly (ἡ λίμνη προπέσοι) ; some of
the cities were swallowed up, and others were deserted
by as many of the inhabitants as could flee. Josephus
{B/iv.84), speaking of the lake Asphaltitis, upon which
the country of Sodom borders, uses similar language:—
‘’There are still the remains of the divine fire, and the
shadows (σκιάς) of five cities are visible as well as the
ashes produced in their fruits,' It is hardly possible to
avoid taking these reports together, and assuming that
Strabo'‘s informant was of the Jewish race. If we reject
the claim put forward by critics in behalf of the state-
ment in Gen. 1924 £, we must still more certainly reject
the statement of Strabo as historical evidence.#

1 E.g., besides the late Sir J. W. Dawson, Canon Tristram
(The Land of Israel, 356). Describing a valley at the N. end
of the salt-range of ΠΕ he says “The whole appearance
points to a shower of hot sulphur, and an irruption of bitumen
npon_it, which would naturally be calcined and impregnated
with its fumes ; and this at a geological period quite subsequent
to all the diluvial and alluvial action of which we have such
abundant evidence. The catastrophe must have been since the
formation of the valley, and while the water was at its present
level—therefore probably during the historic period,* Blancken-
hom, however, is more in touch with biblical critics. In his
second article he expresses his adhesion to the views (then just
published) of Kraetzschmar, and says, ‘This makes it plain that
while ir is certainly very probable that the account in Genesis
points to a natural occurtence which was real but not ‘“ historic,”
the Yahwistic form . . . is altogether different from the original
tradition, which is rather to be sought in the references and
figurative statements of the prophets’ (222/2169 {1898]).
Whether this stress on the prophetic references, only two of
which can be at all early, is justifiable, need not here be dis-
cussed,

2 See also Tacitus, st 537, The reference may be (1) to
the fruit of the ‘osker-tree (κέν, Calotropis procera, of the
family Asclepiadacez), which Hasselquist (7rave/s, 1766) calls
doma sodomitica, and found in abundance about Jericho and
near the Dead Sea. He says that they are sometimes filled
with dust, but ‘only when the fruit îs attacked by an insect
which turns all the inside into dust, leaving the skin only entire,
and of a beautiful colour.’ The tree, says Tristram (74/2 484),
grows to a height of from twelve to fifteen feet, and the fruit is
‘as large as an apple of average size of a bright yellow colour,
hanging three or four together close to the stem.’ It easily
bursts when ripe, and ‘supports a very singular orthopterous
insect, a very large black and yellow cricket, which we found
in some plenty on all the trees, but never elsewhere.” But (2)
Tristram's suggestion that the fruit of the colocynth is meant
deserves attention. See Gourps [1.0], The fruit, though
fair of aspect, has a pulp which dries up into a bitter ‘powder,
used as medicine. But to suppose that the phrase ‘the vine of
Sodom' (Dt. 3232) has any reference either to the colocynth or
to any other botanicai plant, is plainly a mistake (see the com-
mentators).

3 Still more obviously worthless for critical purposes îs the
statement of Trogus (Justin, xviii. 3 3) that the Pheenicians were
forced to leave their home beside the Assyr7%2 stagezoe by an
carthquake. Bunsen took this sfagau to be the Dead Sca.

4669

SODOM AND GOMORRAH

From the point of view which is here recommended
it is all-important to bring the Sodom-story into the
right class of myths or semi-mythic
aa legends. It is not necessary that
* mythic stories of the same class should
all give the same particulars ; it is enough if they agree
in some leading ‘motive.’ Lack of space prevents us
from mentioning more than a few such stories. Let us
refer first to the story of the punishment of the guilty city
Gortyna, ‘The people of this city lea a lawless exist-
ence as robbers. The ‘Thebans, being their neighbours,
were afraid, but Amphion and Zethos, the sons of Zeus
and Antiope, fortified Thebes by the magic influence of
Amphion's lyre. Those of Gortyna came to a bad end
through the divine Apollo.'? “The god utterly over-
threw the Phlegyan race by continual thunderbolts and
violent earthquakes; and the survivors were wasted by
a pestilence,'? Usually, however, it pleases the creators
of folk-lore to represent the punishment of wicked cities
as consisting în their being submerged by water.
Homer (/2 16 384 7.) speaks of the pernicious ficods
which Zeus brings by autumnal rain-storms on godless,
unjust men. The well-known story of Philemon and
Baucis (Ovid, Ae. 861-724) belongs to the same sub-
division. Similarly a place on the Lake of Thun is
popularly said to have been destroyed because a dwarf
was refused hospitality during a storm by all the inhabi-
tants except an aged couple who dwelt in a miserable
cottage.8 A French journal of folk-lore contains a long
series of folk-tales about these swallowed-up cities,
most of which have a moral.* It is true, the moral
may be omitted, Thus, according to Prof. Rhys,* each
of the Welsh meres is supposed to have been formed
by the subsidence of a city, whose bells may even now
sometimes be heard pealing merrily.

For further European examples see Tobler, Zye neuen Reich,
166 £ (1873); Grimm, Dewtsche Mythologie, 546 f, and cp
Usener, Relizionsgeschichtl. Untersichungen, 3246. A story
similar to that of Lot told by the Chinese Buddhist pilgrim,
Hiouen Thsang, who travelled în India (7th cent: a.p.), may be
added. There was a city called Holaolokia, which was very
rich but addicted to heresy. Once an Arahat (one made free
‘by insight) came there, and was treated inhospitably: earth
and sand were thrown upon him. Only one man had pity on
him, and gave him food. Then said the Arahat to him, ‘Escape;
in seven days a rain of earth and sand will fall upon the city,
and no one will be left, because they threw earth upon me.
The man went into the city and told his relations; but they
mocked him. ‘The storm came, and the man was the only one
who, by an underground passage, escaped (Paulus Cassel,
Mischie Sindbad, 7 (Berlin, 1888).

A similar story is also told in Syria The well-
known Birket Ram, two hours from Banias, which is
evidently the crater of an extinct volcano, is said to
cover with its waters a village, whose population, under
aggravating circumstances, refused hospitality to a poor
traveller. Usually, however, such villages or cities in
Arabian legend are classified as w4£/76df ‘ overturned
ones,' which at any rate implies destruction by other
means than a flood ; one thinks at once of the technical
term mahpzkah (‘overturning’) used in the OT for
Sodom and Gomorrah, and of Job 1528 where the
wicked man is described as dwelling in ‘desolate cities

. which were destined to become heaps.' E. H.
Palmer tells us8 how the Arabs of the neighbourhood
account by a myth for the blocks of stone at the base
and on the summit of Jebel Madara ; stones here take
the place of the brimstone and fire in our present form
of the Sodom-story. Nor is it only in et-Tîh that
stories of ruined cities are handed down among the
Arabs, and that the desolation is accounted for by the

But, as A. von Gutschmid (Bei!». au» Gesch. des Orients, 26)

ointed out, the Assyriszze sfagnaze is certainly not the Dead
ἔφ but the lake of Bambyke (Mahug or Hierapolis).

1 80 in effect Pherecydes (Fragmenta, 128).

2 Pausanias, 9 36 (Frazer).

3 Tobler (08. εἶδ).

4 Revue des traditions locales, 1899-1900, “Les villes en
gloutées.”

The Arthurian Legend, 360}
6 Desert of the Exodus, 416.

4670

SODOM AND GOMORRAH

infidelity and the abominabie deeds of the former
inhabitants.! Wetzstein (in Delitzsch's /05, Ger. ed.
197) gives a number of such stories; one of them
contains a detail illustrative of the ‘ pillar of salt' which
was once Lot's disobedient wife. At the source of the
Rakkad (in the Jaulan} this explorer saw some erect and
singularly perforated jasper formations, called e/y/@rida,
‘the bridal procession.' Near them is its village,
Ufuna, which, in spite of repeated attempts, can be no
more inhabited. It remains forsaken, according to the
tradition, as an eternal witness that ingratitude, especi-
ally towards God, does not escape punishment.

To put aside such facts (of which only a selection has been
given) as irrelevant, and to substitute for them rhe speculations
of ‘authorities in natural science’ unversed in critical researches,
would involve a serious lapse from sound critical method. The
case of the Sodom-story is parallel to that of the Creation-story,
and still more of che Deluge-story, in the Hebrew Origines, to
explain which in any degree by taking account of the subtle
thieorisings of geologists would detract from the clearness and
validity of the approximately correct solutions of the critical
problems involved. It is now beyond gainsaying that naive
races, in viewing certain striking phenomena of nature, sugges-
tive of special divine interventions, are led, by a mental law,
to form mythic narratives respecting "calamities which have
happened to individuals or to populations under circumstances
which in the most widely separated regions resemble each other.
The Sodom-story in the traditional text can be in its main
features explained as such a mythic narrative, and cannot other-
wise be accounted for in any way that is not open to well-founded
critical objection.

There are no doubt several difficulties which still
remain to be dealt with. (1) There are some features

: 4 in the Sodom-narrative which remind
δ. Difficulties.. ας Of the strange story in Judg. 19;
the introduction of these features requires explanation.
(2) There is one reference (Gen. 143) to the site
of the ruined cities which suggests that they were
swallowed up by the waters of the Dead Sea; if
the text is correct it appears to contradict the state
ment in 1924, which makes no reference to a flood.
(3) The expression ‘overihrew' (qb) în 1925 is, strictly
speaking, inconsistent with the representation in Ὁ. 24.
Blanckenhorn, it is true, has a speculative justification
for the expression. But the fact that ‘overturning’
became the ‘technical term’ in literature for the de-
struction of Sodom may well make us hesitate to follow
this eminent geologist. (4) It is almost as difficult to
Jocalise Sodom and Gomorrah as to localise Paradise,

It is only on the last of these points that we are
tempted at present to dilate; but here we prefer to
adopt the clear and full statement (270, 505-8) of Prof.
G. A. Smith. (It should be mentioned, however, that
the question is, for us, of importance only in so far as it
opens up problems as to the successive phases of the

Sodom-story. The historical character of the narrative |,

could not be rescued even if the geographical difficulty
referred to were removed, }

‘There is a much-debated but insoluble question
whether the narratives in Genesis intend to place the
cities to the N. or to the S. of the Dead Sea.

‘Forthe northernsite there arethese arguments—that Abraham
and Lot looked upon the cities from near Bethel, that the name
Circle of Jordan is not applicable to the 5. end of the Dead Sea,
that the presence of five cities there is impossible, that the
expedition of the Four Kings, as it swept N. from Kadesh-
Barnea, attacked Hazazon Tamar, which is probably Engedi,
Before it reached the Vale of Siddim and encountered the king
of Sodom and his allies; that the name Gomorrah perhaps
exists in 7wd£ ‘“Asriyeh, near Ain el-Feskkkal; and that the
name of Zoar has been recovered in 7 εὐ Shagar

‘On the other hand, however, at the S. end of the
Dead Sea there lay thronghout Roman and mediseval
times a city called Zoara by the Greeks and Zughar by
the Arabs, which was identified by all with the Zoar of
Tot. Jebel Usdum is the uncontested representative of
Sodom. Hazazon Tamar may be not Engedi, but the
Tamar of Ezekiel, SW. of the Dead Sea. The name
«* Kikkar” may surely have been extended to the 5. of
the Dead Sea, just as to-day the Ghor is continued for

1 Cp Koran, Sur. 799f
4671

Ì

SODOM AND GOMORRAH

a few miles to the S. of Jebel Usdum ; Jewish and Arab
traditions fix on the S.; and, finally, the natural condi»
tions are more suitable there than on the N. to the
descriptions of the region both before and after the
catastrophe, for there is still sufficient water and verdure
on the eastern side of the Ghor to suggest a garden of
the Lord, while the shallow bay and long marshes may,
better than the ground at the N. end of the sea, hide
the secret of the overwhelmed cities.

‘Such is the evidence for the rival sites. We can
only wonder at the confidence with which all writers
dogmatically decide in favour of one or the other.’

It may be added that Grove {in Smith's DAI), art.
*Salt Sea ') has argued at length for a northern site as
the real one. He is supported by Canon Tristram
(Land of Israel, 360-363) and Prof. Hull (δοκοῦ
Seir, 165). The latter writes thus, ‘From the descrip-
tion in the Bible, I have always felt satisfied that these
cities lay in some part of the fertile plain of the Jordan
to the N. of the Salt Sea, and to the W. of that river;
and when visiting the ruins of Jericho, and beholding
the copions springs and streams of that spot, how
applicable to it would be the expression ‘ that it was
well-watered everywhere” (Gen. 1310), the thought
occurred, May not the more modern city (ancient
Jericho) have arisen from the ruins of the Cities of the
Plain?* We may add that the name ‘ Jericho’ most
probably comes from pm» (Jeroham, Jarham)=%xomx
{Jerahmeel).

Up to this point we have accepted the biblical texts
in their present form. The gains of the criticism based

upon these texts have not been trifling

8. Tert GE GEN: or unimporiant; but the difficulties

di connected with the story of the de-

struetion of Sodom have not all of them been overcome.

The passages which have now to be criticised textually

are Gen. 1019 1810 14 1917-25 1930 Am. 4xr (Is. 17)
Hos, 118 Zeph. 29 Ps. 116.

(a) Gen. 1019 defines the territory of the Canaanite
as extending ‘from Zidon in the territory of Gerar, as
far as Gaza; in the direction of Sodom, Gomorrah,
Admah, and Zeboim, as far as Lasha.’ But can this
be right? Zidon, Gerar, Gaza, Sodom, Lasha? That
the rest of Gen, 10 has first of all become corrupt
and then been manipulated by an ill-informed redactor
is clear; can v, ro be an exception? Evidentiy
‘ Canaanite' should be ‘Kenizzite," and most probably
the names in v. τοῦ should be Ishmael, Jerahmeel,
Shaul.}

(3) Gen, 1310. ‘The awkwardness of the clause ‘before
Yahwè destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah' has been
noticed by critics; how could Lot know anything of the
impending catastrophe? Other interpolations have also
been noticed and yet neither the true limits of the
passage, nor its meaning, have been fully understood.
If we apply the right key, a full solution of the problem
becomes possible. Read—‘And Lot lifted up his
eyes and beheld that Jerahmeel was everywhere well-
watered [before Yahwè, etc.], like the garden of Yahwè,
[like the land of Misrim in the direction of Missur].'?
The description derives its points from the circumstance
that Paradise was localised by early tradition in the
land of Jerahmeel. Cp PARADISE, $ 6. It is a most
interesting fact that (if our restoration of the text is
accepted) Sodom and Gomorrah were, like the primaeval
Paradise, placed by Israelitish writers in Jerahmeel.

(c) Gen. 14. The huge difficulties arising out of this
passage are well-known. Critical opinion leans for the
most part to the view that it is a post-exilic Midrash in
honeur of Abraham, but that it contains some material
drawn directly or indirectly from a Babylonian scurce.8

1 ‘Admah’ and ‘Zeboim were naturally added after the
redactor had succeeded in producing ‘Sodom* and ‘Gomorrah.”
3. The words within [] are interpolated. ‘Missur” means the
capital of Misrim.
Moore, however, whilst not questioning the present text,

4672

SODOM AND GOMORRAH

Gunkel even thinks that the scenes between Abraham
and Melchizedek and the king of Sodom sound lîke
popular tradition. He also remarks that the old
tradition speaks either of Sodom and Gomorrah, or of
Admah and Seboim;? the combination of the four
seems to him to rest on a later fusion of the current
traditions. Winckier, t00, deals with the question of the
names. Inv. ro we hear only of the two kings of
Sodom and Gomorrah (5 and Sam., my; the
verb is plural). This critic, however, thinks that, as ἴῃ
1820 and 1924, both Sodom and Gomorrah are regarded
as subject to the same ruler ; later editors, amplifying
as usual, increased the number of kings. Far be it
from us to deny the acuteness of previous critics, especi-
ally Winckler ;* it appears to the present writer, however,
that a keener textual criticism is urgently needed to bring
out the real, as opposed to the imaginary, problems of
the narrative. The true story seems to have stated that
in the days of Abram war broke out between Jerahmeel
king of Geshur (disguised as ‘Shinar') or Ashhur
(disguised as ‘ Arioch') and Ishmael king of Sèlam {or
Se'ulam?3). For twelve years the latter had been
Jerahmeel's vassal; after this he rebelled. A year
passed, and then king Jerahmeel came and made a raid
among the Jerahmeclites of Zarephath, Rehoboth, and
Kadesh. The king of Sèlam came out to oppose him;
but he and his army were put to flight; the city of
Selim was plundered, and Lot was one of the captives.
News of this came to Abram the Hebrew, who lived at
Rehoboth (miswritten ‘Hebron') and was in close
alliance with the Jerahmeelites. At once he called
together his Kenite and Jerahmeclite neighbours,*
pursued the spoilers as far as Rehob in Cushan, and
brought back the captives and the property which the
spoilers had taken. On his return two kings came out
to meet him, One was the king of ZIKLAG (Halusah ?),
a specially sacred city, whose king was also priest of
the God of Jerahmeel,* and solemniy blessed Abram—a
blessing which Abram acknowledged by the payment of
tithes (cp Gen, 2822), The other was the king of
Sélim, who offered Abram the whole of the recovered
property. Abram, however, generously refused this,
swearing by Yahwè, the God of Jeralmeel, that he
would not commit such a sin against Jerahmeel's land,*
or receive anything that belonged to the king of Selam,
lest the king should thus be entitled to say that he (and
not Yahwè} had enriched Abram. Only the clans which
accompanied Abram—-Eden [Aner], Heles [Eshcol],
and Jerahmeel [Mamre]—required their just share of
the spoil.

The war was therefore between two branches cf the Je
meelite race, and Abram the Hebrew, himself half a Tera.
meelite,? interposed in the hour of need for his neighbours and
relatives. Selim, generally miswritten pap (MT Sedom), but
once pd (a. 18 MT Salem), was not situated anywhere near the

Dead Sea, but in Jerahmeel. Whether the earlier tradition
really knew anythirig of a place called ‘Gomorrah,' is already

thinks the assumption of a special source for the few details
about the campaign superfivous (GENESIS, $ 8; col. 1677).

1 Admah and Zeboim, however, take the place of Sodom and
Gomorrab only in a single passage (Hos. 118), which is not free
from the suspicion of corruptness,

2 AOFV101$ 3 G/226-42.

3 $a'ul being probably a name belonging to the Negeb,
Cp Semel, ISma' "el.

4 Read în v. 14 fnbepnest bun nen mapenie amp
‘Three hundred and eighteen, in which Hitzig sees Gematria,
and Winckler (G/227) an astronomical number, is simply due
to an editors manipulation of corrupt repeated fragments of
o'bipme», ‘Tshmaelites.*

5 prop, like pSiy in 21 33, comes from dann.

5 ‘If from a thread to a shoe-latchet, and if I would take
anything,' isimpossible. relieves the construction by omitting
the second DN). But the parallelistic arrangement is thus

destroyed, and the improbability of the alleged proverb, ‘Not a
thread nor a shoe-latchet, remains. Read ψΊΝ τ, ΚΌΠΙ ΩΝ

Saona
7 ‘Abram’=Ab-raham=Ab.jerahmeel; see REKEM and cp
Tera

4673

SODOM AND GOMORRAH

doubtful. The Vale of Siddim, or rather has-Siddim, which the
traditional text (v. 3) identifies with a piece of water called ‘ the
Salt Sea, together with the bitumen-pits also referred to in that
text (©. 10) disappears, when che text has been closely examined
in the light of results of textual eriticism elsewhere.1 See
Crit. Bib.

(4) Gen. 1917-25. ‘Zoar, on the SE. edge of the Dead
Sea, covered over now by the alluvium, once lay in a
well-watered country with a tropical climate. The
Israelite tradition is surprised that this little bit of land
has escaped the ruin of Sodom, and explains this treat-
ment by the intercession of Lot who desired Zoar as a
place of refuge. Thus the legend of Zoar is a geo-
logical legend, At the same time it contains an
etymological motive; the city is called So'27, because
Lot said in his prayer, ‘It is only πεῖς ἀγ' (something
small)."' So Gunkel (Ger. 192), according to whom
the Zoar episode (including the incident about Lot's
wife) is a later offshoot of the legend. We accept
Gunkel's analysis (see $ 2, n. 4), but cannot venture to
accept his interpretation of the legend. ‘The stress laid
on “ps in τ. 20 suggests that the real name of the city
was ny, and thus agrees with the view that Sodom was
neither N. nor S. of the Dead Sea, but in Jerahmeel.
‘Zoar’ therefore, needs emendation into ‘Missur.'?
‘The Zoar-episode has been retouched ; originally it was,
not a geological, but an etymological myth.

But was it only the Zoar-episode that underwent manipula-
tion? Textual criticism enables us with much probability to
answer this question. There are several reasons for suspecting
that che text of 2. 24 is corrupt. (1) The verb ἼΩΠ in v. 25, as
many critics have remarked, does not accord with the description
in our text of v. 24.3 (2) The reference to bitumen-pits in 14 10
(see 0) and to ‘fire and brimstone’ in Ps, 116 (see 4) are due τὸ
corruption of the text. Taking our passage in connection with
Ps. 116, we should not improbably emend it thu:

*And Yahwè caused it to rain upon Selam and upon ‘AmSrab
[and upon] Rehoboth seven days4 from heaven.”

This is of importance with regard to the original form of the
legend. Note that in v. 25 ‘those cities’ is equivalent to
man Saia, Sagom 55, tall Jerahmeel” ‘Sodom' is not
the only city which is caught in the net of its own wicked
deeds. We cannot but expect a reference to some other place
besides Sodom and its appendage Gomorrah. That in che
original story the implied'accusative to ‘caused to rain’ was,
not ‘brimstone and fire,’ but ‘rain,’ is in accordance with . 25,
where 351, ‘to overtum,’ may be illustrated by Job 1215, ‘he

sends them (the waters) out, and they overturn the earth.”
“From Yahwè out of heaven' (as the traditional text reads) has
never yet been adequately justified.5 Tg. Jer. distinguishes
between the Word of the Lord and che Lord. Similarly the
Christian Council of Sirmium, ‘Pluit Dei filius a Deo patre.'

{e) Gen. 1930. The traditional text is so extraordinary
that we quote it în full ‘And Lot went up out of
Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters
with him, for he feared to dwell in Zoar; and he dwelt
in a cave, he and his two daughters.' Kautzsch-Socin
agree with EV, except that they render Ἴπ, ‘Gebirge’
{mountain-country}; they also remark in a note that
MT has ‘in #%e cave’ (pra), ‘perhaps with reference
to a definite locality which was connected with Lot."
We are then told (7. 3: 7 ) that, in order to continue the
family, the two daughters agreed to ‘make their father

1 The gloss on bin pop în 2. 3 is so absurd that Winckler

even identifies the nbonp' with lake Holeh in the N. His
theory is a monument of ingenuity, but will not stand. δ᾽
min surely comes from p'bgem, and pesi piy from napo
D°eno (cp a more frequent transformation of the latter word
2UD7. an moss migs is simply Sam pps (by the city of
Jerahmeel'),

2 The presumption is that “yy everywhere should be nun;

each alleged occurrence, however, needs to be separately con-
sidered (see Criz. BI).
. 3 According to Gimkel, the raining of brimstone from heaven
is analogous to the Assyrian custom of strewing salt on the site
of a destroyed city (cp SALT). But surely when the rain of
brimstone fell, Sodom had not been destroyed. Nor cun the
custom referred to (which is really a symbol of consecration, see
Ezek. 48 24, and cp SALT, $ 3) be illustrative of Yahwè's raining
brimstone,

$ Read i? nyae for mm nen par

5 Ewald (G//?2 223) quotes this passage in support of the
theory that Vahwè was originally a sky-god. He compares
Mic. 57[6), ‘as dew from Yahwè.' © But it is the tautology that
is startling.

4674

SODOM AND GOMORRAH

drink wine,’ and to ‘lie with him.' Gunkel rightly
points out that the original narrators of this story can
have seen nothing wrong in the transaction ; the circum-
stances which they have described rendered law and
custom inoperative (cp Lot}. But the awkwardness of
the passage is evident. How could Lot have been afraid
to remain in the city which had been divinely granted
him as a refuge? One can understand his taking refuge
in a cave in the mountains, if he was unaware that Zoar
had immunity from destruction ; but the present form of
narrative is intolerable. And whence was the wine
spoken of obtained ? Gunkel proposes to assign v. 304,
together with the rest of the passage relative to Zoar,
to a supplementer. But it is not piain why, if the
original narrative brought Lot safely to a cave in the
mountains, a supplementer should have complicated
matters by the introduction of the 'Zoar-episode.’ It
would be simpler to omit the cave-episode as an after-
thought {to account for the nanies Moab and Ammon),

But this is not the true remedy, which is--to apply textual
criticism. There is a good parallelin τ K.18 413, where another
strange story is told about an occurrence ‘in the cave’; prob-
ably (PROPHET, $ 7) n°ym there is a corruption of a place.
name, and a beautiful consistency is restored to the legends of
Elijah if we emend my into nous ‘Zarephath' (both Elijah
and Elisha [see SHaPHaT] were connected with southern
Zarephath), It is plausible, therefore, to emend ΠΡ here,
too, into nos; comparing Josh. 134, where (see MrarAN) the
original text probably had ‘Zarephath that belongs to the
Misrim To do this, we must make the not improbable
assumption that the city which în 7 20 the traditional text
calls spun, and in vo. 22, 30 nyy but which the original text
must have called up (Missur), was more fully called “yo no1s
‘Zarephath of Migsur' (cp Josh, 134, emended text). We shall
have to return to this later (8 10).

The alternative is to suppose that here, but not în the other
passages referred to, myn is a corruption of Missur, The
general sense of the passage is the same.

(7) Am. 411 Is.17. These are the two earliest of the
passages în which n3570 (cp n397, Gen. 1925) occurs as
a kind of technical term for the legendary destruction of
‘Sodom.' In Is.17 the phrase is omynopmoo, but we

must, with most critics since Ewald, read n° Ὧ5 (cp

Dt. 2922[23] Jer.49:8). In Am.4r1 we find a longer
and rather peculiar phrase, 'like Elchim's overturning
of Sodom and Gomorrah” (so also Jer. 5040). This is
generally supposed to be due to a consciousness that the
Sodom tradition was originally connected not with the
religion of Yahwè, but with Canaanite ‘heathenism';
cp Gen.1929 [P], ‘when Elohim overturned the
cities,’ eto.

‘The presumption is, however, that the Sodom.tradition is not
of Canaanite but of Jerahmeelite origin. In this case it is not
safe to insist that the story was not originally Vahwistic, for it
seems probable that Vahwè was admitted by some of those who
dwelt în the Negeb to be the god of the country. Some change
in our critical theory is indispensable, and, having regard to
what has been said elsewhere, it is not unreasonable to sup-
pose that mugen) ὨΊΡ ΤΙΝ, wherever it occurs in the phrase
referred to, is a later insertion, and that the true ‘technical
phrase ‘is bano noonno, ‘likethe catastrophe of Jerahmeel,'1
pic the possible alternative of pp ‘103: ‘like the catastrophe of

jodom.'

(9) Hos.118. Itis not probable (τὴ that ‘ Admah*
and ‘Zeboim’ should be corrupt in Gen. 1428 and
correct in Hos, 118, and (2) that we should not be told
to whom Yahwè fin his present mood) declines to yield
up his people. ‘There must be an error in the text;
and, with 106 before us {where ‘Asshur’ means the
great N. Arabian power, and ‘Jareb is a corruption of
‘Arab= Arabia) we can hardly be far wrong in restoring
bennv for monta, Sapone» for pres, and pine for pezso.?
Thus the passage becomes, How shall I give thee up
[to] Jerahmeel? how shall I surrender thee [to]
Ishmae] ?'

(4) Zeph. 29. This very questionable bit of Hebrew
needs emendation. Read (after mpyo, ' 85 Gomorrah ')

1 tenda like γον and ph1y (see $ 6, n. 6), sone of the current
distortions of bapni.
2 3 was taken to be a fragment of τ; the final ἢ comes from

+», The editor manipulated the corrupt text under the influence
of an exegetical theory.

4675

SODOM AND GOMORRAH

obra sie bem ne19, ‘Cusham and Jerabmeel
{shiall be) a desolation for ever.’ For us, the principal
result of this is that the ‘sa// pits' {which suggest the
neighbourhood of the Dead Sea) disappear.!

{4) Ps. 116. The vagueness and also the excessive
vehemence of this passage may well awaken suspicion.
Probably we should read—

The Ishmaelites will give way, the Maacathites, the Reho-

hothites ;

A blast of horror is the portion of Cusham,?

‘The figure is taken from the simoom; there is no
thought of the judgment of the ‘ruined cities.

It will be at once noticed that three out of the four
still remaining difficulties in the story of Sodom dis-
appear through the above criticism of
7. New theory. (he text. 1. The cities were really,
according to the earlier tradition, ‘overthrown,' not,
however, by an earthquake, but by floods of water
from that upper ocean which formed a part of the
cosmic system of the Hebrews. 2. The scene of the
catastrophe was, not beside the Dead Sea, but in the
land of Jerahmeel, and we are justifed în inferrivg
from Gen. 1810 that it was the district of Eden, where
in primeval times the divine wonder-land had been
visible, that suffered. It now becomes inevitable to
conjecture that the original story of Sodom, or rather
perhaps Sélam, was the Deluge-story, or one of the
Deluge-stories, of the Jerahmeelites. lt is plain that
such a story is needed to complete the cycle of racy
Jerahmeelite tales of the Origizes, and in dealing with
the Deluge-story in Gen.6-8 we have already found
reason to hold that an earlier form of that story may
have represented the Deluge as overwhelming the land
of the Arabians and the Jerahmeelites, and the ark as
settling on the mountains of Jerahmeel {PARADISE, $ 6,
col. 3574, cp col. 3573, n. 3). ‘The unexpected coin-
cidences between the Deluge-story and the Sodom-story
confirm the view tentatively proposed before {PARADISE,
Le.). ‘We may take it, therefore, to be extremely prob-
able that the Hebrew as well as, according to Jastrow,5
the Babylonian narrative in its earliest form represented
the Deluge as originally partial. Let us now trace the
parallelisms between the Hebrew and Babylonian Deluge-
story and the narrative in Gen. 19 (85 emended),

Deluge-story. Gen. 19.
1. Therighteous man, ‘Noah’ 1. The righteous man, Lot
(69), or rather Hanok (see (1918).

NOAH), or, as the great
Babylonian story said, Par-
napiStim.

2. [Anger of the divinity 2.
against the city of Surip-
pak.]

. The extreme coruptness
of society (6 11-13 71).

4. The divine revelation
(6132).

5 A long-continued, destruc. 5.

tiverain-storm(710-12 17/7.)
on the land of the Arabians
and Jerahmeelites (7 4), or
(with thunder and light
ning) on the Babylonian
city of Surippak.4 The
latter lasted for sevez days.

1 Schwally (ZA474710:88,7) has already noticed the diffi
culties of MT, but has no adequate emendations.

2 See Ps.(2 Note that nam has been cormpted from
mano (cp d). ᾿

# Jastrow, who has partly traced the parallelism between the
Sodom-story and the Deluge-story, writes thus: ‘Moreover,
there are traces in the Sodom narrative of a tradition which
once gave a larger character to ît, involving the destruction of
all mankind, much as the destruction of Surippak is enlarged by
Pabylonian traditions into a general annihilation of mankind*
(REA sor).

4 We assume here that a tradition of a storm which over
whelmed Surippak has been fused with the tradition of a far
larger fiood in the Deluge-story in the epic of Gilgames (cp
DeLvGE, $ 22; and especially Jastrow, Redi. Bab. Ass. 507).
That even the former tradition is historical, we are far from
asserting. Nor do we deny that the Deluge-myth în its earliest
form related to all mankind, See DELUGE. $$ 18, 22.

4676

[Anger ofthe&lohimagainst
the city of Sodom (19).]

. The culminating act of
wickedness (19 4-11).

The divine revelation
(197125; cp 18207).

For seven days ἃ destruc-
tive rain-storm on the cities
of the whole of Jerahmeel
(192479).

w

ῳ

*

SODOM AND GOMORRAH

6. ‘Noah’and his family de- 6. Lot and his family de.
livered (7 13 234). livered (191377).
7. The ark grounds on the 7. Lot warned τὸ escape to the

mountains {of Jerahmeel]
0917)

mountainsof Aram (so read)
—i.e., Jerahmeel (84), or
(Babyionian) on the moun-
tain of Nisir.

To these parallelisms we may add, though with some reserve,
the parallelism between Hanòk (noch), father of Methuselah
(= Methusael=Ishmael) and grandfather of Lamech (= Jerah-
meel), and Lot, nephew or perhaps originally (cp 141416)
brother of Abraham (=Abraham= Father of Jerahmeel) and
father of Moab (rather, Missur®) and Ammon (rather, Jerah-
meel?).. This parallelism is of importance, not for the story
itself, but for asceriaining the particular ethnic origin of the
story. It is not appropriate that the escaped righteous man
(who in the earliest Deluge-myth was a solar hero) should have
any further concern with this earth. [6 Hanok (mythologicaliy)
was the father of Methuselah (Ishmael), and Lot the father of
Missur and Jerahmeel, it must in the original story have been
before τῆς Deluge. And even if Noah (Naham?) was really
the name of the hero of the Deluge story in chaps. 6-7, Naham
is certainly a name of the NegeD (see NaWAM, NAHAMANI).
Alrogether, nothing can be more probable than that those who
first arranged the Hebrew legends had their minds full of Jerah-
meelite associations. We can now fully appreciate the remark
of Gunkel (Gen. 195) that since the story of Sodom says nothing
at all of water, although the site so strongly suggested this, it is
plain that the scene of the narrative must originally have been
elsewhere. Of course, the present place of the story and much
besides is due to a skilful redactor.

It is true, the name of the hero is different. But
there were presumably different forms of the Jerahmeelite
as well as of the Babylonian Flood-story. Probably
enough, there was another version in which Abraham
was the hero; comparing Gen. 81 {' God remembered
Noah') with 1929 (‘God remembered Abraham '),
one may, in fact, not unnaturally expect that Abraham,
not Lot, should be the chief personage of the second
story. The visit of the elGhim to Abraham is an
uneffaced indication that he originally was so. Cer-
tainiy, something can still be said for Lot, who may
originally have been greater than he now appears, and
have been a worthy Srofker (see above) and rival of
Abraham. But this is a pure conjecture, and one
might even infer from 137-9 that Abraham and Lot
originally belonged to the class (well represented in
ancient legends) of Zosfi/e brothers, and that Abraham
corresponds to Abel (cp Remus) and Lot to Cain {cp
Romulus). ‘The legend might have taken this turn.

1ι is also true that in chap. 19 there is nowhere any
trace of an underlying reference to the 'box' or ‘ chest*
(a term specially characteristie of an inland country) in
which the survivors were preserved, and that in 1928
Abraham is said to have seen ‘the smoke of the land
going up as the smoke of a furnace.’. But on the first
point we may answer that if only Lot and his family
were to be saved, no ark was necessary ; the "δἰ πὶ"
would convey the small party to a place of safety. And
as for the other point, we must, at any rate, credit the
last redactor with enough capacity to adjust a muti
lated narrative to his own requirements.

Stucken has offered another explanation of the legend
which now occupies us.? According to him, the Sodom-

,, and-Gomorrah-story was originally a
δ. Btucken'8 ‘ary * Deluge-story_—i.e., a legend of the
«dr vasta o, destruction of men by other means than a

y 89. fiood ; such a story he finds in the Iranian
legend of the Var [or square enclosure) constructed by
Vima (see DELUGE, $ 205), in the Peruvian and other
stories of a general conflagration, and in the Egyptian
story of the destruction of men by the gods.® Whether
the combination of stories which refer to water with those

which make no such reference is either theoretically or.

practically justified, may be questioned; but we may,
at any rate, admit that if the present text of Gen. 1924
correctly represents the original story, the singular

1 Stucken, however (Astra/nzyéken, 87) points out that the
distinction between friendly and hostile brothers in mythology is
a fivid one.

2 Astralmythen, 96.

ὦ ΕΣ Navile, 7584 41-19; ep Maspero, Dawn ef Civ.
264,55

4677

i

SODOM AND GOMORRAH

Egyptian story referred to is the nearest parallel to it.
Here the ' Divine eye' is the executioner; it takes the
form of the goddess Hathor, and slays men right and
left ‘with great strokes of the knife.' It seems to us,
however, (1) that it is much more probable that the
Jerahmeelites had two forms of a proper Deluge-story
than that one of the extant Deluge-stories was only such
in a loose sense of the term, especially having regard τὸ
the Babylonian Flood-stories, and (2) that the difficulties
of Gen. 1924 f call loudly for the application of textual
criticism.

Stucken seems happier in his explanation? of the

parallelism between Gen. 191-1r and

9. Judg. 1915-30 the strange story în Judg. 19 15-30. He
thinks that both stories have the same mythological ker-
nel—viz., the tradition of the dividing of the body of the
primeeval being Tiamat (the personified ocean-flood), with
which compare also a series of myths of the division ot
the bodies of supernatural beings (e.g., Osiris). It is in
fact all the more difficult to believe that Gen. 19-11 and
Judg. 1915-30 stand at all early in the process of
legendary development, because both the stories to
which these passages belong are ultimately of Jerah-
meelite origin. This may be assumed in the former
case (1) from the place which the 'Sodom'-story
occupies among legends that are certainiy in their
origin Jerahmeelite, and (2) probably from the legend
of the origin of ‘ Missur' and ‘ Jerahmeel' (so read for
* Moab” and ' Ammon' in 1937 Δ) which is attached to
the ‘Sodom’-story, And it is hardly less clear a
deduction in the latter case from the results of textual
eriticism, For the story în Judg. 19-20 can he shown τὸ
have referred originally not to Benjamin but to some
district of the Jerahmeelite Negeb.?

So far as the outward form of the story is concerned,
our task is now finished. Now to resume and, if need

be, supplement. Originally, it seems,

10. Result. ere was but one visit of the eldhim;
it is to Abraham, not to Lot, that the visit was
vouchsafed, Abraham (7.e., in the Jerahmeelite story, a
personification of Jerahmeel) was the one righteous man
in the land. He received timely warning that those
among whom he sojourned had displeased God, and the
€16hîm took him away to be with God. Then camea rain-
storm submerging all Jerahmeel, This original story,
however, received modifications and additions. Lot or
Lotan, the reputed son, not of Seir the Horite, but prob-
ably of Missur the Jerahmeelite, was substituted for Abra-
hani, and a floating story of mythic origin (the myth spoke
of violence done to a supernatural being) was attached to
the story of Lot in a manipulated form, so as to explain
and justify the anger of the &ohim. After this a legend
was inserted to account for the name Missur; Lot had
taken refuge at Missur, by divine permission, because it
was but a ‘little' city, and again anotherlegend was added
to record the circumstance that the people of Missur and
Jerahmeel were descended from that righteous man,*
Who with his two daughters alone remained (the
removal of the hero to the company of the &iGhim had
been forgotten) in the depopulated land. {The names
were afterwards corrupted.) Finally, a corruption in the
text of 1924 suggested that the scene of the story must
‘have been in that ‘awfal hollow,' that ‘ bit of the infernal
regions come to the surface’ which was at the southern
(Ὁ) end of the Dead Sea. And the singular columnar
formations of rock-salt at Jebel Usdum (cp DEAD SEA,
$ 5) to which a myth resembling that of Niobe
(originally a Creation myth ?) may perhaps already have

1 Stucken, 04. cit., 99/7

2 There was probably a confusion between 110112 (Benjamin)
and [513 = Senna. mon and ma (Bethlehem-judah)=
bammn n°3 (Beth-jerahmeel). The ‘Gibeah' of the story was
perhaps the Jerahmeelice Geba (Gibeah ?) mentioned in 2 8, 8 25
(cpv. 22, and see RePHAIM). The ‘ Bethel” in Judg, 2018 is the
southern Bethel, repeatedly spoken of by Amos (see PROPHETIC

LITERATURE, $$ το, 35). Sec Cit 276.
5 The genealogists often vary în particulars of relationship.

4678

SODOM, VINE OF

become attached, was appropriately transferred to the
altered legend, and identified with Lot's wife.?
It may be hoped that to many students it will appear
no slight boon to be relieved from the supposition that
11. Religious Te peopies, with whom the early
suggestiona. sraelites had intercourse were so much
beneath them in morality as the
traditional text represents. Misunderstood mythology
is the true source of the terrible narratives in Gen.
19r-1r, Judg. 19 15-30. At the same time no criticism
can deprive us of the beneficially stern morality which
is infused into a most unbistorical narrative. Apart
from the plot of the story there are several points of
considerable interest for the history of Israelite religion.
Thus (1) in 1912-16 it is presupposed that the righteous-
ousness of the good man delivers not only himself but his
whole house; very different was the conviction of
Ezckiel (14147). (2) It is at eventide that the visits of
the Slohîm are made, both to Abraham and to Lot, As
the light of day wanes, man is more open to religious
impressions; the Deity, too, loves to guard his mysteri.
ousness, and performs his extraordinary operations by
night {cp 3225[24] 7, Ex. 1424). It is not unnatural to
ask, how it comes about that elsewhere Yahwè is said to
‘cover himself with light as it were with a garment'
(Ps. 1042), and to think of the influence of the Iranian
religion. (3) Unmeaning repetitions in prayer may be
useless; but repetitions which show earnestness are
considered by the narrator to be aids, not hindrances.
It is a mistake, as Gunkel remarks, to speak of Lot's
“ weakness of faith.” (4) But, if we may treat Abraham's
converse with Yahwè as a part of the narrative (it does
in fact belong—thanks to a supplementer—to the
section which links the Abraham-prelude to the Lot-
story), we have a riper fruit of religious thought in
1823-32. ‘Not for Lot alone, but for all the righteous
men in Sodom, his prayer is uttered, and it is based
upon a fine sense of justice : ‘‘ Shall not the Judge of all
the earth do right?” And what is right? Not the
mere prescription of a legal code; justice must be
softened by compassion Fach of the supposed ten
righteous men of Sodom has links innumerable binding
him τὸ his fellow-citizens. Is he to be sent abroad
without any of those to whom nature or custom has
attracted him? No; a single righteous man can at
least (as în the case of Noah) save his family, and ‘for
ten's sake I will not destroy the city "* {New World,
1245). It must not be thought that because mythology
and, more widely regarded, the popular imagination have
largely influenced the Hebrew narratives, they are
therefore to a trained eye devoid either of historical or
of religious interest.
To the books and articles cited under DeAD SrA, add the
commentaries of Dillmann, Holzinger, and especially Gunkel ;
also Cheyne, Mez World, 1 236-245; Kraetz-
12. Literature, schmar, Z47°#/ 1781-02; Stucken, AstraZ
snytien, Part iî., ‘Tot’ (‘the myths attached
to the name of Lot AF the torso of ἃ primitive myth ).
ἢ TEC.
SODOM, VINE OF (D3D 183), Dt 323. See
Sopnom, col. 4655 n. 2; VINE, $2.
SODOMA (codhoma) Rom. 929, ΕΝ Sopom.

SODOMITISH SEA (mare Sodomiticum), 2 Esd. ὅ 7.
See DEAD SEA.

SOJOURNEE (Mi)
JOURNER.

SOLDIER (‘19131 13, 2Ch.2513; CTPATIWTHO
Mt. 89 etc.), See ARMY, WAR, $ 4.

1 These perishable formations change from
Blanckenhora remarks (ZDPY 19 34, n. 3). The ‘Lot's Wife'
of Warren may have altered since 1870. But others will no
doubt arise. On the connections of the story see Stucken, 83,
119, and especially 231. For a late Arabian legendary ‘Lots
wife' see Palmer, Desert of ἕλε Exodus.

2 *Not much greater variety is there between the story of
Lot's wife's transformation into a pillar of salt and Niobe's into
a stone.’ So wrote the old Anglican theologian, Dean Jackson

(H'orks, 1100).
4679

See STRANGER AND So-

feat to year, as

SOLOMON -

SOLOMON (nidt; colomen], son of David by
Bathsheba, and his successor as king of Israel.

[5 favours the form mode In the best MSS σαλομὼν and
σαλώμὼν alternate ; σολομὼν almost always in NT; in Acts7 47,
however, Ti, with RAC (against BDEHP) adopts σαλώμων, but
Treg. and WH σοόλομων, Cp Lag., Users. 53 86 96.]

‘The superficially plausible derivation from #4/0w,
nily, ‘peace’ is retained by Kittel {4%z. 6), but is

against thc analo of the other names

1 Name. (Sitically regarded) in Davids family.
Another explanation has lately been proposed with
abundant learning and ingenuity. After summarising
it, we will pass on to a third view. According t0
Winckler,! the name nobe refers to a divine name ον’
($lm), which is attested in the Phoenician proper name
nbw33, and allusively in the title pnbemw (Is. 96 [s]).

Another form of the name of this deity was Salman (cp the

Assyrian royal name, Salman-aSaridu, and the ZaAapar of Greek
inscriptions). This god is identified with ReSeph, and was
therefore a Canaanite Apollo. According to Winckler, the
king” true name was Dodiah (= Jedidiah, 3 8.125); the name
Seloms or ‘Solomon,' like ‘Bath-sheba’ (="daughter of the
Moon-god '), is of mythological origin, and was given to che
king by later writers în connection with ‘the transference of the
legend of Semiramis-Bilkis to Sheba In fact, the only com-

plete parallel to the form Selsmo comes, according to him, from
Arabia (Salam). Elsewhere (Preuss. Ja4rbb. 104 269; cp
GI2286) Winckler puts the mythological connection thus:

‘Formed from the divine name belem (Ass, Salman) It
corresponds to Nebo whom it designates as the god of the
winter-half of the year (Selim is the west= Ass. Fu2un7, sunset).

It would seem that this acute critic somewhat
exaggerates the bearings of mythology on onomatology.
Certainly the analogy of the other names in David's
family (as expiained by the present writer) seems to be
opposed to this scholar's explanation. That ‘Jonathan'
is composed, as Winckler and most scholars suppose, of
a divine name and a verb, is due, as could easily be shown
at length, to misapprehension. ‘Jonathan'is onty another
form of NETHANIAH (g.v.); it is a modification of
the ethnic name Nethani= Ethani, ‘Ethanite.' ‘That
‘David’ is a modification of a divine name is not
impossible (cp Dop, NAMES WITH), but is opposed to
the analogies of Dodiah (if this name is really correct)
and of Dodi {MT Dodo, Dodai}. It 15 quite as
possible that Dod (whatever its ultimate origin) was an
ethnic, and if, following analogies, we seek for an
ethnic as the original of moby, we cannot be blind to
the existence of Saymzi and of πρίν (see $ 2). For the
pronunciation nbbs later writers are responsible. The

true text of 25.1224f seems to suggest another
pronuneiation, Shillùmò (or ΘΑ] πη ὃ), arising out of
the story of David’s sin, See JEDIDIAH.
It is a long road which leads to the later conception
of ‘Solomon in all his glory.' We are here only
2. Early concerned with the strict facts, without
ni idealisation, which of course does not mean
history.

that we have no sense for poetry, and no
sympathy with the changes of popular feeling.

The
story of Solomon's birth is given in 2 S.112-1225—a
composite narrative which has already received con-
sideration (see BATHSHEBA, JEDIDIAH). Certainly
there is much to learn from it ; certainly we should wish
to include it in a selection of fine Hebrew narratives, But
with unfeigned regret we must pronounce it to be in the
main unhistoricall ‘The name Bathsheba, indeed, and
the historical character of its bearer are, one may
venture to hold, even after Winckler's arguments, alike
secure, Just as ya np (Kirjath-arba ?) is not ‘the
city of Four' (the god whose numerical symbol was
four), so μὴν n3 (Bathsheba) is not 'the daughter of
Seven' (the god whose numerical symbol was seven—
i.e., the Moon-god, cp SHEBA), and consequentiy
Bathsheba is not a mere pseudo-historical retlection of
Istar, the mythological daughter of the Moon-god.

1 Wi. G/2223; ΚΑΤ 224. For the view of another
Asspriclogisi see Sayce, ΜΙδό. Lect. sr1 Early History, 425
<p Simpson, Τὴ Jonah Legend, τα δ

4680

SOLOMON

We may, however, admit that the story of David's
treachery to URIAN (g.v.) probably developed out of a
current oriental legendary germ, without of course
disparaging the value of the Bathsheba story as given
in 2 S.112-1225 for other than purely historical purposes.
And we must also claim the right to extract a fragment
of history from 2 $.1127 12156-25, rightly read, and
illustrated by the story of Solomon's accession în 1 K. 1f,
and by the lists of David's sons in 2 8.327 τ Ch.31/
The ‘fragment of history” is that Solomon had another
name, which name is given in our present text as
Jedidiah.*

Passing next to 1 K.17, we find reason to think
with Winekler that Solomon's opposition to the claim
of Adonijah to succeed David was due not to his own
and Bathsheba's selfish ambition, but to the considera-
tion that after the successive deaths of Amnon and
Absalom he, not Adonijah, was the legitimate heir to
the throne. Here, however, we part from Winckler.
Bathsheba is for us no mythological figure, but the true
mother of Solomon ; sheis in fact identical with Abigail.?
‘That Solomon's mother should bear two names in the
tradition is not more surprising than that a king who
oppressed the Israelitos in early times should be called
both Jabin (Jamin}—i.e., Jeratmeel—and Sisera—s.e.,
Asshur-—both Jerahmeel and Asshur being N. Arabian
ethnic names (see SHAMGAR ii., $ 2). Bathsheba is in
fact equivalent to Bath-Eliam {2 $. 11 3) or Bath-Ammiel
(1 Ch.35).

‘The name Bathshebarepresents Abigail asan Ishmaelite woman
(vawn3= poena=[bxlpop*n3); the name Abigail, as a Jerah.
meclite. Rut Ishmaef and Jeralmeel are often used assynonym:
the same woman could therefore be called a daughter of Ishmael
and a daughter of Jerahmeel, So too moby and the name out
of which n° has probably been corrupted—viz. Samm»—are
equivalents. Salma describes its bearer as having Ishmaelite
or Salman affinities (see $ 1, end), Jedidiah as being
Jerafimeetite by extraction. The latter name too, appears t0

e given to the son of Abigail in the true text of 2 5.33 and
1 Ch.31, where the respective readings 2p53 and by» are
manifestly wrong, and both most probably presuppose the
same original Syom.

Adonijah's claim to the throne, however, must have
been based upon some theory. If he was not the
oldest living son of David, he may yet have been the
oldest of those born after David's accession.* Probably
David both favoured his pretensions and accepted him
as co-regent. Unfortunately Adonijah neglected to
bring over to his side the so-called 'Cherethites and
Pelethites' (Rehobothites and Zarephathites),* who
formed the royal body-guard, and with the aid of their
leader Benaiah, Solomon compelled the old king to
reject Adonijah.

In 1 K.217 (cp Ὁ. 21) it îs stated that Adonijah
desired leave to make Abishag the Shunammite his
wife (cp WRS, Zirskip, 88 55}. It is possible that
Solomon, with the same object as Adonijah, actually
took ‘Abishag' (the name comes from Ὁ, like Billcis
in the Semiramis legend from raMaxis) into his harem,
and that Rehoboam was the son of Solomon by ‘ Abishag.'
See SHUNAMMITE.

Upon this theory Solomon was not one of the sons
born to David at Jerusalem {2 S. 514 1 Ch. 35-8), and
the traditional view of his age at his accession,? based

1 That the text of 2 5.1224 is not în îts original form, is
evident; a possible restoration will be found elsewhere (ee
Jenipian). | The present form of the text seems to be due to an
editor who thought Jedidiah (‘beloved of Yahwè "ἢ too good a
name for the first child, By assigning this name to Solomon he
unconsciousiy made 4 concession to historical facts. For
S.A. Cook's theory, see 4/5 16 156.7 [1900], and cp JEDIDIAH.

2 Abigail probably = Abihail (sce NABAL), and Abibail appears
ultimately to come from Jerahmeel.

3 Wi. G/ 2245.

4 The explanation of ‘Cherethites and Pelethites” (see JunaH,
$ 4, PeLETHITES) here given, is not that of Winckler; but (like
S.A. Cook, 4/52 16177, n. 61 [April 1900)) this able critic
recognises, quite independently of the present writer, that this
faithfal warrior-band came from the Negeb.

δ GA (x Κὶ 312), with about twenty other MSS and some
versions (Arm. etc.), gives Solomon only twelve years αἵ his
accession, and Jerome (cp 132 ad Vitalem) asserts that the

4681

i
Ì
!

SOLOMON

on very insecure data, needs to be revised. Certainiy
the narrative in x K. 1 f. does not favour the view thut
Solomon was a young man (the rhetorical language
of 1 K.375 1 Ch 291 225 cannot be regarded as
decisive); the hero of the cozp d'éfaf displays all the
adroitness and astuteness of a practised politician.
How Solomon treated his opponents is stated elsewhere
(ADONIJAH, ABIATHAR, JOAB, SHIMEI); the story,
which has a basis of fact (HISTORICAL LITERATURE,
ὃ 1), makes it difficult for a modern to idealise this
despotie prince. It is singular that ‘Nathan the
prophet' should have assumed the prominent position
which belongs rather to Benaiah 11 but ampler justice is
done to the priest ZADOK {g.2.) for his energetic
support of the son of ‘Bathsheba.' It is probable that
the Jerusalem priesthood exacted a very full recompense,
and that fresh favours conferred on their body bore
fruit for Solomon in the early idealisation οἵ his conduct
as n sovereign.

Was the substitution of Zadok for Abiathar accom.
panied by changes in the cultus at Jerusalem ?® It is
ΜΝ a question which baffles the critical
3a. Buildings. tudent. The narrators give us much
that we could have spared, and withhold ‘much that
would have been of great value to us. Their own interest
is largely absorbed in the buildings of Solomon, especi-
ally in that of the temple. That the description in its
present form comes (as Kittel supposes) from the Annals,
seems hardly probable; as it now stands, it may
perhaps represent a later age, to which the temple in
particular had become a subject of learned but not
altogether sober inquiry, See KinGs [Book], $ 6,
PaLace, TEMPLE (and cp Stade, GW/1318 7, and
ZAT, 1883, pp. 1297). Itis even to some extent
doubtful whether the whole story of the building of a
temple of Yahwè as well as of a royal palace outside
the city of David is not due to misapprehension. Accord-
ing to Winckler {G/ 22527) the true temple of Solomon
was merely a renovation of the old sanctuary of David
on its original site—ze., within the city of David
though it must apparentiy be admitted (see MILLO)
that this scholar’s explanation of #25//0 and consequently
the form in which he presents his theory needs recon-
sideration.

There is, however, another point, not less important,

, and more capable of solution. Accord-

36. Hiram. ig to the tradition ἴῃ το present form
(MT and 6), the timber for building the temple was
furnished, together with artificers, by Hiram king of
Tyre. ‘Therelation thus indicated between Israel and the
Tyrian king is, if accurately reported, in the highest degree
remarkable. If, as Winckler, who follows MT, interprets
what he thinks the historical truth, the king of Israel was
in vassalage to the king of Tyre {?}, how is it that after
Solomon's time we hear nothing of attempts on the
part of ‘Tyre to strengthen its hold upon Israel, and on
the part of Israel to free itself from Tyrian supremacy ὃ
True, all on a sudden, in the ninth century, we hear of
an Israelitish king marrving a daughter of ‘Ethbaal,
king of the Zidonians’ (τ K,163:). This, however, is
an equally singular and an equally suspicious statement,
when we consider that the most influential power in the
politics of Israel and Judah (putting aside Assyria) was

‘bebraica veritas’ agrees with G. Josephus (Anz. vili. 73)
gives his age as fourteen; he also says that he lived to 94! For
other traditional statements, see Nestle, ΖΑ ΤῊ, 1882, pp. 32/7,
and ΖΑδοί, Stud, aus [Wilrtcmberg, 1886, p. 160/ ; Kaufmann,
ZATW, 1883, p. 185; Gautier, Rev. de fheob. et de philos.,
Nov. 1886; Lagarde, Mittheit.2 40, n. 1. Stade (GV//1297)
says, not less than twenty years old; Kittel (Aux. 6), referring
to 1 K.1142 1421, doubtfully suggests eighteen.

1 Schwally (ΖΗ ΤΉΝ, 1892, p. 156) doubts whether Nathan
was really a prophet. That ‘Don (the prophet’) should prob-
ably be ‘3030, ‘the Nadabite,' îs pointed out elsewhere
(Provner, 5 6).

2 See Winckler (A74718) 234), who inclines to think that
Zadok was introduced by the later legend in the interests of the
monotheistic idea,

4682

SOLOMON

not Tyre but the N. Arabian Musri. Now it so
happens that, as Winckler too, with extreme modera-
tion holds, ny (Tyre?) is miswritten for ny (Missur?)
in Am.19 and Ps.874 (cp TvRE). What, then, is
there to hinder us from supposing (if other critical
considerations favour this view) that the same error
has occurred elsewhere? }ims, also, is undoubtedly
miswritten sometimes for nun or 1. How, then, do

we know that ‘king of the pimy' in 1 K.1631 should
not rather be ‘king of the nuigp,' in which case dyana
{cp Syawa) should of course be Syyne*? The probability
that Ahab's matrimonial connection was with Musri,
net with Tyre, has been referred to under PROPHET
(8. 7, col. 3862, with n. 1); and when we take into
consideration a fact which will be referred to presently

iz. thet Solomon's principal wife was a Misrite
princess—we shall see that if he went anywhere outside
the land of Israel proper for timber, political interests
would naturally impel him to go to the N. Arabian
Musri. (We assume provisionally that the wooded
mountain districts of the Negeb were not in Solomon's
possession.) Nor must we forget that ‘Ahiram’
{whence ‘ Hiram”) is one of the most probable popular
corruptions of ‘Jerahmeel.'! Ahiram or Hiram might
indeed be the name of a king of Tyre; but it might also
(cp Aholiab=Jerahmeel ?) be that of a N. Arabian
artificer.

Tt would not be critical to urge against this view of the seat
of Hiram's kingdom that Josephus? quotes a passage from the
Tyrian history of Menander of Ephesus and another from that
of Dios, in which Βίρωμος, king of Tyre, son of ᾿Αβέβαλος, is
said to have had intercourse with ‘ Solomon, king of Jerusalem.'
The date of Menander and Dios is presumably in the second
century 8.c., and though we may credit them when they tell us
of the succession of the kings of Tyre, and of events not legend»
ary in character which they can only have known from ancient
authorities—z., from the Tyrian archives (which Josephus
positively asserts that Menander at least had inspected),è we
cannot venture to trust them when they touch upon matters
closely related to the then current Jewish history. Thus when
Menander (in Jos. Ant vii. 132) tells us that there was a drought
in Pheenicia, which lasted for a year, and was closed through
the potent supplications of ᾿Ιθώβαλος, king of Tyre, we divine
at once that this is directed against the Jewish statement that
a long drought in the land of Israel was terminated through
the intercessions of Elijah, and when Fipwpos is said by
Menander and Dios (Jos. An2 viii, 5 3) to have had a match of
riddle-guessing with Solomon, we can see that this is based on
the Jewish story of the riddles by which the queen of Sheba
tested Solomon (x Καὶ, 10 τ),

We have no extra-biblical authority for doubting
that if Solomon was indebted for building materials and
artificers to any foreign king, it was to the king of
Misrim, not to the king of Tyre. According to the
most probable text of 2 5, 82 1231 David had con-
quered both Missur and Jerahmeel (see Crit. Bié., and
cp SAUL), so that if we hear of a king of Missur
in the reign of Solomon, we may assume that he for a
time at any rate owned the supremacy of the king of
Israel. If so, there is nothing inconsistent in the double
statement that Solomon had his own workmen in the
mountains (τ K.513 # [527 7257}, and that Hiram sent
workmen to cut down wood at Solomon's request.
Nominally, the mountain country of Jerahmeel (called,
as we shall see, Gebalòn} was a part of Solomon's
dominions, so that as suzerain he had a right to send

1 Kittel (on 1 Ch. 141) prefers the form Hiram; Schrader
(KAT) 170), Hirom Cp Hiram, end. The view taken
above seems to the present writer the best. Urumilki is
attested as a Phenician royal name in an inscription of Sen-
nacherib (AA ΤΊ 185, cp also «bink, an ancestor of Yehaw.
melek, C/Si. no. 1), and Urumilki probably= Jerahmeel.

2 Ant. vii. 5 3 (88 144-149); ©. Ad. 117 (8$ 112-120).

3 Dios, too, says Josephus, was trusted for his exactness
(e 42.1. ΑἹ στο).

4 Winckler (KAT9 250) gives a different explanation of
Menander's assertion, which, however startling, might be accept-
able, if it did not presuppose the traditional Hebrew text of the
Book of Kings.

5 As the text stands, Solomon asks Hiram for help in the
bewing of timber (1 K. 81-10). It is in the hewing of stone that
Solomon's labourers are represented as taking a prominent part.

4683

SOLOMON

workmen to do his bidding.® The forms of courtesy,
however, may have required that he should request the
vassal-king to send his own more skilled labourers to
direct and to aid those of Solomon, and in order to
prevent war from breaking out between Israel and
Missur during the long building operations? at Jeru-
sale, as well as to foster a more friendly feeling based
upon mutual services, the Israelitish king is reported
to have paid Hiram (Jerahmeel) annually large quantities
of wheat and οἱ". 3

We are obliged sometimes, however reluctantly, to
form historical conjectures, and this seems to be the
most conservative one which, on the present subject,
with due account of textual criticism, can be made
plausible; but the fact, mentioned at a later point
{8 7), of the ill-feeling which Cusham or Aram (=Jerah-
meel) bore to Israel leads us to question its accuracy,
Only by force and by the transplantation of part of the
subject population (2 S. 1231, see SAW) could David
keep his hold on the Jerahmeelite Negeb. It is prob-
able that Solomon found it even more difficult than
his father to do this, and from 1K.91r-14 it would
appear that Solomon was forced by the king of Missur
to cede to him twenty cities in the land of Jerahmeel,
and over and above this to pay a hundred and twenty
talents of gold.4

The existence of a grave historical problem cannot,
it would seem, de denied. We have offered the best
solution of it at our disposal. It only needs to be added
that the misstatement that Solomon procured timber
and workmen from the king of Tyre must have been
facilitated by the fact that the name ‘ Hiram' was actu-
ally bone by a king of Tyre, and that it was favoured
by the observation of later Jews that the mountains of
the Negeb were not in their time abundantly wooded
(the trees having been cut down), whereas Lebanon
was still well provided with timber. Whether, as
Winckler supposes, part of the Lebanon was in the
possession of Solomon, need not here be considered.

It is important, however, to mention these necessary correc-
tions of names in MT. (1) The mountain country where timber
was sought (1 K. 56) was called, not Lebanon, but Gebalon (from
Ar. λιδα!, cp Gesar), the people of which are, in 1 K.518,
called Gebalites.i The same correction is pluusible elsewhere,
eg, Is. 168 Zech. 111, εἰς, (2) In 1 K.91113 bibin and bia
are both popular corruptions of bamm (3) In 1 K.101x1 7
2 Ch. 28[7]9 το the ‘almuggim’ or algummim' timber shoufd
rather be designated ‘ Jerahmeel” timber. It came (2 Ch. 28[7])
not from Ophir, but ffom Lebanon—i.e., Gebilon. Cp ALmuG
TrEES (end), where the theory mentioned—that almug-wood

came from Lebanon (2 Ch.28)—points in the direction of the
critical view here recommended.

We need not deny that Solomon was a builder, or
that he was aided by Jerahmeelite artificers (for which

we have partial analogies® in Bezalel,
4 Commerce. | Uri, Ὁ. Hur, and Oholiab, Ὁ. Ahi.
samach, in Ex.31). One of these (whose father was a
Migrite, but his mother an Israelite of the Negeb”) bore
the same name as that assigned to the Misrite king—

1 The δυναστεύματα (7) which Solomon ‘opened’ in Lebanon
(Gebalon?) according to @84 (δυναστεύοντα, 651.) în 1 K.246c
may, as Winckler thinks, have been mines. See Winckler, 4/£
Unt. τη: GI 2261, n. 2.

2 Twenty years are assigned to them in 1 K.910; cp 63871.

3 x K.511 [25], where for the second “D read ΠΞ (see COR).

4 The best part of this is due to Winckler (G/2262; X47°8}
237) He thinks that the original which underlies the present
text of 1 K.914 is nen ss Ἴρου (on) nba, where pyn is a
gloss inserted at the wrong place, The sense is, ‘and he (viz.
Solomon) sent to the king of Tyre [Hiram] 120 talents of gold,”
ie, Solomon had to make up for the inadeguate cession of
territory by a large payment in gold. The king, however, with
Whom Solomon had to do was not Tyrian but Migrite, and the
ceded territory not ‘Galilzan’ but Jerahmeelite,

ὅτ K.518 [32] should run Sybny 23) Ssune va ion
2220, “and the Ishmaelites and the Jerahmeelites—the Gebal.
ites-fashioned them. Without the key to the names critics
have been obliged to assume a deep corruption of the text (cp
GeDAL, τ).

6 ΑἹ] the names here quoted, except the first, are Jerahmeelite.
The tribes of Judah and Dan were both largely mixed with
Jerahmeelites,

7 His father was a Misrite (‘myp not »y), his mother either a

4684

SOLOMON

viz. Hiram, i.e, Jerahmeel ; the Chronicler (2 Ch. 2x2
{:3]) calls him Huram-abi, but this surely must be the
sanie name (Saanv=c3x on) Cp _HIRAM, 2, and on
the place where he did his work (τ K.745) see TcBAH.
Nor need we altogether reject the other traditions of the
intercourse between Solomon and ‘ Hiram.' If the view
of the historical facts underlying 1 K.911-14 adopted
above be correct— f.e., if hostilities broke out between
the king οἵ Missur and Solomon, in which Israel
was worsted—it is reasonable to suppose that the war
was occasioned, not only by the craving for revenge,
but also by a desire on ' Hiram's' part for commercial
expansion. Having no port of his own, he was glad
to use EZION-GEBER (g9.7.), at the head of the Gulf of
‘Akabah, which formed part of Solomon's dominion.
Hiram had indeed no mariners to send, but he sent ‘ser-
vants' of his own—z.e., commissioners and merchants
—to buy and sell at the places where the ships might
touch. The chief object which both kings longed for
was naturally gold ; Ophir, the port of the great Arabian
or E. African gold-land, was the goal of these early
voyagers (see GoLD, Ivory, OPHIR, TRADE, $ 49).

The very different, commonly-held, opinion that ‘at
Ezion-geber (which {Solomon] retained, in spite of the
return to Edom of prince Hadad) a ship was built, similar
to those employed by the Pheenicians in their voyages to
Tarshish (and hence called Tarshish ships}, and manned
in part by experienced Tyrian sailors,' and that ‘from
that port it was dispatched at intervals of three years
to Ophir, bringing back thence gold, silver, ivory, valu-
able woods, and precious stones, as well as ‘curious
animals such as apes and peacocks,'! appears to rest
on an inaccurately transmitted text and a not sufficiently
thorough-going historical criticism. The best form that
gratitude to past critics can take is surely not to repeat
temporary conclusions, but to carry forward their work,
We venture, therefore, to present some of the most
pressing changes of view to which we have recently
been led by independent research.

Even apart from the rendering of i& (1 Κ, 9.26, ὃ ναῦς)
by ‘ship’ (ΕΝ, ‘a navy of ships’), which has had the authority
of Hitzig and Kittel? (77557 2 189), and the question as to the
history of Hadad, there is much that is very doubiful in the
opinion referred to. The ‘apes’ and ‘peacocks' are considered
elsewhere (see especially OPHIR, PrACOCKS); on the difficult
question relative to the mention of silver as well as of gold in
1 K.1022, see Silver, ἢ 2. ‘Valuable woods' should rather
be ‘a rare, fragrant wood, analogous to the spices or spice-plants
of the queen of Sheba” (read D'buttie., cagle-wood [see
ALOES), not D'iet ie, Jerahmeelite wood) The three
passages bearing ‘on Hiram’s participation în the Ophir ex-
peditions are (a) τ K. 827, (4) 1011, (6) 1022. As for (2), the
true text, translated, should probably run, ‘And Hiram sent his
servants, Jerahmeelites, on the ships with the servants of
Solomon." nia sax is a corruption of prrayne», and pop
of pbapni. Either ‘Jerahmeelites” or (better) ὁ Ishmaelites*
is a gloss or variant. In (3) we should read, ‘And also the
merchant-ships . . . brought from Ophir very much eagle-wood
and precious stones." DYM should be ἽΠ (Ὁ and Ὁ con-
founded); cp Prov. 3114. In (c) ‘for the king bad at sea ships
(Galleys) with cars? (bÌUD x)’; to this was added in the
earlier text ὙΠΟ ‘18, ‘merchant ships’ (omît DY, an editorial
insertion), which is a gloss on ‘© ὯΝ: The phrase ‘Tarshish
ships' is a hopeless puzzle until we apply methodical textual
criticism to the Hebrew phrase. See TARSHISH, $ 7.

That Solomon, at one period of his life, had friendly

relations with Mugri is shown by his marrying a daughter
rit οἵ Piu king of Misrim (so beyond doubt

δα Atierite ς should read in rK.8: θ16 ἐπ place of the
Ρ * very improbable MT ἢ). This was pointed

Naphtuhite (mn5i, not ὍΠ52) or a Danite, in either case a
woman of τῆς Negeb. See 1 K.T14; 2 Ch. 214, and cp
NEPHIOAH.

1 Wade, 0/4 Testament History (1901), 299.

2 InZA, ' Κῦπ., 87, and AG, ὃ Jes. 298, however, Kittel
adopts the collective meaning ‘fleet.”

3 See TarsHISH, $ 7, where Ὁ. ΣΝ, 15. 3321, is compared.

4 It is indeed difficult to imagine a king of Egypt giving one
of his daughters to a vassel king (cp WMM, 45. x. Exr. 390)
in Palestine.

4688

SOLOMON

out by the present writer,] and afterwards independently
by Winckler. To the notice of the marriage in 3: it is
added in 916 that Pir'u took the field against a certain
city, slew its inhabitants, and gave it as a portion to
his daughter, Solomon's wife? “The place is called in
the traditional text Gezer, and its inhabitants Canaanites;
but both Judg. 129 and Josh. 1610 lead us to doubt this,
and it is in itself more probable that for na (Gezer) we
should read γρ (Geshur), and for ‘33557 (the Canaanite),
as elsewhere, ‘pn (the Kenizzite); some place in the
far SW. of Palestine is presumably intended (sce
GESHUR, 2).

Kittel (cp Barney, Hastings, 22 28622) does well to separate
9 16-174 (as far as Ἴ12) from vv. 175-223 it has evidently been
taken from a context which spoke of the marriage. At the

same time îts present context is full of interest, and we must
return to it later ($ 7).

The Arabian land of SHEBA (g.7.), t00, was interested,
as legend asserted, in Solomon. [15 queen is said to
have actually come to Jerusalem to test
δὲ. Queen solomon's wisdom.* According to Kent
” (Mist. of the Hebrew People, 1179) the object
of her visit was to bring about a commercial treaty with
Solomon. But surely the form of the legend is late.
Τὸ is Tiglath-pileser and Sargon who tell us of queens
of ‘ mat Aribi,' and ‘mat Aribi' (see A4 719 414) is not
Sheba; indeed, the Sabzean empire arose much later
than Solomon. Probably, as Winckler suggests (Οὐ
2267), the queen of Sheba is but a refection of the
Misrite princess whom Solomon married. How Solomon
came to be called the wise king, par exce/lerce, is not
clear. If it meant originally that he was as skilful in
preserving, as his father had been in creating, a king-
dom, the ‘epithet was greatiy misplaced. More prob-
ably, however, the title arose from the close intercourse
between Solomon and the N. Arabian kings and kinglets.
‘The Misrites and the Jerahmeelites were celebrated for
their wise proverbs and apologues. To heighten Solo-
mon's glory, it was stated by the later legend that, just
as he was greater than his neighbours in war, so he
excelled them in their own special province of wisdom
(sec 1 K. 59 £ [430/.]). How far Babylonian infiuences
affected him we are unable to say positively. But the
phenomena of the early Genesis stories as explained by
the present writer lead him to think that N. Arabia
transmitted quite as much as Babylonia, though in
doing so it could not avoid augmenting a mass of ideas
and beliefs ultimately of Babylonian origin. See SHav.
sua, also CREATION, PARADISE, and cp EAST [CHIL-
DREN OF], ETHAN, HEMAN, MAHOL.

Legend also lays great stress on Solomon's just
judgment—a capacity for which was indeed one aspect
ra οἵ Hebrew ‘wisdom’; but there is no

Soon satisfactory evidence for this, and the

‘highly oriental story in 1 K.316-28
has a striking parallel in a Buddhist Jataka We can,
however, most probably assert that Solomon was highly
despotic in his methods ; on this, historians who differ
widely on other points are agreed.£ If we are rightly
informed, Solomon treated both the Israelites and the
surviving Canaanites” as only good enough to labour,
like the Egyptian fellahs till recently, at the royal build-
ings (513 7 [27 751}. cp 1218). ΗΒ is also said to have
divided the country (‘all Ishmael' ?) into twelve depart-
ments (to a large extent, it would seem, independent of
tribal divisions), each of which was under a deputy or

1 208, July 1889, pp. s59/1 Cp Winckler, G/ 2263; ΑΓ ΤΊ)
236.

2 Maspero's expansion of this passage (MT) în Struggle 27
the Nations, 738, is unduly imaginative.

3 Menander of Ephesus (as we have seen) represents Solomon
and Hiram as the rival sages.

4 Cp Kittel, 7551.2186} M‘Curdy, Z7PM 2 155 (8 524).

5 Other passages to be referred to presently seem to show
that the N. Arabian subject population was specially employ
in the corvée, though if Israelites had to do forced labour, the
surviving Canaanites would of course not be spared. It is not
well to attempt ἃ too positive solution of such problems.

4686

SOLOMON

prefect (24), 475: 505, v. 19), charged with the duty of
keeping up a constant supply of court luxuries, and also,
we may be sure, of collecting the taxes, and perhaps too
of providing forced labour.® ‘In the Lebanon (? Gebalon)
alone he is said to have had 10,000 labourers constantiy
employed (514[28]). The overseer of the corvée was
the hated Adoniram (1 K.46 ὅτε; cp 12:18). No
wonder that discontent became rife, especially in the
powerful tribe of Ephraim. How a leader of the rebels
was found is told elsewhere (sce JEROBOAM, I).

At the same time there are certain passages in our
composite narrative which may make us hesitate to
accept the darkest picture of Solomon's despotism. In
920-22, which we may hesitate to regard as merely a
late attempt to whitewash Solomon's character,? it is
expressly said that the corvée was limited to non-
Israelites. And the singular statements respecting the
number of Solomon's ‘ stalls of horses’ (426[56]) and of
his chariots and horsemen (1026), when critically in-
spected, appear rather to be statements respecting the
number of his Cushite, Jerahmeelite, and Zarephathite
servants (see γέ, 2i6.), The narrative in 1 K. 12 no
doubt ascribes the separation of N. and 5. to the hateful
corvée ; but the account is ἴοο anecdotal to be strictly
historical, and surely the forced service, so far as it
existed, pressed heavily on the S. as well as on the N.

Certainly Jeroboam was an Ephrathite._ But there may have
been ἃ southern, as well as a northern, Ephrath; Jeroboam's
mother (see JEROBOAM, 1) was a Misrite, and the name of his
clan (see ΝΈΒΑΤΟ) may piausibly be explained as Arabian And
as for the statement (11 28) that Jeroboam was placed ‘over the
labour of the house of Joseph,' it is possible that here and in
Am.56 nov (35°) has been miswritten for ‘ngn=bwyop» (Ish-
mael),$

We have assumed that Solomon'’s relation to Musri
was not that of supremacy, but that of dependence. It

should be frankly stated, however,
PA ego that there is a considerable body of

evidence which, rightly understood,
points in an opposite direction. (1) ‘There is the
passage alrcady referred to (2 Ch. 82), where Hiram
is represented as the ceder of the twenty cities. (2) In
close proximity to this, it is said (2 Ch.83) that
Solomon went to Hamath-zobah and prevailed against
it. Now Hamath-zobah here, as in a 5. 83, we take to
be partly a corrupted, partly a manipulated reading ;
the true text gave Maacath-zarephath—z.e., the Zare-
phathite Maacath. And the strong cities which Solomon
built {1 K. 915 [end], 17-19) were probably called Hazor,

1 The brevity of the above statement is justified by the present
state of textual criticism. ‘The document to which it refers
ἃ K.47-28[58]) is admittedly obscure. ‘The text,' says Ben-
zinger, “is a good deal corrupted, and has received ihterpola»
tions.’ In special articles on the names (see also FowL, FATTED)
some of the difficulties are dealt with. ‘The point of view, how.
ever, in these articles is not more advanced than that of critical
commentators in gerieral. A further application of the key
which Winckler (only half-conscious of its wide-.reaching con.
sequences) put into our hands, when he showed that bmsb
sometimes stood for D'Isb—i.c., the N. Arabian Musri — and

that this country exercised a persistent political influence on
the Israelites, has results which, if correct, are of the utmost
importance for the early regal period of the history of Israel.
It becomes probabile that Kittel's remark (which was thoroughly
justified from a conservative textual point of view) that the
table of prefects ‘only concerns Israel proper, inasmuch as the
conquered territories are referred to (421 [51]} in a different
style,’ is the reverse of the fact. The present writer holds that
the twelve prefects were placed not over ‘all Israel’ (as the
traditional text has) but over ‘all Ishmael' (a parallel error t0
that in 2 S.2412; see TAHTIM-MODSHI}- i.e., over the Negeb
—that in 422/ [3 2 /) the account of Solomon's ‘provision for
one day” has grown out of a list of the peoples or tribes of the
Negeb, and that in 426 [56] the true text affiims that the
Cushites, Jerahmeelites, Ishmaelites, and Zarephathites were
servants tò Solomon. 1 K.4z0 is the only passage which dis-
tinctly breaks the connection. See Crit. διό,

£ This is the view of Kittel and Benzinger. The statements
of 920-22 are thought by them to be refuted by 2 reference to
513 [27] 1128 124. The text of these passages, however, will
not bear the stress that is laid upon ît. See preceding note
(near end).

5 On Am, 61-14, which appears to the present writer to refer
to the Israelites settled in the Negeb, see Crif. Bi6.

4687

*{Cp Stade, GV/1 303, who,

SOLOMON

Jerahmeel, Geshur, Beth-horon (in the S.), Baalath,
"Tamar in Arabia! (3) There are also the passages
(426[56] 10 26) referred to above, which, when critically
emended, appear to assert the reduction to bondage or
serfdom of a large portion of the Jerahmeelite popula-
tion. And (4) there is a singular statement (1014)
respecting the amount of gold which came every year
to Solomon, the close of which shoula run nearly thus
‘apart from the tribute (wi3y) of the Zarephathites and

the Jerahmeelites (cp SPICE-MERCHANTS) and all the
kings of Arabia,’ ?

These passages, however, seem to prove nothing but
the strong determination of later writers to idealise the
reign of Solomon. That Solomon was, for a time at
any rate, lord of the Negeb (with the exception of
‘Hiram's' twenty cities) may be admitted. That he
had battles in the Negeb is also true, and his fve was
no minor chieftain but the king of Missur himself, and
Solomon was worsted in the conflict. The reference to
HapaD? and to REzon* in 1 K. 1114-25 and to Jero-
boam's journey to Misrim in 7. 40,5 confirm the view
that Solomon's position in the Negeb was seriously and
frequently threatened. It is noteworthy that Rezon is
said to have 'reigned in Damascus” (rather Cusham),
just as Hadad ‘reigned over Aram’ (i.e., Jerahmecl).
Evidently there was a strong jealousy between Israel
and the neighbouring peoples of Jerahmeel and Missur.
however, adheres to MT.)

The references to Solomon's horses, as we have
seen, need to be carefully inspected; they have been
much misunderstood,

There is evidence enough that ΘΟ
8. References (horses), and D'W13 (Cushites), 271 (chariot),
to horses. and bypny(Jerahmeel) have an unfortunate
tendency to get confounded, and this con-

fusion has affected the story of Solomon.

Still, we need not doubt that Solomon had, not

indeed ‘chariot-cities’% (see MARCABOTH), but at least
horses and chariots. On the /ocws classicus, 1K.1028/,
see Horse, $ 1 (5), MIZRAIM, $ 20, TRADE, $ 49.
It is a question, however, whether criticism does not
make it a plausible view that the Misrim from which
Solomon derived horses and chariots was the N.
Arabian rather than the N. Syrian referred to in these
articles. ‘This at least can with much probability be
stated, that, whilst there were nomadic tribes in N.
Arabia whose riding animal was specially the camel {seè
CAMEL, $ 2), there was also a settled population skilled
in the useful aris and riding on horses (see Crif. 8/6.)
Our information on these points is scanty, but a nega-
tive attitude towards the inference here stated is possible
only at the cost of rejecting critical facts which all bang
together, and throw a light on many dark places in the
history of Israel.

The total result of our study of Solomon is that his

1 Implying emendations of the text ; see Crif. δὲδ, See also
Tamar, TADMOR, TRADE, $ so. The reader will find the old
view and the new in collision, but this is inevitable.
problems before us are partly of a text-critical, partly of a

istorical character.

2 Cp TRADE, ὃ so, where the corrected printing 5 (cp Ch.)
is admitteà, We must add, however, that very probably
poso mao has arisen out of penaasm, written at the end as a
correction of pani; p:S309, as in Neh.3.32,= baby; and of
this same word ἽΠΌΙΣ is also a corruption (n =p}

$ Hadad was probably an Arammite (8 ῚΜ)- τ δι, a Jerah-
meelite—rather than an Edomite: see Cri. 554, on 2 5.813 £
Winckler (478) 240) independentiy suggests that Hadad
was οἵ Aram-Zoba, not of Edom. Aram-Zoba, however, is
really Aram-Zarephath, according to the present ‘writer's view
of the original text. See Zora. We must not, however, con-
found the spheres of action of the two adventurers, Hadad and
Rezon.

4 Rezon was a fugitive from his lord the king of Zarephath
(= Mancath-Zarephath, above). ᾿ ᾿

5 See JOR, July 199, pp. 551.556 As against, Winckler
(KAT 241, the present writer thinks that ‘Shishak” in Ὁ. 4o
is merely an error for ‘32 (see PHARAOH, SHISHAK, 2).

6 Cp, however, CÒaRIOT, $ 5, CITY (/), and Wi. G/ 2210.
4688

SOLOMON

political importance has been very much exaggerated.

πεν, Already in 1 K.124[54] we find the
9. Political extent of his kingdom idealised as that
Imp. * of David had been. It is not difficult to
account for this. ‘The geographical statement in 424
[54] arises simply from a misinterpretation of im (nd&ar)
in 7. at [x], which really means the ‘ndhal Misrim,'
but was supposed to méan the Euphrates.! Later
nges went farther in the sarife course, and in Pss. 45
and 72 (the latter of which, however, has received a
later insertion} his life furnishes the framework for
pictures of the Messianic king. Against this idealisa-
tion the redactor of ECCLESIASTES {g.v.) in his own
way protests.

We now turn to Solomon's religious position. Was
he a polstheist? Did he ever, as W. E. Barnes

{Hastings, 22 2511d) expresses ît, 'patronise
10. Nota ;.rei hip? An affirmati veri
lytneisb. oreign worship An affirmative answer is
po suggested by 1 K. 11:-8. ΤΊ is plain, how-
ever, from (8᾽5 text, as well as from the phenomena of
MI, that the original has been much expanded by
later hands from a religious motive.*? There was no
bad faith in this ; the later writers simply recast history
in the light of certain fundamental principles—those of
Deuteronomy {cp Kines [Book], $ 6} And their
procedure appears more startling than it really was,
owing to the fact that the ethnic names and the names
of the gods have been accidentaliy. corrupted. ‘The
original statement probably was that which underlies
117, ‘Then did Solomon build a sanetuary for the god
of Cusham and Jerahmeel'—z.e., for his Misrite wife;
this probably stood in connection with the account of
Solomon's marriage (cp 16 31-33}.

Various comments on this were inserted in the margin, and
introduced by the redactor or redactors into the text. Lastly,
corraption transformed ‘the god of Cusham' into ‘Chemosh the
god (abomination) οἵ Moab,'and ‘ Jerahmeel” into ‘ Milcom the
god (abomination) of the b'ue Ammon.' In what is now 2. 1,
Ὁ Jerairmeelite, Misrite, Rehobothite' became ‘Moabite, Am-
monite, Edomite(from “Arammite,”a variant to ‘ Jerahmeelite "),
Zidonian, and Hittite," and in what is now 7. 3). princesses
Ishmawelites® became ‘princesses seven hundred,' and ‘concu-
ine» [shmaelites® became ‘concubines three hundred."

“That Solomon had a number of wives, both Israelite
and non-Israelite, is probable enough, but he did not
make altars for all of them, nor did he himself combine
the worship of his wives' gods with that of Yahwè. He
can have had no thought of denying the sole divinity of
Yahwè in the land which was Vahwè's ‘inberitance.’
It is a distortion of the true text when @ represents
Solomon as ‘burning incense and sacrificing' (ἐθυμία
καὶ ἔθυε) to foreign gods.5 That this ambilious king
had such a chastened piety as we find in r Καὶ, 8 14-61
(cp Driver, Zret. 200 7) is on all grounds inconceiv-
able; but we have no reason to doubt that according to
his lights he was a faithful worshipper of Yahwè, so far
as this was consistent with his despotic inelinations.

{In the apocryphal Book of Wisdom, again, the composition
of an Egyptian Hellenist, who from internal evidence is judged

to have lived somewhat earlier than Philo

11. Later (see Wispom of SoLosov), Solomon is
idealisation. introduced uttering words of admonition,
_imbued with the spirit of Greek philosophers,

to heathen sovereigns. ‘he so-called Psalter of Solomon, on
the other hand, a collection of Pharisee Psalms preserved t0 us
only in a Greek version, has nothing to do with Solomon or the
traditional conception of his person, and seems to owe its name
to a transcriber who thus distinguished these newer pieces from
the older ‘ Psalms of David.'4 ‘in NT times Solomon was the
current type alike of magnificence and of wisdom (Mt. 629
Tk. 1131) But Jewish legend was not content with chis, and,
starting from a false interpretation of Eccles. 28, gave him
sovereignty over demons, to which were added (by a perversion
of 1 K.4 33), lordship over all beasts and birds, and the power of
uriderstanding their speech. These fables passed to the Arabs

1 Cp Fave, Brook or, and see Wi. G/ 2254.

2 See Benziagerand Kitiel, and cp Driver, /e#.(0), 192.

ἢ See, however, Bumney (Hastings' 2823652, notet), who
favours &L, and thinks that the fact ‘has been toned down by
some later hand into the statement of MT.'

4 On the Aprocryphal ‘ Psalms of Solomon’ see APOCALYPTIC
LITERATURE, $$ 77-85. Cp also APOCRYPRA, $ 14

4689

SON OF GOD

before the time of Mohammed (44/242, 122), tound a place in
the Koran, and gave Solomon (Suleiman) a lasting fame
throughout the Moslem East. The story of Solomon, the
hoopoe, and the queen of Sheba in the Kotan (547. 27) closely
follows the second Targum to lsth. la, where the Jewish
fables abuut him may be read at large. Solomon was supposed
to owe his sovereignty over demons to the possession of a seal
on which the ‘mast great name of God' was engraved. Sce
Lane, Arabian Nights, Introd., n. 21, and chap.l, n. 15.—
ν᾿

For a survey of Solomon's reign in connection with the longer
history, see ISRAEL, δ 23-25; on Solomon's psalm (0), CkeA-
Trox, ἢ 26, and on two supposed daughters of Solomon, see
SALMAH. T.K δ,

SOLOMON’S PORCH {n croa [roy] coXo-
munlrloc), In. 1023 Acts 512. See TEMPLE, $ 30,7

SOLOMON'S SERVANTS, CHILDREN OF (3

nbby +1ap), a guild of persons attached to the second
temple, mentioned in Ezra 25558 Neh.75760 113}
(yioi AoyAwn caAomwon [BAL]; Ezra 2ss vy.
aBAHceA [B]; 258 y. acéAHceAMa {BI y. aBAH-
ceAma [A]), with the NETHINIM (9.2), and sometimes
(exg., Neh,3263: 1029) apparently included under thai
term. Bertheau-Ryssel leaves it uncertain whether this
guild of ' servants of Solomon' grew out of a small part
of the Canaanitish bondservants of Solomon (1 K.
920/.} which may have been assigned to the temple.
The probability is, however, that the phrase has nothing
to do with Solomon, but is corrupt. On Solomon's
corvée, see SOLOMON, $ 6,

Just as one can hardly doubt that the so-called nér4ix7 are
really the Ethanites, so the benz ‘adda SZ/07204 must, it would
sgemi, be either the déné ‘obed-Salami or the dént ᾿δόζεί. δεύδηιε.
‘Obed-édom is probably a corruption of ‘ard2-è40m— ne,
Arabiaof Edom, and Οὐδέ. ἔείσηεδα of'arab-falamii—i.e,, Arabia
of the Salmaans (see SaLMAH, 2). The Jerahmeelites and
Edomites seem to have been strongly mixed with pure Israelites
after the esile, One οὐ the families of the Obededom or
‘Arab-edom guild (if we may call it 50) bears the name ‘bèné
Hassophéreth' (or Sophereth)—e., béné Sarephathim, or Zare-
phathites. See SoPHERETH. Tk. C

SOLOMON’S SONG. See CANTICLES.

SOLOMON, WISDOM OF. See WispoM
SOLOMON.

SOMEIS (comeeic [BA]}, x Esd. 934 RV= Ezra 1038
SHIMEI, 16.

ΟΕ

SON ΟΕ GOD
CONTENTS
I. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT AND PHILO.

Synonym of ‘god’ (81). The king (8 5).

Term for an ‘angel'(82). The Messiah (8 6).

Offspring of a god (8 3). One raised from the dead ($ 7).
Figurative use (δ 4). The Logos (ἢ 8).

II. IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.
i. Za Synoptics (88 9-22). Praclamation by demons (δ 18).
Principles of criticism ($ 10) —Peter’s confession ($ 19).
| Genuine sayingsof Jesus ($ 11). High priest's adjuration ($ 20).

Tesus' self-consciousness (8 12). Centurion's exclamation (ἢ 21).

Hymn to Father and Son (ὃ 13). Origin of title (8 22).
| Son's limited Knowledge (8 14). Ji. /n Aourt4 Gospel (8 23).

Baptismal formula ($ 15). In Fpistles (δ 24).
Allegoryofhusbandmen (8 16). Historical significance of title
Prociamation by voices etc. ( 25).

GB 17/5). Literature (8 26).

In the Semitic languages the individual is often
designated as a ‘son’'of the species to which he be-
longs, the species being indicated by a collective or
plural noun (see Son OF MAX, 88 τ, 4-6).

Similarly, a member of the genus ‘god’ seems to
have been designated as der d7047m (Aram. Bar Mdhin).
‘This is suggested by Gen. 62-4 Ps. 826
As early as the second
century B.C. the ὄν &/04zmz in Gen, 624
were understood in Some circles to be angels, and this

interpretation is certainly nearer the truth than the

rationalising exegesis that made the fathers of the

giants ‘sons of mighty men' or ‘ pious folk {see $ 2).

But the term can scarcely have conveyed originally the
1 idea of ‘angels.’ At the time when the myth was first

4690

SON OF GOD

told in Judah, it is not likely that the doctrine of
angels had yet developed. As the daughters of men’
were simply ‘ women,' so ‘the sons of the gods’ were
‘gods.’ Such a usage of the phrase must have been
deeply rooted, since even in the Hasmonzean age ‘sons
of Egon’ was an expression employed as a synonym
of ‘gods.’ In Ps. 826 dré ‘elyon is used in the second
hemistich as an equivalent of ὀῤδλῖπε in the first. In
Dan, 325 the celestial being seen in the fiery furnace is
called dar e/447n (cp Pesh.). This is indeed explained
by mal'àkeh, ‘his angel,’ in 328, and so the phrase was
undoubtedly understood by the author. But it is not
probable that the Jews of the Maccabaean period called
an angel Zar è/dhin; as good monotheists they no
doubt said dar #é44, The author, however, en-
deavoured to make the speeches of pagan kings and
queens more plausible by putting upon their lips such
phrases as, in his judgment, they would naturally use,
He lets them speak of the ‘wisdom of gods’ (511) and
the ‘spirit of holy gods' (45/ [8.1] Bir) As these
expressions were borrowed from pagan phraseology,
dar élahîn was probably drawn from this same source,
If the polytheistic neighbours of Israeì employed the
phrase, they are likely to have meant by it not ‘an
angel,’ but a ‘god.’ Even in Job 16 387, the ‘sons of
the gods' are apparently conceived of as divine beings,
subordinate to the Most High, but stili associated with

the elements, stars, or nations, over which they once !

reigned as independent rulers; and the same may be
true of Ps. 29 (ὁπ 8501).
‘Whilst originali these divine beings were not ‘angels,’
it is natural that in course of time they should become
A inn identified with the special class οὗ
prresieeni «messengers’ (malati). In Gen.
* 624, some MSS of (δ (A 37, 72, 75)
read οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ, and this reading seems to
have been found by many patristic writers (cp also
male kE in the margin of Syr.-Hex., and the Persian
Vs.), trough the majority of MSS and daughter-versions
have the more literal oi vioi τοῦ θεοῦ. Such a reference
to angels is assumed in many passages.

So in Enoch 52 (οἱ ἄγγελοι υἱοὶ οὐρανοῦ, Giz. frg. and Eth.)
192 etc., Slavonic En, 718, Jubilees 5, Test. 12 Patr.: Reuben
5, Philo, 1262, ed. Mangey, Jos. A#t i. 81, $ 73, Jude 6,
2 Pet. 24, Justin, 0/15, Clem, Hom. 813, Clem.Alex.

Strom. 8558, Tert. De Visg. Vel. 7, Lactantius, /astif. 215,
Commodianus, /astruc?. 13.

In Ps. 29: 826, Targ. has n'anbo ona; in Job16,
6 reads οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ ϑεοῦ, and in 387 ἄγγελοί
μου, and Targ. in both places »παάξαγγᾶ, and in
Dan. 825 [92] (5 renders ἀγγέλον θεοῦ. The trans-
lation ‘sons of the angels’ (Job 887 Pesh. δ᾽ παὲ
mala k2, En. 11 τῇ or ‘children of the gods' (En. 6945
1065) apparently presupposes the use of δίδαζηε (or
Aram. &/4zn) as a designation of angels, the ‘sons’
being the individuais of this class. Whether Aquila’s

rendering, οἱ υἱοὶ τῶν θεῶν, refiects such an identification !

of &0him-Beoi with angels, or a more correct appre-
hension of the original meaning, or simply the convie-
tion that the Most High can have no sons {cp Midr.
Tèhillin, 27), cannot easily be determined. The fact
that Gen. 624 are the only passages where the Targs.
{Onk. and Jon.) render δ᾽ κῶ 2/42 with δ᾽ τ rabribayya
indicates that the common significance is here forced to
yield, for doginatic reasons, to a less natural meaning.
The same is true of Sym. oi υἱοὶ τῶν δυναστευόντων,
Sam. Targ. mibbe 53, and Saadia den2’/ afrafî, ‘sons
of the mighty,” “the rulers' or ‘nobles.’ [1 is also
significant that the term 4440527, which designates the
gods as objects of worship, was transferred to the
angels (cp Job5x 15rs Zech.145 Dan.414 Ps. 8968
Tob. 815); in Ecclus, 452, the original seems to have
read pnbxa imam (68 translating v'nda with ἄγεοι), and
a similar transfer is likely to have taken place in the
case of the term ‘watcher.' If @ is correct, in Dt,
828 (apparently a late gloss), the ὃν 3 seem to have
been limited in some circles to the celestial representa-
tives, or patron angels, of the different nations.

4691

SON OF GOD

At the basis of the myth in Gen, 61 7. lies the idea
of the physical descent of some men from divine beings
ino (cp NEPHILIM, $ 1] The famous giants
8, Offapring of old were regarded as sons of gods and of
ΟΥ̓ βού. beautiful women. This explanation was
especially resorted to ‘în the case of great heroes of
antiquity and of kings (see 8 5). But clans and tribes also
traced their descent from divinity through their eponym
heroes, When the Moabites are said to be the sons and
daughters of Chemosh (Nu. 21 29}, the Hebrew singer
used a phrase that is likely to have been employed by
the Moabites themselves to claim descent from Chemosh,
to indicate that they were his offspring in the world,
Gen. 1930-38 cannot be urged against this view. It
probably referred originally to the descent of a pre-
Edomitish clan from its divinity Lotan (see LOT).
Edom, Esau, Ammon, Gad, Asher, and other genlilicia,
are, beyond a question, names of gods [cp TRIBES, $ 3].
Abram (the ‘exalted father’ of Hebron), Isaac (the
‘smiling’ El of Beersheba), Jacob (the ‘pursuing' El
of Shechem), Israeì (the ‘ fighting’ ΕἸ of Mahanaim},!
Ishmael (the ‘listening’ El of Beer-lahai-roi}, Jerahmeel
(the ‘pitying’ El of Rahama) and many more, can
scarcely have been other than divine figures originally.
The sons of these were, no doubt, once regarded as
physical descendants of gods, though the term was later
understood to designate them merely as the offspring of
eponym heroes, or as belonging to the tribes bearing
these names. However foreign to the ideas of a later
time, the conception that the Israelites descended from
Yahwè himself is likely to have existed in earlier days.
When, in extant literature, Israel is called ‘son of
Yahwè,' and the members of the people ‘sons and
daughters of Yahwè,' this is indeed probably, în every
instance, used in a metaphorical sense (see $ 4). Never-
theless, there are indications that the sonship once was
taken more literally. Already, the connection between
Yahwè's fatherhood and his creation of Israel is signifi-
cant. In the Assyrian, 42rz means ‘ build,' ‘ fashion,”
‘beget’; the same term denotes creation and pro-
creation : Dt. 328 (‘the rock that begat thee . . . the
EI that brought thee forth ') shows how closely the ideas
were related in the Hebrew mind. The tendency to
make the eponym heroes sons of gods and women, seen
in Greece (cp Rohde, Psycke, 5) 1527 169 7.) and else-
where, was evidently at one time operative in Israei as
well. The original paternity of Isaac is but thialy
disguised in Gen. 1810 21: 75 (cp that of Samson in
Judg. 13 where ma/' 24 is probably a later addition). It
is quite evident that at sanctuaries provided with
masséboth and asherim, kedesim and kedelotk, the simple
folk-religion cannot have left Vahwè without a consort
and children. In Ezek. 23 Yahwè marries two sisters
and begeis children by them. This is an allegory.
But when even a late prophet does not hesitate to
introduce this conception as a figure of speech, it may
be reasonably supposed that an earlier time found it
only natural that Yahwè, as well as other gods, should
have children by graciously visiting women of his
choice. Gen.61. shows that gods might do this
without offending the morals of the age. The notion
of a physical divine paternity îs not incompatible with
an otherwise highly developed moral sense (see $ 17).
The very fact that in Hebrew literature Israel is
primarily the son of Yahwé and the individual Israelite
only by virtue of his connection with
the people, indicates that the phrase
was once understood in a literal sense,
since collective sonship is mediated through the eponym
hero. Nevertheless, the idea of physical descent has
been so strongly suppressed that the term is practically
everywhere used figuratively, to express the love and

4. Figurative
use.

1 As the * Job stone” found by Schumacher at Sheikh Sa'd în
Hauran proves that Ramses IL penetrated into the E.
Jordan country, it is possible that the Israel referred to in the
Me(mneptah inscription was a tribe having for îts centre
Mahanaim,

4692

SON OF GOD

paternal care of Vahwè and the reverence and obedience
of Israel.

Already in Hosea 2: the ethical significance often associated
with this metaphor comes to view when the prospect of becom-
ing ‘sons of the living God’ (#22 ΕἾ dai) by a moral reforma-
tion is held out to the Israelites. In Hosea 111 the text is
doubtful. Mt. reads ‘out of Egypt I have called my son” (5
seems t0 have found a plural (11135, τὰ τέκνα αὐτοῦλ See
Loviwekinpxess. ‘His children’ would refer to the ‘sons of
Israel.” In Is, 12307, the Israelites are called ‘sons of Vahwè.*
That the phrase was felt to be a figure of speech is evident from
De. 1 31 85 (‘as a man bears (chastens] his son, so Vahwè'; cp
Ps. 10313); but I41 asserts ‘Ye are the sons of Yahwè, your
God,' and 326 asks ‘ Is he not thy father, thy maker?* In Jer.
34 Yahwè is said to be a father; 8 19, ‘How shall I place thee
among sons,' means ‘make thee a son’ (see Duhm, /erenzia, p.
vi), consequently contains the idea of adoption. l'he promi
‘Tshall be a father to Israel, and Ephraim shall be my first
hom is given in Jer.dl9. Similariy Ex.d2 ‘My son, my
first-born, is Israel.’ In 15, 68 16, the first-born of Yahwè is em-
phasised, in contrast with the neglect of the people by Abraham
and Israel; the cult of these heroes brings no relief. Cp also
ρας father,’ Is. 648 (7), Mal, 16 assumes that Yahwè is con-
stantly represented by the people as a father. Mai. 2 10-16 has
suffered much corruption by intentional alteration and by
accident [sce Cri/. 254.1. But τ΄. 10 clearly shows that Yahwè
is the father of the Israelites and their ancestor. In e. rr
neither @ nor Pesh, seems to have found in the text "and
marries the daughter of a strange god’ (12) 5x), but some
phrase which could be interpreted “and walks after (or ‘serves )
foreign gods. This may be a free rendering of ὃν ma die pal
251, ‘and enters the house of a strange god,’ but MT shows that
the idea of a woman being the daughter of her god was not
foreign to Hebrew thought (cp Nu. 2129 Wisd. 97 1221 16 το).
In Ps. 73 15, ‘the generation of thy children’ refers to the Jews.
The fatherhood of God is finely expressed in the prayer, Ecclus.
281, beginning Κύριε, πάτερ, “Lord, father." In Ecclus. 411 the
Hebrew reads 13 pump: San ‘and God shall call thee son.
Here sonship has an ethical quality. That is also the case in
Wisd. 218, ‘if the righteous man is God's son, he will uphold
him’; whilst in 5 5 the sons of God probably are the occupants
of the celestial world, including angels and human saints (see
$ 7); în 97 1221 1610 184, the sons and daughters of God are
the Israclites, and in 1813 the people is said to be recognised
by the Egyptians as ‘God's son.’ In Judith 94 the Jews are
God's ‘dear children.’ In Esth. 6 τὰ, they are the ‘sons of the
only and true God,’ and in 3 Macc. 6 28 they are the sons of the
‘most mighty and heavenly living God. Eth. Enoch 6211
speaks of ‘his children and bis elect,’ but the passage is prob-
ably a Christian interpolation Cp also Sib. Or. 3702, “sons of
the great God'; Ps. Sol. 730, ‘sons of their God”; 184, ‘as a
first-horn only-begotten son’; Ass. Mos. 1027, ‘sons of God':

ubilees 1 15, ‘sons of God'; and 4 Ezra 6 58, ‘thy people, first:

otn and only-begotten.”

It may be inferred from such instances that the desig-
nation of God as father in a figurative sense goes back
at least to the eighth century and was common in Israel
in the last century B.c.; that the Israelites felt them-
selves to be sons and daughters of Yahwè because of
their connection with the holy Yahwé-worshipping
people; and that here and there the thought of a
spiritual sonship based on character was reached.

Founders of states and kings in general were regarded
in antiquity as sons of gods.

Numerous examples were gathered from Greek and Roman
writers by D. F. Ilgen in 1795, Ho Roweven, wrongiy sup:
simply

posed that the basis of what he deeme:
5. The king. a figure of speech was the relation of the king

as pupil to the divinity as teacher. In reality,
the divine paternity was looked upon as an important fact. In
the case of a long-reigning dynasty, or one connected by
marriage with the preceding one, it was sufficient to assume a
transmission of the divine life from an original impregnation by
a god; in the case of a usurper not connected by marriage with
the previously reigning family, resort must be had to an im-
mediate divine fatherhood. Thus, the kings of Egypt were
considered as the sons of Re' by virtue of descent from him; but
Alexander could he declared ἃ son οἵ Ammon Re' only by a
denia! of Philip's paternity, and a revelation of his birth without
a human father (Trogus in Justin, #54 1111) Less promin-
ence was evidently given to this conception in Assyria; but its
existence is proved by 5 R. 297 where Atur-bini-pal says Ag
ilu hanta, ‘ Ashur the god, my begetter.' The Ptolemies as
successors of the Egyptian kings accepted such titles as ‘son of
Re',' “υἱὸς τοῦ "HAl0v,' ‘son of Isis and Osiris”; and some of the
Seleucida, as successors of Alexander, also received the title
Θεοῦ vide. The latter title was frequently used by the Roman
emperors as well as divxs, θεός, and 4442 in the East (see
Dalman, 227, and Deissmann, Bibelstudien, 116617).

Even in Israel the king was regarded as standing on
a higher level than ordinary men and given the name
‘son of Yahwé.' His quasi-divine character is already

150 4693

SON OF GOD

indicated in the fact that he was anointed, Originally
the pouring out of oil on his head was a sacrifice, an
act of worship. Vahwè's anointed was recognised as
partaking of Yahwè's sanctity, as possessed of a divine
spirit and a higher intelligence (τ S.109). It is more
likely to be a reflection of a generally prevailing opinion
than mere fiattery, when the woman in 2 8. 1417 20
declares that David is like the gods in hearing what
is good and evil, and has the wisdom of the gods to
know all that is in the earth (722/'4£ is probably a late
interpolation). How the people before the exile looked
upon their kings, cannot be determined from the literary
remains reflecting the often strongiy anti-royalist spirit
of the prophets. 15. 96 shows that a poet in the exile
did not hesitate to predict for a child born to the royal
family (possibly a son of Jehoiachin) that he would be
called a ‘mighty god' (δὶ ρίῤῥῦγ). 25.714, probably
written after the exile, as H. P. Smith has perceived,
and possibly in the days of Zerubbabel, presents the
son of David as the son of Yahwè, and significantly
predicts for him that in spite of this he will be punished
as human beings are, though not destroyed. When
kings again sat on the throne of David in the
Hasmonzean age, they naturaliy applied τὸ themselves
this promise. Yahwé's anointed king was his son,
born as such on the day of his coronation, whom the
nations and their rulers should obey (Ps. 2). Ac-
customed as men in Israel had been to hear their
Ptolemaic or Seleucid rulers referred to both as ' god’
and as ‘son of god,' the two terms easily merged into each
other when applied, as they were, to the Hasmonzean
kings. In Ps.582 and 826 Pharisaic hymn-writers
scornfully designate these native rulers as ‘gods’
(&okîm) and ‘sons of God” (822 ‘elyòn). There would
be no sting în this sarcasm, if they were not actually
designated as such. That this was the case is shown
by PS. 457... [6/1], where a poet laureate of one of these
princes on the occasion of a royal wedding apostrophises
the monarch as divine. In Ps. 8926, 25.714 isapplied
to Alexander Jannaeus (so Duhm). Zech. 128 probably
also applies to the reigning family.

On the other hand, Ex. 216 229{8] do not prove that
rulers were called ‘gods.’ They refer to household
gods (Ferdmans), and ‘Targ. and Pesh. which render
‘judges’ are certainly wrong. So far as known, the
king was never regarded în Israel as literally the son
of Yahwè. The underlying thought seems to have
been that the king became a ‘son' by the infusion of
his divine father's life and intelligence,

In view of the fact that the king in Israel was called
a son of God, it is somewhat strange that there is so

τ little evidence of its use as a title
6. The Messiah. cf the coming Messiah. There is no
passage in Jewish literature that can be confidently
dated as earlier than Christianity, in which this name
is given to the Messiah.

Enoch 1052 is probably an interpolation (so Drummond,
Charles, Dalman). 4 Ezra 7 28,7 18.32 37 52 149 are all doubt:
fal. The Aramaic original îs lost, and the extant versions (Syr.,
Lat., Eth., Ar., Arm.) have all passed through Christian hands,
and manifestly suffered changes in these very passages (sec
Drummond, 2857) The Targ. to 2 S.Tr4 renders ‘like a
father” and “like a son,’ and the Targ. to Ps. 27 ‘thou art dear
to me asa son’; Ps. 315 generally referred to Israel. In Origen's
time the Jews looked forward to the coming of God's Messiah,
hut professed to find no reference in prophecy to a coming son
of God (c. Celsurz, 149). Only rarely (es in ὁ. δκξξα, Isea
and Midrash Το δι, 27) is a Messianic interpretation of Ps. 2
found. There can be little doubt that the reason for this lies in
the reaction, first against Hasmonzean pretensions, and subse-
quently against Christian exegesis. But between the insistence
upon Davidic descent as a rebuke to the illegitimate line in che
Psalter of Solomon, and the emphasis upon the human character
of the Messiah (ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἀνθρώπων) by Trypho asa disavowal
of the new god, the great Messianic movements stirred many
circles in Jewry, besides the followers of Jesus, with eagerness
to discover a reference to the Messiah in every passage that lent
itself to the purpose. It therefore remains possible that the
identification of the Messiah as the son of God represents not
merely the blending of two independent convictions, but the
synonymy of two terms. Dalman objects to der 40444 as a
Messianic title, on the ground that it was not customary to

4604

SON OF GOD

mention the name of God, as Mk. 1461 υἱὸς τοῦ εὐλογητοῦ indi.
cates. But Mt., who, according to Dalman, alone rendered the
original idiomatic να ξηρά da-shèmayyà for ‘kingdom of
God’ with βασιλεῖα τῶν οὐρανῶν, has in 90 63 vide τοῦ θεοῦ, and
80 also Lk. 22 70; and there is no indication that ‘sons of God”
was rendered otherwise than by #2 2/444. Nevertheless,
Bar élaha is not likely to have been very commonly used as ἃ
designation of the Messiah, and there is no absolute proof of its
use at any time,

In Lk. 2036 those that are accounted worthy of
another world and of being raised from the dead
i are said to be equal to angels and
A pne raised ὁ sons of God, because they are sons of

“ the resurrection.' According to Rom.
14 Jesus was shown to be a son of God by his
resurrection from the dead. The idea that the ranks
of the heavenly beings may thus be increased, is
èlder than the thought of a resurrection.

Heroes that are well-pleasing to the gods may be carried aloft
to be with them for ever, as Uta-napitti in the Gilgami$ epic, or
Enoch and Elijah [see DeLUGE, $ 17, ELJAH, EnocA, and cp
EtHan, Parapise, $ 31. Slavonic Enoch 22 gives a fine
description of Enoch's reception in heaven, and his celestial
garments. Into the same company of heavenly beings men
could be brought from the subterranean realms of Shé6l, when
the Mazdayasnian doctrine of a resurrection had become familiar
in Israel. Even in circles where the Greek conception of
immortality prevailed, the godly man was supposed to take τὶ
his abode after death among the sons of God, and to obtain his
inheritance among the saints (Wisd. 65). It is the merit of
Barton (Mew IWorld, 1899, pp. 1147) to have called attention
to this thought.

Among the Jews accessible to Greek philosophy, it
was especially Philo who prepared the way for the
Christian doctrine of the son of God by his Logos-

speculation. ‘When he called this

8. The Logos. Logos ‘the perfect son,’ ‘the first-
born son of God' (De Vit. Mos. 14; De Conf. Ling.
14: De Agric. 12), he did not imply that it was an
individual, an hypostasis, a person Yet it was in-
evitable that the term ‘son of God’ should suggest a
mediator between God and the world, a celestial
personality more grandly conceived than any other
associated with the name, and herein lies much of its
historic importance (see $$ 23, 25; and for a description
of Philo's Logos the careful studies of Jean Réville,
Soulier, Siegfried, Anathon Aall, and Grill}.

The term ‘son of God' (υἱὸς θεοῦ, υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, ὁ υἱὸς
τοῦ θεοῦ) or ‘my {sc. God's) son’ (υΐός μου) occurs in

9. The the Synoptie gospels 27 times, and the

Synoptica term ‘the son' (δ υἱός) g times. It will

" be convenient to record the occurrences
in detail and to classify them.
1. "Son of God or “my (God's) son' 27 times.
a. Enumeration.

Mt. 817 43659 1433 1616 17 5 2663 2740 43 54 = τι times,
Mk.1r 1131157 97 16611539
Lk. 132 35 822 38 439828935 2270

3. Analysis.
i. In three Gospels :—3 times.
ΤᾺ. 322: baptism.
k. 935: transfiguration.
Lk. 2270: trial,

ii. In two Gospels : 4 times.
ME. 16 39 (centurion)

Lk-828 (demon) )

» 43 (temptation) lori

Mr 46=Lk. dg Ν" = twice.

ili. In one Gospel :-10 times.

Mk. 1: (superscription), 811 (demon)

Mt. 59 (name of peacemakers), 14 33 (after
walk on the sea), 16 16 (Peter's confessionì,
27 40 (at the cross), 27 43 (alleged quotation)= 5 times.

Lk. 1.32 35 (annunciation), 338 (genealogy)=3 times.

»

9»

once,
once.

=twice.

2. “The son' ($ υἱός) alone : 9 times.
a. Enumeration.

Mt. 1127 (thrice) 2436 28 19 = stimes.
Mk.1332.. . +. +» = Once.
Ik. 1022 (thrice) —. = 3times

3. Analysis.
The three in Mt. 1127 correspond to
Lk. 1022 (hysmn of Jesus) =
Mk. 1832 is equivalent to Mt. 2436 (not even the

son)
Mt. 2819 (baptismal formula) has no parallel
$ 4605

the three in

SON OF GOD

It is not sufficient, however, to consider the texts in
which the title actually occurs, Passages throwing light
upon Jesus' conception of the divine
fatherhood in general and man's son-
ship must also be examined. Parables
in which the term ‘son’ might be regarded as referring
to Jesus, must be taken into consideration. Whenever
a reputed saying of Jesus is drawn into the discussion,
it must be tested in a retranslation into the Aramaic
dialect spoken by Jesus; and the same applies to
utterances concerning him by persons to whom this
Galilean speech was the vernacular. The differences
between the accounts of the evangelists must be ob-
served, It is not permissible to leave out of sight the
peculiarities of the evangelists, or the influence upon
their minds of later thought and a growing tradition.
It is necessary to bear in mind the fundamental distinc-
tion between the Greek words ascribed to Jesus which
we possess, and the Aramaic sentences he spoke which
we can only surmise; between the stories told for
religious edification, and the history often symbolised
rather than described in them. Moreover, the condition
of the text must be sedulously watched.

In a number of passages whose substantial genuine-
ness admits of little doubt Jesus is reported as having

. used the term ‘sons of God,' or an
11, Ethical equivalent, of men in such a manner as
significance {5 imply a certain moral likeness to
in genuine

A God.
sayings of Whilst in Mt.59 the thought may con-
Jesus,

ceivably be that the peace-makers will be
called sons of God because they will be deemed
worthy of a share în the resurrection (Lk. 20 36 and cp $ 7), more
probably the idea is that when the kingdom of heaven shall be
Established on earth, asit soon will be, they will be recognised
by virtue of their spiritual kinship to God as his true sons,
This is manifestly the case in Mt.545, where sonship is based
on an impartial and forgiving spirit like God's. Whether Jesus
said ‘sons of your father who is in heaven” or ‘sons of the Most
High," as in the parallel assage in Lk. 635, is doubeful, Most
probably he said ‘sons of the father who îs in heaven.” This is
suggested by a comparison of Mt. 61: (ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς:
οὐρανοῖφ) with Lk. 11 13 (ὁ πατὴρ ὃ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, where, however,
Sin. Syr. seems to read ‘the father that is in heaven), Mt.
apparently had a preference for the pronominal additions. But
whether K9R Or {1515 was originally used, it is significant that
Jesus did riot limit the divine paternity and did not exclude from
sonship those who were ‘themselves evil.’ "The same is strongly
indicated also in the parables of the lost son (Lk. 15 x1 7°) and
the two sons (Mt. 21 28/7), which teach that man even when he
errs does not cease to be the son of God and the object of his
farherly affection. In Mt, 2387 Jesus is speaking to the crowds.
as well as to his disciples, warning them not to call men Rabbi,
‘Abba, and Moreh, ‘for one is your master,’ ‘one is your father,

"one ἴ your teacher,’ the reference being everywhere to God
(see Kohler, /0£ 13 5677.) On the other hand, in Mt. 102029
and Lk.12 52 the disciples are addressed, and those to whom
the kingdom will be given are clearly distinguished by their
character from the rest of the people. Even more manifest is
this distinction in Mt.17257 As kings on earth demand
tribute not of their sons but only of strangers, so the heavenly
king does not impose taxes on his sons, Those who think of
God as taxing them for the support of the temple-cult are in
reality strangers to him; the relations of sons to the heavenly
father are characterised by freedom. In view of such a pro-
foundly ethical conception of sonship and Jesus' attitude in
general, it is difficult to believe in the historical accuracy of his
refusal to work a miracle for a Phoenician woman on the ground
alleged (Mt. 15 21-28 Mk. 7 27-30).

The synoptie tradition records no utterance of Jesus
in which he distinctly refers to himself as a ‘son of God.'
, Mm Mt. 27 43 it is indeed said that
12. Jesus' self nocking high priests, scribes, and
ppt] elders quoted him as having said: ‘I
asa son o60d. ma son of God.' The only ground
for such an assertion would be Jesus' answer to the high
priest's question (Mt. 2667). But see 8 30 and Son OF
MAN, $ 37 (end). ‘The taunt seems to have been made:
up of phrases from Wisdom 26-18 {see Brandt, 209).
Of more importance would be the distinction between
‘my father' and ‘your father,' if this could be traced
back to Jesus himself.
The Gi. text of Mt. gives che impression that Jesus said ‘my

father” when speaking of his own God or to him, whilst he said
‘our father” when referring to the God of his disciples or the

4696

10. Principles
of criticism.

SON OF GOD

people, and that he tuught his disciples to say "our father,” but
did not use this expression himself. Already a comparison
with the synoptic parallels in which the possessive proncuns are
lacking tends to raise doubts as to the integrity of the text.
The prayer Jesus taught his disciples begins in Lk.112 with
‘Father! (πάτερ) ; and textual criticism renders the originality
of the pronoun in many instances quite uncertain. When,
furthermore, the attempt is made to recover the actual Aramaic
words used by Jesus,,the fact comes to view that in practically
all cases the original is likely to have been simply 4652 (Kan).
Where the Gk. Mt. had πατέρ μὸν or è πατήρ μου, Evang. Hier.
has simply 4552 in the extant passages, Mt. 10327 1615
1810 19 35 28 39; and the same is true οἵ Lk. 249 1022 etc.
If this version is made from the Greek without the aid of an
Aramaic translation, only a strongly entrenched usage can
account for the guppression of the possessive. If, as seems
probable, an earlier Aramaic gospel was consulted in the trans-
lation, the testimony is doubly significant. It is confirmed by
other remains of Palestinian Aramaic.

Jesus almost certainly said only 4252 in his own
prayers as well as in the prayer he taught, and 4550
dè bashémayya, ‘the father who is in heaven,' in re-
ferring to God. This conclusion is not merely of
negative value. Positively, it indicates an exceedingly
keen sense of the fatherhood of God creating a true
filial attitude and a gentle feeling of brotherliness toward
men. Into the innermost recesses of his spirit we can-
not penetrate. Even if our sources were more fruitful
and less heavily overlaid by tradition than they are,
there would still remain the unfathomed depth of an
experience colouring every characteristic thought and
deed, the indefinable quality of a rich inner life, the
mystery of a great and fruitful genius, But we are able
to draw certain inferences from the fact that the highest
moral and religious conceptions of sonship ascribed to
him find expression in utterances în which he either
speaks of men in general (Mt 594548), or includes
himself with others {Mt.172s7# Mk. 835). Whilst he
may have avoided such a statement as ‘I am a son of
God,' because 527 #/#44 might have suggested an angel,
a translated being like Elijah, or a king, it is possible,
therefore, that the real reason was his fear lest he be
misunderstood as claiming for himself alone that relation
to the Father into which his own experience made him
so desirous that all men should enter.

How well founded such apprehensions would have
been may be seen from Mt. 1125 (Lk. 1021 /) 2436
(Mk. 1332) 2819 and also from Mt.

13. Hymn to
2135-46 (MK. 121-12 Lk. 209-19) 222
Father and (Li 14:6), In the first of these

passages the gradual growth of a
logion may be observed. The text presented by our
MSS with minor variations between Mt. and Lk. already
occurs sporadically in the second century (present tense
Justin, c. Try64. 100, ‘knowledge of the Son first’;
Iren.iv. 61, Cler. Recog. 247). Older than this, how-
ever, as modern crities generally recognise, is the text
found în Justin, 4502163; Clem. Hom.174 1841320;
Marcosians in Iren.i.203; Marcion in Tert. ἐς. Mare.
227; Iren.ii.6riv.63; Clem.Alex. Strom. 718109 ete,,
which reads, with unimportant variations, καὶ οὐδεὶς
ἔγνω τὸν πατέρα εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱὸς καὶ (οὐδὲ) τὸν υἱὸν {τις
γινώσκει) εἰ μὴ ὁ πατὴρ καὶ οἷς (ᾧ) ἄν ὁ υἱὸς ἀποκαλύψῃ
(βούληται ἀποκαλύψαι), The principal differences are
that ἔγνω occurs in place of γινώσκει, that the sentence
' no one knew the Father except the Son’ precedes ‘ nor
any one the Son except the Father,” and that as a con-
sequence it is the son instead of the father that reveals
the son. Schmiedel (Prot. Afornatskefie, 1900, p. 15)
regards this as an original utterance of Jesus and under-
stands the aorist to intimate that there was a time when
Jesus discovered that God was a father, a thought that
until then had not been present to his mind. Accord-
ing to this critic, the men who once believed in the
fatherhood of God were all dead, and among Jesus'
contemporaries no man recognised God as a father.
Having become a ‘son’ by the discovery, he naturally
looked upon himself as ‘the Son' as long as he re-
mained alone with his conviction that God was a father.
But already Ewald (7BW, 1855, p. 160) pointed out

4697

SON OF GOD

that the difference between ἔγνω and γινώσκει would not
appear in the Heb. γιμα', and Dalman (233) rightly
insists that in the unvocalised Aramaie text the parti-
ciple yada' and perfect y24a' could not be distinguished.
This difficulty would indeed be obviated if a derivative
of 33) is supposed to have been used in the original
{£vang. fier. has so in Mt.}; but even so (aphei
perf.} this verb would scarcely have necessitated an aorist
rather than a present tense. KlGpper (ZIW7%., 1896,
pp. soi 25) and Dalman strongly urge the improbability
of the revelation of the son through the son. Yet only
the son's knowledge of the father follows naturally the
transmission of all knowledge to the son. The rather
irrelevant statement that ‘no one knows the son except
the father,’ has the appearance of being a gloss drifting
into different places. lf it is removed, the connection
is greatiy improved : ‘All things (that are hidden from
the wise and disclosed to babes) have been transmitted
(Avang. Hier. avong) to me by the Father, and no one
knows the Father except the son and he to whom the
son is willing to make a revelation.' It is difficult,
however, to see how even such an utterance could have
come from the lips of Jesus. The alleged return of
seventy disciples from a journey during which they had
been engaged in exorcising demons does not furnish a
natural occasion for such a comment as this {see Bruno
Bauer, A7i4% der Ev.-gesch. [1891] 2266 #). That
Jesus should have thought of himself as possessed of
all Knowledge and regarded all other men as ignorant
of God is scarcely conceivable. Long usage had
rendered the term ‘father' as a designation of God
quite familiar to the contemporaries of Jesus, and piety
had invested the name with deep spiritual significance
(see $ 4). But the abbreviated title ‘the son’ would
probably have been as unintelligible to the Jews of
Jesus' time as it was well understood by the Christians
of the second century. Pfleiderer (Urc4ristenzZzza,
4457: 509 f.) recognises the influence of Pauline ideas,
and Brandt (pp. 561, 576) considers Mt. 1125-30 to be
a tymn regularly constructed ofymaterial largely bor-
rowed from Ecclus. 51. Neither of these views is per-
haps capable of strict demonstration. But the underlying
conviction that this cannot be a genuine saying of Jesus
is as irresistible as the evidence of its gradual growth is
conclusive,

In Mt. 24 36 (MK. 13 32) the clause ‘ neither the Son *
(οὐδὲ ὁ υἱὸς) islacking in many MSS, and (among other

14. Sona 2P<ieni witnesses) in the Syr.-Sin. — Most
3. modern scholars reject Scholten
limited” (pres oudste Evang. 227) maintained that

Iimowledge.

it was also lacking in the original Mk.
Dalman (159) thinks that the original text was ‘ not even
the angels,’ and that ‘not even the son but the father
only’ is a later addition.

Schmiedel (7.c. 20) also regards the words în Mt. as spurious,
but considers those in Mk, as genuine because they cannot have
been engendered by reverence for Jesus, a motive that led the
editor of Mt. to omit them in copying his source. It is not
apparent why the supposed original copyist should have been
more sensitive on this point than the later interpolator of Mt.
In the first half of the second century it is not likely that any
Christian was offended by the subordination of the Son or his
limited knowledge (Scholten, Zc.), Only the rising estimate of
Jesus can account for the place of the Son between the angels
and the Father, for the emphasis upon the fact that even he did
not know the day and the hour, and for the use of the abbrevi-
ated title, Mk.1332 seems to have been added to the Apoca-
Iypse of Jesus to explain either the absence of a sufficiently
exact date or the delay in the fulfilment of prophecy.

The third passage in which ‘the Son’ occurs is Mt.
28 19. That the trinitarian baptismal formula does not
15. Baptismal go back ds Jesus himselt is eviden and

formula, 'Sognised by all independent critics.
Acts and the Epistles show that other

formulas were used but not this one, that the apostles
did not feel warranted to preach to the heathen without
a special revelation, and that the early church never
referred to this commandment. The fact that it is
ascribed to Jesus after his death is also significant;

4698

SON OF GOD

Conybeare (ZNTW/, 1901, pp. 2757; Zitb. Journ.
1, 1902, pp. 102 72.) has shown that there was, as late
as in the time of Eusebius, an earlier text which read :
Πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί
μου ‘Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my
name,’ and has rendered it probable that the expanded
form originated about 140 A.D. in the Oid Latin texts
of Africa, that it thence crept into the Greek text at
Rome, and finally established itself in the East during
the Nicene epoch in time to figure in all surviving
Greek codices.
How Jesus understood his peculiar relation as a son
may, according to Dalman (230), be seen very clearly
from Mt. 21 33-46 (Mk. 12 1-12 Lk.
16, Allegory of 209-19), He regarded himself as the
* beloved son, or, as .Gen. 222 @ and
Trg. suggests, ‘the only begotten son,' entitled to the
empire of the world, but destined to be put to death,
On the other hand, Jiilicher ({Gleicknzsteden Jese,
1899, pp. 3857} after a most searching examination

of these texts comes to the conclusion that the story of |

the wicked husbandmen is not a parable describing
something that might have happened in real life, but
an allegory, and that it is in no sense an utterance of
Jesus, but the work of early Christian theology. The
justice of this verdict is appreciated when the marked
contrast to all genuine parables, the lack of verisimili-
tude, the assumptions contrary to fact, and the charges
based upon future conduet are duly noticed. In regard
to Mt, 222, where the king makes a marriage feast for
his son, Dalman rightly calls attention to the absence
of the son during the meal, and the fact that in the
parallel (Lk. 1416) there is no mention of the son.
According to Lk. 132 35, the angel Gabriel announced
to Mary that the child she was to bear would be called
‘the Son of the Most ‘High,' or ‘the
17. Preci: Son of God,' because the Holy Ghost
Y would come upon her. Divine sonship
heavenly ;. }, d hysical
Soices iS here made dependent upon physical
generation. Jesus will be called Son
of God because he is to have no human father. This
mythical conception which was widely prevalent in
antiquity (see $$ 2, 5) seems to belong to a late stratum
(cp Conybeare, ZV7W, 1902, pp. 1927) and is of
Gentile-Christian origin (cp Hillmann, 7/27) 1891, pp.
2317). Older than it, is the idea that the Son of God
was born as such at the baptism. Between the reports
of the heavenly proclamation on this occasion in the
synoptics there are important differences. Whilst Mt.
817 reads ‘ This is my beloved Son in whom I am well
pleased’ Mk. lr: and Lk. 322 have ‘Thou art my
beloved son, in thee I am well pleased.’ [1 is possible,
however, that Da3/7?*/ and a large number of
patristie quotations have preserved a more original
reading in Lk.3o2—viz., υἱός μου el σύ᾽ ἐγὼ σήμερον
γεγέννηκά σε, “Thou art my son, to-day I have
begotten thee.' The generation of the Son of God is
in this case accomplished by the entrance of the Holy
Ghost as a dove. This earlier myth seems to have
been supplanted by that of the Virgin’ birth. The
announcement of the heavenly voice at the transfigura-
tion (Mt.175 Mk.97 Lk.935) was then transferred to
the baptism. (Cp Holtzmann, Die Svroptiker,!9) 85.)
The early church was convinced that not only
heaven but also hell knew the secret of Jesus' divine

sonship. Demons repeatediy pro-
18. venni claimed him the Son of God, Mk. 311
demone, 57 (Lk828; cp also Mk.127); and

Satan himself used his knowledge of
this fact to lead him into temptation (Mt. 436; cp Lk.
439). To accept the opinion of the evangelists as to
the supernatural knowledge and activity of demons is
no longer possible,

It is assumed by many critics that the demoniacs actually
spoke such words as are ascribed to them, and that they them»
selves, as well as their reporters, were only mistaken in their
interpretation of mental and nervous disorders. Being thrown

4699

SON OF GOD

into great excitement by the extraordinary impression of Jesus'
personality, these sufferers gave voice to their own or the general
feeling that Jesus was the Messiah. But on this theory it
cannot be explained why men excited to madness by the political
situation should have avoided the one unmistakable Messianic
title, ‘Sonof David,’ and employed a term that cannot be proved
to have been then used, nor why, of 81} men, only the demoniacs
should proclaim him as the ‘Son of God.' As it is especially
Mk. who emphasizes this testimony of the demons, it is natural
to see in it a phase of his general conception of Jesus' life and
character. He had to reckon with a strongly entrenched
tradition to the effect that Jesus had not proclaimed himself as
the Messiah. From the premises of his Christian faith he could
only conclude that Jesus had then concealed his Messiahship
and the divine nature which he associated with it. Such a fact
might be hidden from men, but not from demons. They must
have known, in spite of his disguise, the divine Son by whom
they were to be judged. It is particularly the merit of Wrede
(Das Messiasgeheimniss, 1901, pp. 73/7.) to have called attention
to this aspect of the case. ‘The story of the temptation
should be considered from the same point of view. [Cp TEMP-
TATION, $$ 4-6.]

As no objective reality can be ascribed to these voices
from the world of evil spirits, it is idle to inquire whether
in their reported utterances 'Son of God' corresponds
to an Aramaic dar #4hd, bar ‘elyon, δ᾽ γεὰ d'elahà, and
what meanings each of these forms may have conveyed.

The same conception that Jesus' divine sonship can-

A not be known by men except by a special
19 E) Οὐ Ια. revelation from another world is found in
SORIESSION- Mi: 1617. Of such a revelation there îs
no hint in the accounts of Peter's confession at
Cresarea Philippi given by Mk. (8 27-33) and Lk.
(918-22). But neither of these evangelists puts the title
' Son of God’ upon the lips of Peter, Mk. has simply
ὁ χριστός, Lk. ὁ χριστὸς τοῦ θεοῦ; the latter probably
goes back τὰ meiihd de-yahwe, cp 15.247 Trg., and
Ps. S0l.187 χριστὸς κυρίου, and originally 1732, and
not to a méfffa d'élaha not found elsewhere. It is
more likely that Peter used this longer form than the
shorter one in Mk. There is no reason to doubt
either the question or the answer in the form preserved
by Mk. and Ek. Before carrying out his plan of
proclaiming the kingdom of heaven in Jerusalem, Jesus
would naturally desire to know the attitude of the
people. If Peter's description gave him some assurance
that there was no immediate danger in that direction,
the views as to his personality cherished by his disciples
seem to have made him all the more apprehensive, and
caused him most earnestly to forbid them to make any
such statement concerning him.

It has long been recognised that Mt. 16 17-19 is a late interpo-
lation. It may already reveal the pretensions of the Roman
bishop (Wernle, Sy». Frage, 192), and has been more correctly
interpreted by Catholic exegetes than by Protestants (Bauer,
Kritik,35). But, apart from the macarism, the text of Mt.
has been interpolated (cp Holizmann, $y#.(8) 257) by the addition
of the two terms ‘son of Man'(see Son or MAN, $ 39) and ‘son
of the living God' (cp Hosea21, (5 υἱοὶ θεοῦ ζῶντος). Van
Manen (74.7, 1894, p. 184) is probably right in thinking that
‘Son of God” îs not here a designation of the theocratic king,
but to be taken in a metaphysical sense. But to the interpolator
è χριστός was nu longer a mere equivalent of ‘the Messiah’; it

had no doubt already assumed the same significance as the ‘Son
of God.”

According to Mt, 2663 the high priest said ‘I adjure
thee by the living God that thou tell us whether thou be
the Christ, the Son of God'; in Mk.1461

30. High he simply asks ‘Art thou the Christ the
di olo Son of the Blessed ?' and in Lk. 2267 the
AUjuratiom. c1ders of the people say ‘If thou art the

Christ tell us,’ and only after the reference to the Son
of Man, ‘Art thou then the Son of God?” w. 70. It
is evident that according to Christian tradition Jesus
was asked by the priests whether he regarded himself
as the Messiah, and that the particular form of the
question shaped itself freely. In Mt. and Lk. Jesus
does not commit himself; Mt. 2664 reports only the
brief Σὺ etras,‘ Thou sayest so,' Lk. 2270 his reason for
not answering as well as his rejoinder, ‘ Vou say that I
am.' On the meaning of Σὺ εἴπας see Thayer, /BL
1340-49; Merx, Die vier ban. Ev, 2384. These gospels
represent a tradition according to which Jesus main-
tained his incognito before the priests as well as before

4700

SON OF GOD

Pilate. The apparently earlier form of the narrative
preserved in Lk. makes no mention of false witnesses,
blasphemy, a formal sentence to death, and personal
indignities, but tells of two false charges brought against
Jesus by the priests before Pilate—viz., his forbidding to
give tribute to Ceesar and his declaring that he himself
is the Christ, an anointed king. Mk. has all the addi-
tions of Mt. and, besides, takes the important step of
changing Σὺ εἴπας into 'Eywò εἶμι “I am.’ What took
place in the pontifical residence to which Jesus had been
carried was probably as litàle known to his disciples as
to us. (See Brandt, 53 7: We. Skiazez, 6 [1899]
207; Cp SIMON PETER, $ 15.) At the time when
these accounts were elaborated, ‘Son of Man,’
‘ Christ,” and ‘Son of God' had become synonymous,
and 'Son of God’ was understuod as ‘God,’ so
that the blasphemy of making oneself equal with God
could be conceived of as a charge brought against
Jesus. The ‘Son of God' in Mt. 27 40 is lacking in the
parallel passage Mk. 15297, and the utterance is based
on Mt. 2661 (Mk. 1458), having no more historic value
than these improbable testimonies,

In utter amazement at the miracles that accompanied
the death of Jesus, the centurion cried
τ ‘Of a truth this is the Son of God' (or

euclamation. . he son of a god'), Mt. 2754 e
1539). As there is no reason to suppose that the great
darkness, the earthquake, the rending of the veil in the
temple, and the rising of the dead from their tombs
actually occurred [cp EARTHQUAKE, $ 2), the occasion
for such an exclamation did not exist. Of these miracles
Mk. mentions only the rending of the veil. Since the
centurion could not have seen this, even if it happened,
his astonishment is left without a cause. If Mk. had
thought that the centurion became convinced of the
divinity of Jesus by the fact that he died somewhat
earlier than expected, uttering a loud cry, he would
scarcely have introduced the statement as to the veil.
By his tendency to shorten the accounts that he copied,
he has here, as elsewhere, rendered his own incongruous.
Both Mt. and Mk. no doubt thought of ‘Son of God'
ina Christian sense. While it is quite doubtful whether
any of the evangelists found the loud cry significant, it
îs possible that a centurion accustomed to such sights
saw in the relatively speedy release from suffering an
evidence that this political criminal was indeed a
righteous man (Lk. 2347), though Lk. thought of the
miracles as occasioning this judgment,

A critical study of the synoptic material leads inevit-
ably to the conclusion that Jesus never called himself

22. Origin of ‘the Son of God,' and never was
‘i 16 in addressed by that title. That he was
Synopties proclaimed as such by voices from
“heaven and hell is a notion consonant

with the ideas of the time, but not of such a nature as to
command belief at present. But this negative result
raises a question concerning the origin of the term ' Son
of God.' Sanday regards it as certain that it was applied
to Jesus in 1 Thess. ] 10, ‘23 years after the ascension,*
and thinks it ‘easier and more critical' to see in the
expression a continuation of Jesus' own teaching than
to look for its explanation in other directions. But
apart from the impossibility of proving that the epistle
quoted was written ‘23 years after the ascension,' by
pointing to the Pauline literature Sanday has himself
drawn the attention away from the line of direct trans-
mission of the thoughts and words of Jesus, It is indeed
in Hellenistic circles that the title as we find it applied
to Jesus is likely to have originated. There is a possi-
bility (see $ 6) that in some circles the intensified study
of ‘ Messianic' prophecies during the first century A.D.
caused the term dar #/4d to be used as a title of the
Messiah. Wernle (Ar/&nge uns. Rel, 295) goes too far
when he asserts that no road leads from the OT and
Rabbinism to the doctrine of the deity of Christ, as
Sanday rightly maintains. In Hasmonaan psalms

4701

21, Centurion’'s

SON OF GOD

‘gods’ and 'sons of God' are still synonyms and, in
language tinged with apocalyptic imagery, the reigning
kings are described both as ‘ gods ‘and as ‘ sons of God.”
In spite of practical monotheism, the belief in the exist-
ence of gods as celestial princes or as demons continued.
Such a phrase as ‘sons of God' because sons of the resur-
rection does not reflect a specifically Christian conscious-
ness, but is likely to go back to ‘ Rabbinism,' showing its
conception of the possibility of becoming a son of God in
a metaphysical sense through a resurrection. "Tendencies
in the direction indicated can be pointed out, and are
natural enough, since the mental habits of the Aramaic-
speaking Jew cannot have been so radically different from
those of the Greek-speaking Jew. Nevertheless it shou'd
be admitted that we possess no direct evidence of the use
of bar èliha as a Messianic title. On the other hand,
the term υἱὸς θεοῦ was frequently met with in the Graeco-
Roman world as a title of kings and a designation of
heroes born of divine fathers or translated to be with
the gods. The ideas associated with θεός and υἱὸς ϑεοῦ
flowed into each other and had a metaphysical rather
than an ethical significance. The meaning generally
given to the term in the empire would unconsciously
colour the thought of Hellenistic Jews when they found
it employed in the Greek version of their Scriptures in
what they took to be predictions of the Messiah. The
titles υἱὸς θεοῦ, Κύριος, and Σωτήρ would certainly apply
as well to the coming king of Israel as to the Roman
Emperor. So far Jewish thought might certainly have
gone, though it cannot be strictly proved that it went.
It is not necessary to go outside the boundaries of
Jewish thought, influenced by Greek speculation, for the
ideas of an elevation into the sphere of divine life,
through resurrection and ascension, the victory over
demons knowing the secrets of another world, and even
the birth of a hero without a human father, as Philo
shows. In thé present state of NT criticism it is not
possible to date with accuracy the appearance of one or
another of these ideas in Christian literature; but it
may, perhaps, safely be assumed that they had all
found expression by the beginning of the second century.
In Jn. ‘Son of God' (ὁ νἱὸς τοῦ θεο0) occurs ten times,

4 and ‘the Son' fourteen times. As in

25. Tae of title the case of the Synoptists it will be

Gospel. convenient to give the details.

1. ‘Son of God’:
134: testimony of John,
150: Nathanael's confession. 114: glorified through Lazarus.
336: belief in him. 1127: Martha's confession.
5-25: dead hearing his voice. 197: making himself Col'sequal,
650: Peter's confession. 20/31: purpose of book.

In 8 16 ‘the only begotten son’ occurs, and in 17 τὰ ‘thy son.”

2. ‘The Son:

8.17 35/36 520 21 22 dis 23 26 640 835 36 4x3 171.

În'î 18 the true reading seems to be μονογενὴς θεός, în 935 τὸν
υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπον ; in 134 the text is uncertain, Syr. sin. cur.
reading ‘the chosen one of God.”

10 times.
1036: OT precedent.

14 times,

It is important to observe that ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ is used
by John, Nathanael, Peter, Martha, and the evangelist
himself, but rarely by Jesus, whilst ὁ υἱός is as a rule
employed by Jesus alone. Im the ecclesiastical circles
whose christology this gospel reflects, the longer form,
usually in addition to d χριστός, was evidently used in
public confessions of faith, and the shorter form had
already come into vogue in theological discussions.
To this evangelist ‘the Son’ was a divine being who
had appeared in human shape. He was ‘a gbd’
(θεός 11), ‘an only-begotten god' (μονογενὴς θεύς
118} who had assumed human nature, had become
flesh (154). He was the Logos of whom Philo had
spoken as ‘the Son,' the medium of creation and
redemption. It was not blasphemy for him to claim a
title felt to be equivalent to ‘God,’ for he had been
sent from heaven, whilst in the Scriptures men who had
only received oracles from heaven were called ‘gods’
(1033 Z) And he called those happy whose faith

4702

SON OF GOD

allowed them to say ‘ My Lord and my God!’ without
having seen the evidences of his resurrection (2029).

It is no longer necessary to prove that the words put upon the
lips of Jesus în this gospel cannot have been uttered by him.
Even scholars generally distrustiul of results that contravene
ecclesiastical tradition are no longer willing to maintain the
position of Schieiermacher and Neander, but freely admit “in
this collection of sayings an element— possibly ἃ somewhat
considerable element—that represents not so much what was
actually spoken as enlargement and comment embodying the
experience and reflection of the growing church’ (Ganday).
The critical estimate gained by the investigations of Bretsch-
neider, Strauss, Bruno Bauer, Schwegler, Baur, and Zeller was
in the main so sound that it has been adopted, even after the
severe testing by Bleck, Ewald, and Reuss, with modifications
that do not essentially affect ît, not only by Hilgenfelà, Keim,
Volkmar, Holtzmann, Scholten, Thoma, Pieiderer, and Albert
Réville, but also by Schiirer, Jilicher, and substantially Harnack,
whose theory of authorship and interpolations does not render it
usable as a source for the history of Jesus (Das Wesen des
Christenthuns, p. 13 ET, p. 19/5). It is significant that the
most recent investigators, Jcan Kéville, Kreyenbilhl, Schmiedel,
and Grill agree in rejecting the Johannine authorship, the
authenticity of the speeches, and the various partition-theories.
That all parts of the book reveal the influence of the Philonian
Logos-idea was never so fully demonstrated as by Réville and
Grill; however mistaken his theory of authorship may he,
Kreyenbihl has exhibited, even more clearly than Baur, the
gnostic affinities of the gospel; Schmiedel has shown convino
ingly how essentially correct the interpretation of the external
evidence by the ‘l'ibingen school was; and by setting Jn.'s
central idea, the incarnation, against the background of Oriental
speculation, Grill has not only used the comparative method
that benceforth must find a wider application in all biblical
interpretation, but also revealed the legitimacy of that process
of thought which led from the Fourth Gospel to the Syrdolume

24. In Epp. Nicenum.
‘and Rev. οἱ the epistolary literature of the N'T the

lowing facts are noticeable.

‘Son of Cod' occurs in 1 and 2 Jn. =
‘the Son' occursin 1 and 2 In". |. =,
Neither occurs in—
(@) Jas. Jude 1Pet, 3Jn. or (except in an allusion to the
transfiguration) 2 Pet.
(8) in Phil. Philem. 2 Thess. 1 Tim. 2 Tim. and Titus.
Ìn the remaining epistles the occurrences are ;

τὸ “Son of God*
Rom.1349510832938 0.0.0.
Gal. 116228446. . . 5 . . .
τοι, 19 2 Cor. 1 19 Eph. 413 Col.113 1 Thess. lio
Heb.15414 66731029... 0.0.

2, ‘the Son'
1 Cor, 15.28 Β . . 5 . . once
Heb.l283658728. «Ὁ νων 5 times

The conceprion in the Johannine epistles is the same as in the
fourth gospel. — Ronî. 15 9 especially important as showing
the idea of divine sonship based on the resurrection. Connected
with this metaphysical sense of the term is the conception that
men are not in themselves sons of God but may become such by
endowment with divine spirit, 86. In Gal. 1 16 the mani-
festation of the risen Son of God is described as an Înner process,

In Eph. and Col., which show the influence of the Logos
speculation, the Son is the pre-existent medium of creation ; the
phrase ‘first-born of all creation, Col. 115, should not be inter-
preted so as to exclude priority (Sanday), since ‘he is before all
things,’ as τι 17 shows. The closest affinity to the fourth
gospel is found in Heb,, where ‘the Son" 15 an essentially divine
Being, subordinate to the Most High, but higher than ‘the
heavenly man' of xCor.15, Schenkel finely observed the
embarrassment the author felt at the thought of this being
learning obedience or suffering ‘though he was a Son." The
Alexandrian exegesis of chap. 1 shows with what peculiar
material the road from the OT was paved.

The term does not occur in Acts, and Sanday rightly
decides against παῖς θεοῦ being interpreted as an
equivalent. In Rev. 218 the Christ is called ‘Son of
God.” The strangely composite christology of this book
may be connected with its composite authorship and
the transmission of its text,

A careful examination of the gospels tends to produce

25 Histori the conviction that Jesus never assumed
SI ste va the title ‘ Son of God either to designate
carie af titlo, Dimself as the expected king of Israel or
sai * to intimate that his nature was unlike

that of other men, but that he spoke of men in general

4703

SON OF GOD

as 'the sons of God' and of God as their father, and
also used the expression as a mark of distinction for
those whose character resembled God's, who by their
filial relation were freed from bondage to legal enact-
ments concerning the cult, whose spirit and conduct
established peace in the world, and who would be
accounted worthy of a share in the resurrection from the
dead. From a modern point of view such an attitude
no doubt appears ethically more valuable than the loftiest
claim of kingship or of godhood, The personality which
historical criticism is able to discover behind the gospel
records is not only more real but more ideal than the
portrait the evangelists produced. Nevertheless the
bestowal upon Jesus of a title he did not claim and
probably could not have understood marked a step
forward, When he was lifted up from earth and made
a god, he drew all men unto himself. For him they
abandoned the gods of their fathers, and out of his ful-
ness they all received some measure of grace and truth,
It may be questioned whether without this deification it
would have become historically possible for him to
dispense his spiritual gifts through the ages. It was far
easier for men outside of Jewry to look upon the bearer
to them of such treasures of life as a god than as a mere
man; and even Hellenistic Jews must translate his
personality into the supernatural to derive from it such
spiritual benefits as their education had prepared them
to receive. ‘There is an element of truth in Wernle's
keen observation that ‘christological dogma did not
arise through a gradual increase but, on the contrary,
through Jewish and anti-gnostic reduction of the
popular faith' (A»finge, 295). It was after all the
true humapnity of the Son of God that bore off the
victory at Nicea. But it should not be denied that
there had been a gradual growth into that well-balanced
conception which, it would seem, was best adapted to
guard the spiritual interests involved. As the cecumenic
creeds were the corollaries of that conception of ‘the
Son of God" who is himself ‘ God‘ which comes distincily
to view in the fourth gospel, so this itself îs the product of
a long develapment of thought in Israel as well as în
Greece, and among the Aryans of India and Persia.
The contribution of Jesus himself to this development
was the indelible impression of his personality. His
own thought was too grand in its simplicity for the
world to appreciate. That it means more to be a child
of God in the sense in which Jesus used the term
than to be the Son defined by the Nicene creed, is a
truth still hidden from many who are wise and prudent.

The title has been discussed with more or less fulness în
numerous commentaries, OT and NT theologies, critiques
of the gospels, and lives of jesus. Among the
26. Literature. latterthose of Strauss, Neander, Keim, Hase,
Schenkel, Beyschlag, Weiss, and A. Réville
should be mentioned, The following works deal with various
aspects of the question, Ilgen, ‘De notione tituli filîi dei’ in
Paulus, Memrorabilien, 1, 1795, pp. 119-198; Bertholdt, CAristo-
logia Judeorum, 1811; Colani, Jésus Christ et les croyances
messianigues de son temps, 1864; Wittichen, Die Zare Gottes
als des Vaters, 1865; Vernes, Histoire des idées messianigues,
1874 ; Drummond, 7°he Jewish Messiah, 1877 ; Schenkel, article
‘Sohn Gottes' in Bibellezizon, 1875 ; Stanton, 716 Jewisk and
the Christian Messiah, 1886; Wendt, Die Lehve Jesu, 1890;
Baldensperger, Das Selisttewusstsern Jesu, 1892; Briggs,
The Messiah of the Gospels, 1807; Paul, L'orstellungen von
Messias, 1895} Brandt, £vangelische Geschickte, 1893; Thoma,
Genesis des Johannes-Evangeliums, 1882; Pfleiderer, Urchris-
fenthum, :887 Jean Réville, Le Quatriòme Evangile, 1901}
Kreyenblihl, Dds Zvangelinm der Wahrheît, 1900; Grill;
Untersuchungen rider. die Entstehung d. vierten Evangeliums,
1902; Holtzmann, Nextestamentliche Theologie, 1897; Schmie-
del, Prot. Monatshefte, 1900, p.17.; Dalman, Die Worte Jesu,
1898; Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis, 1901: Rose, ‘Fils de
l'homme et fils de dieu' in Revse διδιίφωθ, 1900, pp. τό 75}
Schmidt, Son ef Man and Son of God in Modern Theology (in
press); Stevens, 74e Teacking 0///esus, 1901.

N. 8.

4704

SON OF MAN

SON OF MAN

SON OF MAN
CONTENTS

Synonym of ‘man’ (δ 1).
Special use in Ezekiel ( 2).

Doubrful meaning in 7'2'4n224, 65 ὅ (8 3).

Ἀταπιαῖς usage (8 4). “

Analogies in Assyrian, Ethiopic, Arabic

85)
Dan. 7 13, Enoch 37-71, Ezra 83, td (88.6.8).
Rev., Epistles, Acts 756 (88 9-ττὸ.
Occurrence in Gospels ($ 12).

Renderings în Ancient Versions (δ 13).
Patristic. and Mediaval interpretation

sciousness? ($ 20).

pathy? (8 51).

(6 τῷ.
Resort to the Hebrew ($ 15).
Substitute for personal pronoun? ($ 16).
Ideal man? ($ 17).
Coming man? ($ 18),
Current Messianic title? ($ 19).

tion ($ 30).

The expression ‘Son of Man' (den ddim) is in
Hebrew literature a synonym of ‘man.’ Apart from
Ezekiel and Daniel it seems to be used exclusively in
poetie style.

den-Gd&m (098 73) in Nu, 58.9 Is.51 τὰ 56.2 Jer, 49 18.33 50.40
5143 Ps.85 8019 1463 Job 16 21 256 858, probably also in the

original'of Ecclus. 17 30 Judith 8 16 Test. 12 Patr.
1. Synonym Joseph; dex ὀνεδὲ (2038 ja) in Ps. 1443. The
of ‘man. meaning is rendered perfectly clear by κέ (2°R),
endi (φγλν), or géber (53) occurring in the
parallel stichoi. Such poetic expressions may be either sur-
vivals of forms once in common use or later creations. When
cognate languages offer no analogy, the latter is more probabile.
In this case, the strongly entrenched Aramaic usage (see $ 4) is
in favour of the former explanation. Collectives like DIK, WI,
ΠΩΣ, ]8% are very old; and the designation of the individual of
the species as DI8]3 or WII, a man, ἼΡΞΊΞ, an ox, ]RSTI,
a sheep or a goat, is likely to belong to the same early period.

A still simpler phrase for ‘a man,' afed ἀά- ἀνε

(θταπ “ne), occurs only in Judg.167, where it seems to

have been preserved from an earlier form of the story in
which Samson was not ‘one of mankind' but a solar
divinity. While # (2%, originally also a collective, cp
Sinn a, wa Ἢ) and ἐπα (mx) apparently tended to
displace dex-ddam and dath-ddam (or bath han-nafim,
Dan. 1117) and were supplemented by ddiz and 2207 in
the sense of ‘man’ ‘the human being,' der Mensch
(frequently found in Ecclus.), the plurals 422 44472 and
δηξ ἐξ maintained themselves more strongly against the
collectives both in the sense of ‘people’ ‘Lezée' and
in that of ‘ mankind.'

The plurals occur thus: ΣῊΝ ‘93 in Gen.115 Dt. 828 τ 5.

2019 25.712 1K.839 Ezek.3114 Mic.56 Joelliz Ps.1l4
1229 142 2111 8120 3313 808 453 493 533 57 5 582 6210 665
8948 903 1078152131 115 16 14512 Prov. $4 31 1322 Eccl. 28
Bi0218119312; N "13 in Ps. 434936210 Lam. 3 33 Ecclus.
1613 3623 387 401; DINA ΓΒ, ‘the women of the human
race ' in Gen. 62,

In Ezekiel the expression ‘son of man' occurs some
ninety times, always as the title by which the prophet is
addressed by Yahwè. ‘The question

3. Special use naturaliy arises, why Ezekiel re

* presented Yahwè as constantly employ-
ing this term; or, if its use was not due to conscious
reflection, but to inspiration in a certain pathological
condition, why this particular form of spezch suggested
itself with such frequency.

Jerome regarded the term as expressive of the frailty of him
who was honoured with divine visions and commissions, and
most modern scholars have found in it an intimation of weakness
and insignificance (Smend, Bertholet, Kraetzschmar, Toy).

Appel, however, deems this explanation inadequate,
examines the tile in the light of the various passages in which
it occurs, and comes to the conclusion that ἴτ was given to the
prophet by way of distinction to set him off from his fellowmen.

According to the theory of Maurice Vernes (ist, des
idées messianigues, 187 (1874) ‘son of man'is synonyinous
with ‘prophet.' Fiebig thinks that it may have been more
natural to use the longer form in the vocative. Already in the
interpretation of the phrase in Ezekiel we meet with an

4705

Expression of peculiar Messianic con-
Emphasis on lowliness and human sym-

Modified Messianic title.? (8 22).

Mystifying title? (ξ 23).

Composite idea? ($ 24).

Prophetic title? ($ 25).

Designation of Jesus' own ideal, future
Messiahship, ot indwelling genius? ᾷ 26).

Designation of ‘kingdom of

Creation of Evangelists ? ($ 28).

Fresh recourse to Aramaic ($ 29).

Basis in generic use and later transforma-

Defence of this theory (8 31).
Partial agreement (8 32).
Objections by different scholars (8 33).

Schmiedel's criticism (8 34).

Value of philologica! argument (ἢ 35).

Force of Greek translation (δ 36).

Need of literary criticisni ($ 37).

Genuine sayings during Galilaan period
$ 38)

Phrase not used at Cassarea Philippi ($ 39).

Basis of predictions concerning death and
resurrection (ἢ 40).

Synoptic Apocalypse ($ 41).

Gospel according to Hebrews ($ 42).

Marcion's Gospel (& 43).

Use of term by Gnostics (8 44).

Use in Fourth Gospel @ 45).

Effect on question of Jesus" Messiahship

eaven?'

827).

(ξ 46. "
Value of different theories ($ 47).
Bibliography (δ 48).

emphatically low and an emphatically high estimate, a synthetic
and an analytic judgment, an assumption that it is a title of
office and an appeal to philology and literary criticism ; and there
ἧς an element'of trutti in ench contention.. There can be no
question as to the general identity of ‘son of man'and ‘man.’
It is also quite evident that “son of man’ cannot have been used
by man as a title of a prophet. He might be referred to as
Ba-hòseh (rino) ‘the ser, Zan-ndbl' (ΝΠ) ‘the speaker,”
hanmbreh (non) ‘the oracle giver, if 4a-eiorim (yen
nba), ‘the man of God,’ but not simply as ‘the man. The
ordinary designations, however, would not be so suitable in the
mouth of God and angels. By them the prophet would be either
called by name (ἀπι. ὃ 2 Dan.922 1011 Δ), or addressed as a
representative of the human race. In the latter case, the fact
that celestial beings hold converse only with their chosen ones
would naturally make the expression suggestive, not merely of
inferiority of race, but also of special privilege. Its use would
consequently express the propher's self-consciousness as well as
his humility. Lan. 817 shows that in some circles it was thought
proper for the angelus inzerlocutor to address the prophets as
‘human being" (px ]3), when the name was not used,

The employment of this phrase by Ezekiel seems,
then, to have arisen from the double feeling of humility
and elation expressed in Ps. 8. Much of the repetition
may be due solely to literary habit, and some instances
to later imitation (see SCYTHIANS, $ 5).

The only apparent exception in Hebrew seems to be
Talmud, Pal. Ta'dritk 65 ὁ.

The passage contains the following comment on Nu. 28 19 by
Abbahi (about a App If a man says “I am a god," he

es ; (if he says) “I am a son of man,” he will
8. Doubtful in the end regret it; (if he says) 1 ascend to
meaning in heaven, he may say it, dut he cannot accom-

o , plish ît.” Ifthe text is sound, the interpretation
TaAnibh 600. ΡΣ ile, Pacher and Delo po prato
essentialiy correct. Abbahù, who was often in conflict with
Christians, unquestionably refers to Jesus. He is not likely to
have had în mind either Moses (Schwab) or the tower-builders
(Rabbinic commentators, followed by Cohen in Lietzmann).
Christians like Sason, who in their disputations with him seem
to have used to some extent the Hebrew language, probably
translated ὁ vids τοῦ ἀνθρώπου by dex Xd-2d472, es, in modern
times, Delitzsch. It is supposed that the-indefinite Sex dd@ze
was suggested by Nu. 23 1g, and that the context was depended
on to indicate the reference. The real difficulty, however, is to
understand why Abbahù should have regarded it as an assump-
tion on the part of Jesus to call himself ‘son of man,' such as
any man must in the end regret. It is not a question of
Messianic titles and prerogatives. The Messiah is not a god,
in Jewish theology, and does not ascend to heaven, nor is it
impreper for him, or any other man, to call himself a son of
man, den adam, The original may have read "I am a man and
I ascend to heaven, ΠΌΦ πο sai a me 13, the words
12 man mo being a misplaced gloss. Abbahi would, then,
wittily allude to the self-designation of Jesus as a confession
that he was not a god but a man, while emphasising thereby
the enormity of his claim, inferred from Jn. 1424 and Acts19.

In Aramaic ‘son of man' is used with great frequency
as a synonym of ‘man.’

τ, Early înscriptions,—For the Assyrian and Persian periods
we are wholly dependent upon inscriptions. These are often

;, dated and represent a widespread territory τ

4. Aramaic but they are for the most part very brief, and the
usage. vocabulary is limited. It is of comparatively
small significance that che term ‘son of man'

does not occur in them, since it is very seldom that any designa-
tion of man is found. But it is important that among the few
instances wJ& occurs three times as a plural or collective—viz.
te 039) ΟΝ ὈἽΡ ‘before gods and man’ (Zenjirli, Panamu

4706

SON OF MAN

stele, Z 23, eighth century), ea job ‘gods and men’
rima, sixth century C/S 5 πο. 1134, ὦ 20), vit. ΨῺΝ ‘seven men”

Kuyunjik, Oct. 680, C/S 2 no, 17).

2. Syriac. — Among the East Aramaic dialects (Syriac,
Mandaic, Babylonian Talmudic) the expression îs most common
in Syriac. Even if the Pesh. of OT is essentially a Jewish
work, it cannot, in view of text and canon, be earlier than the
first century 4.p., and probably does not antedate the oldest
Christian productions by more than fifty years. The fact that
‘man’ is rendered dar wai in the OT rather less frequently
than the original Syraic literature would cause one to expect îs
therefore likely to be due to the translators clinging as closely as
possible to the Hebrew text, and not to any change in the
common speech of Edessa, That nas@ originally was ἃ collective
and virtually a plural is abundantly evident from the preponder-
ating usage. The fact that in a translation from one dialect into
another the Bibl. Aram. 938 525] of Dan.713 was rendered
queste N25 [ΤῈ] in Syriac1 shows that even the indefinite pix
gave the impression of being a collective. There are many in-
stances, however, where the Syriac ny3R is used as a singular.
That δα»-ναξα originally denoted the individual of the species
man îs perfectly clear from the collective meaning of ΜΨΩΝ and
the prevalent usage. It is the ordinary, though not the only,
designation of man, the individual, and the emphatic ending è
does not prevent it from meaning ‘a man” as well as ‘the men.*
mg and gin ἋΣ are both used for ‘one,’ ‘some one,’ ‘any one,"
“jemand,' ‘each.’ In the version made by Paul of Tella in 618
den ddam is rendered by #rek dénasa in Nu, 2319 Ezek.
passim, Jer. 4918 5040 εἴς, ; and by 8'reh de-barnasa in fer.
51 43, while dar-ndid is reserved for 444% or èn93, This does
not show that δ᾽ γεὰ d28-x&f@, which never occurs in Pesh., was a
natural Syriac translation of dex 442%, but only that Paulof
Tella, when he had already used dar-ndid for adam, availed
himself of che form created as a ferminus fechnicus of Christian
tbeology (see $ 13) for a synonym. That he should do so is
neither more nor less strange than that he should employ the
similar phrase δ᾽ γεὰ d&-bar-né3G. The same influence of the
phrase constructed as a rendering of ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου is seen
in the NT where Pesh. uses δ᾽ γεά dna even in Jn. 527 Heb.
2.6 Rev. 113 14 14, though the Greek has only υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου.

iii. Biblica! use.—In Pesh. the Heb. den ddéani is rendered
Bar-nd$t everywhere except in Joh 358. dar-nd34 is the trans.
lation of 444 in Ex. 1313 8320 1 5. 1529 15. 4413 Jer.26 1014
Ezek. 153 1026 10814 2829 Mal. 88 1Ch. 991, of δγεῦξ ἴῃ Ps. 55 14
6611903 103 3 10415 Job 1514 254 328. But more frequently
«nother word 15 chosen, such as 'nds& or δ᾽ τῷ ‘adi4 or gabra for
indi; ddam or δῷ nasa or ’ndia for adam. It îs interesting
to observe that in Ecclus. the Heb. #5 is rendered ga4r4, 14277
3116 362026; ‘ada, 275; U'ne'naia, 1519. Adam is rendered
bar-ndid, 11218154111: δ' πὸ παξᾷ, 1817! and 4o/ nda, 1617;
bind ddim is rendered #né "nasa, 16.15 401, Similarly în
the Aramaic portions of OT., ἔμαξα is rendered dar-ndié in
Dan. 78; elsewhere énds by "nas (Dan, 210), ‘998 (constr. plur. ;
Ezra 4 ri), kolnas (Dan. 3 10), "καξᾷ (Dan. 5 5 etc); and dndia
with δ᾽ ιδ nasa, Dan.2 38 521, or ‘#54, Dan. ἃ 29 [25].

In the NT the Evangeliarium Hier. uses the indeterminate
tar-na$ exclusively as a rendering of ἄνθρωπος in Mt.89 196
Mk. 8367 Lk. 78 182 Jn.8.37 5347222341033 11 50 162: (Jn.
7234 is not an exception as the construction demands the èm-
phatic);2 Zar-xas2 only for ὁ ἄνθρωπος in Mt. 44 12352, ὁ
16242, è 74 Mk. 2274, è Jn.1817 29 195; gabra in the sense of
*husband,” Mt. 19 5/10 (cp Mt. 116 Lk. 236 In. 4167), but also
in Mt.2672 as a synonym of Zer-ndia in 2674; and ‘nai with
the meaning ‘any one’ in Mt. 193 τὸ end. Theexact use of the
emphatic îs alì the more remarkable as gaòrà so rarely occurs,
and this rare occurrence is itself peculiar in view of the fact that
Breh dégabra is the ordinary rendering of ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀν-
θρώπον. In the Curetonian Fragments, δα». πε is used
indiscriminately for ἄνθρωπος and è ἄνθρωπος in Mt.44 1212 43
15 112, ὁ 1820 196 Lk. 925 Jn.827 534 722230, 5; gabra for ὦ
ἄνθρωπος in Mt.89 1256, 193510 Lk. 23447; κπαξ in Mt.
15 20 for ‘one. În the Sinaitic MS Zer-xd#2 is likewise
used without discrimination for ἄνθρωπος and ὁ ἄνθρωπος in Mt.
4x4 1212 (Ὁ) 43 Ἰδιτα, ὁ 1820 196 Mk. 836 £ 109 Lk.182 Jn.
223327534 722236 1033; gadra for ὃ ἄνθρωπος, Mt.89 1235
197035 Mk.107 Lk, 44 645 78 Jn. 1150 1817; Zarnaà, Jn.
723, and 'na$, Mt. 1520, for ‘one,’ jemand. In the Pesh,
substantially the same condition prevails, as dar-n442 is used
for ἄνθρωπος in Mt.1212 196 Mk. 836 £ Lk.925 Jn.827 534
7 23210 33 1621, even more frequently than for ὁ ἄνθρωπος as in
Mi. 44 12 43 15112, ὁ 18 zo, and gabza for ἄνθρωπος in Mt.89
Lk. 78 Jn. 11 so as well as for è ἄνθρωπος, Mt. 1235 19 5 10 Lk.
44645 Jn. 1817 29 195, and ‘dé has the sense of ‘some one’ în
Mt.193 Jn.2254. In Mt.1613 οἱ ἄνθρωποι is rendered 'ndfi
by Pesh., Cur., and Sin., while the ἄν. Hier. has δ πὸ ‘ad.
To show that ‘nefé may be sing. and d'rel dinaîa a gram-
matical possibility, Driver quotes Job 7 zo 1419 33 16, Pesh., as
‘precise formal parallels’ Such passages as Ex.3114 Dt.83
Is.5112 Job 256 Eccles. 7 287 are better examples of ‘nafà as

1 Here and occasionally elsewhere in this article the Syriac
as been transliterated into Hebrew for the sake of simplicity.

2 Lietzmann's statement (p. 83) that ἄνθρωπός τις ἴα rendered
“n ΝΟΣῚΔ in ΓΚ. 5 20 is not correct. The Greek is ἄνθρωπε, and
the Ev. has wyima, as the vocative is regularly indicated by the
emphatic. "᾿Ανθρωπός τις is rendered In emma, LE

4707

SON OF MAN

sing., since in the three cases quoted it seems to be a collective
(0ο» 750, Syr. “maker of the human race,” Heb. DINI “sîa,
‘watcher of mankind,* & τῶν ἀνθρώπων ; 14 το, “hope of the
human race, Heb. vg mpa; 3316, ‘ears of men, Heb.
DIN, 6 ἀνθρώπων). The construction of collective nouns with
sg. suffixes is very common, [ἢ appearance the forms ‘44odel
d'andza (maker of man), sebrel d’anasa (hope of man), and
edneh d'anaîà (the ear of the man) look very much like δ γε
d'anasa (son οἷ man); in reality there is a marked difference
between them, While the former are perfectly clear and
idiomatic expressions, the latter is artificial, vague, and am-
biguous, It may be translated either ‘son of the human race,"
or ‘son of the human being.’ But ît is no more apparent what
it means to be ‘a son of the human race,’ in distinction from
being 8 mere member of the human family (Sar-nas@), than why
a man's father should be emphatically described as ‘the human
being.” The form can be explained by the exigencies of theo-
logical thought (cp $ 13), not by the laws of Aramaic speech.

iv. Afandaîc—In Mandaic pens “2 occurs, Genza i, 207 22,
in the sense of ‘man.’ Two plurals are found, ax 3 and
ΜΝΩ͂Ν mez (formed 25 man, engmran) The late form
n'ERINNI, plur. Asfa» Makwase, 298, shows how completely the
first part of the word was lost to consciousness. yy, ‘a man,”
‘any one,'occurs only in sfafws abso/utus. Butthe most common
expression for ‘man’ is ya). Cp Nò. Mand. Gram. 127, 148.

v. Babylonian and Talmudic—In Babylonian Talmudic
smi was likewise used, though not so frequently as ΜΝ for
“man.

vi. Judzandialect.—AmongtheW. Aramaic dialects(Judxan,
Samaritan, Galilean, Nabatean) this idiomatic expression seems
to have been less common in the S. than in the N. It does
indeed occur as early as 165 8.c. in Dan. 7 13. For here 4&dar=
èndf (g38 9232) means “like a human being." Dalman thinks
that this chapter has been translated from a Hebrew original
which had DI j3. Even if that were so, the translator would
not have chosen daxr-xdS în preference to dar &dd,, exclusively
used by Onkelos, if, in the circles where he moved, ὀαγοαξ and
bar-nd$4 were not more commonly used. For the plural he uses
ὀργᾷ anasa, Dan, 238 521, or ἀμᾶξᾷ, 243 416/ 2532 78; cp
Ezra 411. énd$ occurs only in the sense of ‘a man, 556712
7414210810. The oldest Targums, ascribed to Onkelos
and Jonathan, are written in the same Judzan dialect. As
wo ni does not occur at all in Onkelos—dex ded being
rendered dar-244m-—and only in Is. 5112 562 Jer. 49.18.33 50 40
51 43, Mic. 54 for den adam: in Jonathan, it is possible that the
distinctive word for man, the individual, Sar-m@$2, was not in
vogue, καδνᾶ, ‘man, the male and νά δ, ‘man, the race,"
being employed also to denote the member of the human family.
The fact that gg ‘il occurs with greater frequency both in
Onkelos and Jonathan may then show that the plural survived
longer than the singular for the same reasons as in Hebrew,
But the influence of a more extensive cultivation of the ancient
Hebrew tongue in Juda:a, especially among those capable of
acting as interpreters, should not be overlooked ; and it is quite
likely that the common speech of the people was less affected by
Hebraisms than the paraphrases would suggest.

vii. Samaritan.—In the Samaritan version of the Pentateuch
ΚΡ 5 found only in some manuscripts in Gen. 96and Nu. 23 19.
Since ît occurs quite frequently in Markah (cp Fiebig, 177), it
is safe to infer that here also the influence of the origina! upon
the learned translators renders the version less trustworthy in
this respect as a witness to Samaritan usage.

vii. Galilean dialect—In regard to the Galilazan dialect we
possess the simplest information, [ἢ the freedom of spontaneous
utterance and repartee in the Palestinian Talmud the peculi-
arities of popular speech have a better chance of revealing them-
selves than in the translations, and the later Targums follow less
closely the Hebrew than the earlier. But even when due weight
is given to this fact, the extraordinary frequency of the idiom no
doubt indicates a more extensive use on the part of the people
of Galilee. Dalman is inclined to regard it as a comparatively
late development under the influence of the Syriac, and thinks
that a person in the first century A.D. using so strange an ex-
pression as éar-254 then would not have been understood as
speaking of ‘man’ But Fiebig has shown that, not only did
Hosa'ya, about 200,4.D., use ΜΞΊ gemma for ‘a great man”
(Skebalin 56), but Sime'on b. Yochal, about 130-160 A.b., used
wi for ‘man,’ ‘der Mensch” (Berack. 15), and possibly also
Sime‘on b. Gamaliel, hiscontemporary, if a certain saying has been
preserved more accurately in Talm. Bab., Necarin 546, Mena
204, The indifference to the emphatic state points to long usage
even in the first partof the second century. . Itis extremely
difficult to believe that only tliree generations earlier an expression
that had taken such deep roots, and ἴ5 found in the literary re-
maine of all Aramaic dislects, should no have been widely used
in Galilee as an equivalent of wyx or ἘῺΝ în the sing., and it is
quite incredible that so natural and idiomatic a designation of
the individual of the human race should not have been under.
stood as ‘man.’ but taken to be an esoteric expression Meso-

otamia and N. Syria were old centres of Aramaic speech, and
it is therefore natural that the old term to denote a member of
the human family should have maintained itself most strongly
there. Of qZ381 N31 there is apparentiy no trace in the

4708

SON OF MAN

Galilean dialect. It does not even occur în Christian testimony
which may represent this dialect.

ix. Z%e Nimrod legend in Birzsith rabba—It îs quite un.
necessary to resort to Babylonian mythology, as Fiebig is inclined
todo, foran explanationof ami SI01 N72 (Ber. raéba 880. 47);
Abraham no doubt intended to lead Nimrod on from the worship
of man to that of God, as he had from the worship of the elements
to that of man; every man is a bearer of the breath cf life, and
no mysterious pregnant sense is demanded.

x. Nabatean.—Of the Nabatan nothing is known except
through inscriptions. | In these only gy3g in the sense of ‘one,
‘some one, ‘any one’ occurs. No inference can be drawn con-
cerning the existence of Ψ 715 or ἘΦ 115. ΤῊΘ use of this term in
Aramaic has been treated with most comprehensiveness by
Fiebig, with most Talmudic learning by Dalman, and with most
insight by Wellhausen. An essentially correct understanding
of it Îles at the basis of the theory developed by Eerdmans,
Schmidt, Meyer, and Lietzmann (see $ 30).

In ihe Babylonian myth concerning Adapa and the
S. wind (Recwezl de #rav. 204) the hero is addressed as
Zir amiluti (3x2). Hommel (£x9.7,

δ. ἀπαίοξουβ May 1900, p. 341) translates this ex
εἴπ. rression, ‘spring of mankind,' explains

εὐ σταδῦ | it as “Ὡς from whose seed the whole of
Ἢ ΝΑ mankind is sprung,' and compares it

with ὁ υἱὸς rod ἀνθρώπον. Ifthis trans-
Iation were possible, the phrase would have nothing in
common with the Greek term or its Aramaic original.
But it clearly means ‘seed of men'; and as serz in
2 R.36,8 is distinctly said to be a synonym of marz,
‘son,’ sir amiluti is an exact equivalent of swJR NI.
Whatever his relation to Ea, Adapa is a mortal man,
not a god, and is to be punished for his presumption.
‘The idea that he is the first man is precluded by 161

1216. [Cp PARADISE, $ 12.]

Adapa's designation as mar /ridu—'sonli.e., citizen] of Iridu”
—{cp mar Batili, mar Barsip, mart Niné, mart mal AsSur)
shows that, like 72 and 22, 2447% was used to designate the
member of a larger body. Delitzsch aptly compares war
sommani (8}.), ‘an artist’; παν. ibkari, ‘a peasant’; mar
ifbari, ‘a weaver) with Heb. pain 53; mart #20? also
means simply ‘fishes,' and sar issuri, 5a bird.”

The Ethiopic Bible renders ‘son of man' by wàizà τἀδ' δ,
wdlda be est, ὃς πᾶ ϊὰ ᾿ὥπα μένε and walti iguila’imanivaz.
Of these terms wdllà οὐδ᾽ ὃ is probably the most original. As
sdb’Zis a collective and virtual plural, qud44 s48'è exactly corre»
sponds τὸ nesn5) Wdlda ὅν Lins viri is che equivalent
of w533 n3, but, | The pini B'ésî is also used for ‘man,’ ‘der
Mensch' "Our ’ignorance of the native mythology renders ît
impossible to decide whether in 'igudlà ‘omdbiyau=proles
matris vivi, the reference to Eve is original, and the expression
consequently of Jewish ur Christian origin, or some other mother,
human or divine, is intended, It is often used collectively for
οἱ ἄνθρωποι, οἱ υἱοὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, NwIR 11. Wdlda "deu
‘imabèyàu, “son οἵ the offspring of the mother of the living,' is
apparently a Christian term made substantially on the same
pattern and for the same reason as ΝΣ 2 Ma. It was ex-
clusively used for è vids τοῦ ἀνθρώπου in the NT, and by
reminiscence or interpretation found its way into passages having
only vios ἀνθρώπον such as Jn.527 Heb. 26 Rev. 113 1414 and
also Ps. 8018 Dan.7 13 Ezek. 5 χ and throughout the book, and
Enoch 37-71 Sassire (Gee ἢ 7).

In the Arabic version ‘son of man’ is most frequently rendered
ibnw'l insani both in OT and NT. Sometimes inx inséni
occurs, Is. δ] 12, and in Ps, 1463 pur 3 is rendered dari dasari.
In the NT 528° Zadari occurs frequently (sce $ 13), δαξα»τε
is a collective and plural, but used for ‘man,’ the individual, as
well as for ‘man,’ the race.

Dan. 7 13 is the earliest passage in Aramaic literature
where the term ‘son of man’ occurs. One ‘like a
human being' (4852 érd%, wii 533) appears

8. Dan.713. before the Ancient of Days aa)eppeare
the empire of the world. ‘The Messianic interpretation of
this passage meets us as early as in the first century A.D.
in Enoch 37-71 (see $ 7) and 4 Ezra {see 8 8), The
evangelists apparently understood it as referring to the
Messiah (cp especially Mt. 2664 ΜΚ, 1462), and the
natural impression of_the Greek gospels is that Jesus
himself shared this view. It consequently prevailed in
the church. ‘Through the influence of ‘Akiba, Joshua b.
Levi, and Shemuel b. Nahman, it also gained the ascend-
ancy în the synagogue, On critical grounds it has been
accepted by a number of modern scholars.! Its strength

1 Lengerke, Ewald, Knobel, Hilgenfeld, Bleek, 5. Davidson,
Riehm, Orelli, Dillmann, Behrmann, Jul. Boehmer.

4799

SON OF MAN

lies in the fact that it recognises the presence in this
passage of a well-known concrete personality. But it
utterly fails to explain how the Messiah, once introduced,
can have dropped so completely out of the author's
thought, not only in the explanation of the vision where
he is unceremoniously ignored, but also in the future
deliverance with which Michael has much to do but
the Messiah nothing. A non-Messianic interpretation
appears already in Enoch 71 (see $ 8), where Enoch is
evidentlyunderstood as being the ‘son of man' of Daniel's
vision. Ibn Ezra interpreted dar-édf as referring to
the people of Israel. In modern times this view has
been maintained by many scholars.! Yet a symbolic
representation of ‘a more humane regime,’ ‘ein Afensch-
Reitsideal' savours more of modern humanitarian ideas
than of the concrete conceptions of Semitic antiquity.

‘The present writer (72219, 1900) was led by these
difficulties to regard the manlike being as an angel, and
more particularly Michael, the guardian-angel of Israel.
He pointed out that angels are constantly introduced as
having the appearance of men ;? that the only angelic
representative of Israel is Michael (‘your prince,’ cai,
Dan. 1021 12:); and that his coming with the clouds
after the destruction of the beasts, in view of 4 Ezra 18:
Apoc. Elijah 1420 151, may show that the battle with
chaos-monsters had already been transferred from Yahwè
to Michael. ‘This view has been accepted by Porter
(Hastings, DZ 4260}, who also suggests the demonic
character of the beasts. The objection that one would
expect the heathen nations to be likewise represented by
their angel princes is met partiy by the traditional form
of the appropriated Marduk myth, partly by a lingering
respect for these angelic dignitaries who are the former
gods of the nations. Chaos-monsters may be consumed
by fire, but angels are not slain. That the one like a
man is neither the Messiah nor a mere symbol of Israel
has independently been argued by Grill (Untersuc&. δὲν
die Entst, des Vierten Evang. 50 f {1902]), who also
thinks of Michael, but is inclined to look for a still higher
being whose name is significantly withheld, like that of
the numen of PENUEL (9.v.), at the same time a ‘most
exalted personal intermediary between God and the
world and a transcendant prototype of the God-pieasing
humanity ultimately to be fealised in the people of the
Most High.’ ὙΠῸ first part of this definition suits
Michael; whether he or any other angel was ever
thought of as the ideal Israelite, is more doubtful,

Vélter (ZN7W, 1902, p. 173£.) has also abandoned
the hitherto prevailing views and suggested that the
celestial being is none else than the Mazdayasnian
H3athra vairiya, one of the Ameta spefitas who is a
personification of the kingdom of heaven. But apart
from the uncertainty as to the date of the Avestan docu-
ments, Daniel's man-like being is a representative not
of the heavenly kingdom, but of Israel.

Another originally Aramaic book (so rightly Schtrer,
Lévi, We.) in which the term ‘son of man’ occurs

-4 is Enoch 87-71. It is known to us

7. Enoch 87-71. niy through an Ethiopic translation.
That a Greek version even of this part of the Enoch
literature once existed may be inferred from ‘fertullian
(de cultu feminarum, 13); but whether the Ethiopic
translation was made from it, is uncertain. According
to Bruce (in Laurence, Libri Znock Proph. Vers.
AEthiop. 11 [1838]) ‘the Jews in Abyssinia admit
it into their Canon; it is not, however, the Book of
Enoch received amongsi the Rabbins’ The first
Ethiopic version may therefore have been made by a
Jew from the Aramaic. This would account for a

1 Hofmann, Hitzig, Wittichen, Colani, Knenen, Straton,
Keim, Vernes, Smend, Toy, Marti, Meinhold, Bevan, Réville,
Dalman, Schirer, Gunkel, Wellhausen, Lietzmann, Charles,
Prince, Driver, Curtis, Hahn.

2 Ἴ5) προ, Dan. 815; pie Ὃ3 mino, Dan. 1016; nenpa
DI», Dan. 1018; 7.132», Dan. 825; Spi νη, Dan. 92, cp
ὅμοιον' υἱὸν ἀνθρώπον, Rev, 1424 [see 8 9], ‘like white
och 87 2.

4710

SON OF MAN

number of Aramaisms not so likely to pass through the
medium of a Greek translation. See APOCALYPTIC, $ 30.

That the text has suffered numerous interpolations is uni-
versally admitted. A series of these were apparently taken from
a lost Apocalypse of Noah. Already Laurence perceived some
of them; Kistlin (7%. /a474. 1856, p. 240 7.) recognised those
that most certainly have this origin, 64 1-55 2 60 65 1-69 25.
Tidemann (1. 7᾽, 1875, p. 2617) conjectured that 41 3.9 48 44
59 were drawn from the same sotirce, and Charles has adopted
this view, Bruno Bauer (Arii£ d. Gesck, 1402 [x84r])
first called attention to the now generally recognised secondary
character of 70, 71, and suggested that the ‘Son of Man”
passages were interpolated. Hilgenfeld (/ud. Apokalyptik,
1627 [1857]) presented the only natural interpretation of
6874-13 by which the Noachic inferpolations are found to be
later than 79 A.D., and the most probable explanation of 561,7
which apparently makes the original work later than Nera.
His view that the hook was essentially the work of a Gnostic
Christian was accepted by many scholars. The objection that
one would expect more distinctive Christian teaching was met
in part by a reference to the Enochian masque, in part by
emphasis upon the important Christian ideas found in the
book. Drummond, however, showed in a convincing manner,
that the Messianic passages were out of harmony both with
the title and with the contents in each figurative address, and
that their removal rendered the discourses far more intelligible
(The Jewish Messiah, p. 48 J (1877]). This argument
was further elaborated by Phelderer (UrcArist., 315 21 (1887)).
A similar view was independently presented by Bousset (/esx
Predigt, 106 [1892]), But Drummond's theory failed to explain
how any man could have written chap. 71 either before or after
these interpolations were made, and also why a Christian in-
terpolator should not have used the title wdlà ’éend/@
‘emabèyau exclusively as ît is in the NT. 711-16 can be
accounted for only on the assumption that the text preceding it
somewhere made an allusion to a man who has righteousness,
yet in such a manner as to render it possible to regard Enoch
as the man intended. This precludes the possibility of any
passage containing the peculiar Christian phrase “son of the
offspring of the mother of the living’ (6279 14 63 τα 69265 701)
having been a part of the text to which 711-16 was added. It
is among the passages in which ‘son of man’ îs rendered wdl4&
sàb'é (46247 482 60 10) or vw. δὲ᾽ 237 (825 69292, 5) that such an
aliusion must be sought. In 6010the author of the Noachian frag»
ments used dar.nadà or den-444m precisely as it is used in Eze

It is difficult to think through chap, 40 in the Aramaic without
obtaining the impression that the Ethiopic is a direct translation
of the original, “I saw one like a man; ‘I asked in regard to
that man ;’ ‘he answered : this is the man who has righteous=
ness;* ‘this man whom thou hast seen will arouse the kings.”
The use of the demonstrative (11 win) is evidently in good
‘order, On the theory of a translation from the Greek, the
present writer and subsequently Charles pointed out the use of
the demonstrative for the missing article in the Ethiopic, per-

itting the assumption that the Greek had everywhere simply
ὁ vids τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. But Flemming (in Lietzmann, 2427
has rightly called attention to the fact that in the NT wdl@a
‘iguili ‘Ondhéyat ἴθ never preceded by a demonstrative.
Wdlda sab'é is as admirable a reading of dar-ndfa in 462 ff as
in 6010. Even in 482, ‘inthat hour that man was named (2,6...
‘ called ') before (Aramaic for ‘by ') the Lord of Spirits,’ the use
Îs natural. The scene in 46 is reminiscent of Dan. 7. As
Daniel's manlike being was not mentioned by name, he might
be an angel like Michael, a translated hero like Enoch, a true
descendant of David snatched up to heaven and preserved for
the day of his appearance, or a Christianised pre-existent
Messiah. The present description no doubt suggests to us the
Messiah ; but it is quite possible that in an earlier form of it
the man who walked with God, revealed hidden secrets and
achieved victories, pointed as clearly to Enoch, the vision being
(rightly or wrongly) ascribed, like others in the book, to Noah.
That wdZzd 4651, if original, could be used in the same sense
as 1vd/dà sàb'è is evident from 7114 which refe
In 625 all MSS except the oldest read zo. dé
woman"; in 6929 the oldest manuscript has the same form,
This shows that Christian copyists tampered with the text from
theological motives, the dogmatic interest being here the same
as that which crowded #re4 d&gabrà (anzzi Ma) cut of use,
These MSS themselves are probably Christian interpolations,
as is, undoubtedly, 7117 (cp Schmidt, art. ‘Enoch’ in /ewisk
Ency.; Son of Man, chi 7; A/TA, 1).

In the original discourses the term consequently
never seems τὸ have occurred. It is found in one of
the Noachic interpolations in the sense of ‘man’ as a
rendering of Zar-2d}7, In 4627, and 482 which may
have belonged to the same early stratum of insertions,
it has no other meaning. At these points Christian
interpolations appear to have attached themselves.
Where in the rest of the book these are most manifest,
the distinctive NT title is employed.

In the Apocalypse of Ezra1337 the seer beholds
one like a man (guasi simzilitudinem hominis) coming

471ττ

SON OF MAN

out of the sea (de corde maris) with the clouds of
heaven, refers to him again as that
8, ἃ Ezra 133% man (52% 40m0) and simply ‘the man'
{homo}, and receives the interpretation that this is the
man through whom the Most High will redeem creation.
We do not possess the original; but the extant versions
(Lat., Syr., Eth., Arm.) all seem to come from the
lost Greek translation. As the author evidently has
Dan. 713 in mind, the original probably had der-énaf
and Zar-ndi@ which may have been rendered correctly
ἄνθρωπος and ὁ ἄνθρωπος in the Greek. The con-
nection shows that there can be no question of ‘man’
or ‘the man’ being a title Though the term
‘ Messiah is not mentioned, there can be little doubt
that the Messiah is intended. Retouching by Christian
hands may be observed in all the versions. But the
book, written in the reign of Domitian, probably
shows the most transcendental conception of the
Messiab found in Jewish thought. All the more
significant is it that the final judgment is not one of
his functions. In 61 the true text is preserved by Lat.,
Arm,, ‘through a man’ being a Christian addition in
Syr. Eth. Ar., as Hilgenfeld has shown (Messias Jud.
542.)
The Christian parts of the Apocalypse of John contain
two passages, 113 and 1414, where the phrase ὅμοιον
è υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου ‘like a son of man'
9, Revelation. cccurs. "It is the exact equivalent of
k-bar-Ènaf and the author no doubt had in mind Dan.
713. In the first place it is unquestionably the celestial
glory of Jesus that is described with colours largely
borrowed by Ezekiell As 1415 introduces ‘another
angel,’ the impression is that the manlike being of
1414 is also an angel. That this angel has a crown
upon his head does not show that he is the Messiah.
The angel of Sardis (3.11), the celestial presbyters (44 10),
the angel represented as a white horse (62), and the
horse-like locusts (97), also wear crowns, and the angels
are the harvesters in Mt.184r. It is of utmost
importance that this work, written substantially at the
close of the first century (APOCALYPSE, $ 36, col. 207),
though with later additions, knows nothing about the
title ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου.
The term ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου is not found in any of
the fourteen epistles ascribed to Paul; in 1 or 2 Pet.,
- 1, 2 or 3 Jn., James or Jude. Its
10. NT Epistles. absence in this entire literature re-
presenting different lands, periods, and tendencies of
thought can scarcely be accidental. It may not prove
that all the authors were unacquainted with the term.
As it is used in the Fourth Gospel, the reason for its
non-occurrence in 1, 2, 3 Jn. may be that there was no
occasion for using it. On the other hand, if Jude had
found it everywhere in his copy of Enoch as a Messianic
title, and known of it as the self-designation of Jesus, he
is quite likely to have referred to it. In Heb. 26,
Ps. 85-7 is quoted as referring to Jesus. The author
sets forth the inferiority of a revelation indicated through
angels, and argues from the Psalm that the world to
come was ta be subject not to angels but to one
who had been made for a little while lower than the
angels (6). The same reference of the passage
to Jesus is seen in x Cor. 1527. Heb, 2g clearly
indicates the underlying question: Of whom does the
prophet speak, of man in general, or of some particular
man? The answer was found in v. 6. He spoke of
one who had been made for a little while (βραχύ τι}
lower than the angels to be afterwards made ruler of all
things. This could only apply to Jesus. The author
of 1Cor.1545 designates the, Christ as ὁ ἔσχατος
’Adan, 6 δεύτερος ἄνθρωπος, ὁ ᾿ἄνθρωπος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ.
Thus he evidently strives to express the ideal, supernal
humanity of Jesus. Yet it never seems to have ocenrred
to him to use for this purpose the common synoptie
title, nor the mere term ὁ ἄνθρωπος, or an equivalent,
without a modifying adjective or adverbial expression.

4712

SON OF MAN

‘The most natural explanation is certainly that it was
not known to him.

As an alternative the possibility was suggested ἴῃ /BL 1536
that he may have regarded it as an inadequate characterisation
of that heavenly man who was no longer to be known according
to the flesh; but such disregard was deemed incompatible with
a knowledge on his part of this as the one Messiame title used
by Jesus. Schmiedei (Prof Morazsch. 1898, pp. 2607,
1901, pp. 3427) thinks that he may have hesitated to present
to Greek readers a term which, unlike the Jews, they would not
have understood as a synonym of ‘man’ but literally as ‘the
son of the man.” Such considerations do not seem to have
infivenced che earliest translators (cp 8 36); if they were
seriously entertained by himself, it is difficult to see how he
could have allowed the objectionable phrase to run its course
wherever the evangelica! tradition went without an explanation.

Apart from the gospels, Acts7 56 is the only passage
in NT where è υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου occurs. Whether

“- it comes from the Author to Theophilus
11. Act8756. 0, represents a real utterance of Stephen
[see STEPHEN, $ 7], it shows that there were some
Christians who did not reverently shrink from the use
of what in the gospels is the exclusive self-designation
of Jesus, nor hesitate to employ it lest it be misunder-
stood by Greek-speaking people. The author manifestly
takes for granted that the excited populace must recog-
nise in the phrase a designation of Jesus and not
merely a Messianic title. What is deemed blasphemy
is not that'he claims to see the Messiah on the right
hand of God, for that is his place, but that he claims to
behold the murdered Jesus in the Messiah's place.
If the statement is historical, Stephen may have said
in Aramaic: ‘I see Sar-ndfa,’ ie, “a man,’ or ‘the
man,' intending to continue his sentence, or referring
to the righteous man with whose death he had just
charged the people. But it may be a free imitation of
Lk. 2269.
The term ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου occurs in the gospels
i eighty-one times—viz., thirty times in
12. QeogrTenoes Mî., fourteen in ΜΙ, twenty-five în
n pel8. Tx, and twelve in Jn.

The references are as follows Mt. 8 20961023 11 19 128/32 40
133741 161327 / 1791222 1928 201828 24273048373944
2531 260224254564; Mk. 21028 83138 991231 103345 1826
l4zra 84162; Τὰ 524 6522 734 922264458 1130 1281040

17 2224 2630 18831 110 212736 2222 4869 247; 10.151 8135

(5 27) 6275362828935 122334451331.

Mt. 181: Lk. 1910), 2813 and Lk. 9563 (=Lk.
19 to) TR are rightly obelised by critical editors. The
sixty-nine Synoptic passages clearly do not represent as
many distinct utterances. By removing the most
obvious parallels, Holsten and Oort leave forty-two,
Mangold and Driver forty. In any such arrangement
there is much exercise of subjective judgment, since
passages in the different gospels that are not absolutely
ἈΠΕ are regarded as identical, while exact parallels in
the sume gospel may or may not be considered as
duplicates. © As it is of some importance to know which
of these occur in all three, in two, or only in one of the
gospels, the following arrangement may be made for
convenienee' sake, involving no judgment as to the
number of times, or separate occasions, when the
evangelists considered Jesus as having used the ex-

pression. Eight in Mt., Mk, and Lk. :
1. Mt. 96 + ME 2r00. 0 Lk. 524
20» 128 0» 228 : » 85.
3. » 1627 τ Ρ 83800 n 926
4 5» laza . 93 | » 944.
5.0» 2018 <0» 1033. ν » 1831.
6. Ὁ 24308. 3 18260. 1 2127.
Ton 26246. Ὁ dz, Ὁ, 2222.
δι, 2664. 3 462.ῦϑΘΘΠῺ, ” 2269.
Five in Mt, and MK. :
9. Με] = Mk.99 [τὸ. Mt.26243 ΜΕ. 14 οτὅ,
τὸ, Ὁ, 715 ,, 812 [18..,, 3045 » 1441
Ito, 2028 » 1045.
Fight in Mt. and Lk. :
τῷ Mt. 8:5. Lk. 958 | 18 Mt.2427 ΤΙ. 1724.
15.» llrg » 734 | 19, 2437 » 1726.
16. » 1232 1» 1210 | zo. ,, 2439 » 1730.
17. » 1240 » 1139 |2x » 2444 » 1240.
4713

SON OF MAN
One in ΜΚ. and Lk. :

22. Mk. 831, Lk, 922.
Nine in Mt, alone :
23. Me. 1023 28. Mt, 19 28.
34. », 1537 29...» 24300.
25. », 1841 30. » 2535
28. 0, 1613 31.» 262.
27. »Ἠ 1628
Fight in Lk, alone :
32. Lk. dae 36. Lk. 1910.
33. »»Ἠ 128 37. n 2136.
34. » lie2 38, 2248
35...» 188 39...» 267.

The earliest Aramaic translation of the Gospels, the Sinaitic
Syriac, renders è υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου by d'sek dégabra (ma

io NI2I9 in Mk. 838 Lk.7 34 and Ju. 1831} în
13. Renderings Lk.i130and Jn.1223 only δ᾽ γα {655} is left;
in the Ancient in all other ‘extant passages δ᾽ γεᾷ di-n45@

Versions. (μιν r2) seems to have een used.1

The Curetonian fragments have gua ΠΣ
in Lk. 7349 2622 48, elsewhere ΜΌΝ MI In the Svauge-
liarium Hierosolymitanum the phrase is rendered ΜΚ ἼΞ. MI
in Mt.96 1232 1613 l7orzza 1928 24273043739 Lk.524
6 522 958 1130 1248104 1910 247 Jn.313/ 62753 62 dis, 828
13311 R@nti ΠῚ (#re4 dé-darnasa) in Mt, 2230844 2531
2622428 4564 Mk, È 10 83138 931 1033 Lk, 212736 2222 Jn.
1 511223 34 din.

Only in the Pesh. is ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου uniformiy
rendered δ᾽ γεὰ dé-ndîa. Driver's statement (Hastings,
DBA 582) that in the Sîn., Curet., and Pesh. the term is
always represented by δ᾽ γεὰ dè-ndi@ is incorrect. The
occurence of d'7ek dé gabrà in Lk. 7 34 (Sin., Cur.), Mk.
838 (Sin., Ev.) and the identical Lk.926 (Cur.), LK.
2248 (Cur.) and Jn.133: (Sin., Ev.) is not without its
importance. It suggests that in the case of some say-
ings δ᾽ γεὰ dè-gabra had so established itself in common
usage that even translators who, for dogmatic reasons,
preferred 87e4 di-nala were influenced by it. lt is
evident that δ᾽ γεὰ dé-bar-naia is a creation of Christian
theology designed to avoid misconstruction of d'rek
de-gabrî. Originally the latter was no doubt intended
to mean simply Ailius hominis; but the root idea ( filius
viri) could not fail to be embarrassing to the dogma
that Jesus was not the son of a man. "Its use by Paul
of Tella (see $ 4) shows that the substitute was not un-
known among the Christians of Mesopotamia. Cureton
explained that his translator 'was not accurately ac-
quainted with the Greek language, and therefore trans-
lated . . . Alius viri not hominis' (Remains, p. li).
But the Greek phrase, which is everywhere the same,
could not have troubled him, and he knew his own
language. If, in some places, he used what he must
have regarded as a synonym, the reason is probably to
be looked for in tradition.

It is significant that d'red d*-ndid never occurs in the
Palestinian lectionary, and that in Mt. and Lk. δ᾽ γεᾷ d&
gabri maintained itself everywhere except in Mt. 24-26
‘and Lk. 21-22. So completely has the consciousness of
the element ‘son’ in Son of Man disappeared that ‘son
of the son of man’ meant only ‘ son of man.' Possibly
the introduction of the new pbrase in the synoptic
apocalypse (see $ 41) and in certain typical sayings is
reminiscent of an earlier Aramaic version having only
dar-nafa. ‘The Edessene translators could not render
the Greek phrase by δαγενᾶϊά since this would have taken
no account of the articles. As the idea was new, no ex-
tant expression could be used, and any term would be
Open to misapprehension. The form apparently first
chosen, δ᾽ γε dé-gabra, might be understood as the son
of some particular man, but g24r4 had the advantage of
being a singular. In theend the objection that it might
be taken to imply that Jesus had a human father proved
more serious, and the phrase seems graduallyto have been
erowded out of use until the officially recognised version
had no other form than δ᾽ γε de-ndii. ‘Son of the
human being,’ might be interpreted ‘son of Mary.”

1 μιν 2035, Lk. 22 48, is either a scribal error or ΝΕ Ν isa
later addition; 287, Jn. 627, was no doubt preceded by mo.

4714

SON OF MAN

The earliest Arabic version was probably made from some
Aramaic translation. It is not likely, however, that this was

the Peshita, as it would then undoubtedly render 5764 d&ndid
everywhere with the same phrase, But in Mt, 96 1613 Lk. 958
17 24 26 19 10 Jn.151313/ 627 5362826Ìt uses the term sbrex ἢ
baSari, while elsewhere the rendering is ibn '/insani. Basara
is a collective, butis frequently used as a sg., and #8nw”/ dadari
is not improbably a rendering of δ᾽ σὰ d&gabra.

The Ethiopic everywhere translates the Greek term wdlda
‘eguàlà 'emaheyau, never expressing the article by a demon-
strative ade84 or senta, With the same uniformity the
Latin versions render it f/ises ἀστέρες.

On the relation of Marcion and other Gnostics
to the Synoptic title see $ 43 It cannot safely be

14, Patristic M@aintained that it was unknown to alì
and medisval οἵ the ‘apostolie fathers.”
h bl The most natural interpretation of Barr.
interpretation. 15 is that the author alludes to it when,
having found in an interpolated text of Ex, IT τά a reference to
the son of God, he declares that Jesus is prefigured in it ‘not as
son of man, but as son of God." ‘The inference may be drawn
that about 130 a.D. the title was known in some circles and
understood as designating the human nature assumed by the
Son of God. In a later addition to the Ignatian epistle to the
Ephesians 80 2 the title is found (τῷ υἱῷ ἀνθρώπον), apparently
interpreted as referring to Jesus' descent from David. Justin
(Dial, 190) explained the title as referring to Jesus' descent
through Mary from David, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham.
Irenzus (/aer. 3 19) understood it to denote that Jesus was the
son of Mary ‘ques et ipsa erat homo,’ and Tertullian strongly
argued the impossibility of any other interpretation (adv. Mare.
410). Origen, on the contrary, regarded it as unnecessary to
seek for a particular human being, since the expression simply
meant ‘man’ and was chosen by Jesus from pedagogic motives,
as when God is represented as a man (Migne, 13 15 37).

Even in Greek the member of a body was sometimes indicated
by vids, as in vi. τῆς γερουσίας, vi. τῆς πόλεως, vi, τοῦ δήμου,
vi. ᾿Αφροδισιέων (cp Delssmann, Libelstwgien, 1169), and υἱὸς
ἀνθρώπου was frequently found in parallelism with ἄνθρωπος in
the LXX. So profound a student of these versions as Origen
may therefore have rightly understood the idiom.

Theodoret introduces the Hebrew and Aramaic usage
to account for certain phrases compounded with υἱός or
θυγάτηρ in 6; he may have applied the same principle
to this case. Chrysostom certainly regards the term
as simply designating ' man' in Jn. 527 {Migne, 59 223).
‘That seems also substantialiy to have been the view of
Augustine (Corta Arian, 18), It is possible that
Cyprian's comparison of Mt. 1232 with 1S.225, and
inference that the church cannot forgive sins against
God, indicates that he understood filius hominis τὸ
designate ‘man’ in a generic sense în some passages,
as Lietzmann has suggested (p. 80). Jerome was not
prevented by his knowledge of Hebrew from identifying
‘the buman being’ as the virgin Mary (Com. in Ps.
85); and this continued to be a common interpretation.
Futhymius Zigabenus (about 1100 A.D.) explains that
ἄνθρωπος may mean γυν ἡ as well as ἀνήρ (Migne, 129 293),
and Alexander of Jumège (4. 1209) only regrets the
difficulty of rendering in French a title which is identical
so far as the meaning is concerned, but not gram-
matically, with βλμς virginis. In the first German
translation it was indeed translated s4x der maîd (Codex
Teplensis and three earliest editions), and the Romance
version of the Waldenses had //4 de /a vergene. Nicolaus
de Lyra understood Mt, 128 to affirm that blasphemy
against Christ's humanity is not as unpardonable as
that against his divinity, and Με. 1613 to be a con-
fession on his part of the humble fact of his humanity
while his disciples understand it of his divinity (2ib/a
Sacra, 1588, vol. 11.) A curious comment on ‘men’
in Mt. 1613 is ‘homines sunt qui de filio hominis
loquuntur, Dii enim qui deitatem intelligunt.'

With the renaissance of learning, the first attempts at
a philological explanation appeared. Génébrord, a
noted Hebraist, commenting on Mt. 1232,

15, Resort dectared that ‘son of man” meant simply
Hebrew 2: (Man' and, returning to Cyprian's sug-

gestion, saw in Elis words (1 S.225) an
expression of the same sentiment, Sins against men
may be pardoned, but not sins against God (De
5. Trinitate, 1569). Flacius Illyricus defined filius

1 Génébrord, Flaccus, Beza, Grotius.
4715

SON OF MAN

hominis as unus quispiam homo (Clavis, sub voce
‘ filius’). Beza regarded the expression as a Hebrew
phrase for man, and suggested the Hebrews' custom of
speaking of themselves in the third person, but also called
attention to the fact that in the gospels no one except
Jesus does so. It is the merit of Grotius to have first
recognised that in Mt.128 the conclusion must be,
‘ Therefore man is lord also of the sabbath.'

Pointing το Mk. 228 as exhibiting the more original connection
he conclusively showed that the argument would have no
cogency if the Son of man were interpreted as the Messiah, and
could not have been understood, since at the time Jesus had
neither declared himself to be the Messiah nor been willing to
bave his disciples proclaim him as such. In regard to Mt. 12.32
he came to the same conclision as Génébrord ; but he refrained
from attempting an explanation of any other passages on the
same principle (Crit. St. 6 45,4).

The discovery that upon two occasions Jesus spoke,
not of himself, but of man in general, when employing
this phrase, naturally seemed less important than the

s1_0£, CONjecture that he constantly used ‘the
16. Gubetitute man, in the sense of 'this man, for
dA can gi the personal pronoun. The latter was

PI maintained by Coccejus (Sc4oZ in Mt.
820), and found its way into the first life of Jesus by
Hess (1160 261 269). Bolten's criticism was important
because through it a third passage (Mt. 96) was added to
the two of Grotius, and the Aramaic term δαγ- πᾶβα was
brought into the discussion (Der Berichf d. Matth. 1792).

He called attention to the Syriac use of d'rek de-naîa with no
more force than that of an indefinite pronoun, found it strange
that the Greek translator should have failed to take note of this
Aramaism, and boldly maintained that in Mt, 2427 Jesus said,
‘So will be the appearance of some one,’ meaning by * some one’
himself. In regard to all passages except Mt, 96 12 8 Paulus
returned to the opinion of Coccejus (“hic homo pro ego”), pointed
out the importance of Jn. 1234, and suggested a later misap-
prehension under the influence of Dan.713 (ze. Habuck,
1 465 500 221£), Kuinoel accepted the interpretation given by
Grotius of Mt. 128 and, in spite of the well-founded warning of
Eichhorn (44/. 8:51 524 [1794]), followed Beza and Bolton in
Mt. 10 23 (Cow. 295, 337 [τ825}}. The impossibility of the latter
explanation led Fritzsche, who in general agreed with Paulus,
to the view that Mt. 10.23 and other passages were later additions
{Com. în ev. Matti. 320). The theory which assumed that Jesus
habitua)ly used an indefinite pronoun ora phrase like ‘the man,’
accompanied by a gesture indicating himself, was too artificial to
command respect, and in the general reaction against the
rationalistic school, the real achievements of these earlier scholars
were completely forgotten.

When Herder (ἄν. Schriften, ii. [1796] 5.4) explained
the term as designating the ideal humanity of Jesus, he

gave a new form to the idea that it was
17. Ideal man? i tended to teach the human nature of
the Christ, But in this modernisation the contrast
with the divine nature of the Christ was lost, and an
emphatically high conception was the result. Through
Schileiermacher (Zix/. 479,7.) and Neander {Lebez γέ,
129 7. } this view gained a wide recognition.

It was adopted among others by Bohme, Olshausen, Lutz,
Reuss, and Lathardt, has more recently been defended by West-
cott and Stanton, and infiuenced Weisse, Holtzmann, Beyschlag,
Hase, Keim, Mangold, Usteri, and Briickner.

Hofmann (Sckrifteweis, ii, 253) could find în the
phrase no allusion to an ideal of humanity, but regarded
it as substantially synonymous with
‘he that cometh,' ὁ ἐρχόμενος, con-
taining no indication of character. Cremer { Wéòrfen
Buch), 846 75) similarly saw in it a reference to the
man promised in the protevangel, Gen. 315.

Already Scholten (Specie, 1809) interpreted the
term as a title of the Messiah, the heavenly king
destined to reign as man over men.
Messianic Strauss (Leben fest, 463 {r835]) expressed

titleg [86 opinion that the son of man was one

i of the current Messianic titles. V. Còlin

(2551 TA. 216 [1836]) agreed with him. Ewald (Gesck.
Christus, 202[1855]) pointed to Dan. and En. 87-71, which
he regarded as the oldest part of the book, as evidence.
Renan (Wie de /65us, 1317 [1863]) maintained that in

18. Coming man?

19. Current

1 Coccejus, Hess, Bolten, Paulus, Fritzsche.
4716

SON OF MAN

certain schools it was a title of the Messiah as judge of
the world and king of the age to come. Beyschlag
{C4ristologie, 9 f. [1866]) held that it was a Messianie
title in Dan.713 En. 462 7 and all passages in the
gospels, and that Jesus chose this particular title both
to express his consciousness of being a man and his
knowledge of the fact that he was the ideal, absolute,
and heavenly man. Baldensperger (Se/istbewusstsein
Jesu, 169 Y [1892]) likewise affirmed that the phrase
was used before the time of Jesus as a Messianic title
and was adopted by him as such, not, however, before
the episode at Caesarea Philippi, the earlier - passages
having been displaced.
That Jesus employed the term to express his own
peculiar Messianic consciousness has been the conviction
inn Οὗ many scholars, But there has been
20. Expression much difference of opinion as to his

οὗ a PeCliaT reason for selecting it, and in regard to
consciousness? its origin. While some investigators

endeavoured to discover its meaning by
an analysis of all passages, and by connecting the various
predicates with the idea of man, others discerned in it
only a designation of office without immediate connection
with the root idea, and in the predicates saw synthetic
judgments. The majority of critics found its origin în
Dan.713. Others, however, thought of Ezek., Ps, 8 or
En. 46, while a few regarded it as an absolutely new
creation of Jesus. One source was deemed sufficient by
some students ; by others the conception was looked upon
as the result of various combinations. As to the motive
for its employment, there were those who thought that
it was chosen openiy to proclaim a different Messianic
title from that suggested by such titles as ‘Son of
David and ‘Son or GoD' (g.v.). But many scholars
urged that such a public announcement was improb-
able at least in the earlier part of Jesus' ministry, and
that he is more likely to have used it as a riddle to
be guessed at, half revealing, half concealing his notion
of the Messiah and his own claims. The various
theories were largely dependent upon different interpre»
tations of passages in OT and the Pseudepigrapha, the
priority ascribed to Mt, or Mk., and the tone of Mt.
820 compared with Mk. 210.
In commenting on Mt. 820, De Wette observed that
to those who did not think of Dan. 713 the expression
τα Could only suggest ‘this man,' whilst
A Emphasis to those who had the Daniel passage
in mind it would mean ‘this insignifi-
cant man who, in spite of his humble
condition, is destined to become that
which the prophet has indicated.’ In this pregnant
utterance the thought of Paulus still shows its vitality ;
but it contains the germs of new theories.

Wilke (Urevangelist, 633 [1838]) inferred from Mt, 16 13 that
‘son ofman'cannot be identica! withthe Messiah. Baur(ZIW7%,
1860, pp. 277 7.) made an important contribution by show:
ing that the passage where the term occurs in the fourth gospel
cannot throw any light on its original meaning. Hisexamination
of the synoptics convinced him that the context never favoured
the idea of an ideal humanity and that there was no reference to
Dan. 7 135 and he therefore concluded that Jesus invented the
term, at the same time to claim for himself a Messiahship without
which he could not attain to a more universal recognition and a
genuinely national work, and to keep alcof from the vulgar
Messianic idea associated with the title ‘son of God.' He
would be, not a king coming in power and glory, but a man
deeming nothing foreign to him that belongs to the lot of a
human being, identifying himself with all human conditions,
needs, and interests, in genuine human sympathy, and accepting
all sufferings and sacrifices connected with his work in life.
This has been called an ‘ emphatically low ' estimate in distino-
tion from that of Herder. It should be ohserved, however, that
it comes much nearer to the old dogmatic position with its
sharp contrast between the title of Christ's humiliation and that
characteristic of his glory, as seen, eg, in Meyer (Com. 1832, to
Mt. 8 20), and that it really sets forth the human worth of Jesus”
personality more clearly than any mere abstraction like ‘the
ideal,’ Colani (/#sus Christ et les croyances Messianigues,
74 2° (1864]) held that the expression was unknown before Jesus
because it was he who created it, that by it he designated him-
selfas the poor child of Adam, and also as the object of a peculiar
divine love, that no one called him by this name because it would

4717

SON OF MAN

have been litile short of an insult, and that it disappeared
because in the church the divinity became more important than
the humanity of Jesu: Strauss was also won for the opinion
of Baur and Colani; and Schenkel (£ibe/-/exikon, 1872) pre-
sented a somewhat similar conception based on Ps. 6.
Hilgenfeld, like Baur, regarded the term as indicating
lowly external conditions and a humble disposition, but
4. entered a protest against separating it
22 Modified from its source in Dan., and maintained
teri, its Messianic significance in all places,
though reflecting the peculiar conception
of Jesus (ZW7%. 1863, p. 3277). Baur was led by
this presentation to assume a later Danielic significance
for the eschatological discourses (Λ 77, 1864, p. 82).
Bernhard Weiss (2544 ΤΆ. NT 59.7 (1868]) saw in the ex-
pression neither a current Messianic title nor a description of
character, but a term having no intrinsic significance in Dan.,
chosen by Jesus to avoid misapprehension of his aims and yet
to announce himself as che Messiah promised in Dan. The
statements made concerning the Son of Man were consequently
regarded by him as synthetic judgments, in the Kantian
phraseology introduced in this ‘connection by Biedermann

Dogmatik, 226 £).
Mangold (7% 4,5. d. rhein. PV 1877, pp. χ 25) regarded

the term as a Messianic title, chosen to emphasise the possi»
bility of suffering and death asa man, and the coming exaltation
as the true, ideal man. Usteri (7%. Z. a. εἶ, Schweiz, 1886,
pp. 1,75) strongly urged that the verbal meaning of the phrase
was of no importance, as it was solely a title of office selected
by Jesus in order to allude to the coming of the promised
redemption to mankind, Essentially this view was held by
Bruce (Airgdom of God, 172 {1890]), and Stevens (Teaching of
Jesus, 91 {7 (1901]) emphasised the new content which Jesus is
likely to have given to this Messianic designation.

Rejecting Ewald's theory as to Enoch 46 7, Weisse
looked upon the term as an original creation of Jesus

sein» ἴσ &xpress his peculiar consciousness ot

23. Leti a being a human Son of God, and there-

fore having no familiar connotation to

his hearers but presenting to them a riddle (τ. Gesch.
1325 [1838]; Z4v..frage, 2277 [1856]).

Weisse's philological explanation (‘human son’; like ὑπ
Dan; supposed Hebrew original of ò πατὴρ ὁ οὐράνιος, ‘heavenly
father ἢ naturally met with no approval, and his confusion of the
Synoptic with the Johannine use was wisely avoided by Ritsch].
Sharing, however, with Weisse, the view that Mk. îs earlier
than Mt. and presents in a more trustworthy manner the
course of Jesus' life, Ritschi was led to the conclusion that Jesus
used the term to conceal rather than to reveal his Messianic
claims, as Mk. records two instances of its use before the im-
portanti episode at Casarea Philippi (7%. /a4r6. 1851, p. 514).

Holtzmann {(ZU”7%. 1865, pp. 2127.) pointed out
the determining influence of the first occurrence in Mt,
(829) upon those who maintained the priority of this
gospel, held that in reality the passage suggests Messianic
dignity rather than humility, and inferred from Mk. 210
the Messianic significance of the term to the mind of Jesus,
but considered this to have been a secret until the visit
to Caesarea. Keim thought that Jesus gradually went
beyond this mystifying title to such designations as
«the coming one,' ‘the bridegroom,' in suggesting his
Messianic claims (GescA. /esu, 2376). Hase was of the
opinion that Jesus chose this term first to conceal, and
then at the proper time to manifest his Messiahship as
the perfection of human nature (Gesch. Jesu, 412).
According to Wendt {Zekre Jesu, 441 / [1890]), the
use of this expression was not so much a riddle, as a
problem provoking to thought and private judgment;
for whilst the hearers by their transcendental conception
of the Messiah were prevented from seeing in the Daniel
phrase “Son of man'a fit designation of so august a
being, Jesus found it most suitable to express his convic-
tion that in spite of human weakness and lowly con-
ditions he was the Messiah. In Mt, 82096 11 19 12832
and parallels, Holsten (ZIW/7%. 1891, pp. 17) saw the
evidence that Jesus used this term concerning himself
before the scene at Ceesarea Philippi, and in Mt. 1613 the
proof that he employed it to designate himself as the
Messiah.

1 Hilgenfeld, B. Weiss, Mangold, Usteri, Bruce, Stevens.
2 Weisse, Ritsch], Holtzmann, Keim, Hase, Holsten, Wendt,
Paul, Dalman, Gunkel, Fiebig.

4718

SON OF MAN

It seemed to Holsten probable that Jesus' Messianic conscious-
ness grew out of his experience, sùggesting to him that the
chosen one on whom the unction of spirit rested was to pass
through two forms of existence, one of humiliation, another of
glory, even as the ‘Son of man’ in Dan. was brought from
earth to heaven to be clothed with power. So profound a
view, however, must have been a mystery to the disciples until
it was revealed to them.

According to Paul {Worstellungen um Messias, 42
[x895]), the mystery existed for Jesus himself as well as
for his hearers, inasmuch as there was a time in the
Galilzean period when he still doubtfully asked whether
in reality he was the Son of man promised in Dan.
Dalman { Worte Jesu, 191 f. [1898]) clearly recognised
that ‘the Son of man’ was not a Messianic title in the
time of Jesus, and that Zar-xdf was the phrase used
by him that has been translated ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου.
This, however, he regarded as unknown in Galilzean
Aramaic at that period in the sense of ‘ man.’

It would therefore naturally point to Dan.713, a passage
especialiy attractive to Jesus, because it ascribed the establish-
ment of the kingdom οἵ heaven to God alone. Dalman con-
sidered it improbable that Jesus employed the phrase before the
episode at Cesarea, some pericopes having been placed out of
their chronological order, After that event his disciples regarded
it as a declaration that he was the Son of man of Daniel's vision ;
to the people it was a riddle, the solution of which Jesus did not
give until his appearance before the Sanhedrin, and then at the
cost ofthis life; to himself it was a means of realising and
teaching that the child of human parents, by nature weak,
destined by God to be the ruler of the world, may before his
investiture with Messianic power be obliged to suffer and die.

Accepting the view that dar-ndi was used and
meant simply ‘man,’ ‘the man,’ Gunkel (ZW7%.
1899, pp. 5817, Vierte Buch Ezra, 347 [1900])
maintained that ‘the man' was a secret title of the
Messiah used in Apocalyptic circles, and originating in
Babylonian mythology.

Like Gunkel, Fiebig (Der Menschensohr, 61 ΠΣ [1901]) re-
garded ‘the man” as a familiar designation of the Messiah ; but as
his philological examination had led to the conclusion that ΜΦΥΊΩ
was understood in Galilee at the time of Jesus as meaning also
‘man, he ingeniously argued that the phrase was intentionally
used in an ambiguous manner, so that the hearers might believe
that he (Jesus) was speaking of man in general, or of the man”
πτῆσιν the Messiah as a third person—whilst in reality he was
speaking of himself.

The conception of the phrase as a mystifying title
into which Jesus poured the contents of his peculiar
«., Messianic consciousness was naturally
24. Composite ja vourable to the introduction of various

1dea? combinations ; whilesome scholars were
contented with a single OT passage as the basis for
further development, others thought of several different
ideas blending into a new conception.

Thus Weizsicker conceived of a gradual revelation of Jesus'
Messianic self-consciousness, first on the prophetic side sug-
gested by Ezekiel, and then on the royal side intimated by
Dan. UD7A. 1859, ν. 7364, Ev. Gesch. 426 ff (1864).
Hausrath found in the term a combination of the heavenly
man in Dan., the man that is a little lower chan the angels in
Ps. 8, and the prophet in Ez. (7° Zesfgesch.(@), 1879, 1 480).
Wittichen introduced, in addition, the Son of man'in Énoch and
the Servant of Yahwè în 2 Is. (Die Τάδε des Menschen, 1375
11818); Nosgen (GescA. /esx, 155 δ᾽ [1891]) saw în the expres:
sfon a combination of esoteric Messiahship suggested by Daniel,
and a phase of existence through which the Messiah must pass
with its predetermined humiliation and suffering. Bartlet
(Exzos. 1892, p. 42777) also united the idea of the suffering
Senvane with that of an ideal representative of humanity and
the kingdom of God. Schnedermann (Jesu VerBindigune,
2, 1895, 206,7) combined Danielic Messiah, Fzekielic prophet,
ideal’man, and human suffering. Charles (4008 a/Enock, 312 7
[1893]) held that che true interpretation would be found if the
conception in Enoch were taken for a starting -point, its
enlargement and essential transformation in the usage of Jesus
were noted, its subsequent reconciliation to the conception of
the Servant of Yahwè were observed, and the occasional re-
miniscences of Dan. 7 were perceived. Stapfer (/ésus Christ
fendant son ministère, 3052. [1807]} combines în the expres-
Zion Ezekielic prophet and Danielic Messiah. In the indpment
of Sanday (Hastings, D£ ὃ 622 /.) the ideas of a representative
of the human race, an ideal man, and a suffering servant of
Yahwè are fused into the central idea of Messiahship. This
position is also endorsed by Driver (#6. 4582).

1 Weizsicker, Hausrath, Wittichen, Nisgen, Schnedermann,
Bartlet, Charles, Stapfer, Sanday, Driver.

4719

SON OF MAN

Whilst Weizskicker found in the customary designa-
tion of Ezekiel a means employed by Jesus for suggesting
το the prophetic character of his Messiah-
25. Prophetio ship, Vernes held that ‘Son of man”
° actually was a current prophetic title
assumed by Jesus to indicate that, like John the Baptist,
he was a herald of the coming kingdom, and sub-
sequently merged into the Danielic ‘Son of man' by
the Church (/4%5 mess. 178). This view has been
carried out most consistently by Cary (Te Synopric
Gospels, 360 f [1900]} who maintains thai by this
term Jestùis intended to announce himself as a prophet
sent to warn his people of the danger which threatened
them if they did not turn from their evil ways.
It was not unnatural that the thought should arise
that the ‘Son of man,' of whom Jesus is represented as
somation having habitually spoken in the third
26, Desigmation person, was an ideal or spirit not
ideal future identica with, though closely related
Mesciehehi ΘΟ to, his own immediate self.
ΘΒΕΙΒΩΒΏΙΡ, ΟΥ̓͂Σ Rrickner(//27%. 1886, p. 272)suggested
indwelling that Jesus who, in his judgment, never
genius? = used'the term before the episode at
Cesarea, when predicting the return of
the Son of man, thought not of his own personality, of
the man Jesus, but rather of the ideals with which he had
identified himself. A. Réville (/6sus de Nazareth, 2190 ff
[1897]) concluded from Mk. 21028 and Mt.25 that in the
thought of Jesus the phrase designated something more than
an individual son, though this individual be Jesus himself,
that ît was a personification of a principle transcendent above,
and immanent in, all the persons making up the sum total
of humanity, and only applied to Jesus in so far as he
identified himself with this principle.” According to Joh.
Weiss (Predigt Jesu, τὰ ff [1892]; Nack/oige Christi, 33f
[1875]}, Jesus used the term to indicate his future position.
When he should retur upon the clouds, he would be the Son of
man referred to by Daniel. In the sayings concerning the
death of the Son of man, he taught objectively that the coming
Messiah must suffer and die; in Mt.1l19 1613 Lk.734 the
title has been substituted for original ‘1’; in MK.2 1028 the
hilological explanation resumed by Lagarde, Rahlfs, and Well.
Ransen (see $ 29) should be appiled (ep alto Predig? /esu),
1900, pp, τόρ 7, 201 25, where the interpretation of some
passages is slightly modified) [ἢ harmony with bis exegesis
of Dan.713, Grill (Ze., 57/7) comes to the conclusion that
Jesus more ‘or less distincily conceived of- himself as being
“iymamicaliy identified with the highest principle of revelation,
the angelic hypostasis introduced by Daniel, and that the
original text read ἐγώ ἴῃ Mk. 2 τὸ and ὁ ἄνθρωπος in Mk. 228.

When the interpretation of Daniel's ‘Son of man*
asa symbol of a coming ideal society had won its way
. . _ to wide recognition, the suggestion

27. Designation 1ay near at hand that Jesus may have

of ‘kingdom used it himself in the same sense.
of heaven*? Hoekstra maintained that Jesus indi.
cated not himself by this term, but the
new religious community to which the kingdom was to be
given (De senaming de σον: des Menschen, x866). Carpenter
(First Three Gospels, 1890, p. 383.7.) held that Jesus employed
ît as an emblem of the kingdom of righteousness, and that
his followers, impressed with the conviction that he was che
Messiah, understood it in a personal sense, and gave such a
colouring to his reported utterances as accorded with this
assumption. Drummond (/7%,S% zgor) thinks that Jesus may
have regarded it as an expression for the ideal people of God,
and for himself as head of this class, giving to it the same
primarily collective, subsequently individual, sense that the

Jervant of Yahwè has.

Whilst many scholars failed to make any distinction
between the words actually uttered by Jesus, and the
τον, sayings ascribed to him by the evan-

38. Grentiol pelists, and some were content with
evangelista 2? indicating passages of doubtful authen-
ticity, others felt the necessity for a

more searching criticism. As a more correct estimate
of the Fourth Gospel spread, the tendency developed
in many cireles to lean all the more heavily on the
synopties. ΙΕ is largely the merit of Bruno Bauer and
Volkmar to have applied the same measure to all the
gospels, explaining each as a didactie work written for
a definite purpose, and naturally reflecting the religious

1 Bruno Bauer, Volkrmar, Jacobsen, Pfleiderer, Martineao,
Cone, Oort, Van Manen, Baljon, Brandt, Wrede.

4720

SON OF MAN

thought of the author and the men among whom he
lived. From this point of view B. Bauer reached the
conclusion that Jesus never called himself ‘ Son of man”
(Nritik d. ev. Gesch. 3 [1842] 1/7), and Volkmar was
led to the view that it was an original creation of Mk.

But was really Mk. the originator of it? Colani (/éus
Christ, 140 [1864}} had seen that Mk. 13.6.35 (Mt, 24 4-38 Lk.
2}18.36) was ‘a veritable Apocalypse Jacking nothing essential to
this species of composition.’ According to Jacobsen this was
the door through which the expression entered into the gospels,
whilst it was still absent in the original form of Mk. (Unzersuchk*
ungen fiber die syn. Evo. 64, [1883]; Prot. Airchenzeitung,
1886, Ὁ. 6637). PHieiderer (γεν ἐνέ, 366, 387 [1887]) also in
clined to look upon the word as of foreign Apocalyptic origin,
not used by Jesus himself. Convinced that Jesus did not put
forth any Msssianic claims, Martineau explained the occasional
use of the term by Jesus as F. C. Baur (8 21) had done, but
ascribed to the Evaùgelists the conception of it as a Messianic
tile (Seat ef Authority, 535.2} 890}. Orello Cone (New
IWorl, 492 Κ᾽ [1803}} also looked upon the Apocalyptic passages
ns the channel through which ‘Son of Man’ as a Messianic
title found its way into the gospel, though he still thought of
Jesus as having used it to denote that he was ‘the man who
was pre-eminently endowed from on high.’

In H, L. Oort's dissertation (De nifdrubbing ὁ vl r.d.
in het NT, 1893) the Messianic significance of the term
in the Greek NT was strongly maintained ; its origin
was sought in Dan. and the later Apocalypses, whence
it was taken by the evangelists, and no effort was made
to trace any of the sayings back to Jesus. Van Manen
(7%. 7, 1893, p. 544; 1894, p. 177 7.) discountenanced
in principle any attempt to go behind the written
records, and ascribed to the influence of Dan. and
Enoch the introduction of the term as a Messianic title
in the gospels; a view also adopted by Baljon (Grietisck-
Theologisch Woordentoek, 2960). Brandt's position was
fundamentally the same as Volkmar's; but he added the
important suggestion that the identification of Jesus
with Daniel's *Son of man' would be most natural,
if this Apocalyptic figure had been recently introduced
(Evangelische Geschichte, 562 δὲ [1893]). It was prob-
ably the Messianic interpretation, however, not Dan. 7
itself, as (following Lagarde) Brandt was inclined to
think, that was of recent origin. ‘Thus a deep chasm
was found between the gospels and the actual words of
Jesus, over which no man could pass with any degree of
assurance. How completely this exclusive regard for
the Greek gospels tended to crowd into the background
the whole question concerning the Son of man, may be
seen in the important discussion of the Messianic secret
by Wrede {Das Messiasseheîmnis [1901]), in which it is
scarcely touched upon, except that he expresses a doubt
whether a play upon words can have been intended in
Lk. 944, on the ground that the solemn title ‘Son of
Man’ and not ‘man’ is contrasted with “ men.”

1f this in itself perfectly legitimate literary criticism
had the tendency of leading to a wholly negative result,
or at best a z0% Ziguet, as regards the

29. Fresh” use of the title by Jesus, there was at
Teconrse #0 10,51 2 possibility that this result was
the Aramaic.

due to a serious defect in the method
pursued—viz., the failure to examine the reported
sayings in what must have been approximately their
form in the vernacular of Jesus, if spoken by him.
With the multiplicity of new and complicated problems
claiming the attention of students of early Christian
literature and the apparent necessity for a division of
labour, it is not strange that even eminent NT scholars
should have devoted indefatigable labours to what at
best could be only translations of the words of Jesus
without ever inquiring what the Aramaic sentences were
that he actually uttered, whiîst OT scholars to whom
such a question would naturally occur hesitated to enter
a field no longer familiar to them. ‘The chief signifi-
cance of Lagarde's and Wellhausen's contributions to
the problem lies in the fact that it was again approached
from the standpoint of Semitic philology. Positively,

the gain was not great at fîrst.
Uloth had only renewed the old explanation of the ration-
alistic school (Godeeleerie bijdrazen; 1862, p. 4675). Lagarde,

4721

SON OF MAN

like Uloth, saw that Jesus must have used dar-ndfE and
thought his purpose was to indicate that he was not a Jew, nor
the member of any nation, but a man (Dewssche Schri/fen,
226 [1878], Ges. 144, 26). Wellhausen held that dar-nas@
should have been translated ὁ ἄνθρωπος, but found it exceedingly
strange that Jesus should have said ‘the man' instead of ‘I,
though he righty felt that it was not more peculiar than the
currently accepted view that he said ‘the Messiah” instead of
‘I° (/sraelitische u, fila. Geschichfe,() 312 [1894]), 1. Weiss,
following Rahifs, wisely returned to Grotius's exegesis of
Mk 28; but the improbability of his eschatological ex-

planation (see $ 26) let the problem still unsolved.
What was needed was a search for the Aramaic
original that should at the same time take’ account of
. the results of literary criticism secured

CI

ὧο βεεὶβ τὸ 1DY such scholars as Druno Bauer,
arr na: Volkmar, and Van Manen, as well as
formation by a Baur, a Ritschl, and a Holsten, a

keener analysis of the apocalyptic
sources, and a thorough investigation of the Gnostic
attitude to this title. It is to be regretted that Bruins,
who acutely criticised Oort's failure to consider the
Aramaic usage (7%. 7, 1894, p. 646 f.), did not follow
up his own suggestions. The scope of De Christus
naar de Ev. (1896) possibly prevented a discussion.

Eerdmans first combined the general position of Van
Manen and Oort with the assertion that in Mt, 12832
1613 Jesus used der-24% in the sense of ‘man.’ He
could not find in 3a,-rd}4 a Messianic title, nor think
that Jesus regarded himself as the Messiah. Yet he
considered it probable that on some occasions Jesus
used the term concerning himself in emphatically
declaring to those who would see in him something
more than a man, that he was only a man as well as
they. As to the origin of the Greek phrase as ἃ
Messianic title, he thought it possible that it arose
through the peculiar form of the Greek translation ; and
the absence of this title everywhere in early Christian
literature except where there was evidence of acquaint-
ance with the gospels, he accounted for by assuming
that it was everywhere a translation of an Aramaic
original (ΤΆ. 7, 1894, p. 153/7, 1895, p. 497).

The view that Jesus zever called himself ‘the Son of
man,’ indicates that he was either the Messiah, the
ideal man, or a mere man; that, nevertheless, the
development of this term into a Messianic title was in
part due to his having spoken upon some occasions
concerning the rights and privileges of ‘man,* using the
word sar πᾶξα in such a startling manner as to create,
contrary to his intention, the impression among later
interpreters that he had referred to himself, and that
through the Greek translation of the Synoptic Apocalypse
it found its way into the gospels, was first expressed by
the present writer in a paper read before the Society for
Biblical Literature and Exegesis în 1895, and published
in 7821537 On independent grounds it was con-
sidered that only four sayings containing the phrase
placed before the incident at Coesarea can be judged
genuine—viz., Mt. 820 96 12832. A statement of
universal validity to the effect that ‘man must pass
away, but he will rise again, was supposed to have
received later colouring in what were misunderstood as
predictions of Jesus' death and resurrection after three
days; and it Was thought possible that in Mt. 2664
Jesus spoke of the kingdom of heaven referring to
Daniel's symbol.

Arnold Meyer (Jesu Mutfersprache, gx 91, 140 ff [1896))

briefly indicated his belief that in Mk.210 28 Mt. 1232 an
original darnasa meaning ‘man’ was used, that in Mt. 820 it
stood for “I,'and that in Mt. 11 19 it should be translated ‘some
one.’ He deferred the discussion of the eschatoiogical passages
to a second part of his work which has not yet appeared, But
from later utterances (Die moderne Forschung εἶδεν die Geschk,
des Christentums, 75 [1898] and 7%.Lit.Z. 1898, col. 272) it
inay be inferred εἰπὲ ἐπ some piaces he thinks it possible that
the ‘coming of the Son of mam” actually spoken of by Jesus
was identical with the ‘ coming of the kingdom of heaven." He
also brought to light the forgotten labours of Génébrord and
Bolten, and called fresh attention to the exegesis of Grotius.

Lietzmann {Der Menschensohn [1896]) first observed
that there are no traces of the title outside of the

4722

SON OF MAN

Gospels and Acts before Marcion, and surmised that
it originated in Asia Minor between the death of Paul
and the year 90 A.b. (On the latter point see $ 43.)
In regard to the use of der-2dii by Jesus, Lietzmann
reached independent conclusions that approximated
most closely to those of the present writer, from
whom he differed chiefly in not being able to assume a
basis in the language of Jesus for the subsequently
modified sayîngs concerning his death and resurrection
(see $ 40), while he rejected Kerdmans' view that Jesus
occasionally used it to denote himself He was also
disinclined to accept Meyer's contention that the
occurrence of the phrase in some of the eschatological
passages sheuld be traced back to Jesus, without
desiring, however, to pass a judgment in this matter
beyond the general conclusion that Jesus did not call
hiniself "the Son of Man’ (7%, Ardeiten aus d, Rhein.
Pred. Ver. [1899]).

The theory stated above was accepted and defended
by Wellhausen (Gesc4.0) 381 [1897]; Skiazen, 6187 ΚΣ
31. Defence of [1899]. He thought it probable that
this theory.! Jesus once {Mk. 1032-34) expressed

TY. apprehensions as to the outcome of his
visit to Jerusalem ; but, as the exact wording cannot be
ascertained, he deemed it impossible to determine
whether the term dar-ndia was used. As the source
was Dan. 7 13, he regarded it as possible that already the
Aramaic term dar-nefi had come to be understood in
some circles as a designation of the Messiah.

Phleiderer (New Word, 444.97 [1899]) also adopted the view,
which was not far from his own earlier position, (On his in-
genious theory concerning Lk. 2236-39 see $ 40.) Marti (Das
Buch Daniel, 53 [190]) indicated his acceptance, On the
linguistic side, Bevan came to the defence against Dalman
(Critical Rev. 1899, pp. 148), and Néldeke added the weight
of his approval (in Drummond, 4e.).

Adopting Wrede's position, Staerk (/ret. Monatsk.,
1902, p. 297,7) sees in the mysterious name ‘Son of
Man' a creation of early Christian anti-Jewish polemics,
having one root in some misunderstood A&y:a such as
Mk. 210 etc., and intended to veil the Messiahship of
Jesus during his lifetime, Such a conscious intention
he finds in the fact that men to whom der-ndf in the
sense of ‘man’ must have been familiar slavishly trans-
lated it with ἃ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου.

Holtzmann (N77%., 1897, pp. 246 75) finds it im-
possible, in view of the accumulating material and

τ Philological difficulties, to pronounce

82. Partial peremptorily against this theory, and is

agreement. inclined to accept it so far as the pre-

pi . © pi
Cresarean passages are concerned, while presenting as
a still available alternative the view of Holsten. Fries
(Det fjirde evangeliet, 87 Κ᾽ {1898]) reaches the con-
clusion that the term was used by Jesus only on rare
occasions to avoid the personal pronoun, and not ina
purely Messianic sense, while through En., where it
only means ‘man,’ it was introduced as a Messianic
title in the Synoptics (cp $ 28).

It is scarcely probable that a new investigation of 2%?
Cnbu) or '2442 4415 (‘n inn) as a substitute for Jesus in
certain Talmudic writings would throw any light on our
question, as Fries thinks; Eliezer no doubt said gv in Poma
668. The extensive reading of Fiebig (Der Menschensohr,
1901), including large parts of the Talmud not before examined
in regard to this phrase, corroborated the opinions on which the
theory rested, Fiebig recognised the essential accuracy of the
observations made by the present writer (p. 59), and his criticism
of Wellhausen was scarcely judicious. When the latter scholar
affirmed that the Arameans had no other word for the individual
of the human species than ὀαγοιάξα, he evidently did not mean
to deny that words originally having another meaning, such as
gabrà and ‘nata, in course of time came to be used also with

that significance, as is clear from S4izzex, 6 196 n. (1899). The
only word relevant to this discussion, however, is one that could
have been translated ὁ υἱὺς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, and the only such
word in Aramaic is Sar-ndfà, since expressions like #7e4 dé
gabra (N91 MI), δ᾽ γοὰ di nata (ant MI); and δ᾽ »,σὰ di-bar-
nASA (RYIII MIS), manifestly originated as Christian transla-
tions of the Greek term ; but dar-w&5@ is the only Aramaic word
that denotes the individual of the genus man and nothing

1 Wellhausen, Plleiderer, Marti, Bevan, Noldeke, Staerk.
4723

SON OF MAN

else. As the materia] considered by Fiebig clearly indicates,
and as this scholar himself unhesitatingly concludes, that Jesus
employed the term der-rdi4 (ΜΝ ΦΥΊΣ) and that this was naturally
understood by his hearers to mean * man” în general, his further
assumption that Jesus meant by it himself as the Messiah
appears somewhat hazardous. 1f Jesus was willing to have his
hearers infer that he cherished such bold and original ideas as
that man for whose sake the sabbath was made was also lord of
the sabbath and that any man, not merely a priest by virtue of
his office, has a right to pardon sin, why ascribe to himself asan
arrière fensée the narrower and less logical conception that he
alone as the Messiah was lord of the sabbath and had the right
to pardon sin? If he at all entertained such a thought, it
cannot have appeared to him unimportant, and it is difficult to
see how he could have been willing to spread what in that
case would have been a dangerously false impression by an
ambiguous use of language. Oscar Holtzmann (Ledex /ese,
1/28 7 [x901]) accepts the proposed exegesis of Mt. 820 Mk.
2 1028 and Lk. 9 58, but thinks it probabie that Jesus used the
expression on many occasions to indicate his acquiescence in
man's general lot, and to teach objectively concerning the
Messiah which he believes himself to be.

Because of its far-reaching implications (see $ 46), it
was natural that the explanation stated above should
‘tr, meet with much opposition Van
e Manen (Ze. ) rightly protested against
‘acholare, the tendency to assume a genuine utter-
“ance behind every saying attributed to
Jesus in the synoptics, and to forget the peculiar
character and manifestly late origin of these writings.
But since even within the synoptics it is often possible
to trace a growth from a simpler form to one unques-
tionably coloured by later thought, the investigator
certainly has the right to assume that this develop-
ment did not begin in our present gospels. ΒΥ testing
a certain word in an approximation to the Aramaic
form it must have had if uttered by Jesus, an entirely
different sense is not seldom suggested that may
readily have been obscured by a natural mistake in
translation, or an €qually natural doctrinal bias. As
to Mt, 1613 7, van Manen is probably in the
main right {see 8 39), as well as in upholding the
Messianic significance of the Greek term everywhere,
and in rejecting the survival of Baur's position in
Eerdmans. On Hilgenfeld's argument based upon
the Gospel according to the Hebrews, see $ 42. The
fact that Dalman (Zc.) could find no other Aramaic
term likely to have been used by Jesus than δα»: πε,
and recognised the improbability of this having been a
Messianic title, is more significant than his contention
that dar-naid in the sense of ‘man’ was a Syriac
innovation and not likely to have been thus understood
in Galilee in the time of Jesus,
Dalman may, indeed, have indicated a real tendency of

Aramaic speech in Syria ; but the remains of its various dialects
are too scanty and late to determine whether the development
was from an earlier Sar-nd$@ to a less accurate use of αν or
‘nata for “man, ‘der Mensch, a view favoured by the general
spread of Aramaic from Mesopotamia and N. Syria southwards,
or from an earlier geda» or ‘nai to a later Bar-'ndf But
Bevan's point that the various uses of ᾿πῦξ and dar-'nz$ which
appear concuzrently in Syriac are all found in one or another of
che Palestinian dialects and that no Palestinian dialect emplo,

any of these forms in a sense unknown in Syriac, is certainly
well taken; and Wellhausen rightiy feels that Dan. 7 13 is itself
decisive (cp also Fiebig, and usage in £2. Zfier., above $ 4, ii

The authority of so accomplished a student of
Palestinian Aramaic as Dalman naturaliy influenced
other scholars. Baldensperger (7%. Aundsckaw, 1900,
p. zo1 7.) expressed his satisfaction with the final
defeat of the philological explanation, and hinted at
undue philosophical prepossessions. Rush Rhees (762
1796) also thought that the present writer was hampered
by the prejudgment that Jesus cannot have made for
himself at the outset any supernatural claims. This,
however, was not the case, as the conviction that Jesus
did not cherish a desire to become even a righteous
king, a divinely appointed ruler of Israel and the
nations, was not the starting-point but the rather un-
expected result of a long series of investigations.
Klopper {ZW7%. 1899, p. 161 7.) accepts the validity
of Schmiedel's arguments (see $ 34), and thinks that

4724

SON OF MAN

Jesus, already in the Galilacan period, claimed for him-
self a peculiar kind of Messiahship by the Danielic title.
He deems it probable that Jesus looked upon his
victory over Satan in Mt. 41 7 as a realisation of the
slaging of the beast in Dan. 7 1x 26. It is difficult to sce
what ethical content could have been given to a figure
which everybody understood to mean the establishment of
the empire of the Jews that could not also have been
given to the current Messianic ideal, Clemen
(7LZ, 1899, col. 489) asks why dar-néîi cannot
have been a Messianic title at the time of Jesus as well
as later, The answer is that there is no evidence
whatever that Sar-ndfZ was ever used as a Messianic
title. ‘There is reason to believe that Jesus on some
occasions used it in the sense it commonly and ex-
clusively has in extant Aramaic literature, In these
instances it has been wrongly translated in the Gk.
Gospels by a title not yet drawn from Dan. when Rev.,
4 Ezra, and the interpolations in En. 37-71 were written
in the reign of Domitian.!

‘The most serious objection of Krop (La pensée de
Jésus, 1897) is derived from the presence of the title in
predictions of Jesus” death and resurrection. How was
the title brought from the eschatological series into so
different a setting? It may be answered that when
once utterances concerning the Son of man had been
placed upon the lips of Jesus, and the expression conse-
quently understoorl as a self-designation, it may readily
have been substituted for ‘1,’ as the vacillating tradition
in many places indicates, and adopted in the creation of
new oracles. It is probable, however, that a genuine
utterance of Jesus was misunderstood and made the
foundation of these logia (see $ 40).

Gunkel's opposition (/.c.) comes from his strong con-
viction that ‘the man’ is a mythological figure.

As to the personality to whom Dan., Enoch, and 4 Ezra
refer, he îs no doubt right in assuming an ultimate Babylonian
origin. . l'he conflict berween Marduk and Tiîmat became
in Judaism one between Vahwè and the great chaos-monster.
What was first ascribed to Yahwè himself was subsequently
assigned to an angel. After the destruction of the_ beast,
this celestial representative of Israel comes in Dan.7T with
the clouds τὸ receive the world-empire. The development
of the Messianic idea (cp Schmidt, Sox ef Mar, chap. 6)
led to a transfer of these functions to the Messiah. But
that the heavenly king, described like other angels as having
the appearance, of a man, was known as “the man,’ lacks all
plausibility. Designations suggesting character or ‘function—
such as ‘the chosen one,’ ‘the just one,' ‘the restorer, ‘the
bridegroom,' ‘the lamb'—are intelligible; ‘the man on the
clouds’ would point to Dan. 7 13, and titles signifying this, like
‘1337 (Trg. to 1 Ch. 324) and vbama (Ser, 968), were indeed
formed, as Eerdmans has shown; but, neither in Babylonian
mythology, nor in Jewish speculation, i is it likely that an im
portant personage was referred to merely as ‘the man, ‘the
human being.”

Ax objection is raised by Rose (Rev. 432, 1900, pp.
169 7): the close connection between the kingdom and
the Son of man render it probable that Jesus, to whom
the former idea was of such importance, also occupied
himself with the latter. Two facts, however, are not
sufficiently considered in this view. Intense specula-
tions concerning the kingdom and the world to come
are frequently found without any allusion to a
Messiah, and this is readily accounted for by the hope
centring on God himself as the sole deliverer of his
people and judge of the world. When Drummond
{Ze.) appeals to the independent tradition of Jn. and to
the fact that ‘the apostles must have known whether
their Master spoke of himself in the way recorded in the
gospels or not,' it is to be said that acquaintance with
the synoptics on the part of the Fourth Evangelist can
scarcely be doubted, that the peculiar use of the term in
his gospel (see $ 45) does not point to an independent
tradition, and that the synoptic gospels were written too
late to reflect, even on points more important than

1 On the argument for an earlier existence of the title drawn
by Charles from Enoch 37-71 (Mist. gf Doctr. ef Future Life,
2147 [1889]), see $ 7.

151 4725

SON OF MAN

this, what the apostles must have known, as Drummond
himself would no doubt admit. His weightiest objec-
tion is that the Church would have preferred to invent
some higher title. But the impression left upon an
ancient reader of Dan. 7 13 was not that of a frail mortal,
but rather that of a resplendent celestial being; and
the title was not invented, it grew. Driver (1. ς.} recog-
nises that all such considerations would have to yield,
‘ifit were philologically certain that '‘the son of man”
conld not have been an expression used by our Lord.’
That dar-ndfi should not have been understood as
‘man’ in Galilee in the first century, although it was so
used in the second, does not seem to him quite prob-
able. He therefore goes to the opposite conclusion that
bar-nafi = ‘man’ may have been so exceedingly common
that for emphasis Jesus was obliged to use the term
b'reh dé-nafi, meaniug ‘the Son of man.’ But this
Christian translation of d υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, intelligible
only as a product of dogmatic necessity, would not
have been understood as ‘the Son of man’ but as ‘the
son of the Man.'. Realising the precariousness even of
this assumption, he finally quotes with approval
Sanday's opinion that «Jesus may have introduced the
term upon some occasion when he was addressing hi
Aramaic-speaking fellow-men in—Greek! It is not easy
to believe that this Son of man who went forth to seek
and to save that which was lost presented to his
Galilaean fishermen riddles concerning himself in a
foreign tongue.

Even the suggestion of Jansen quoted by Weiss (Predief
ει, ἢ) 155) that Jesus used the Hebrew term den-24421, though
less violent, lacks all probability. It is not apparent why he
should have translated Sar-nds@ into der-adam, which was not
a Messianic title and could not possibly suggest Dan. 7 13.

The keenest criticism of the new interpretation has
been made by Schmiedel (Pror. A/ozazsk., 1898, pp.

94, Belmiederra 2527 2912. 1901. pp 3335).

criticiam. e is unquestionably right in laying
ti down the principle that ‘absolute
credibility should be accorded to that which cannot
have been invented by a tradition replete with venera-
tion for Jesus because contradicting it, and most clearly
in instances where, among the evangelists themselves,
one or another has actually effected a transformation
out of reverence for Jesus.® Strangely enough, this
acute critic has failed to perceive that, if the interpreta-
tion based on the Aramaic is admitted, the passages in
question furnish most valuable illustrations of his
principle. Has a man the right to assure his fellow-
man that his sins are pardoned? The Pharisees assert
that God alone can pardon sin. Jesus affirms that man
has the right to do so. This thought was too bold for
the Church to grasp. She asked, ‘Who is the man
that can pardon sins?’ and her answer was, ‘the
Christ." It was no doubt because the translator,
following the custom of the Alexandrian version,
rendered the phrase literally ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου rather
than in good idiomatic Greek ὁ ἄνθρωπος that the say-
ing was preserved at all,

It ἴ not necessary to assume that the question debated was
originally connected with a case of healing, and quite irrelevant
to ask whether Jesus thought that all men could exercise healing
pawer, nor is it at all certain that Jesus would have answered
such a question in the negative. Jesus declares that the sabbath
was made for man's sake, therefore man is also lord of the
sabbath, and the added remarks show that he regarded the
whole cult as of less importance than the. principle of love
violated in the charge made against his disciples. But a view
of the sabbath that put it wholly into the hands of man, was 100
radical for the Church. By the misleading, though probably
unintentional, turn given to the expression in Greek, she gained
the comforting assurance that the Christ was lord of the sabbath,
and would, no doubt, lend his authority to any change made in
his honour, The more in harmony with the growing veneration
for Jesus this thought is, the more value must be attached to
the earlier and so markedly different form revealed by a transla-
tion of the saying back into the original Aramaic.

In Mt. Szo Jesus used what sounds like a current epigram to
indicate the vicissitudes of human life. He thought of man's
lot, the Church instantly thought of his; and the greater the
distance between her meditation upon the humiliation of her
heavenly lord from the general outlook upon human life sug»

4726

SON OF MAN

gested by the Aramaic saging. the stronger is the presumption
In favour of the latter. "There is pardon, Jesus declares, for
anything that îs said against a man, but when the Holy Spirit
that works his mighty deeds through a man is declared to be an
evil spirit, bow cam there be forgiveness? While the Aramaic
saying suggests as the thought of Jesus, that men should be
willing to forgive whatever may be said against them, but that
it is an infinitely more serious matter to call a manifestly good
spirit possessing a man, Beelzebub; the Church found it far
easier to think that Jesus has given the gracious assurance that
he would pardon even blasphemy against himself, though he
was the Messiah, possibly because his Messianic glory was
veiled, but that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit could not be
forgiven. When the prophet's death began to appear to him as
the inevitable resuit of his career, he may have comforted his
disciples with another word of universal application: ‘man
must pass away, but he will rise again.’ Convinced by the
testimony of those who had seen him in heavenly visions that he
had risen from the dead, the Church was better prepared for the
thought that he had predicted his own death and resurrection
than that he had in simple confidence bound up his own destiny
with that of humanity. In proportion as the Aramaic sayings
thus disclosed differ from the Greek /ogia, presenting concep-
tions that do not, like the latter, ally trimeehe Ives naturally with
the developing ecclesiastical appreciation of Jesus, they become
precious evidences, both of the Ristorical character of Jesus and
of the peculiar type of bis teaching.

Schmiedel also argues the probability of an original
Messianic reference in Mk. 228 from Jesus’ attitude to
the law. He thinks that Jesus may have been led to
regard himself as the Messiah by the practical question
that he as a reformer was forced to rieet, whether the
validity of the law might be set aside. ‘The law was
intended to remain forever. If it must be changed, an
explicit authprisation by God was of course necessary.
No prophet had possessed this. It was on the whole
conceivable only in connection with the new order of
the world, the coming of the Messianic age. Conse-
quently, only one could be the divine messenger who
would dare to announce it, the Messiah.’ This in-
genious line of reasoning rests on presuppositions that
are scarcely tenable,

Jesus probably believed that Moses wrote the Pentateuch.
Yet he found in the prophetic rolis the most pointed criticism of
the cult. Prophets had in the name of God spoken against
sacrifices, temples, sabbaths, and other ordinances of the law.
He was manifestly much more influenced by the prophets than
by the law. Whilst the question of the validity of the codes
might seem one of life and death to a lawyer, it is altogether
probable that other things seemed far more important t0 the
carpenter of Nazareth. The Essenes did not regard it as
necessary to wait for che Messiah to authorise a remarkably free
attitude toward the temple service. Galilee was notorious for
what were regarded in Jerusalem as laxer conceptions. The
man of Nazareth who went forth from his carpenter's bench, as
Amos of old from his sycamore trees, is not likely to have
scrupled to follow the example of the prophets until he could

ersuade himself that he was, or was destined to become, the
Messiah for whom some of his countrymen longed.

In distinction from Ferdmans, Schmidt, and Lietz-
mann, who had looked upon the Greek translators as
the agents through whom the designation of ‘man '
became a Messianic title, Wellhausen thought it possible
that already the Aramaic der-rdfz was at one time
used with this significance. It would indeed be interest-
ing to know whether ‘Son of man’ was employed by
the Aramaic-speaking Christians in the first century,
and if so, what the form was. Unfortunately, there is
no evidence on this point,

We do not know what term în the Hebrew ‘gospel Jerome
rendered filius 4ominis, nor the age of the pericope in which he
found it. The δὲν, Aier. may well be somewhat earlier. But
its Iwo terms δ᾽ γεὰ dé-gabra and B'reh dé-bar-ndià are mani.
festly translations of ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, and only the absence of
δ᾽ γε dè-n&sà is οἵ importance as it may show that this Edessene
theological term was not used by the Palestinian Christians.
The latest interpolations in Ènoch 37-71 are of doubiful age and
provenience (sce ἢ 7). ΔΒ to the fragments of a lost apocalypse
preserved in the Synoptic gospels, there ate too many signs of
editorial activity in the first of the evangelists, or variants în
different copies of the Greek text used, to permit a safe judg-
ment particularly on the important point whether in the Aramaic
original Mt. 24 30and parallels contained the first mention of the
coming Son of man. Itis altogether possible that the usage in
this Apocalypse was analogous to that in Enoch 46 and 4 Ezra
13, the man Being first introduced and then referred to with a
demonstrative pronoun that would neturally fall away in the
Greek when the phrase was understood as a title.

4727

SON OF MAN

If Bar-ndîa had ever developed into a Messianic title
among the Christians of Palestine, there 4îd not seem
to be any reason why they should have substituted for the
term which they must then have supposed Jesus to use,
such a phrase as 3re4 d&-gubra. Schmiedel's point that,
if bar-néfa could convey to some minds the idea that
the Messiah was meant; there are no grounds, at least
so far as the language is concerned, for disputing that
it may have been so intended by Jesus and understood
by his immediate disciples, appears to the present
writer to be well taken. But it touches only an ad-
mission by Wellhausen, not necessitated by any un-
mistakable fact, If such a transformation had been
effected in Jewish-Christian circles before the end of the
first century, we should expect to find it in Rev. The
absence of the title in this Christian apocalypse, where
there were many natural occasions for using it, is far
more significant than its non-oceurrence în the epistolary
literature where some such motive as Schmiedel has
imagined may have been operative.

Until new evidence, or arguments not long ago
refuted, shall be adduced in favour of the assumption
35. Value of that Jesus spoke rete it must pe taken

the philo- for granted τὶ at le addresse: is hearers

i 1 i the Galilzean dialect of the Aramaic.
0gical When this is acknowledged, it follows of
argument. necessity that it is the duty of every
scholar before pronouncing upon the authenticity of
any saying attributed to Jesus to consider whether it may
have been wrongly trarislated. In the performance of
this duty two difficulties are met with : it is possible only
to approximate to the original, and the literary material
by which the Galilazan dialect is known apparently
does not go back farther than to the second century
A.D. On the other hand, the translation in this case is
simplified by the fact that ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου can only
be the rendering of a fotm compounded with der (52),
and further facilitated by the circumstance that of terms
that may be considered, δ᾽ κά ἐδ" καλὰ, δ᾽ γεὰ de-gabra
and d'reh de-bar-nd} must be eliminated. While all
these are manifestly Christian rendetinigs of the Greek
term, δ᾽ το dé-nd5£ was apparently not used in Palestine,
Vrék di-gabrd cannot have been formed as an allusion
to Dan.7:3 and as an original Aramaic expression
would put the emphasis on Joseph, and δ' γε dé-bar-
nadia ìs ruled out by the same considerations. The
only available term, then, is farmndali,

The examination in detail of Aramaic usage undertaken dur.
ing the last few years, valuabie as it has been, was not necessary
to reach this conclusion. But Szr-wa%? means simply ‘man,’
the individual of the human species, and is the only Aramaic
form that by îts origin and usage has solely this connotation.
Whilst the term occurs with greater frequency in the litera
remains of some dialects, there is no reason to believe that ft
was lacking in any (though even this would not be strange), and
it has the same sense wherever it is found, In Galilee it appears
to have been used more commonly than in Samaria and Judesa.
Although, in the absence of older literature, no actual occur
rence ἘΠ the term before the second century A.b. can be quoted,
there is no known fact that even remotely indicates that it was
not employed and understood to have the same menning a few
generations earlier,

The phrase translated d υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπον, therefore,
naturally conveyed the sense of ‘man.’ ‘This is pre-
cisely the most appropriate meaning in the passages
whose authenticity on other grounds is least subject to
doubt. It is quite possible that in one or another of
these sayings the indeterminate 42r’réf ‘a man, was
originally used, or that the emphatic ending bad already
lost its force. It would then imply only a natural mis-
apprehension, and no violence, ìf such an utterance as
«A man may pardon sins' should have been interpreted,
‘Even a man—viz., this man,” or “Though I am a man,
I have the right to pardon sins’ ; and the question as
to the authority involved may {so Wellhausen} have
assisted in giving the impression that Jesus referred to
himself. But from this understanding of the phrase to
the conception that Jesus designated by it his Messiah-

4728

SON OF MAN

ship the distance is very great. A person speaking
Aramaie might of course refer to a third person as ‘’The
man,' if he had already introduced him. There seems
to be no instance of this among the recorded sayings of
Jesus. Thereis not the slightest evidence that ‘the man’
was a current Messianic title, and the natural impression
upon a person to whom Aramaic was the vernacular,
that a speaker employing the term dar-ndz referred to
man in general, any man, renders it exceedingly im-
probable that this phrase, without further qualification,
can ever have been used as a designation of the
Messiah. Since, in spite of this fact, ὁ vl. 7. ἀ, is
sometimes put upon the lips of Jesus where the generic
use is out of the question, the recourse to the Aramaic
furnishes a most valuable criterion of genuineness,
But if Sar-24% meant simply ‘man,’ why was it
36. Force of translated o υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπον, i not
the Greek 9 ἄθρωπος e answer is to foun:
translation. partly in the Greek version of the OT,
and partly in the development of thought
in Greek-speaking Christian circles.

The Hebrew dex-ddz: was by ® as ἃ rule rendered υἱὸς
ἀνθρώπου (υἱὸς ἀνθρώπων Job 1621, υἱὸς γηγενοῦς many MSS
Ter. 49 33), and so also Ser-éndé in Dan. 713 (Θ and &) The
plural δε &d4, îs translated υἱοὶ ἀνθρώπων, 1 S.1819 25.714
Is.5214 Mic.56 Prov.8431 Ps.575 1462, and οἱ υἱοὶ τῶν
ἀνθρώπων, Joel 112 and frequently in Prov. } &ne Ad-dddm îs
translated di υἱοὶ ἀνθρώπων in τ K.8 39, and οἱ υἱοὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων
in Gen, 115 2 Ch, 630 Ps.3313 14512, Of most import-
ance Îs the usage in Ecclus., where the Hebrew has uniformiy
Uné ha-idam and this seems originally to have been rendered
everywhere οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (113 238 318/ 21 811 93),
οἱ νἱοὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων occurring only sporadically in MSS as a
correction and υἱοὶ ἀνθρώπον as an alternative reading in 321
(HP 147 149, AI.) It îs significant that Aquila also
has οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ dvépisrov in 811 where his text has been pre-
served. To a Greek this could scarcely have conveyed any
other idea than ‘the sons of the man,” the man being some
particular person previously mentioned. Aquila, as we
the translator of Ecclus., thought in Aramaic, had δ' τῷ ‘xd:
mind, and used ἄνθρωπος as a collective after the fashion of
ΡΝ In Dan. 521 sibbine enasa is simply rendered
ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων (@). Instead of following this example and
rendering derma by è ἄνθρωπος, che Christian translator
adopted the more common custom observed in the Greek version
and particularly what seems to have been its most recent form
seen in Ecclus.

A Hellenistic Jew familiar with Aramaic would,
therefore, be quite likely to divine behind d υἱὸς τοῦ
ἀνθρώπου an original Zar-nd5d, whilst a Greek, naturally
inquiring who the ἄνθρωπος was, would be puzzied by
the expression. If this conceivably caused a hesitancy
în some minds to employ it, it certainly was to many
an additional reason for its use. The air of mystery
surrounding it made it peculiarly fitting as a Secret
intimation of Messiahship. It is manifest that the
phrase is not a fresh translation of a Semitic original in
every place where it occurs. Possibly this is not the
case anywhere. It may have been cmployed in oral
teaching and în earlier writings before any of our
gospels were written, and adopted by the evangelists as
an already current designation. ‘The use of ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ
ἀνθρώπου, not only in passages where the employment
in the Greek Rible of ἄνθρωπος as if it were a collective
like 'n@fi rendered it possible to see through it a dar
ndfî in the ordinary sense of ‘ man,’ but also where this
would have been impossible, inevitably leads to the con-
clusion that it may be necessary to distinguish between
passages having different claims to authenticity.

‘The idea that we possess in the Synoptic gospels
acerate transcripis of the words of Jesus is already

37. Need of abandoned when the 69 occurrences are
literary leduced to 39, 40, or 42 by eliminating
ervniza what are deemed unmistakable duplicates,
eriticism. por if
or if the 22 passages (see 8 12) thus
duplicated are examined, a substantial agreement is
indeed found, but not absolute identity, and the differ-
euces are sometimes such as cannot be accounted for
by a more or less accurate rendering of an assumed
Aramaic original.

4729

SON OF MAN

In the case of the 17 passages found only in Mt. or
Lk., some are obviously duplicates of sayings already
recorded within these gospels, others have synoptic
parallels in which the phrase does not occur, and others
still are manifestly later glosses. While d priori there
is no reason to question the possibility of a genuine
utterance having been preserved only in one gospel, on
examination the decidedly secondary character of all
these seventeen instances becomes apparent.

Not only is Mt. 1023 without a parallel in Lk. 12 11,7, but the
whole section Mt. 1017-25 predicting the sufferings of the
apostles reflects a time when the missionary activity of the
Church was still confined to Israel. The allegorical interpreta-
tion of the parable of the tares, found only in Mt. 18 37-47, shows
the strong feeling against Antinomianism în the early Church
but also the wisdom with which some of her leaders left the
ponishment of heretics for the Messiah when he should appear,
It is generally recognised that the Evangelist wrote this com-
mentary. On Mt.1613, see 8 39. In Mt.1628 the ‘Son of
Man' coming in his kingdom has probably taken the place of
‘the kingdom of heaven, as is suggested by 27, where ‘the
kingdom of God’ is used, and Mk. 97, where it îs expanded into
‘the kingdom of God already come with power. When Mt.
19 28£. is compared with Lk. 18-29 and Mk, 1020, it is clearly scen
that each evangelist has modified the utterance or registered a
peculiar tradition While Lk, seems to be nearer the original,
the omission of ‘lands’ is in harmony with his general attitude,
and ‘kingdom of God” is his synonym for the more idiomatic
‘kingdom of heaven.” Instead of ‘for the sahe of the kingdom
of heaven,” Mk. has ‘for my seke and for the gospel's sake,
specifies the future blessings, and significantly adds ‘with perse-
cutions’; Mt. introduces the answer by 2, 28 and has ‘for my
name's sake.” ff “the sign of the Son of man’ in Mt.
24 20€ had formed a part of the original apocalypse, it is likely
to have been preserved by Mk. and Lk. (see $ 41). ‘The com-
mentators have not yet discovered what the sign fs. Was it a
flame of fire (2 Thess, 18) or a cross? Im either case, this
additional feature would not be very old. On Mt, 3531, see
$ 41. The statement of a fact (Mk. 141 Lk. 223,7) has been
changed into a prediction in Mt. 262. Instead of “for the sake
of the Son of man’ in Lk. 622, ΜῈ, ὅτι has ‘for my sake,’ but
even this is a later addition. When Lk. 128 is compared
with Mt.1032 it is apparent that κἀγώ in the latter place is
more original than the title, but also that the whole verse is
secondary. Lk,17 20-22 is not in harmony with what follows,
and Pauî, Wernle, and Holtzmann have rightly pointed out the
disenchantment of the Church expressed in 17 22. Jilicher
(Gieichnisreden Jesu, 288) recognises that Lk. 1885 is a late
addition similariy expressing the painfel disappointment as
regards the parousia. The Feaucitoi comment, Lk. 1910, may
be this evangelist's tribute to Jesus, or an interpolation in this
place as in Mt.1811, The exhortation, Lk. 2134-36, is_un-

doubtedly, as Wernle (Syn. Fzage, 17) observes, the Work of
Lk. himself. Holtzmann thinks that Llc. 2248 is also a creation

Mt, 26 go may originally have had as a variant ‘Why dost thou
betray (rape for παραδιδως} friend?” ©’ Two men in dazzling
raiment, evidently angels, remind the women in Lk, 277 that
Jesus had predicted the death and resorrection of the son of
iman. Addresses by angels do not belong to history. How
little Lk. cared for mere verbal accuracy is seen in the fact that
the quotation made by the angel does not quite correspond to
any prediction recorded.

A study of these passages shows with what freedom
sayings of Jesus were certainly modified and apparently
created,

If words occurring only in one gospel are naturally
somewhat more open to suspicion than those found in
two or three, it must be remembered, on the other
hand, that the presumption in favour of genuineness
does not necessarily increase by duplication, as it may
only imply the copying of one evangelist by another or
the use of a common source. The reliability of any
saying must then ultimately depend upon the general
trustworthiness of the document where it first appeared
or the current of tradition it registered.

To assume, as many scholars do, that the evangelica] tradition
has been preserved in its purity in Mk. is to draw a very rash
conclusion from the doubtful theory of Mk.'s priority. The
fact that no passage containing the phrase is found in Mk. that
is not also found in Mt., or Lk., or both, only shows that Mk.
remained free from some of the later additions to the other
Synoptics. It often happens, however, that it is the text of
higher age and greater prestige that because of its wider use is
most enriched in that way. Thusour best Greek MS of Ecclus.

4730

SON OF MAN

has the greatest number of interpolations, while far_inferior
MSS are relatively free from additions to the text (see Schmidt,
* Ecclesiasticus' in Zesz6le Bible).

The evidence of later expansions of Mt., most clearly
presented by Hilgenfeld, is constantly increasing, and
new indications of similar aceretions io the original Lk.
already suggested by Marcion’s gospel, are forthcoming,
The assumption that Mk.'s conception of Jesus' attitude
to the Messiahship was different from that of Mt, and
Lk. and more historical can scarcely maintain itself
after Wrede's criticism. As the prejudice in favour of
Mk., based on a shorter text and a supposed correcter
view of Jesus career, is removed, and the different
versions Of each saying are compared and tested in their
presumable Aramaic form, an impartial survey of the
facts will show at once how far all the synoptics are
from reflecting accurately the words of Jesus without
losing touch altogether with the oldest tradition, and in
what sense the earliest testimony as to the succession of
these gospels, representing the order as Mt., Mk., and
Lk., is to be accepted. It will then be seen that there
are passages in Mt. and Lk., not found in ΜΚ,, that
may go back to original sayings of Jesus; that the
only passage found in Mk. and Lk., but not in Mt,
cannot be regarded as authentic; that there is no
genuine saying preserved in Lk. that is not also found
in Mt.; that there are passages in Mk. as well as in
Mt. and Lk, that are clearly of very late origin ; and
that there are passages in Mk. as well as in Mt. and
Lk. in which the phrase may go back to an original
dar-nafG even after the episode at Cresarea Philippi.

Among the eight passages found only in Mt. and Lk., Mt.
8 20 (Lk. 9 58), 11/19 (7 34), and 12324 (12 102) probably go back
to original utterances of Jesus (see $ 38); 1240 (11 30) is an
interpolation particularly clumsy in Μετ.) 2427 37 39(17 242630)
belong to the synoptic apocalypse (see $ 41), ἀπά 29 44 (12 46) is
recognised by Jùlicher (Lc. 2142/07) as a later gloss. Among
the five found in Mt. and Mk., Mt. 17 9 (98) refers to the vision
on the mountain. In Jesus' lifetime, not even his most intimate
disciples had had anything to relate concerning his luminous
heavenly body. Did this necessarily exclude the possibility of
a vision of this body before his death? Not to the minds of the
evangelists, since they had accustomed themselves to the
thought that Jesus had forbidden ali such disclosures concern-
ing himself before he should rise from the dead. This vision
(ὅραμα) ἴδ thus an anticipation of the vision that spread the
belief in his resurrection. The Elijah question, Mt. 17 10-13
(ΜΚ. 9.11-13), consequently had no connection originally with
What precedes; the text in Mk. is late and confused (so also
Wernle, Zc., 133), whilst that in Mt, is in good order and the
conclusion may be a rendering of ‘So must a man (yy73) suffer
by them,’ referring τὸ John the Baptist. Με. 2028 (Mk.1045)
“comments retrospectively on the exemplification în the life and
death of Jesus of the principle he has just laid down. ΕΚ.
22 27-30 is'a later and less valuable interpretation that curiously
misunderstands the thought that Jesus wished to convey. Mt.
26 248 (Mk. 14 218) occurs în an interpolation which breaks the
connection between 26 212 and 26 (14 18 and 22) with an account
that has been placed by Lk, at the end (2221-23) and even there
is probably unbistorical. The occurrence of the phrase in Mt.
2645 (Mk. 14 41), not found în Lk. where the connection is
better, is no doubt to be explained by the place Judas gained
in Christian legend (so Wellhausen). (On Mk. 831 [Lk. 922],
see $ 40.

Among the eight passages found in all the Synoptics, Mt. 96
(Mk. 210 Lk,524) and Mt. 128 (Mk. 2.28 Lk. 65) probably go
back to original utterances. Mt.1627 (Mk.838 ΓΚ, 926) îs
clearly a later addition, further transformed by Mk. and Lk.
Mt. 17 22 (Mk. 9 31 Lk. 9 44) and Mt. 20 τὰ (ΜΚ. 1033 Lk. 18 31)
is a prediction of his death (see $ 4o), Mt. 27 308 (Mk. 13 26
ΤΆ. 21 27) belongs to the Synoptic apocalypse (see $ 41), Mt.
26244 (Mk. 14212 Lk.2222) belongs to the interpolation con-
sidered above. The absence of disciples witnessing the scene,
the conflict with judicial practice, the absurdiîty of the false
testimony, the failure to produce any statement that a Jewish
court could have construed into blasphemy, and the contra»
dictions and evident Christian colouring render it extremely
difficult to believe in the historical character of the trial before
the Sanhedrin. (Cp Svweprium.) In Mt. 2664 Jesus answers
the question whether he is the Messiah ‘thou sayest it,’ in Lk.
2269 ‘ye say that Tam." The plain import is ‘You say that 1
am the Messiah, but 1 have made no such statement.’ It is
significant that these two evangelists should have hesitated to
put upon the lips of Jesus an affirmative answer even under
cati. So strong was the tradition that Jesus did not in his life-
time claim to be the Messiah, so firm'the conviction that he
guarded his secret to the end. They felt justified only in
ascribing to him a covert reference to the Messiah in the third

4731

1

SON OF MAN

person and with the secret name. Mk. (1462) lacks some of the
expressions in Mt. and Lk., but departs widely from the earlier
tradizion by making Jesus acknowledge his Messiahship. Cp
the searching criticism of Brandi (Εν. Gesch. 53/7).

In viewof this indispensabile literary criticism, it isofno
small importance that it is possible by turning the Greek
logia into the vernacular of Jesus to ob-

sli Genuine tain some sayings at once 50 different

ἐπ from the prevailing conceptions of the

Galilean c,rly Church and so bold and original
period.

as to raise the strongest presufnption in
favour of their genuineness. Such are, in the first
place, Mt. 96 and 12 8 (and parallels), found in all the
synoptics, In the former case the question is debated
whether a man has a right to assure another man that
his sins are pardoned. The Pharisees maintain that
God alone can pardon sin. ’They probably regarded
absolution in the name of God as a priestly function.
There is no evidence that the Jews expected the Messiah
to forgive sins, and no intimation that Jesus looked
upon this as a privilege to be exercised only by himself.
On the contrary, be enjoins his disciples to use this
power (Mt. 1818). Such a simple assurance of forgive-
ness, flowing from a living faith in a heavenly father's
love, was to Jesus no sacerdotal act, Any man hada
right to extend it.

In Mt. 128 the generic meaning is equally clear. The
disciples having eaten corn as they passed through the
field, are accused of breaking the sabbath. Jesus
defends them by quoting the example of David, who ate
of the shewbread, which, according to the law, he had no
right to do, and gave his followers permission to do so.
The point is not that David and his ‘greater son’ may
take liberties with God's law which would be wrong for
others, but clearly that so godly a man as David
recognised that the sustenance of life was in God's eyes
more important than the maintenance of the cult.
Lest this should be misunderstood, he adds another
argument, The law permits the priests to work on the
sabbath, thus regarding the commanded cessation of
labour as less important than the maintenance of divine
worship. The thought îs not that he and his had
priestly rights, for they had none, and Jesus had no
interest in the sacrificial cult, as the next statement
shows, But even from the standpoint of the law there
were things more important than the enjoined cessation
of work. Man was not made for the sabbath, but the
sabbath for man; therefore man is also lord of the
sabbath, ‘This conclusion alone is relevant to the
argument. Π it were necessary to prove that the
Messiah might break the law or authorise his disciples
to do so, how could so startling a proposition be
established by the general consideration that the sabbath
was'made for man's sake? ‘There is indeed no evidence
that the Jews expected the Messiah to violate or abrogate
the divinely given law. The very suggestion would
probably have produced a shock. If Jesus really
desired to convince his hearers that the Messiah had a
right to dispense from obedience to the law and that he
was the Messiah, he must have understood that what
was needed for that purpose was a reference to a recog-
nised Messianic passage ascribing such powers to the
Messiah or a firmly-rooted tradition to this effect, and a
straightforward presentation and vindication of his
claims, all the more necessary if he did not wish his
Messiahship to be taken in a political sense. Were it
possible that the Aramaic word he used for ‘Son of
man’ could have been interpreted as a Messianic title,
the impression left on the Pharisees would still have
been that he had defended law-breaking on the ground
that the lower, the sabbath, must yield to the higher,
man, and had made such a sweeping application of a
general principle, true enough in certain circumstances,
as would allow any man to set aside any ordinance of

God.
‘The foxes have holes, and the birds of the heavens
4732

SON OF MAN

have nests, but a man has nowhere to lay his head*
(Mt. 820) may be a proverb quoted by Jesus or an
epigram coined on the spot. In either case the scribe
no doubt saw the hint quickly. Man's life is full of
danger and uncertainty. Where will he reside to-
morrow? Nature cares for the beasts; they are not
driven from home and hearth for their convictions.
The thought probably never occurred to the scribe that
this Galilaan teacher had in the same breath announced
himself as the Messiah, and complained that though he
was so great a man he neither owned a house nor had
a lodging-place.

The enemies of Jesus charged him with performing
his cures by the aid of Beelzebub. In this he sawa
blasphemy, because he felt that his success in curing the
sick was due to a divine spirit that possessed him. Yet
he was carcful to distinguish between an attack upon a
fellow-man and a denunciation of the spirit operating
through him. Therefore he says, "If any one speaks
against a man, that may be pardoned, but he that
speaks against the Holy Spirit can have no pardon’
(Mt. 1232) No person in the audience could have
understood him to say: ‘You may blaspheme the
Messiah with impunity, but not the Holy Ghost," The
distinction is clearly between the divine spirit and the
human instrumentality.

Wellhausen prefers the reading in Mk.328,/ and assumes
that a misunderstanding. arose through the original reading in
Lk. 12 10 which, on the basis of the absence of λόγον in Marcion
he translates into Aramaic and renders ‘all that is said by man
(suinib von 1 bo). This is an ingenious suggestion ; but an
omission on the part of Mk. seems more probabie than such a
misapprehension. For, whether the words were uttered by

Jesus or not, they seem to have originated in some such reflec-
tion as we find in 1 S. 225.

In Mt.1119 Jesus may be rightly represented as
having said ‘John comes neither eating nor drinking
and they say, He has a devil; a man comes who eats
and drinks and they say, Behold a glutton and a wine-
bibber.*

The account in Mt. 1613-20 of Jesus' question to the
disciples giving occasion for Peter's confession has
39. The phrase manifestiy suffered Do Varna expansions.

not used at Such isti e pontifical diploma presented

Cesarea to Peter in νυ. 17-19. Such also the
philippi. addition ‘the Son of the living God" in

* φὶ 16, In. 13 ἃ second question has

been preserved in Syr. Sin. Namely, ‘Who is this Son
of man δ᾽ added to the first, ‘ What do men say con-
ceruing me?’ ‘This’ may perhaps be put fo the
account of the Syriac translator (so Schmiedel), But
it is also possible that ' Who is this man [δαγ-»α 4) }"
is a gloss already in the Aramaic, leading the later
glossator to introduce by contrast the title ‘of Christ's
divinity. It is evident that the interpolator lived
at a period when the supremacy of the Roman See
was being established. At that time the term ‘ Son of
man’ would be understood to denote the human nature
as distinct from the divine. Apart from these additions,
Mt. seems to have preserved an earlier text than Mk,
8277. and Lk.9 187 Desirous to proclaim the coming
of tle kingdom of heaven in Jerusalem also, Jesus
apparently hesitated on the ground that it might be
taken as a political movement. Hence, the question as
to what men thought of him. If the answer was
reassuring so far as the people were concerned, seeing
that they looked upon him as a prophet and not as an

aspirant to Messiahship, he had to reckon also with the i

attitude of his own disciples. When Peter, utterly mis-
‘understanding the question as to their views, took the
occasion to express his own: hope, Jesus was obliged to
* command the disciples that they should not say to any
man that he was the Messiah,’ as it is emphatically put
in Μὲ

According to Mk. 831 {Lk. 922) Jesus announced his
death and resurrection after three days immediately
upon Peter's confession. Of this Mt. knows nothing,

4733

SON OF MAN

The first reference to the sufferings of the Son of
man are found in Mt. 1712 (Mk, 912),

10. Pagie of But here it is probable that he
P pei original Aramaic conveyed the sense
‘so must a man (Z2r-xd#) suffer by

Min evi them.' For ‘the disciples understood
surTechi that hespoketothem concerning John the
Baptist," ©. 1.3. Later, this would naturally be mis-

understood as a reference to himself. The original
form of Mt. 2028 (Mk. 10 45) may have been ‘Man has
not come {sc. into the world} to be served, but to serve.'
When this was applied to Jesus, the dogma of the
*ransom’ seems to have been added.

In Clm. Hom. 1229 (ed. Schwegler) Peter quotes the
following words of Jesus : rà ἀγαθὰ ἐλθεῖν δεῖ, μακάριος dé φησί,
Sr οὗ ἔρχεται * ὁμοίως καὶ τὰ κακὰ ἀνάγκη ἐλθεῖν, οὐαὶ δὲ δι᾿ οἱ
ἔξχαται, The work în which this is found probably dates from
the reign of Marcus Aurelius (261-180); cp Hilgenfeld, σε:
Recog. and Hom., 1848, Ὁ. 3057, ZWTA., 1869, p. 353, Ei
p. 42. The same saying is reported by Aphfaates: ‘good is
sure to come and it is well with him through whom ît comes;
evil also must come, but woe to him through whom it comes
(ὅτ, ed. Graffin), Aphraates used Tatian's Diafessaron. The
generic sense of Zav-n45# în each part of this section, naturally
enough applied to Jesus and Judas in Mt. 2624 Mk.144r Lk.
22 22, was consequently stili preserved în the middle of the
second century.

Of the two passages found in all the synoptics, Mt.
1722 (Mk. 931 Lk.944) and Mt 2018 (Mk. 1033 Lk.
1831}, the latter furnishes a more natural situation,
That Jesus cannot have predicted in detail his death
and resurrection after three days or on the third day, is
evident to all critical students. But the difficulty of
suppressing the political hopes of his followers and the
prejudices and opposition he was sure to encounter in
Jerusalem may well have filled his mind with forebodings
of evil He fell back, however, upon the conviction
that the highest good, the kingdom of heaven, would
come, and that it would be well with any man who
assisted în its coming and suffered for its sake. He no
doubt believed in a resurrection of the dead, although
his idea seems to have been nearer the Essene than the
Pharisaic conception. As Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
had been raised out of death into an eternal life with
God, so he expected to be raised, Mt. 2223 7 {Mk.12
137 Lk. 20207.) This hope he may have expressed
by some such word as ‘man must pass away but he
will rise again.’ Even this would be improbabile, if.
Pfleiderer were right in assuming that Jesus cherished
no doubts as to the outcome of his mission to Jerusalem,

Considering Lk. 2236 as a genuine saying of Jesus,
Pfieiderer (New World, 1899, p. 431 7) concludes
that, as he ordered his disciples to buy swords, probably
to defend themselves against hired assassins, he cannot
have gone to Jerusalem with the ‘ purpose of dying there
as a sacrifice for the sin of the world, but of contending
and conquering.’ It might be said that, if he advised
his followers to arm themselves, the thought of danger
and death must have been present with him, Butitis
exceedingly improbabile that he ever gave any such
counsel. Τῇ he had actually urged his followers to sell
their very garments in order to purchase swords, without
explaining his purpose, he must have contemplated a
coup d'état and there would have been plenty of swords
at his disposal, but there would have been a certain
disingenuousness in his rebuke, Mt. 2652, so thoroughly
in harmony with the doctrine of non-resistance he had
preached, since he was himself responsible for the
presence of the sword and the notion that it would be
an urgent necessity. The earlier tradition in
Mt. and Mk. knows nothing of such a command given
by Jesus; but it preserved the fact that one of the
disciples had drawn a sword and cut off a man's ear.
How was this sword to be accounted for? Jesus had
ordered it. For what purpose? Lk.2227 gives the
answer, ‘ This which is written must be accomplished
in me, ‘And he was reckoned with the lawless."’
Jesus, of course, did not go to Jerusalem in order to

4734

SON OF MAN

die, but to proclaim the good news of the kingdom.
Nevertheless he no doubt realised the dangers of the
situation and only put his life into jeopardy because he
deemed it necessary for the accomplishment of his work,
sustained the while by the hope that the kingdom of
heaven would come in the world and to himself a share
in the resurrection from the dead.

In Mt.244-36 ‘the Son of man’ occurs five times ;
in Mk.135-32 only once, and in Lk. 218-36 twice.
Mt. 24306 (Mk. 18 26 Lk. 21 27), which is alike
41. The inall the synoptics, has no doubt been drawn

Synoptic from the last apocalypse. Before it Mt. intro
Apocalypse, ‘uces the term twice—viz., in 24 27 whichis also

found in Lk. 1724 and in 24 300 which has no
parallel. The second occurrence in Lk. (21 36) is also without a
duplicate ; while Mt. 24 37 39 correspond to Lk. 17 26 30.

If the passage which the three gospels have in common
was the first in the original apocalypse that referred to
the Son of man, it may well be that it conveyed the
meaning, ‘they shall see a man coming on the clouds
of heaven,’ and he will, etc. If Mt, 2427 actually pre-
ceded it, this sense would not be possible ; but there îs
no certainty that the original has been reproduced
&xactly or in order. Until further discoveries shall have
been made, it will remain most probable that ‘the
man ' was first introduced as ‘a man,' as in En. 46 and
4 Ezra 13. This apocalypse may not originally have
been put upon the lips of Jesus. When its fragments
once secured a place in the synoptic gospels, the in-
fiuence upon the conception of the term ‘Son of man'
must have beep profound. If even d υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπον
to persons familiar with Aramaic might still have con-
veyed the sense of δαγ-πξᾷ (see $ 36), the man coming
with the clouds or appearing as a lighining flash was t00
plainly the celestial being described in Dan. 733 to be
considered as referring to man in general A new
mode of thought was naturally given to familiar utter-
auces. It was this heavenly man who had been without
a home on earth, who had authority over the sabbath
and the right to pardon sins, who had suffered at the
hands of men and predicted his advent in glory and
power. ‘The title was substituted for the” personal
pronoun ; old sayings were modified, new ones formed.
Where Jesus had spoken of the kingdom of heaven
whose coming he expected, the Church spoke of the Son
of man for whose coming she eagerly looked. Among
the new creations none is grander than the judgment
scene in Mt, 25. Its chief significance lies not so much
in the fact that the judge identifies himself with his
brethren, or that the nations are judged by their treat-
ment of the Christians, as in the fact that they are
judged exclusively by moral tests : men's eternal welfare
is determined by their unconscious goodness in dealing
with their humblest fellow-men.

An indication of the date of the synoptic apocalypse in its
Christian form may be found in the circumstance that it follows
in Mt. immediately upon a passage that in all probability
belonged to the Σοφία τοῦ θεοῦ, as Strauss has shown (Z77%.,
1863, Ρ. 84 25. This ‘Wisdom of God” cannot have been
written long before the end of the first century, as it contains an
allusion to the murderof Zechariah b, Barachia during the siege
of Jerusalem (cp Jos. 8/ iv. 54 [88 335, 3437).

Jerome (Vir. 114. 2) affirmis that in the Gospel accord-
ing to the Hebrews, which he had translated into
Greek and Latin, the statement was

42. Gospel made that Jesus after his resurrec-
A ° tion, ‘took bread, blessed, brake, and

gave it to James the Just, saying,
‘my brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of man
(flius hominis) has risen from those that sleep."'
Hilgenfeld (ZI/7%., 1899) thinks that the Aramaic
phrase translated by Jerome was δ' γεᾷ εἶδ. πάξα,

It would be interesting, în all these circumstances, to know
what Aramaic term Jerome found in his gospel, and of utmost
importance if it could be proved that the copy he saw in the
library at Carsarea was a faithful transcript of the Gospel

written by Matthew. In its original form, the Gospel accordini
to the Hebrews may indeed have been of very high age, ani

4735

SON OF MAN

have served as a basis for the first Greek gospel. That it was
nameless, as Handmann thinks (//e4. £7,, 1888, p. 115), is not
probable. The most naturai supposition is that it was aseribed
to Matthew. Whether such a tradition was correct, may be
doubted. But, like all other gospels, it undoubtedly underwent
many changes ; and this particular pericope, at least in the form
represented by Jerome, can scarcely have had a place in the
first draft.

As dreh di-'naf& apparently was not used by
Palestinian Christians, δ᾽ γεὰ dè-gabrà is more probable.
But it may even be questioned whether Jerome wrote
filius hominis, as Gregory of Tours quotes the words:
"Surge, Jacobe, comede, quia jam a mortuis resurrexi”
(Hist. Franc. 121).

It is the merit of Lietzmann to have called attention
to the fact that outside of the N'T the phrase occurs for

sensa the first time in Marcion, and was

48. Marcion'e used hy different Gnostic schools.

E08Pe: Marcion's gospel seems to have had
this term in the same places as the canonical Lk.,
except that 7 29 35 1130-32 188 31-34 were not found in
his gospel.

From Marcion's acquaintance with it, Lietzmann draws the
conclusion that it originated in Asia Minor before the year
go ap. It is not apparent why this year shoald have been
chosen, Harnack's conjecture (Αγ, 298,7) is based on an
obscure and manifestly corrupt passage in Clement of Alex
andria. Lipsius placed Marcion's birth at least twenty years
later, and his arrival in Rome in 143/4 (ZI#/7%., 1867, p. 75/7).
Tertullian's statement chat Marcion was the son of 2 biso is
scarcely more reliable than that of Megethius, that he was him.
self a bishop (cp Meyboom, Mercion ex de Marcionieten,
347). _But, apart from this, there is no evidence that Marcion
as a child was familiar with the gospel he quoted in Rome in
the time of Pius (cp also Hilgenfeld, Aezcergesch. 329,£0).

According to Irenzeus (Adv. 4er. i. 301-312) the
Gnostics called the primeval light, the father of all
things, Πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος (primus homo),

sd Tee of and the first thought (ἔννοια) emanating
Gr OY from him Δεύτερος ἄνθρωπος (secundus
Gnosties.

homo), or υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ( filius hominis).
This υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου was not, however, identical with
the Christ who, in their opinion, was the' offspring of
‘the first man’ and ‘the second man’ with “the holy
spirit,' while the man Jesus, son of Yaldabaoth and the
Virgin Mary, was conceived of as the earthly tabernacle
in which the Christ took up his abode. Hippolytus
(Prhilosophumena, 56-: 109) reports that the Naasenes
(vim=serpent), or Phrygian Ophites, also worshipped
the ‘man’ (dy@pwrros), and the ‘Son of man’ (υἱὸς
ἀνθρώπου) as a unity of father and son, the father
probably being designated as Adamas (pis).

In the Zvangelium Marie, a Gnostic work earlier than
Irenxus, the highest being is called ΤΙρωτάνθρωπος (cp K.
Schmidt, S84, 1896, p. 843 /), and in a somewhat later
form of this Gnosis the ‘ Man of light," Adamas, occurs (id. in
TU 8297 309 /£ 658); and the perfect and true man (4oxcinem
perfectum et verum) called Adamas, belongs to the circle of
divine heings manifesting Barbeto, the father and the son, in
the thought of the Barbelo-Gnostics (Iren. 129). When the
‘Heavenly Dialogue,’ quoted by Celsus in his ‘True Word”
(ahout 177 A.».), declared that the Son of Man (è viòs τοῦ dr
ϑρώπον) was mightier than a god (Origen, Cortr, Cess. 8 15},
this god was no doubt Yaldabaoth whom his mother, Sophia,
had to rebuke by a reminder that above him were ‘the father of
all, che first man, and the man, ‘the son of man,”' according
to Irenaus. Valentinus also gave the first place in the pleroma
to the προὼν ἄνθρωπος (Clement, δ γον. ii. 8 36), and Monoimos
represented the divinity as man, and in so far as it is revealed,
as ‘Son of man' (see Grill, Le., 355).

The evident kinship between the Ophite system and
the thought asceribed to Simon of Gitta, renders it not
improbable that the founder of the movement already
was familiar with these designations for the highest
beings. His saying in regard to the divine manifesta-
tion as son in Judea, as father in Samaria, and as holy
spirit in the other nations (%i/os. 619) is most readily
understood in harmony with whatever else is known of
his views, if it is assumed that he asserted the divinity
of man on the basis of the acknowledged humanity of
God, finding in Judaism, Samaritanism, and paganism,

4736

SON OF MAN

in Jesus, himself, and Helena, manifestations of that
divinely human life symbolised by the already extant
figures of ‘the man,' the ‘ Son of man,’ and the feminine
spirit in the pieroma.

That the Ophites existed before Christianity, their
doctrine being a mixture of Egyptian and Jewish ideas,
has been suggested by Baur {CkristZicke Grosis, 1947
[1835]), by Lipsius, who preferred ta think of Syrian
rather than Egyptian influences as preponderating
(ZIV7A., 1863, p. 718/), and by Lieizmann, who
quotes Philaster, 11, as showing that they ‘argued their
heresies before the coming of Christ.'Lietzmann,
however, is of the opinion that ‘ man’ as a divine name
can only have originated as a designation of the heavenly
prototype of the Messiah appearing on earth, called
even in early times ‘the second man,’ though the term
is actually found only în late Rabbinic writings, and
that the Christian Ophites continued to use these
titles, naturally adopting ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου for ὁ
δεύτερος ἄνθρωπος. But Grill is probably right in
pointing out an Indian origin for this conception
Le, 348 7}.

The Vedic Purusha—ge, ‘man'—is a designation of the
universe, the macrocosm being conceived after the analogy of
the microcosm, Α distinction is made, however, in Rig leda
10 go between Purusha as the absolute being, and Purusha as
the firstborn, and for this derived primeval existence the term
Νανάγαπα, ‘the one like a man, ‘the son af man” is used
Mahéna rovana- Upaniskad, tr). Cnostic speculation is
altogether likely to have been affected by this idea.

It is possible, too, that there was a basis in the
mythical lore of Syria. Adam is not improbably the
name of a Semitic divinity [cp OBED-EDOM] The
familiar motive of a father, a son, and a mother-goddess
having issue by the son (cp Stucken, 4//4G, 1902,
4467), reflecting as it does a very primitive form of
domestic life, is certainly of mythical origin, and not
the result of late philosophical speculation. The con-
ception of the macrocosmie man and the celestial
protoplast is earlier and more widespread than the
significant names expressing it in Sanscrit sources, and
rendered the introduction of similar terms easier.
There seems to be no trace in Gnostic thought of the
Jewish idea of the Messiah, and the Christ-idea has the
appearance of being a later addition to a system already
completed, The Gnostic ‘Son of man’ cannot be
ascounted for as growing out of the conception
presented in the synoptics ; rather is it possible that
the Greek phrase, used in rendering the generic dar
nda, lent itself to an interpretation akin to the Gnostic
thought, seeing in Jesus an incarnation of a celestial
“Son of man.’

Recent criticism of the Fourth Gospel has had a
tendency to emphasise again its relations to Gnosticism.

i, While the unhistorical character of the
Gospel, its impregnation with Alex.
andrian, and particularly Philonic,
thought, and its date toward the middle
of the second century, have been rendered practically
certain by the labours of many scholars, from Bret-
schneider to Holtzmann and the Révilles (see JonN,
Son or ZEBEDEE), questions concerning earlier and
later strata within the gospel, and the attitude of author
or redactor to Gnostic thought, have assumed fresh
importance during the last few years. How profoundly
investigation on these points may affect the interpretation
of the ‘Son of man' in In, is seen in the works of
Fries, Kreyenbiihl, and Grill. Following the expansion-
theory of Schweizer, to some extent adopted by Bousset
and Harnack, in the more radical form given to it by
Delff, rather than the source-theory of Weisse, Freytag,
and Wendt, Fries {Del fjérde evangeliet, 1898;
En koftishe evangelium, 1900) has independent!y elabo-
rated a view according to which an earlier gospel by
the presbyter John has been expanded by Cerinthus
with interpolations, parily taken from the Gospel

4737

SON OF MAN

according to the Hebrews, partly consisting of his own
philosophical speculations on the basis of the Philonian
logos-doctrine. This theory leads him to consider 15r
313 /. 527 5362 828 and 133: as interpolations. Only
1223 34 he thinks it necessary to assign to the original
gospel, but regards these as evidence that Jesus himself
oceasionally used the term. Suderblom has indicated
his general agreement with this position (/ese Bergs-
predikan, 4ο [1899]).

So much is sacrificed to Cerinthus, that 12 23 34 might as well
have been added. For 1223 is practically identical with 13 31,
and the statement offending the people in 12 34, that “the son of
man must be lifted up,' is found not in 12 32 where Jesus says,
“If I an lifted up,’ but in 314 which is regarded as an inter»
polation. So far as the ‘Son of man' passages are concerned,
they must therefore, even on this view, be put to the account of
ἃ Gnostic philosopher, familiar with Philo's speculation, since
the similarity of 627 to the Gospel according to the Hebrews
does not extend to this phrase, The significant thing is that
the parts which must be considered as most characteristic of the
gospel are thus given by Fries to a Gnostic. Fries may be right
in pointing out a probable use of a Greek translation of the
Gospel according to the Hebrews. That che author to whom
we owe the gospel ἴῃ substantially its present form, barring
some transpositions indicated by Spitta and Bacon, and τῇς
appendix, used other sources than the synoptics is not im-
probable. But the freedom with which Mt. 2664 has been
modified in 151, and the passion-sayings have been transformed
into predictions of glorification in 814 828 1223 and 1834,
suggests the extreme difficulty of ascertaining the exact
language and historical worth of any such sources through che
chiaroscuro of his thought.

If Fries fell back upon the opinion of the ancient
Alogi that Cerinthus had had something to do with this
gospel, Kreyenbilhl (Das Evargelizme der Wahrheit,
1900) has maintained that the present gospel is the
work of Menander of Kappareteea, the disciple of Simon,
and contemporary of Ignatius, in a work equally marked
by lcarning, critical acumen, and sympathetic insight.
In accordance with this view he holds that “Son of
man’ in Jn. is intended to be understood not as an
exclusive self-designation of Jesus, but rather as a term
applying to ‘man’ ‘any man,' jeder Christenmensck,
Menander speaking out of his Christian consciousness
of being a saviour sent by the aeons into the world (Ze.
437 75, cp lrenzus, Adv. her. i. 285). His
difficult for the present writer to believe that the slender
foundation in Justin and Irenceus will bear the weight
of so heavy a structure.

Menander may indeed have conceived of himself as having
come into the world to redeem men from ignorance, and it is
barely possible that he regarded himself as a manifestation of
the celestial man. But the natural impression is certainly that
in Jn. Jesus is represented as speaking solely of himself when
he uses the term ‘Son of man”; and no recourse to the ver-
nacular of Jesus does here, as În the case of the synoptics,
suggest a different and universal significance. Particulariy
important is 653, where it seems just as impossible that
Menander could have spoken of the appropriation of his own
flesh and blood, or of the flesh and blood of man in general, as
that Jesus should have used such words. Here the reference îs
evidently to the Eucharist, and the Son of man is Jesus whose
body and blood the Church regarded itself as appropriating in
the sacrament, and whose life-giving words the author deemed
of supreme value.

The interpretation of Jn. 635 from the view-point of
the author's symbolical idealism by 1. Réville (Ze
quatrième évangile, 178 ff [190r]) is more satisfactory
than the present writer's assumption of a strong opposi-
tion to sacramentalism (782, 1892, p. 20). It may be
justifiable to infer that in some circles, “to eat the fiesh
and to drink the blood of the Son of Man’ had
developed into a liturgical formula, and this would
show how little Christians hesitated to use this supposed
self-designation of Jesus. It is the merit of Kreyenbihl
to have greatly strengthened the impression that this
gospel contains a certain type of Gnostic thought. in
view of the fact that practicaliy all the OT, tl
Apocrypha, and the Pseudepigrapha are either anony-
mous ‘or pseudonymous writings, it is time that the
eager desire to fasten the authority of the Fourth Gospel
upon some person mentioned in Early Christian
Literature should be put at rest. Grili (4c.) rightly

4738

SON OF MAN

contents himself with tracing the gospel idea of the
incarnation {that does not go back to Philo} through
Gnosticism to its source in.Indian speculation, and he
interprets the phrase as designating the celestial ‘Son
οἵ man' who has become a ‘man.’

Wendt is probably right in regarding ἀνθρώπον after υἱὸς in
527 as a later addition (Das Jokannesevangeliam, v21.f [1900)).
In 8 13 the words ὁ ὧν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ should not be removed from
the text on the ground of their absence in BSL, but emended
into è ὧν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, as Sin, Syr. has mex SPwaya; and in935,
not only R1)S but also Sin. Syr. and Eth, have “Son of man.’
In 1234 the ‘Son of man’ is not merely an equivalent of the
Messiah (so 7/82, 15 39), The assumption is that Jesus claims
to be the Messiah ; but the reference to a removal from earth
renders it possible to doubt whether the mysterious title ‘Son of
man’ does not have a different meaning.

When it is recognised that ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου is the
translation of an Aramaic der-maté, that this term
cannot, on philological grounds, have
SO ioot on been used as a self-designation since it
di teens: naturaliy conveyed only the idea of
Messiahehip. ‘man’ in general, and that this generic
“ use is most suitable in all instances
where there is reason to suppose that a genuine utter-
ance is found, the opinion that Jesus regarded himself
as the Messiah loses its strongest support. There are
indeed passages in which the underlying assumption
seems to be that Jesus claimed for himself the Messiah-
ship without using the name. Keim (Jesu von Masera,
2376) enumerates as such Mt, 915 113 13 123 41 / 1317;
Beer regards Mt. 915 as decisive (‘Enoch in Kautzsch,
Pseudepigrapha, 232); Wendt (1.ε., 1787) instances
Mt. 11257 Mk. 11277 123575 But in Mt. 9147
the justification of fasting by the departure of the bride-
groom, and of the non-fasting în Jesus' lifetime (cp Mt.
1118), by the presence of the bridegroom, is as clearly a
vaticinium ex eventu (Volkmar) as the words concern-
ing the garments and the wineskins are unmistakably
genuine (see Holtzmann, Syroptizer, 09) 55). In
Mt. 113 Jesus is asked by John the Baptist, throngh his
disciples, whether he is the coming one. Jesus not
only does not answer the question, but deliberately
turns the attention away from himself to his work,
described in language borrowed from Is. 2918 Κα 3556,
and culminating in the proclamation of good tidings to
the poor. It is the view men have of the kingdom of
heaven that concerns him; on this point Jesus con-
sidered John's conceptions to he as defective as those of
Moses and the prophets (Mt. 11127).! The ‘sign of
Jonah is the preaching of repentance to the Ninevites ;
but Jesus felt that his proclamation of the kingdom of
heaven was of more importance than the announcement
of judgment by the unwilling prophet {Mt. 124 £). If
Mt. 1317 is genuine, it expresses Jesus' conviction that
the kingdom of heaven, prophesied of old, is coming,
and his congratulation of his disciples for discerning its
advent. But this does not harmonise with the lack of
perception on their part, of which he elsewhere has to
complain.? The parable of the vineyard (Mk. 1217)
has been so thoroughly changed, under the hands of
the evangelists (see Julicher, /.c., ii. 2386 405 £), that ἐξ
15 quite impossible to ascertain what the original utter-
ance was in 12357
If Mt, 224: 7 (Mk. 1235 #) is genuine, it is either
an academic question concerning the Scriptural basis
for the current assumption that the coming Messiah is
to be a descendant of David, or a serious Scriptural
vindication by Jesus of his claims to be the Messiah
although he is not of Davidic descent. His general
method of teaching renders it exceedingly improbable
that he should have engaged in such a discussion simply
«4 confute Pharisaic exegesis without anything of prac-
tical importance depending on the decision ; but if he
realìy attached value to their accepting him as the

1 On Mt.123, see $ 38,
2 On Mt, 11257, see Son or Gop, $ 13.

4739

SON OF MAN

Messiah without the demanded legitimisation, his reti-
cence on the essential point whether he was the Messiah
becomes wholly incomprehensible. It seems evident
that this pericope is a defence of Jesus' Messiahship,
made by his disciples against Jewish attacks upon it on
the ground that he was not a son of David—a defence
made at a time when no one had yet thought of
constructing the pedigrees now found in Mt. and Lk.,
both of which are very late. The critical estimate of
these passages has not been influenced by the discussion
of the term ‘Son of man,’ and in almost all instances
has been reached by scholars who believe on the basis
of this title that Jesus regarded himself as the Messiah.
Although at first sight the result of recent investiga-
tions may seem to be wholly negative and to render
valueless the long labours that have been
ds δα οἵ expended upon the term, a closer ex-
amination will show that each new theory
has tended to bring to view some aspect
of the truth, and that the hypothesis that appears to
explain satisfactorily most of the facts yields the richest
returns for our knowledge of the life and teaching of
Jesus. When Jesus declared that man is lord of the
sabbath and has the authority to pardon sin, he no
doubt thought of man as he ought to be as a child of
the heaven]y father; and thus there was in his mind an
element of that idea) humanity which Herder emphasised.
That he did not look upon himself as the absolutely
perfect man only enhances his moral greatness. Other
genuine utterances suggest that humble sense of fellow-
ship with man and acceptance of man's lot which Baur
rightly felt. Those who explained the term as a
Messianic title were right in so far as the Greek gospels
are concerned. But a correct feeling also led many
scholars to the opinion that Jesus cannot have through
this term accepted as his own the current Messianic
ideal. That it served to hide the secret of his Messiah-
ship was also true; only it was not Jesus himself, but
his disciples, who thus used it. Similarly, the term is
likely to have suggested to early Christians a conception
in which many heterogeneous elements were blended.
The gradual elimination of the Fourth Gospel, the
synoptic apocalypse, the manifestly secondary passages
containing the phrase, as the literary character of the
gospels became more truly appreciated, was of utmost
importance. Only on the basis of such careful criticism
could the resort to the vernacular be of any value.
‘While no process of criticism can restore the spsissizmza
verba of Jesus, an approximation may be possible. For
the work of retranslation knowledge of the linguistic
material is necessary, and also philological insight.
‘The attempts to explain the use of the term în passages
that are rejected have been of much value, since they
are utterances of early Christians whose thought, intrinsi-
cally important, has exercised a paramount influence in
the world, In their interpretation it is both legitimate
and necessary to seek for light in the mythical and
legendary lore of the epoch. The more marked the
difference between the thoughts revealed in the Aramaic
translations of the Greek sayings, the more difficult is it
to explain them by the conceptions known to prevail
among the Greek gospel-writers ; the more original and
valuable the obtained utterances, the stronger is also
the presumption that they come from a great personality
whose historical existence thereby becomes assured and
whose tremendous influence can be appreciated. If he
ceases to be what he so carnestly enjoined upon his
disciples not to say that he was, a king to be ministered
unto, he becomes more truly than ever what he would
be, a son of man ministering to the sons of men.

theories.

The most important literature before the nineteenth century

is indicated in the works of Scholten, Appel, and A. Meyer.

The cerm is discussed In every Life of

48. Bibliography. Jesus, New Testament Theology, and

ible Dictionary. AIl important contri.

butions in recent times have been referred to in the course of
this article. N. S.

4740

SONS OF THE PROPHETS

SONS OF THE PROPHETS. See ProPHET.
SOOTHSAYER (DDP, ΝΡ), ete., MANTEYOMENH).
See DIvINATION, $ 2 [1/4], ete., and cp Macio, $ 3.

SOP {(ψωλιον), Jn. 1326 7, a fragment or morsel;

cp wwmoc, (5, in Judg.195 (GAL KxAacma Ruth 214 |

[for N5]). See MEALS, $ το.

SOPATER (cwrratpoc) a man of BeRo:a, who
accompanied Paul (for part of the way at least) on his
last recorded journey to Jerusalem, Acts 204. The
addition Πύρρου (son of Pyrrhus RV, NABD) is omitted
by TR. The mention of the fathers name is
unusual, although it may possibly have been inserted
to distinguish him from Sosipater (Rom. 1621}, with
whom, however, he should probably be identified. See
SOSIPATER.

SOPHERETH (ace@Hpa@ [B]. acebop. [A]. acw-
epe@ [1.}},) Ezra 255 AV, RV HASSOPHERETH [g.w.]

SORCERY, SORCERER, SORCERESS, See Magic,
8 3:
SOREK, THE VALLEY OF (ΟἽ 5m [with è,
δι, “widy of the $orek vine’ [see VINE]), the place
where Samson fell in love with the Philistine woman
Delilah (Judg-164: en aAcmwpuy [Β], etti τοὺ
xeimappoy οωρηχ [A]. . - . <Hk [L]). It is called
by Jer. (05 1586, cp 29776) cafarsorec; he places ît in
the region of Eleutheropolis near Saraat—ài.e., ZORAH
{2.0.1 This points to the mod. Swr4, $ hr. W. from
Zorah, on the N. side of the large and fertile Wady
Surar. Cp, however, ZORAH.

SORES (cwpuc [A}. τρεῖς [1], ewBHc [Β], Fosh.
1559, 6), Sce SEIR, 2.

SORREL (PW), Zech. 18 ΕΝ, AV ‘speckled.’ See
CoLours, $ 12.

SOSIPATER (cwciatpoc) 1. A general under
Judas the Maccabee, who fought against Timotheus at
Carnion, 2 Mace, 1219-24.

2. One of the ‘kinsmen' of Paul who unites with
him in saluting the Christians of Rome, Rom. 1621.
He seems, therefore, to have been well known to them.
In the Pseudo-Dorotheus he is a bishop of Iconium.
He is probably to be identified with SOPATEX [7.0.]
of Bercea.

SOSTHENES (cwe@enHe). τ, ‘Ruler of the
synagogue’ (ἀρχισυνάγωγος, see SYNAGOGUE, $ 9) at
Corinth when Paul was in that city on his second
journey, the first into Greece (Acts 1817). After the
failure of the Jews' concerted action against Paul before
Gallio (see GALLIO, $ 2)—in which, perhaps, Sosthenes
had taken a Jeading part —weare told that "all’ (πάντες,
so BNA and others}, or ‘all the Greeks' {πάντες οἱ
“Ἕλληνες : so DAEHLPM, etc.), certainly not “all the
Jews' (πάντες ᾿Ιουδαῖοι or πάντες οἱ 'Τουδαῖοι, as some
authorities have; see Ti., Blass, Hilgenfeld) laid hold
on Sosthenes and beat him before the judgment-seat.

It is not necessary to suppose, as many do, that
Sosthenes was the successor of Crispus, the ‘ruler of
the synagogue,' baptized by Paul at Corinth (Acts 188;
see CRISPUS}, nor yet to assume, with others, that Lk.
is confusing the two persons. Both may concurrentiy
have borne the title of ‘ruler of the synagogue' (ἄρχι-
συνάγωγος), and have held the office denoted by it, just
as cases in which there were more than one chief priest
(ἀρχιερεύς) can be cited (cp ANNAS and CAIAPHAS)
‘This Sosthenes has been identified by many since Theo-
doret, but without reason, with ‘the brother' mentioned
in x Cor. li (see no. 2).

2. Sosthenes ‘the brother appears in 1 Cor.l: as
having a share in the preparation of 1 Cor. ‘To prove
that the part he took was that of amanuensis merely,
appeal is usually made to 1 Cor. 1621; but those who
argue thus overlook the fact that Tertius, who is sup-
posed to have written the Epistle to the Romans, is not
mentioned until the end of that epistie, and then ex.

4741

SPAIN

* pressly as the apostle's secretary (Téprios ὁ γράψας τὴν
| ἐπιστολήν, Rom. 1622). Moreover, no one bas ever
thought of taking ‘Timothy the brother’ in 2 Cor.lr
Col. 1: (cp Phil. 11), ‘all the brethren which are with
me [Paul]' in Gal, 12, 'Silvanus and Timotheus' in
1Thess. 11 2 Thess. 1: as having been the apostle's
secretaries in attendance. The simple fact is that the
names belong to the form usualiy adopted for the
Pauline epistle; one or more persons are mentioned
besides the apostle as writing it, their function being
that of attesting the truth set forth and defended by the
apostle (2 Cor.13, cp Ὅϊ. 1915). From time to time
we are reminded of their presence by the use of the
plural (first person), but quite as often the apostle uses
the singular. ‘The brother’ Sosthenes is otherwise
unknown. He is enumerated among the seventy in
Eusebius (Zi 121) and elsewhere (see Lips. Afef.
Ap.-gesch. 1201 203, 3413, E. 3. W.C.v. M.

SOSTRATUS (cwerparoc [A], coc. [V]; the
name is also borne by a priest of Aphrodite in Paphos;
cp Schiirer, GPZ1 514 v7.), governor of the citadel in
Jerusalem (εττάρχος της ἀκροπόλεως) temp.
Antiochus Epiphanes (2 Macc.427[28]29) The post
would, doubtless, be important (cp Benz. ZZ4 47,
JERUSALEM, $ 27).

ἔπαρχος, used în & for "ND (see GoveRNOR, 1), corresponds to
the Roman /re/tets. From it îs borrowed the Nab. gombm
the precise nuance of which is not quite certain (C/S 2, nos.
173, 207, 214).

SOTAI (ὨἿΘ, meaning? cwrai [L].. ‘The B'ne
Sotai, a group or family (see SoLomon's SERVANTA) in the great
| post-ezilic list (see EzrA ii., $ 9); Ezra 255 (σατει [B], σωται LA)

Neh.7 57 (govre. [BA], -τιη [N*vid.], «ria: [Rca vid.))= 1 Esd.
533 (σωται [L], EVom. after GRA),

SOUL (Ὁ 5), wyyxH; common to all the Sem.
languages; but Ass, παρέδη generally means ‘life,’
mere rarely ‘soul'). Properly ‘breath’; but this sense
seems to have gone out in Hebrew, The usual sense is
the soul or individual life (so very often, see, e.g., Ps.
669 Is, 5312) as distinguished from the ‘ flesh’ or ‘ body’
{Dt. 1223 Ps. 3110). ΒΥ ἃ natural transition πόῤλεξ αἶϑο
means ‘a living being, especially in the phrase n694e5
bayyah (mn viso), lit. "αι living soul, used of man in J
{Gen. 27) and of animals in P {Gen. 1202430 9r215f
all P; 219, redactional insertion in J); cp 1 Cor. 1545.
For further developments, see EScHATOLOGY, $$ 12-19,
i and for the connection of ‘soul’ and ‘heart’ cp HEART.

None of the three passages cited in Ges.-Buhl for the sense
‘breath will stand examination, as has been shown by Briggs,
" The use of ΨῈΣ in the OT” [a critical and exhaustive classifica»

tion of passages), 782 16 [1807] 17-30. These passages are :—
(ὦ) Prov.279. Here Briggs gives κόῤλεξ the sense of /2845,
‘heart’; but it is better to read τοῦ ΔᾺΝ pro, ‘so the
sweetness of counsel îs healing to the soul' (Toy also sy po).
(8) Job 4113 where w), ‘breath 0), is ascribed to Levigthan,
But Job is a late book; a reversion to an archaic sense is not

robable here. So Briggs, who renders ‘his passion, or fury,
indleth coals.’ The parallel expressions, however, point to the
reading inizia, ‘his breath." (6) Is.320, ViBII “PI, RV ‘per
fume-boxes" (see PrrruME). Briggs proposes ‘boxes of desire,"
or ‘smelling boxes.” Paul Haupt (S807, ‘Isa.’ [Heb.] 82) has
suspected a connection with Ass. 2445%, ‘to anoint oneselt.'

This suggests Ny/wi5I ἘΞ, “boxes of ointment' (Ass. nasialtz,
‘ointment’). But still better would perhaps be [ε΄ ἘΞ (Ὁ and
» confounded). T.K.C.

SOUTH, SOUTH WIND. See EARTH, Four
QUARTERS OF THE, and WINDS. For Chambers of
the South, see STARS, $ 36; and for The South as a
geographical expression {15.304 1 Macc. 565), see
Τύρα, NEGEB, PALESTINE.

ΒΟΥ (yc), 2 Pet. 222; see SwINE.

SOWER, BOWING. See AGRICULTURE, $ 6.
the Parable of the Sower, see GosPELS, $ 19.

SPAIN (crtania [ANV Ti.WH], 1 Macc. 83 Rom.
152428). Carthaginian Spain became Roman at the
| close of the Second Punic War (zor B.C.); but the

4742

Cn

SPAN

Roman power was not fully consolidated over the entire
Tberian peninsula until nearly two centuries later (by
Marcus Agrippa the friend and minister of Augustus).
There is no reason to suppose that the apostie Paul
ever carried out the intention of visiting Spain ex-
pressed in Rom, 1524 28, and the evidence that the
country was evangelised by the apostle James the Less
(see JAMES, $ 1) is too late and legendary to be of any
value, ‘Cp GEUGRAPHY, $ 257. ; TARSHISH, 8 2.

SPAN (MI: crrigamuH) See WEIGHTS AND
MEAsURES. In Lam. 220, AV gives the pathetic phrase
‘children of a span long’ for osp +99p ; RV, however,
has ‘the children that are dandied in the hands' (cp v.
322). Budde, ‘ Hatschel-kinder.”

SPARROW. The word εἰῤῥόν, ΒΨ", of frequent
occurrence in OT, is, with only two exceptions (Ps. 844[3]
10287]. crpoy@ion)rendered ‘bird,’ ‘fowl’ in EV. Nor
does the exceptional translation ‘sparrow’ imply that
any particular species was intended. The word probably
meant any small Passerine bird, a group which is un-
usually abundant in Palestine. It is interesting to note
that the common house-sparrow, /asser domesticus, is
common in Palestine, but in a smaller and brighter
variety ; three other species of Passer are also enumerated,
Canon ‘Tristram identifies the sparrow of Ps. 1027 as the
Monticola cyanus or Blue Thrush, from its habit of sitting
solitarily, or sometimes in pairs, on projecting ledges or
some other conspicuous perch, uttering from time to
time a plaintive and monotonous song. The ‘sparrow’
is not included in the list of unclean birds; and it seems
probable that at any rate in NT times (Mt. 102931 Lk.
126, στρουθίον) they were caten, as is commonly the case
in Mediterranean countries to this day. See BIRD,
FOWL, ὶ τ. A. Ε.5.

SPARTA (crtaprH [NV], -τιὰ [A], x Mace, 1416;
SPARTANS, cITApTIATAI, Y Mace. 122 f 1420 1523;
AAKEAAIMONIOI, AV ‘Lacedemonians,' RV ‘-dem.,
2 Mace. 59).

The greatness of Sparta was loug past when she
came into connection with the Jewish peuple. The
final suppression of the liberties of Greece by the
Romans was in part due to her obstinate refusal to
enter the Achwan League (149 B.cC.). On the destrue-
tion of Corinth and dissolution of that league, Sparta
gained a favourable position so far as retaining her
autonomy went, but a number of the Laconian towns
dependent upon ‘her were granted autonomy by the
Romans (Strabo, 366; Livy, 3429), Sparta at this period
held the rank of ἃ civitas ederata et libera (Str. 365),
being self-governing and not liable to tribute or fo the
jurisdiction of a Roman governor. Sparta and the
Spartans are mentioned together in connection with a
correspondence which passed between them and the
Jews in the Maccabean period {x Macc. 126). About
144 8.C. Jonathan, then leader of the Jews, wishing to
make alliances to strengthen his position, sent Numenius
and Antipater with letters to Rome, Sparta, and else-
where (1 Mace. 121 7, cp DisPERSION, $ 13), In his
ietter to the Spartans he lays great stress on a former
letter from their king Areus to the Jewish high priest
Onias, and on the desirability of renewing the brother.
hood which had then existed. The letter of Areus is
quoted to the effect that it had been found in writing
that the Spartans and Jews were of the same stock, that
is to say, of Abraham, and that therefore their interests
were identical (1220-23). Shortly afterwards Jonathan
died, and the tidings of his death caused great grief in
Sparta (1416), but on Simon's assuming the priesthood,
the rulers (i.e., the Ephors) of the Spartans wrote to him
wishing to renew the friendship which they had con-
firmed with Judas and Jonathan his brethren (1417 £.).

The name of the Spartan king is given as ARIUS.!

1 Possibly a more correct form of the name would be ἄρευς as
in Ck, writers, cp also C/421, no. 332.

4743

SPEAR

So RV, but AV ArEvs (1 Macc. 1220, ἀρης); which shoald
also be read in 2. 7 (with Vg. and Jos. [ἄρειος}} for AV DARIVS5

and again in Ὁ. 19, for AV_Ontares (ovcafa)pns [ΝΎ], “ψειαρ.
[Avid.])}, which has arisen from the combination of oveg (‘io
Ounias'), che last word in ©. τῷ, with ἄρης (Arius), the first inv. 20.

Although there were two Spartan kings named Arius,
there is little doubt that Arlus I. (309-265 8.C.), the
successor of Cleomenes, is the one here referred to,
and that the high priest is Onias L! It has been sug-
gested with great probability that this letter was written
in 302 B.C. when the Spartans may have wished to
hinder Demetrius Poliorcetes, who was then warring
with Cassander. That treaties may have existed be-
tween Semitic and other peoples at that time is shown
by the league between the Athenians and the Sidonians
before the time of Alexander the Great, to which refer-
ence is made in C/G, no. 87 (Schirer in Riehm's #7 WB
215360).

‘The authenticity of the letters in 1 Mace, has been
much disputed. The letter from Jonathan to the
Spartans (1 Macc. 126 7} scarcely reads like a diplo-
matic document, and betrays the religious spirit of a
later age; though it must be admitted that it is im-
possible to build too much upon the wording since the
letters are translations of translations.

There îs no reason, however, to doubt the fact of diplomatic
relations with Sparta having been set on foot by Jonathan. For
Sparta was too obscure at the time to have suggested itself to
8 forger eager to magnify his hero by inventions of the kind.
Again the incident leads to no result in the sequel; the reverse
would have tended to throw doubt upon the entire episode.

As given both by Josephus and the author of 1 Macc. the
two letters of the Spartans seem fragmentary and wanting in
definite suggestion. They have the air of diplomatic forgeries.
Especialiy is it noticeable that whereas Jonathan describes the
Spartan overtures as a declaration of ‘confederacy and friend-
Ship” (1 Macc, 128) there îs no such declaration in proper
diplomatic terms in the appended document. Yet the abifity
to point to actual alliance in the past would have been the
natural and most powerful recommendation of his proposals.

A point upon which too much stress has been laid is
the relationship between the Spartans and Jews. Areus
mentions that it was written down that they were
‘brethren and of the stock of Abraham.” The unlucky
JASON (g.v., 2) fled to the Lacedemonians (λακεδαιμόνιοι)
for shelter because they were his ‘near of kin' (διὰ τὴν
συγγενίαν, 2 Mace. 59), and Herod made a favourite of
a certain Spartan ‘on account of his country’ {Jos. 8/
i. 261). There seems to be no good ground for re-
garding the ‘Sparta’ of these letters as a corruption of
the Asiatic name Saparda (see SEPHARAD); and it is
equally hazardous with Hitzig (Gesc4. 347) to identify it
with the Lycian town Patara, It is conceivable that
the old historians connected the Pelasgians with the
Spartans, and derived the former from Peleg the son of
Eber; but the relationship insisted on finds a parallel
in the case of the people of Pergamos, who, in making
an alliance with the Jews, pointed back to similar rela-
tions between their ancestors and Abraham? (Jos. Axf
xiv.1022). ‘The old historians and genealogists were
ever ready to account for existing confederacies and
alliances as resting on some ancient bond of kiuship,
and numerous analogies may be found amongst classical
writers; cp GENEALOGIES Î., $ 3 [3], col. 1660.

See H. J. E. Palmer, de epistolarum quas Spartani atque
Judaei invicem sibi misisse dicuntur veritate, Darmst. 1828;
Schurer, 1188; Ew. Gesck. 4317. SA CW. I. W.

SPEAR. ‘The words are :—
μάνανα, See below (δ 2) and cp JAVELIN, 2.
ἢ, edmak. See below ($ 3).
3. 1075, 4idbn. See JAVELIN, 1.

1 Cp Onzas, $ 3. Not Onias II. and Areus II. (Εν. Gesck.
4317), for they can hardly have been contemporaneous, and
moreover Areus II. died young, about 257 5.6. (Paus.ili. 66);
still less can it be Onias III (Jos, κε, xii. 410), A certain
Areus, fi mentioned about 184 R.C. as a prominent Spartan (Pol.

1234).

2 Cpa note in Steph. Byz., s.2., lovSala, ‘derived ἀπὸ ἴοι dacov
Σπαρτῶν ἑνὸς ἐκ Θήβης᾽ ; see Schirer, Lc.

4744

SPEAR

4° ΤῈ, duizia (28, 21164), The text, however, is doubifui, See
IsKBI-BENOH.

5. busy, si452/(Job 4031}; ‘fish spear?). 868 ΕἸδη, #3, τ

On the ‘spearmen' of Ps 6830 see CROCODILE. For
the δεξιολάβοι of Acts 2323 we cught probably τὸ read
with A δεξιοβόλοι ; cp the ἑκηβόλοι of Jos. 2/ ii. 175,
σφενδονῆται and λιθοβόλοι οἵ iii. 718, and σφενδονῆται
of iv.13. Cp War.

The spear was a favourite wenpon of offence amongst
ancient nations, as it has always been amongst other
peoples at an early stage of development ;
it was easy to make and could be used
with great effect, It varied chiefiy in its
size, weight, and length; this will be seen from the
illustrations in Erman (Zi in Ance. Eg.), Wilkinson
(Anc. Eg.), and Maspero (Struggle of the Nations),
though too much reliance must not be placed on the
representations of spears in ‘works of art' (cp the remarks
of Cecil Torr, Ancient Skips, 8). It consisted, as a rule,
of a wooden staff with a sharp head of flint or metal.
It may be that the early Israelites, as a writer in Kitto
(Bi3l Cyclop.) suggests, like other primitive peoples,
made use of the horn of some animal, ‘ straightened in
water, and sheathed upon a thorn-wood staff’ We
know with what effect animals themselves use these
homs (Darwin, 736 Descent of Man, sor ff. [1890]).
* When sharpened this instrument would penetrate the
hide of a bull, and, according to Strabo, even of an
elephant; it was light, very difficult to break," and
‘resisted the blow of a battle-axe' {Kitto). Later,
brass {see CoPPER} or IRON {g.2.) was used. Layard
(Nineveh and Babylon, 301 [τ853}} found at Nimrid
the heads of spears, ‘which being chiefly of iron fell
to pieces almost as soon as exposed to the air." In
Gen. Louis Palma Di Cesnola's Cyrus (1877), plates
xxxvi. and xl, (after p. 392), are given gems from Curium
in the Phoenician (xxxvi.) and the Greek (xl.) style, on
which warriors are represented armed with round shields
{see SHIELD), and spears which look like sharp-pointed
stakes; cp the long spears on the Sarcophagus from
Golgoi (pl. x., opposite p. 110). On the other hand,
on the silver patera found at Amathus {pl. xix., opposite
p. 276) a regular spear-head seems to be represented.

Layard (Nineveh and its Remains, 2343) says, ‘the
spear of the Assyrian footman was short, scarcely exceed-

sz: ing the height of a man; that of the
2. The gànith. sorseman appears to have been con-
siderably longer. . . . The shaft was probably of some
strong wood, and did not consist of a reed, like that of
the modern Arab lance." It would seem to have been
a stout weapon, since warriors used it to force stones out
of the wall of a besieged city (sce p. 372). The Egyptian
soldiers of the cighteenth Theban dynasty carried ‘ pikes
about 5 ft. long, with broad bronze or copper points'
(Maspero, Struggle, 213); the spear was not so common.
‘The Assyrian pikemen of a later date were armed with
equally heavy weapons (s6i4., 627/). ‘The Hebrew
4dnith (nun) seems to have been a large weapon. It
was used by great warriors {2 S. 223, etc.); and it îs the
weapon put into the hands of ' giants' (2 5.28.21, etc.).
Goliath is said to have carried a spear ‘like a weaver's
beam (τ 5. 177), its head weighing 600 shekels' (for the
idea of ‘giants’ sce ANAKIM). Saul 5 said to have
hurled his 445% at David (15.199 £). From such
indications in the OT we may suppose that the 4dnz/#
had some resemblance to the Egyptian and the Assyrian
pike.

A lighter, and no doubt much older, weapon of the
kind was also in use among the Egyptians and the

è Assyrians, and is still found among the

3. The romab. Bedovins and other primitive peoples.

This is called in Arabic 7x4, and we can hardly be
wrong in identifying it with the Hebrew r0ma4 {πιρη, see
Nu. 257, ete.; cp Doughty, 4. Des. 1221228; Merill,
East of the Jordan, 482), which, however, was no doubt
often shorter. ‘The beam, made of a light reed of the

4745

{ ground”

SPICE

rivers of Mesopotamia, is nearly two of their short
horse-lengths ; they charge them above their heads'
{Doughty, 1334). ‘The Arab keeps this spear continu-
ally at his side. ‘When he prepares to encamp the
sheikh strikes his spear in the ground. When the camp
is broken up ‘the spear is the last thing taken from the
(Warburton, The Crescent and the Cross,
chap. 25). For other spear-like weapons (' dart,' etc.)
see WEAPONS, $ 2. Cp SIEGE, War, M. A.C.

SPECELED. For (1) πάξδά (Ἴ2), Gen. 3032 7,
and (2) ράδαδ' (as), Jer.129, see CoLours, $ 12; and for (3)
sardk ( PùE), Zech, 18, see ἐδι, $ 10,

SPELT is the RV rendering of Zussémeti, NODI
(Ex. 939 Is. 2825 Ezek. 49], for which AV has twice ‘rie’
and once ‘fiches.’ See FrrcHES.

[lt is possible that ΠΕΡ, ‘spelt,’ occurs also in 1 5. 2 36, where
it is said that destitute priests will sue to be put into a priest's
office DN? , f.e., according to tradition, ‘for a
piece of silver and a loaf οἱ bread.’ But the rendering ‘piece’
presupposes a connection of Ν and AI, ξέγαλ (see WEIGHTS),

which is purely arbitrary. Following Del. Pro. 149, BDB and
Ges.-Bu. take ‘sg to bean abstract noun, meaning ‘payment,’ cp
Ass, agdre, ‘to hire.” But this root does not appear to be known
in Hebrew, nor is an abstract noun probable in this passage,
Probably the text ἴδ corrupt, and we should read nb03 ib,
‘for an omer of spelt’ 8 is without the following words
pnb na; possibly these were added a/fer the corruption of
nop3 oyh, on account of the concluding mention of “a morsel
of bread.’ For a bolder expedient see Cri? Φέδ.-- τ. κι c.]

SPICE (6.4. Lat. species, OFrench espice, hence 6pice y
cp ]î, 2 Ch.16x4, all species [of spices]: Vg. unguentis
meretriciis [MNI]), though now specificaliy employed to
denote ‘a class of aromatic vegetable condiments used
for the seasoning of food, commonly in a pulverised
state,’ was, in the seventeenth century, applicable to a
much wider variety of ‘species’; in AV it happens to
be applied (unless, perhaps in Cant. 82, where * spiced '
wine is alluded to)? never to condiments but only to
aromatic odours. Τί represents :—

1. déîem, pig (Ex.302z3t), or obiera, ci (often),

plur. DPI, 2Ch. 1614, εἰς, That this word must

sometimes at least have a general sense is shown by the
expressions pp'a*pip (Ex. 3025; see CINNAMON), pj3-m3p
{15., see CALAMUS) and oba-b3 wai (Ezek. 2722). On
the specific sense, see BALSAM.

2. sammim, DDD {Ex. 3034: EV SwEET SPICES;
Ex. 256 307 3117 858 15 28 89 38 4027 fonly AV] Lev.47 1612
Nu.416 2 Ch. 24 [3] (only AV 1311; EV Sweer Incexsk) or
potdreth sammim, DED MbP (Ex. 37298; EV Incense oF
Swee Smces and RV in 4027 2 Ch.24[3]).

The word samzzzizi is a general expression for fragrant
material in the form of powder, akin to Ar. Samia,
‘to smell,’ as well as sazzzz, simzzi, or s2#%22, * poison,"
and to Aram. samia, ‘a medicament' The exact
history of this group of words is obscure, but probably
the oldest form of root is represented by Ar. iumme=
Aram, sez:; and Ar. semm and Heb. Dev may both
be loan words from Aramaîc (cp Frinkel, 262). On
the other hand, the oldest 22622229 is perhaps that of the
Hebrew word and of Ar. Sazzza, viz., ‘fragrance’; the
notions of poison (in Syr. samma dit-matwtà) and of
medica! efficacy may well be derived from this, In post-
biblical Hebrew, and sometimes in Syr., the word was
used with a further extension of meaning —viz., for
colouring matter.

The use of the word in OT is, as a general term, for
the sacred incense compounded of stacte. onycha, gal-
banum (galbanum of samzziz), and frankincense (see
INCENSE).

3. nekd' th, ULb: (Gen, 8725; EV Spicery;

Rvme.

1 Compare, however, GAL ; the latter text has the σιτίου ex-
pression ἄρτον κυρίου (see Crif. Β δ,).

31π Erek. 2410 the verb results from a mistranslation, ‘
it well"; RV ‘make thick the broth.”

4746

spice

SPICE-MERCHANTS

gum tragacanth or storax ; θυμιάματα ; aromata; Gen,
4811; AV spices, RV spicery; θυμίαμα, storax).
STORAX,

4. rékah, np» Cant.82 (apparently not specific).
See PERFUME, PERFUMERS.

5. ἀρώματα, Mk. 161, εἰς, See PERFUME.

6. ἄμωμον, Rev.1813 RV. See AMOMUM. — N.M.

SPICE-MERCHANTS boa. with art. ; TWN
ἐμπόρων), but RV ‘merchants,’ are mentioned in
connection with Solomon's commercial profits(1K.1015),
if we should not rather read ‘Jerahmeelites.' See
SoLoMON, $ 7, and cp PERFUMERS. T.K.C.

SPIDER. 1. stmamitk, IVDDE ; Prov. 3028; RV
LIZARD [9.%., 7].

2. ‘akkabif, πεν (ἀράχνη, aranea). Under this
name the spider is mentioned in MT only twice—viz.,
in Is. 595, where the devices of the wicked are likened
to a spider's web, and in Job 814, where the confid-
ence of the godless Îs compared to a ‘spider's house,”
There are several other passages, however, in which,
through an easy textual error, the spider has been
supplanted by the moth. Thus in Job 419, ‘ which are

crushed before the moth’ (ον 550) should rather be

‘which are crushed even as the spider’! (wv35p 95);
Mohammed, too, compares idolaters to spiders {Koran,
Sur. 2940). In Hos.86 the ‘calf of Samaria' is also
probably compared to a spider's web,? and in Ps.
3912 [11] 909 (6 ὡς ἀράχνηϊν»] in both passages) the
same figure seems to be employed to symbolise the
frailty of human life, according to probable emenda-
tions of these two corrupt passages.* Textual criticism
also reinstates the spider în a fine description of the fate
of the wicked (see ΜΌΤΗ), where ‘moth’ should prob-
ably be ‘spider’ {Job 2718 || 814; but in & of 2718
ἀράχνη seems to stand for n3n). Not improbably, too,
“the poison of asps’ in Ps. 1403 should rather be ‘the
poison ofspiders' (so Griitz, Merx, after Tg.). In Is.595
‘spiders’ and ‘vipers’ are parallel, with an allusion to
a belief in their poisonousness. See Asp. @, according
to Grabe, followed by H and P read ‘spider' (ἀράχνη,
but the text [BAQ] has ταραχή) in Hos. 512, where MT
has ‘moth.’ T.K.C.

SPIES. (D'U39, DN, regali, ‘to busy oneself
with walking about’; cp où ‘merchant’ but MH nW397
‘calumny,’ and 539, Ps. 153 ‘backbite'; xarzogoro:, Gen. 429,
eto., Josh. 21623 τ 8. 364 α 8.15 τοῖς and virtually ΟἽ Να. 146
κατασκεψαμένων, but Aq. Sym. κατασκόπων i ὈΠΠΝ Nu, 2] α
AV RVme., Aq. Sym. τῶν κατασκ., but see ad fin.) ©
For the Way of the Spies (0‘na1 79), Nu. 21 1 AV, see
below, $ 2, end, and cp AtHARIM, KADESH, 8.3. Cp nm ‘spy
out’ Nu. 18216 εἴς,» and MN), ‘range [of spying?]’ Job398.
The equation 51= 531 (1 above) finds an analogy in the use of
D"YA as ‘ merchants,'1K. 1015 (but see MERCHANT, SoLoMon,
5 he practice of obtaining information by means of
spies as a preliminary to warlike movements was well-
1. 'Praditions. known to the Hebrews. Two notable

spies by Moses to explore the region which the Israel-
ites were about to invade, and the mission of two spies
by Joshua ‘to view the land, namely, Jericho' (see
JeRrICHO, $ 3). It is the former episode which concerns
us here. Our chief traditional authority for it is in Nu.
13 £ (ΠΕΡ), but it is also related in an allusive way in
Dt. 1227, where the writer is presumably dependent
throughout on the narrative of JE ; there is at any rate
no evidence that he made use of P. It may be con-
venient to lay before the reader the variations between

1 5 and ‘5 are elsewhere, too, confounded.
2 mad 13 should be g*35p vip (Ruben, Crifica? Remarks,
on Hos, Ze; cp Ve. in aranearum telas.
3 See Che, /?52/765,12 and cp Locust, Owl.

4747

See |

cases are the mission of twelve (Ὁ) (

SPIES

the accounts which the redactor has welded together, as
well as he could, in Nu.13 7 ; it will not only show
the reader the state of the traditional evidence for the
mission of the spies but will illustrate the section on
Nu. 13 £ in NuMBERS [BooK], $ 3; cp also Driver,
Intr.8 63.

18 3, start fon wilderness of 1326, start from Kadesh (re.
Paran ( dactional, but from JE).

ar, theyex Dire che landfrom 55. fi they go as far as Hebron
the wilderness of Zin to D, Srpthe valley of
Rehob, to the district of ‘sheol (E).
Hamath (P)

32, they describe the land as 27 ‘the land is very fruîtful,
one that ‘devours its but the inhabitants can

inhabitants' (P). well defend themselves”

16 6, Joshua and Caleb oppose

DÌ

30, Di stilisthemurmurers
the mutinous Israelites 0)

P,

P).
38, Joshua and Caleb (2. 30, the

Caleb and Joshua) are ex-
cepted from the general
doom (P).

It is usual to give the preference to the statements of

1 and E (an analysis of JE cannot remain unattempted,

even though [cp NUMBERS, $ 3]the result may be

incomplete). It was from Kadesh, then, that Moses
sent spies into Canaan (cp 328 Rp; cp NUMBERS,
$ 8), one from each tribe, and the region to be explored
was the Negeb and the mountain-district (£.e., as most
understand, that of Judah). ‘The spies did in fact
reach Hebron (in the ‘hill-country’ of Judah, Josh.

207 21:r), where they found Ahiman, Sheshai, and

Talmai. ©On their return, they gave a very favourable

report of the land, and supported this by a huge cluster

of grapes from Eshcol; but a further statement respect.
ing the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, who dwelt at

Hebron, made the people despond, and even venture to

express a wish to choose another leader and go back to

uomss. Caleb alone is excepted from the doom which

Yahwè fails not 10 pronounce on the rebellious people.

The punishment of the guilty is thus expressed in Nu.

1433 (assigned to 1 by Dillm.).1 ‘Your little ones,

which ye said should be a prey, will I bringin.

1424, Caleb may enter
land

| But as for you, your carcases shall fall în this wilder-

ness. And your children shall be shepherds ἼΣ125
mw ye, and shall bear (the consequences of) your
infidelity, until your carcases be consumed in’ the
wilderness,"
Looking at the differences tabulated above we shall
see that the first is quite unimportant, since the wilder-
ness of Paran in the wider sense may
. Criticism. tive contained Kadesh-barea (sce
Faiano, The third is of some interest, because
(Wellh, Pro.) 370) Nu.1832 (P) may reflect the
melancholy feelings of post-exilic Jews, who could only
by faith describe their country as a delectable land
{πτῶπ peas, Ps. 10624). ‘The fourth and fifth are im-
portant because they show that one at least of the early
natratives did not include Joshua among the spies.
According to E. Meyer (who allows very little of the
material in chap. 18 to J), the earliest narrative
stated that Caleb (/0ssi2/y with other spies) was sent
into the Negeb—to Hebron, and said on his return that
the people was strong and the cities fortified, Amalek
dwelling in the Negeb, etc., and that giants too were
to be seen there. The despondency of the Israelites
disappears, and with it the divine sentence of forty
years’ wanderings. According to Meyer the object
of the story of the spies was simply to account for the
settling of Caleb in Hebron. ‘Caleb of course receives
Hebron because he acted as spy, not because he
remained stedfast.' E, however, looks at things with
a ‘theological’ interest, and alters the story for edifica-
tion, while P_calculates from Josh.24 29 that Joshua too
1 Both Dillm. and We. deny that v. 33 belongs to P, and
hold that the ‘forty years’ (me ΠΡῚΝ) are a fixed point in

tradition. We., however, assigns 1430-34 to a special source,
discinct from JE.

4748

SPIKENARD

must have been born in Egypt, and therefore includes
him among the spies, and makes him, like Caleb, faith-
ful among the faithless (‘Kritik der Berichte,' etc.,
ZATW 11397 [1881]).

One of the most doubtful points in Meyers theory
is the definition of the object of the story. Was Caleb
really the only spy, and the only clan-leader who had
land assigned to him in the Negeb? It is also by no
means certain that the threat of the forty years wander-
ing formed part of the original tradition. It is suggested
elsewhere (Moses, $ rr, end) that in Nu.1433 {as well as
in other passages) me b'yIn® 12003 is most probably
due partly to coruption, partly to editorial manipula-
tion, and that the original text had simply pump ἼΣΩΣ
"in the desert of the Arabians.'

Possibly, too, in Nu. 1325 (P) the statement that the spies
returned pi! D'YIIR peo arose through a misreading of_m3
D*309 (from the Arabian Cush”);1 and it is in the highest
degree probable that μην in Nu, 1322 142-4 should be read
Misrim, z.e. the N. Arabian Mugri (see ΜΊΖΚΑΙΜ, $ 2 5).

Nor are these the only names which have to be scrutinised.
Important as it is to put a rational sense on the traditional
stories în their later form, it can hardly be less urgent to find out
how the stories originally ran, and what they originally meant,
It has been pointed cut elsewhere (NEGES, $ 7) that it is the
Negeb and the Negeb alone that is referred to as the region ex»
plored by the spies.: man (Hebron) has arisen cut of mann?
(Rehoboth), and the mountain-district in 1817 is ‘mount Jerah-
meel,'8 In. 28 p3y should probably be pbny, and we thus see
that 2. 294 is partly a gloss on phoy +2 (50 read) in τ. 28 (see
NepniLm, $ 3, i).

The second apparent difference in the above table
still remains, Did the spies, according to P, or at least
P's authority, really survey ‘the whole land throughout
its entire length from the wilderness of Zin (cp Nu. 211
3336) to Rehob' (either the place of that name in the
territory of Asher, Josh. 1928, or Beth-rehob, near the
town of Dan, Judg.1828%)? This no doubt is the
general view. Another theory, however, is much more
probable. If not P himself, yet almost certainly P's
authority, meant, not any northern Rehob, but Rehob
or Rehoboth in the Negeb, while non {Hamath) is in
many OT passages most probably a southern Hamath,
or more strictly a southern Maacath (see MAACAH,
end). This accords with the view (see above) that in
Nu. 1325 the original text had, ‘And they returned
from spying out the land, from Cush of Arabia,

Thus the difference between JE and P in the story
of the spies is much less serious than has been supposed.
The only important variation is the combination of Caleb
with Joshua—himself perhaps originally a Jerahmeelite
hero (cp JOSHUA).

We have no space here to consider the names of the spies ac-
cording to P(Nu. 13 4-15). ris quite possible that all, or nearly
all, the names are characteristically Negeb names. But this is
unimportant compared with the right comprehension of the rest
of the composite narrative. Let it be added, however, that
omini mm (Nu. 21 1) is not (as even Kuobel supposed) for 1
D'Inn (AV ‘by the way of the spies') but is probably a corrup-
tion of p'npyt pi (cp Ramathaim-zophim), unless we prefer to
trace it to p'“nnn vy (KapesH, 1, $ 3). In either case, the
name appears to be an early popular corruption of bgpno.

Wincklers theory (C/ 24079 is ingenipus, but απο here
be discussed. T. K, C.

SPIKENARD
D'TII. napdor

i napàdoc, Cant 1x2 414; and
‘ant. 413; also NAPÀOC TTICTIKM»

1 Notice the name Sheshai (on which see note 2) in Num.

1322. If we emend as above, the my: of MT will have grown
qut of a dittographed δ". For pp from w3 cp Grif. A. on
ek. 76.

2 Note that Ahiman represents Jerahmeel; Sheshai comes
from Cushi (cp note 1); for Talmai compare Telem and Talmon
(which can be shown to be Negeb names). “Ζοαη in Kgypt'
should he ‘Zoan {or Zoar?) in Misrim.”

3 As Dillm. points out, ‘go up into the Negeb' probably
comes from 1, and ‘go up into the mountains 'from 7. But
if so, is it not natural to take 41) and “mm as practicaliy
‘synonymous?

4 The other ethnicsare probably sn3m (Rehoborbite), Sypog

Ishmaelite), »pg (Amorite), Ωρ (Kennizzite).

δ Wade, 024 Testament History (1901), 120.
4749

SPIKENARD

Mx. 143 Jn. 123t).? i. The Hebrew word, x274, which
is derived from Sanskrit, has passed into Greek and
other European languages: see the references to nard
in classical writers collected by Naber (Mrezosyre,
1902, pp. 1-15); according to Lagarde (Mit 225)
Pers. πα is an equivalent form.? A connection with
Ar. rand, ìs very doubiful {see Mordtmann and Miller,
Sab. Denk. 82), ‘The Aramaic and Arabic names
Sebelthd and sunbz! {more fully sundu/ 4indî, ‘ Indian
spike '), like our own ' τρέξοπαγα,, have reference to the
‘ spike '-like appearance of the plant from which the
perfume is derived, Accounts of the true or Indian
nard, as well as of inferior sorts, are given by Theo-
phrastus (De Odor. 42 75), Dioscorides (175), and Pliny
{(#N 1226 7 132). Its botanical source in India
was investigated by Sir W. Jones (45. Res. 3. 405-417)"
and was ascettained independentiy by Wallich and
Royle to be the piant called Nardostackys Jatamansi
DC, of the order Valerianacee. The drug consists of
the rhizome surmounted by the fibrous remains of the
leaves. lt occurs throughout the alpine Himalaya from
Kumaon to Sikkim.

The meaning of the adjective πιστική (Mk. 143 Jn.
123t is very uncertain. Five explanations have been
offered: (1) that it means ‘liquid,’ from πίνω; (2)
that it means ‘ genuine,’ from πέστις ; (3) that it means
‘ powdered,' from πτίσσειν ; (4) that it is a local name;
(5) that it=mwrdens; (6) that it= Lat. spicita. There
is difficulty in accepting any of these explanations ; and
it is possible that the word may have quite another
origin, as Dymock (P4ermacagr. /nd. 2233) gives Pisitd
as a Sanskrit name for the spikenard plant (cp W.
Houghton, PSBA, 1888, 3144-6. N.M—W. T. T.-D.

ii. τ᾿ In AEschyl. ρον, 481(Lob. ῥημ. 131) πεστός means ‘drink-
able’ (so K. F. A. Fritzsche on Mark, following Casaubon), but
the word is only so used for the sake of a pun ; otherwise mods
and πόσιμος, but never πιστικός. It is true that πίστρα (ον),
πιστήρ are found from the same stem m-, and that according
to Athenzus (689 c) and others, oil of nard, mixed with wine,
was, as a matter of fact, taken as a beverage ; but in Mk. and
Jn. the nard is used as ointment, so that, if πιστικός is only
added with the meaning ‘liquid,’ the explanation would be
superfiuous.

Naber (as above) points out, on the other hand, that
Clem.Alex. (Ped. 28, $ 64, p. 207 ed. Potter) distin-
guishes between μύρα ὑγρά and μύρα ξηρά, and Basil
(Honm. in Ps. 449, ed. Garnier, 1 166 ὦ, also in Stephanus,
sub στακτός, 76507.) between two preparations of oint-
ment, the one fluid (ῥυτόν) called στακτή (= dropped,’
stillata, stillatitia), and the other thicker or more
Viscous (παχύτερον), called σμύρνα, The expression in
Athenzeus also (225, p. 46A: ἐκκλίνειν δεῖ τὰ πάχη
τῶν μύρων), he thiaks, has reference to this. Naber
therefore conjectures that there stood originally in Mk.
and Jn. a word (of which no traces can be met else-
where) σπειστικός (= ‘capable of being poured,' ‘liquid,’
from σπένδω). By itacism it could also have been
written σπιστικός, in which form its strangeness made
it unintelligible, and thus it finally became corrupted
into πιστικός.

1 Vg. has mardî sficati in Mk. and nardi pistici (so usually
Ttal.) n Jo.

2 Meissner has pointed out a Babylonian plant-name /arder.
This, according to Hommel (PSBA 21156 [1899]), the Baby-
lonians borrowed from an Iranian form #axd (neo-Pers. ἐδῶ τ
the Indians have for γεαγεΐ the later form rata and nala(da).

3 <A Brdkman of eminent learning gave me a parce! of the
same sort, and told me that it was used în their sacrifices ; that,
when fresh, it was exquisitely sweet, and added much to the
scent of rich essences, in which it was a principal ingredient;
that che merchants brought it from the mountainous country to
the NE. of Bengal; that it was the entire plant, not a part of
it, and received its Sanscrit names from its resemblance to locks
of hair; as it is called Sfikexard, I suppose, from its resem-
blance to a spike, when it is dried. and not from the configura»
tion of its flowers, which the Greeks, probably, never examined.
The Persian author describes the whole plant as resembling the
tail of an ermine ; and the /azdrdasi, which is manifestly the
Spikenard of our druggists, has precisely that form, consisting
of withered stalks and ribs of leaves, cohering in a bundle of
yeilowish brown capillary fibres, and constituting a spike about
the size of a small finger (24. ci4., 409/).

4750

SPINNING

2. The adjective πιστικός occurs with the meaning ‘convince.
ing' and also ‘having the power of persuading* (Plato, Gorg.
4554} Diog. Laert.437; Dion. Hal., ed. Reiske, 5631; Theo.
phrast, in Avistot. opera metapl., ed, Syiburg 253, ed. Brandis,
309), though in almost every instance of its occurrence the
Variant πειστικός is preferred (Bekker and Stallbaum on Pilato;
Lob. on Soph. .4/. 151); in later times it means, when used of
persons, ‘faithful’ ‘reliable’ (Licke on Jn.123, Index to
Cedrenus). If, therefore, we adopt the translation ‘genuine’
(Meyer on Mk.)-and such a meaning is conceivable—we must
suppose that the word is used rather freely, just as in commercial
language, for instance, attributes which more often apply only
to persons are not infrequently used of goods. Pliny (HW xii.
26, ὃ 45) mentions that in commerce nard was apt to be adulter-
ated by admixture of pseudonardus, a plant resembling it,

3. Lob., βάν. 31, supports Scaliger's derivation from πτίσσειν,
‘to pound (K. Εἰ, A. Fritzsche on Mk. 595), τ after m being some-
times dropped out for the sake of euphony (cp ei, π(σ)έρνιξ, and
Lat. si(n)so = πτίσσω, ferna = πτέρνη). But how, it may be
asked, could powdered nard be suitable for anoînting?

4. Îf it is a local name it has been suggested that it stands
either for Ὅπιστικός (from Opis not far from Babylon) or for
Ψιττακικός (from Psittake on the Tigris). Still more likely
would he Πέστα, an abbreviation—according to the Scholion on
ZEschyl. Pers. 2--of a Persian town Πέστειρα; but we cannot
be sure that this notice (which according to Stephanus refers
to a Thracian town) is trustworthy.

5. E. N. Bennett (Class, Nez., 1890, p. 319) seesin the word an
allusion to the Pistacia TerebintAws, the resin of which, together
with other sweet scents (c.£., βάλσαμον, cp BALM, INCENSE),
was mixed with the oil of nard. Dioscorides says (Mar. Med.
191) of the πεστάκη ; γεννᾶται δὲ καὶ ἐν ᾿Ιουδαίᾳ καὶ Συρίᾳ καὶ ἐν
Κύπρῳ, its resin is εὐώδης, προέχει δὲ πασῶν τῶν ῥητινῶν (he
describes nard in 1 6.1). Bennett, therefore, thinks that vdpdos
πιστάκης is intended. According to Hdn. ii, 428 24, and
Stephanus, rà ψιττάκια would be another form of τὰ πιστάκια,
the fruit of the πιστάκη, which Hdn. (i. 815 16) derives from the
town Ψιττάκη.

6. Nestle (ΖΝ ΤΗΣ, 1902, pp. 169-171) explains πεστικός from
the Latin name war44s spicaza ; the participle spicafxs could be-
some in vulgar Latin spicizs, just as prodatus became frobitus
and vocatus vocitus (Rénsch, /fala u. Vulgata, p. 296, cp 283
{1869, ®ì 1875], and, more fully, Collectanca Bhilologica, 221-223
{189r]=ZW7% 1877, pp. 409-412); next s6ic/fs was transformed
into πιστικός. The supposition however is not easy ; for as late
as the second half of the second Christian century we find Galen
taking the word over into Greek in the form σπίκατα,

The ‘nardus spicata of (Ital, and) Vg. is intelligible when we
remember that the nard-plant—which indeed is called ναρδό-
σταχυς, spica nardi—resembled in shape an ear of corn. Ὁ

N MW. T.T.-D., i; P. WS, ih

SPINNING. See Linen, WEAVING.

SPIRIT (ΠῚ, r4d2, fem. about seventy-three, mas.
about thirty-two times: in & TTNEYMA, aNEMOC,
1. Meaning. TINOH, CTOMA, Aoroc, daerma,
WYXH, κἄρλιὰ, OYMOc. NOYC;

OP[H, OÀYNH, @ponHcic, Bonera, φώς, mepoc),
originally ‘wind,’ and so the point of the compass
from which the wind blows. In poetry, which no doubt
Tepresents ancient usage, the storm wind is the breath of
Yahwè's mouth or nostrils (δι σι, Ex. 158 το Ps. 1816 [15}},
and since the commotion of nature is a sign of his dis-
pleasure, the 74% of Yahwé becomes synonymous with
his wrath (Is. 44 5919 Zech. 68 Job 49 1530). The rdd4&
or spirit of a man is his disposition, his mental state;
he may be ‘ depressed in spirit," ‘of a proud spirit,’ ‘of
a patient spirit' (Prov. 1618 f Eccles. 78). It is natural
to compare the wind, invisible itself but visible in its
effects, with the mental disposition displaying itself in
mien and action. Just in the same way Aeschylus,
describing the changed mind of Agamemnon says that
he 'blew an impious veering gale of mind' {φρενὸς
πνέων δυσσεβῆ τροπαίαν, Ag. 217)
Ina very early passage, Gen. 6.3, 7744 denotes the divine
substance or nature, not necessarily immaterial, but far
removed from the weakness of mortal flesh. By inter-
marriage of the ‘ sons of God” or angels with women, a
portion of this divine spirit has passed to their descend-
ants, and therefore Vahwè declares, ‘ My spirit shall
not continue (?} for ever in man, since he is only flesh,"
and shortens the span of human life to 120 years.! But
though the spirit or invisible power of God was not
proper to man, it descended upon the heroes of Israel
and endowed them with superhuman energy. It fell on
Othniel (Judg. 310); on Jephthah (1129); on Samson

1 On this passage cp News, $ 1,
4751

SPIRIT

(146 19 1514). ‘The phenomenon has no ethical im-
port. Samson shows that the spirit of Vahwè has
descended on him by rending a lion as if it were a kid.
Similarly the divine spirit produces prophetic frenzy
(1.106 τὸ 1920 23), such, e.g., that Saul strips off his
clothes and lies a day and ἃ night naked. The spirit
might transport a prophet miraculously (2 K.216).
Sometimes Yahwéè sent a lying spirit on his prophets
{x Καὶ. 2222) or the spirit of strife into a city {Judg.
923), or a spirit of melancholy madness (r 5, 1614,
etc.).

Far higher is the use of 77244 in the literary prophets.
To Isaiah, Yahwé (Is, 313) is ‘spirit’ because he is the
spiritual principle in the history of the world and as
such invisible, Moreover, the spirit of prophecy is an
abiding gift. To ignore the prophet's counsel is to set
at nought God's spirit which speaks through him
(15.301). In the same sense Hosea had spoken (97)
of the prophet as ‘a man of the spirit.’ But before
Ezekiel references to ‘the spirit' as in the prophets
only occur in Ts.80: Hos. 97 and perhaps Mic. 88,
A prophet so deeply spiritual as Jeremiah avoids the
term ‘spirit’ altogether; it had been associated too
long with frenzy and marvel,

The following are the chief points in the exilic and
post-exilic conception of spirit. It is an official

2, Later Charisma, speaking, e.g., habitualiy in David
È rage: (25.232) and fitting the Messiah for the
Ὁ discharge of his duties (15. 112), conferring
wisdom on judges and martial vigour on warriors (Is.
286). It is characteristic of P that he attributes it only
to Joshua, who receives it in increased measure by the
imposition of Moses' hands (Nu. 27187 Dt. 349). It
is to dwell în the midst of the people as a ‘new spirit”
{Ezek. 362687), and to be poured out from on high on
land and people (15. 3215). Thefulfilment of this promise
is assumed in Ps. 51 τὰ [13] 14310; cp Neh. 920. Twice!
it is called the holy spirit, Ps. δ1 στ [13] and 15, 6310,
in which latter passage it is personified (cp Eph. 430),
and twice ‘the good spirit’ (Neh. 920 Ps.14810). It
is a cosmie power, producing order (Gen.12) and
fertility (15.321). It is the principle of all-pervading
energy (15. 8416) and omnipresence (Ps.1397). It is
the νοῦς or intelligence of Yahwè (15. 4013), not as in
earlier writers his essence. Finally, in a very late
passage, it is the breath of life which God imparts, and
which at death returns to him {Eccles. 127; cp Job 273
334 34 147. Ps. 104297). Cp FLESH, W. E, A.
In discussing the NT use of πνεῦμα, the question*
is complicated by the employment of other words,
especially of fsyche, ψυχή, soul, to de-
pica note the interior part of man, whereas
SPS σάρξ, flesh, is the single word to denote
the material part. As a general thing both words are
used with reference to the contrast between the spiritual
and the material part, and both words are ennobled by
this contrast. When Jesus speaks of the value of the soul
{ψυχή : Mt. 1626), and contrasts it with the comparative
unimportance of the body (Mt. 1028), and Paul advises
the delivering over of the flesh to destruction, in order
that the spirit (πρεῦμα) may be saved (1 Cor. 55), they are
both evidently using different words for the same thing.
And apart from the Pauline epistles and two passages
in the epistles of James and Jude respectively (Ja. 315
Jude 19), these words are used in the same way to
express the contrast between the spiritual part of man
and material things, but are not contrasted with each
other. But Paul found it necessary to express this.
contrast not only in terms of the spiritual and the
material, but also of the spiritual and the natural
(1 Cor. 214), and for this purpose he uses the elsewhere
synonymouys words, rezma and psyche. 7
The psyche is the vital or spiritual part of the natural

1 [Not counting Wisd. 917, cp 722, where wisdom (ir the
enlarged sense natural to an orthodox but Hellenised Jew) is
traced to ‘thy holy spirit.’]

4752

SPIRIT

man, and the /zezza is the new part brought into
activity when the supernatural man begins
his career with the entrance of the divine
preuma. Pauldoes notstate this expressly;
but it appears from his introduction of the human co-
incidently with the divine preuzia (cp Ròm. 810 16 with
the rest of the passage 1-27. And see τ Cor. 617 19, cp
14-17 with rest of passage). It isevident from the passage
in 1 Cor. that prezziza is not to be identified with rows,
the intelligence, in Rom.723, where it is used inter-
changeably with the ‘inner man,’ which rebels against
the sin of the outer man, ‘That faculty, the spirit, is
the organ evidently of the Holy Spirit, and does not
appear in the apostle's account of the situation until
the entrance of the Holy Spirit which removes the
disability discussed in our passage, Rom.81-9, cp ©.
10 16. ‘The faculty which ineffectually rebels against
sin in the natural man is the mind. It is very much
as if the apostle had said that when he sinned even in
the natural man, he knew better, and his intelligence
rebelled against it, but ineffectually, because the very
organs of action were the seat of sino But the inner
man after the coming of the Spirit is spirit, which ἰδ
freed from the bondage of the flesh.
We must not think, however, of the human spirit as
the essential factor in the new man according to Paul.
The essential factor is the Divine
δ. The Divine Spirit, who effects deliverance for the
PIO. man not by creating or awakening a
new faculty in him, but by coming himself to dwell
in him. That is the reason why it is the Holy Spirit,
not the human spirit, that is constantly brought
into contrast with the flesh in Paul. This has led

4. Pauline
usage.

to the statement that the apostle does not speak of

a human spirit. But the use, while infrequent, is
sufficiently distinet. The human spirit is evidently the
part in which, and upon which, the Holy Spirit works,
and through which it controls the man, but which has
no office except in connection with the Divine Spirit.
Without the Divine Spirit it is like ears in a soundless
world, The real agent in substituting holiness instead
of sin in man is God, not man. What is this Divine
Spirit? The answer is not always the same. In the
earlier Jewish literature, it is an emanation from the
One God through which he performs various offices—
e.£., creation—but especially that of inspiring in man
the knowledge and skill needed for his work. In
general we may say, that whenever God is represented
as a diffused presence, he is represented as working
through the spirit. And in no pre-Pauline writings is
there any indication that the impersonal use is departed
from. But in Paul, and In. especially, there is the
beginning of the later doctrine of the Spirit as a distinet
entity, quasi-personal, in God. He is to God what the
spirit is ia man (1 Cor. 210f); but in God this is objecti.
fied, represented as a distinct personality (Rom, 827
Gal. 35 Jn. 1426 1613).

There is a distinct difference, however, between the
Pauline and the Johannine theology in the doctrine of
the Spirit. In both, he is the principle

δ. Pauline and cf immanence in God, the one through ;
Li O ROTO whom God dwells in men, conveying
PES ρα, το them the truth, not in the external

way by which men communicate with
each other, and which has no power of enforcement or
persuasion sufficient to beget in men the spirit of holi-
ness, but internally and with regenerative power, And
in both especially he conveys to men the grace of which

4753

SPIRIT

Christ is the author. Βαϊ in Paul, he is the principle
not only of immanence, but of incarnation. In Jn. it
is the Logos, the Word of God, who is incarnate in
Christ. ‘The thought is borrowed from the Alexandrian
philosophy, which represents God as creating various
natural. products out of the ideas of the same in his
mind, These ideas are endowed with life and creative
power, so that God creates not only out of them, but
through them. Besides these individual ideas, there is
the collective idea of the universe as a whole, the Logos,
or Word, which is also vested with a life and quasi-
personality of its own. ‘The incarnation of this in the
Son of God is thus only the final form of the incarnation
which is the generative idea of the Logos. ‘The Spirit,
on the other hand, is in Jun, the principle of innnanence.
If we go back to the philosophy from which the Logos
idea is derived, the Logos is the thought of God,
distinctly a principle of incarnation. But the Pneuma
is the Spirit in which the thought is generated, and this
is as obviously a principle of immanence.. All this is
distinetly different from Paul's thought. Ης has no
Logos doctrine, which is a thought derived from
Alexandrianism, and Paul is not an Alexandrian. He
declares himself a zealous Pharisee, and opposed to any
attempt to translate religion iuto the terms of philosophy
(Gal. 114 1 Cor.11z-3:). But Pharisaism and Alex-
andrianism are at opposite poles of thought, and
Alexandrianism is an attempt to philosophise religion.
And yet Pani teaches the pre-existence of Jesus and his
sharing in the work of creation (Phil. 25-11 1 Cor. 86}.
What then is the principle of incarnation in Christ?
It cannot Ὡς God himself, as Paul distinguishes between
God and the Lord Jesus Christ. Οπ the other hand,
whilst tbere is only one passage which has the ap-
pearance of distinguishing Christ from the Spirit (2
Cor. 1314), there are many passages which seem to
identify them. In the first place, the indwelling of
Christ, his mystical union with the believer, is ex-
changed frequently for an indwelling of the Spirit.
‘Then the Spirit is called the Spirit of Christ, and Jesus”
divine Sonship is attributed to the Holy Spirit. He is
the Son of God on that side of his being, as he is Son
of David on the side of the flesh (Rom.13/). And
fimally it is distinctly said that the Lord is the Spirit
(a Cor. 317 f.).

Now, it is not as if this was unexpected. If Jesus
was in any way pre-existent, and that pre-existence
antedated creation, and he had a share in creation,
then he is in some way an incarnation of the Divine,
And în the Jewish theotogy the only Divine principle
remaining, after eliminating God himself as expressìy
excluded, and the Alexandrian Logos as ruled out by
Paul's opposition to Alexandrianism, is the Spirit of
God. In Paul, therefore, the incarnation is of the
Holy Spirit. E. P.G.

The OT Theologies of Schultz and Smend, and the NT
Theologies of B. wi ss and Holtzmann; Kònig, Ofentarungs.

ΕἼ: des AT 87210; Giesebrecht, Ze
7. Literature. der ATtichen Prophetea,
FL vendi, Die 2a egrife Fieisch ἐς
Geist im biblicchen SAL lieta (1878); A. Westphal, Chair
et esprit (Toulouse, 1885); Lidemann, Die Anthropotogie des
Ap. Paulus (1872: PAciderer, Pazlinis (ET, 2 vols.);
Cremer, PRE) art, ‘Geist'; Gunkel, Die Wirkungen des
heil, Getstes (1888), 5-62; 1. Koeberle, Natur w. Geist, nach
der Auffassung des AT (1990); F.C. Porter, ‘The Yecer Hara,
a Study in the Jewish Doctrine of Sin” Biblical ‘and Semitie
Stadîes (New York, 1901), where note criticism of Pfleiderer's
interpretation of Paul's conception of spirit and flesh, See also
SerrituaL GiFTS

W.E. A. gt fi; E.P.G., 88 3-6.

4754

SPIRITUAL GIFTS

SPIRITUAL GIFTS

SPIRITUAL GIFTS
CONTENTS

Definition ($ 1).
χάρισμα 1 what? (8 2).
elimitation of field ($ 3).
Classification (8 4).
Charisms other than that of speech (ἢ 5).
SWrisdom and ‘knowledge'; ‘exhorting'
8 6).
‘ Prophecy” (8 7).

‘Spiritual Gifts' is a comprehensive name for all

those extraordinary and often directly miraculous powers
A of which we learn, chiefty from 1 Cor.

1. Definition. 10... 28-39 Rom. 123-8, that they were
possessed by many Christians of the apostolic age, and,
according to Paul, had their origin in a specific opera-
tion of the Holy Spirit, which has for its object the
profit of the church.

When în 1 Cor. 126 the ‘workings' (ἐνεργήματα) are assigned
to God, or in 7. 5 the ‘ministrations’ (διακονίαι) brought into
connection with Christ, we are not to see în this any real
departure from the regular attribution of the spiritual gifts to
the Holy Ghost. The phrase in v. s—‘diversities of ministrations
but the same Lord,”is simply another expression of the purpose for
which the giîts are given—the common good of the church ; for
he who serves the church serves Christ who is the Lord of the
church, or, according to another way of putting it, who is the
soul of the church which is his body (12 127). The phraseinw. 6
on the other hand—‘ diversities of workings but the same God'—
is appropriate in so far as by the ‘workings” în question we are
to understand according to v. ro ‘workings of powers,' or of
miracles (ἐνεργήματα δυνάμεων), of which one most readily
thinks of God as the author. They are nevertheless attributed
precisely în the next verse (τ, rr) to the Holy Spirit, a conclusive
proof that no real distinction ought to he drawn here between

im and God as the author of these workings.

The word charisma in this connection is plainly used
in a narrow technical sense. (a) That the thought of

Β the grace of God as being the source

2. Literal from which the bestowal of a charisma

of χά E comes is still very vividly realised is shown

χάρισμα. py Rom. 126: ‘having gifts (charisms),

differing according to the grace that was given to us’

(ἔχοντες χαρίσματα κατὰ τὴν χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσαν ἡμῖν
διάφορα).

In the only INT passage where οξαρήρρινα (χάρισμα) is coupled
with the adjective ‘spiritual’ (πνευματικόν), the technical sense
is, as ît happens, absent; in Rom.1u1r it does not mean any
gpecial aptitude bossessed by Paul, but a gilt (in the way of
instruction, encouragement, consolation, or the like) which he
‘hopes to be able to confer upon the Romans in the course of his
visit, even if ‘spiritual’ (πνευματικόν) expresses the thought
that he himself in tum has received it from the Holy Ghost.
Still further removed from the specified meaning of the word
charisma as given above, though again with a passive applica»
tion (gift that is conferred), are the applications of it which we
find in Rom. 6 23 (eternal life the ckarissza, not of the Holy
Ghost but of God), in 11 29 (the charismata of God=the favonrs
bestowed by God upon his people Israel as enumerated in
94), in 2 Cor. αν (without τοῦ Θεοῦ : the charisma of Paul's
deliverance from deadly danger); so also in Rom. 515.7 where
the justification of sinful man is the charisma of God and Christ.
The word denotes the whole aggregate of God's henevolent
operation in the universe in the single passage outside of the
NT, and the Church Fathers in which it is known to occur
(Philo, Legis aZfegor. 8.24 end, 1 τος ed, Mangey : ΑἸΙ things
în the universe, and the universe itself, are the donation and
benefaction and gif? of God ' (Buwpeà καὶ εὐεργεσία καὶ χάρισμα
Θεοῦ τὰ πάντα ὅσα ἐν κόσμῳ καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ κόσμος ἐστίν).

(3) Very sharply distinguished from these uses is the
technical sense in which the word is employed, whether
in the pl. (Rom. 126 1 Cor. 12431; and, with the
addition of ‘healings’ [Jaudrwr], 12928 30), or in the.
sing. with a negative (17: ‘so that ye come behind în
no charisma'), or in a distributive sense (1 Pet dio:
‘according as each has received a charisma'; cp 1 Cor.
77: ‘each man hath his own charisma from God’).
In just the same way, in the technical sense, the dis-
tributive singular of ‘grace’ (χάρις) stands in connection
with the plural ‘gift’ (δόματα), in Eph. 47fi: ‘unto each
one of us was the grace given according to the measure
of the gift (δωρεᾶς) of Christ. Wherefore he saith . . .
He gave gifts (δόματα) unto men.” Not till we reach
the Pastoral Epistles do we find the sing. charism
(χάρισμα), used comprehensively to denote all the

4755

Not figurative ($ 12).

Speaking with tongues: what? ($ 8).
Tongues not foreign languages ($ 9).
Acts? 1-13 and Mk. 16 17 (8 10).
Tongues not archaie expressions (8 στ),

Tongue, the bodily organ (ἢ 13).
Tongue=tongue-spesch ($ 14).

Interpretation of tongue-speech ($ 15).

Diffusion and cessation of tongue-speech
and prophecy charisms (8 τό).

Popular view of spiritual charisms (8 17).

Discerning of spirits ($ 18).

Paul's view of spiritual charisms (8 19).

Conclusion (ἢ 20).

Literature ($ 21).

aptitudes which Timothy, as a bearer of ecclesiastica

office, possesses, or ought to possess: ‘neglect not

the charism that is in thee' (1 Tim. 414); “1 put thee

in remembrance that thou stir up the charism of God

which is in thee' (e Tim. 16).

{c) For us the technical meaning of the word is first
met with in Paul, At the same time, we may at least
be certain that Paul did not invent it when he was com-
posing his epistles: for he employs it in his writings
without any explanation, as referring to a matter quite
well known. There remains a possibility that he may
have coined the expression, in the course of his observa-
tions of the extraordinary endowments intended by it,
while engaged în his missionary labours. We may well
venture upon such a conjecture, seeing that the idea of
grace (ckeris) is so specially prominent with Paul.
Yet the expression can also have sprung into existence
in the Christian churches without the agency of Paul.

No one of the three leading passages relating to
spiritual gifts in the writings of Paul, as given above
ΗΝ (8. 1), can claim to be a complete

ἢ Delnite. account, and it therefore remains un-

certain whether even all three together
make mention of everything which Paul reckoned to this
category. (a) Nevertheless the attempt must be
made, with the help of these three principal passages
and other subsidiary ones, to form to ourselves some
conception of the range of the phenomenon in question,

‘Prophecy' (προφητεία) is the only charism that is actually
named in all three passages; but in effect so also is ‘teaching’
(διδασκαλία), if we permit ourselves to regard the ‘word of
wisdom' (λόγος σοφίας), and the ‘word of knowledge” (A.
γνώσεως), of x Cor. 123 taken together as identical with ‘teach
ingy—a view which is favoured by 1426 (‘teaching' [διδαχή],
co-ordinated with ‘revelation, tongue, interpretation’ [drro-
κάλυψις, γλῶσσα, ἑρμηνεία), whilst in 146 ‘Inowledge
[γνῶσις] also is found co-ordinated with ‘teaching’ (διδαχή)
as well as ‘tongues, revelation, prophecy ᾿(γλῶσσαι, ἀποκάλυψις,
προφητεία), so that only the “word of wisdom' (λόγος vopias)
seems to be left as synonym for ‘teaching’ (διδαχή). In both
the leading passages in 1 Cor. ‘gifts of healings' (χαρίσματα
ἰαμάτων), ‘powers’ or ‘miracles’ δυνάμεις), and ‘diversities of
tongues' (γένῃ γλωσσῶν), occur in addition to the other concepts
already mentioned. Rom. has with the first passage in 1 Cor.
(12 5) nothing but ‘“ministry ’ (διακονία) in common, but in that
firsi passage, as well as in 1 Cor. 16 15, this word-séems to have
a more extended application than in Rom. 127; with the second
passage in 1 Cor. (12 28-30) Rom. hasin substance but one concept
in common—on the assumption, that is to say, that we may
identify the προϊστάμενος ( μα that ruleth') with him who has
the gift of ‘government’ ζκυβέρνησις), Peculiar to the first

ssage in 1 Cor. (12 4-11)are ‘faith, discerning of spirits’ (πίστις,
δικρέσις mveusdiretì, and : interpretation οἱ fongues' (ἐρμηνκία
γλωσσῶν); to the second (12 28-30) the concepts ‘apostle' (ἀπό-
στολος), and ‘helps! (Gvridiutecs) ; and to Rom. ‘admonishing”

raparar@r), ‘giving’ (μεταδιδούς), and ‘showing mercy'
ἐλεῶν),

(2) Eph. 4rr and Justin, DieZ 39, can be adduced
only as secondary authorities, so long as it is with the
apostolic age that we are dealing.

Eph. (on its date see col. 3120, n. 3) noticeably enumerates
offices only, not charisms. Of these Paul had already named
the ‘apostles, ‘prophets,' and ‘teachers,’ and also the ‘pastors’
(ποιμένες), if these are to be taken as equivalent to the ‘rulers'
ἱπροϊστάμενοι of Rom.128. Peculiar to Eph. are the ‘evange-
lists' (elayyeAcorai), on whom see Misty, 8 39 a, ὁ, Of
the gifes enumerated by Paul Justin has only ‘healing’ (ἴασις),
and ‘teaching’ (διδασκαλία). What he designates ‘ understand»
ing’ (σύνεσις), may safely be identified with ‘wisdom’ (σοφία),
and his ‘strength’ (ἐσχύτ) perhaps with ‘power’ (δύναμες), as
he attributes ‘strength’ (ἐσχύς) to Moses (Dia/ 87), The new
elements în his list are ‘counsel’ (βουλή), ‘foreknowledge*
(πρόγνωσις), which answers only in a very limited degree to the
* prophecy ' {προφητεέα) of Paul, and ‘ fear of God' (φόβος Θεοῦ),
Four of his seven concepts— understanding ᾿(σύνεσες), ‘counsel’
(βουλή), ‘strength* (ἰσχύς), and ‘fear of God' (φόβος Θεοῦ).--

4756

SPIRITUAL GIFTS

ustin has taken direct from Is.112,7 (5, where, according to
is interpretation (/02/. 87), are enuerated the seven powers
of the Holy Spirit which were all of them to rest upon Jesus
from his baptism onwards, whilst the saints of the OT and
Christians never receive more than one or a few of them. [ἢ Is.
we find, besides the four words already given, ‘wisdom’ (σοφία),
‘imowledge’ (γνῶσις), and ‘piety’ (εὐσέβεια). It is plainly
with reference to knowledge (γρῶσις}, that Justin speaks of
foreknowledge (ra6yww945), for he lays stress upon the argument
that in his time ‘prophetic charisms' {προφητικὰ χαρίσματα)
are still found among Christians, and that thus the OT gift of
prophecy—by which he understands merely prediction of future
cvents—has passed over to the followers of Christ (Diz/ 82,
begin.).

(c) It will be noticed that in all the enumerations
almost no reference whatever is made to the virtues that
are looked for in every Christian. Even ‘ministry'
(διακονία), ‘giving’ (μεταδιδόναι), ‘showing mercy”
(ἐλεῶν), are enumerated only on the assumption that
they have risen to a pitch that is not attainable by
every Christian The extraordinary character, rising
in many cases to the level of the miraculous, which has
been noted in ὃ x as the first criterion of charisms in

the technical sense, is thus preserved. AIl the less

have we any occasion to lay stress on the ‘fear of

God,' which Justin has merely taken from Isaiah,
or to extend in an analogous way the limits of our
category in the direction in which this would be per-
missible, if one elected to pay heed only to the second
criterion (see $ 1)—that they are attributed to the
agency of the Holy Spirit—-and, further, to take it as
one's guiding principle that according to Paul the whole
new life of the Christian, with all its virtues, is a work
of the Holy Spirit (Gal. 522: love, joy, peace, etc.).
It would therefore be a mistake to accept the limits for
our present concept, as these are laid down by Weinel
(below, $ 21), who in fact writes not about the ‘ gifts,”
but about the operations, of the Spirit. To these of
course belongs the ethically good state of the will, treated
of by Weinel (149-161), with all its effects ; it does not
belong to the order of charisms.

(4) There is still another element included by Weinel
which we for our part must exclude. The receiving of
revelations—-apart from the subsequent reporting of
them--or the power to endure martyrdom {or even
ascetic privations) may be traced back to the Holy
Spirit, and may also possess the note of the extra-
ordinary in a very high degree, yet they ought not to
be reckoned to the number of the charisms because they
lack the third criteriont—that of utility for the life of the
church.

This criterion must have had very great importance in Paul's
view; for not only does he in 1 Cor.127 1472-33 make it the
chief goal of his entire discussion of the charisms (although he
as been led to the mention of them, not by this thought but by
that of the unity of the Holy Spirit), but also in Rom. 12 6:8 the
same goal is set before him, although the occasion is in like
manner different, namely, the thought of the unity of the church
notwithstanding the diversity of its members. Oneis notentitled
to suppose that the profit of the church is only an application of
the charisns which Paul would like to see made, not a consti.
tutive element in the concept itself. So far from that being the
case, this criterion is for the apostle so important, that he would
tefuse to reckon to the number of charisms în the technical sense
of which we are now speaking, any phenomenon which yielded
no advantage for the community at large.

(e) For this reason we must hesitate before including
in the category in question one manifestation which
Paul himself expressly designates by the name of
charisma. ἴπ 1 Cor, 76. he wishes that all were un-

married as he himself is, but does not set this up as a |

positive command, ‘because each man hath his own
gift from God, one after this manner and another after
that.”

It would be a mistake to believe that Paul here intends to
contrast a ckarisma of marriage with a χάρισμα ἐγκρατείας (as,
following 79, we may designate the other side of the com-
parison); for'in this whole section he regards marriage, and the
intercourse of the sexes in marriage, not as a good in itself, but
only as a preservative against evil (7250). Rather must we
take as the antithesis to the χάρισμα ἐγκρατείας some one or
other of the charisms emumerated in chap, 12, Paul, however,
would hardly have arrived at such a co-ordination if for his own
personal calling the uamarried condition had not carried with it
8 direct and obvious utility for the churches under his care—

152 4757

SPIRITUAL GIFTS

that, namely, of Icaving him freer for the preaching of the gospel
and pecuniarily less dependent on the churches, in which freedom
and independence he discerned a great ad vantage for the exercise
of his office, and specially for the assertion and establishment of
his authority (1 Cor.7 327 912 15-18 2 Cor. 117-12). When,
therefore, he speaks of the unmarried condition as a charism, he
will, broadly speaking, be thinking of himself and of those in a
like position wich himself. Otherwise we should have expected
him to class as charisms also other forms of asceticism, such as
abstinence from certain kinds of food, or voluntary poverty ; but
this he never does,

After defining the field our next task must be a
classification of the charisms of so very various kinds.

senstion (4) It might seem as if Paul himself
4 Classification. ἢ κα undertaken it when, in the first
of the three leading passages (1 Cor. 124-6), before
going into details, he sets up these three great
categories—‘ charisms’ (χαρίσματα), 'ministries’ {da-
κορίαι), and ' works' (ἐνεργήματα).

If, however, we decide to take these verses as setting forth a
strict arrangement, we shall have to believe that in the detailed
enumeration in 222, 7-11, where each charism is traced back to
the Holy Spirit, only the first of the three great categories
has been specifically dealt with, since the second and third of
these—' ministries’ (Gaxovia), and ‘works' (@vepyiuara)—are
brought into connection not with the Holy Spirit but with
Christ, or God. This again, however, would not be în accord»
ance with Ὁ. ro, where ‘ works’ [‘of powers] (ἐνεργήματα [δυνά-
pewv]), are included în this detailed list; and în Rom. 127 the
‘ ministries’ (διακονία! belong to the charisms (χαρίσματαλ.
Thus ‘charism,’ ‘ministry’ and ‘work' (χάρισμα, διακονία, and
ἐνέργημα), are only three different names for alì, or at least many
of these gifts, and they are chosen with conscious reference to
the three modes of divine revelation. The most comprehensive
would seem to be, according to 7.6, ‘work’ (ἐνέργημα), (Cod
worketh ali things în all); according to Rom. 126 * charism'
(χάρισμα): in 1 Cor. 1615 * ministry' (διακονία) is used also in
a very comprehensive sense.

(3) Within the detailed enumeration made in 1 Cor.
128-10 a classification might seem to be hinted at by
Paul himself, when he uses ‘other’ (ἄλλῳ) six times and
* different’ {ἑτέρῳ) twice ; for ‘different’ (ἕτερος) may
mean ‘of another kind,’ whilst ‘other' (4XXos} signifies
merely ‘ not identical.*

In that case, however, we should have to subsume under the
fixed confidence or ‘faith’ (πέστις, τι, 9), which is introduced by
the first ‘different’ (ἐτέρῳ), not merely the gift of healing and
the power of working miracles (which would be suitable enough),
but also ‘prophecy’ and ‘discerning of spirits' (which would not
suit at all). ‘Other’ and ‘different’ are thus used only for the
sake of variety, not with the intention of expressing a
difference.

{c) Any attempt to find a suggested classification in
the omission of the particle ‘and’ (δέ) in many instances
also breaks down,

In 7, τὸ the second and third δέ are put in brackets by WH.
If in these two cases the particle is taken as genuine, then each
‘other’ (ἄλλῳ is accompanied by δέ, and ‘different (ἑτέρῳ) in

th cases is without it ; the classification would then be the same
as under (5). If both are deleted, ‘discerning of spirits’ as one
principal division would be separated from ‘ prophecy ' as another
principal division, although unquestionably the two are not more
widely separated than ‘interpretation of tongues’ from ‘kinds
of tongues' (1429). Thus we should have to reject the first of
the two δέ and retain the second (so Bern. Weiss.) For this,
however, the authorities give not the slightest warrant, for în
both cases the evidence is almost exactly the same for the re-
tention and also, on the other hand, the same for the deletion.

(4) ‘Thus all that remains for us is to attempt some
sort of classification from the nature of the case. ‘The
points that seem clearest are these: (1) to the ‘ works
of powers’ (ἐνεργήματα δυνάμεων) of 1 Cor. 1210 28 be-
long the ‘charisms of healing® (χαρίσματα ἰαμάτων) of
vv. 928 which were invariably regarded as miraculous,
and the ‘faith’ (loris) of 2. 9 since, in 138, it is spoken
of as able to remove mountains. (2) To the ‘ministry*
(διακονία) of Rom. 127 belong certainly the ‘givings’
(μεταδιδόναι) and ‘showing mercy’ (ἐλεᾶν) of 128,
and the ‘helps’ (ἀντιλήμψει:) of 1 Cor. 1228. This,
if we take διακονία in a narrow sense. In a wider
sense of the word there is a 'ministry of the word'
(διακονία τοῦ λόγου, Acts 64), and in the sense in which
the word appears to be used in 1 Cor. 1615 other gifts
also might easily be included under it, as Stephanas had
rendered useful service in the guidance of the church at
Corinth as well. Yet (3) it is better to regard the govern-
ments' (κυβερνήσειφ) οἵ 1 Cor. 1228 as forming an inde-

4758

SPIRITUAL GIFTS

pendent main division, to which of course the ‘ governor*
(προϊστάμενος) of Rom. 128 will belong. Most amply
subdivided (4) is the gift of the ‘word’; ‘word of
wisdom (λόγος σοφίας), ‘ofknowledge' (λόγος γνώσεως),
the first of them (or both of them)= ‘teaching’ (dida-
σκαλία), or, if it is the product of the charism that is
thought cf,='doctrine' (διδαχή) ; see $ 34. ‘Then there
is also the ‘admonish* (παρακαλεῖν) of Rom. 128; but
also very specially ‘ prophecy' (προφητεία) together with
‘discerning of spirits' (διάκρισις πνευμάτων) and the
‘kinds of tongues” {γένη Ὑλῳσσῶν) with ‘interpretation
of tongues' ἑρμηνεία γλωσσῶν). An apostle (1 Cor.
1228) combines the gift of the word with that of direction
and of miracle-working (2 Cor. 1212).

The first three classes call for but little remark by way
of explanation. It has elsewhere been shown from the
sources (see GOSPELS, $ 144; cp also

δ. Charisms i
below, $ 16) how widespread, down
apart from that
‘of the word. to the end of the second century, was

the belief that many Christians
possessed the power of working miracles, and very
specially that of driving out evit spirits, It is specially
important to observe that the same power is not denied
of those who are not Christians, but only attributed in
their case to the agency of demons. This goes to show
that some kernel of actual fact in the alleged occurrences
is undeniable.

We may seek to explain these from natural causes, a method
ofexplanation that presents no particular difficulty, least of all
in cases of casting-out of devils—i.e., healings of mental disease,
which, however, often enough will have heen only temporary in
their effect. We may further take it chat the faith which saw
miracles in those really unnuraculous events will, without dis-
crimination, have attributed to those who produced them per-
formances also of such a nature as would really have been
irreconcilable with the laws of nature. The collection to be
found in Weinel (109-127) shows, however, that the Christian
writers, apart from quite summary accounts, refer, with regard to
the first and second centuries, almost exclusively only toexorcisms,
and attribute miracles of the more pronounced sort to heathen
sorcerers and to the gnostics (who, in holy horror, are put on the
same level with the sorcerersì Exceptions are the legendary
works in which such magical arts, as practised by Simon Magus,
are imitated by Peter or by Peter and Paul with a view to out:
doing them (see Simon PerER, $ 33/), or apocryphal Acts of
Apostles, partly of gnostic origin, the spirit of which is illus-
trated by some examples in ΌΗΝ, SON or ZEBEDEE, $ 8/,
and in Simon PeTkr, 8 46.

On ὁ ministry* (δεακονέα), see DEACON, $ 31 οὐ ‘government*
(κνβέρνησις) and its development, see MINISTRY, $ 9, and subse-
quent sections,

The various forms of the fourth class, on the other
hand, demand careful and detailed investigation. Let

curi » us begin with the “word of wisdom”

δ. * Wisdom” (15,05 σοφίαϑ) and ‘word of knowledge"

4 and 1, λόγος γνώσεως) in τ Cor.128. It is

‘exho: dg a’ obvious from the first that the two are

© "very closely related; forin 27-16 ‘know*
(γινώσκειν) figures as the verb to which the substantive
“ wisdom' (σοφία) corresponds. If, notwithstanding,
the two must be regarded as characteristically distiuct
in our leading passage, the difference accordingìy is
hardly to be sought in their differing contents, but rather
in the way in which the human spirit appropriates the
same material which is brought before it by each. Now,
according to 2 Cor. 46 (cp 214), gròdsis appears to be
applied to the knowledge of what is perceived in an
ecstatic condition ; for Paul who had never known Jesus
upon earth can only have seen, in the face of Christ, the
splendour of God (δόξα is nothing abstract ; cp 2 Cor.
87 Lk. 29 Acts 755 x Tim. 6:16 Rev. 2123 f), in a vision.
If, now, grdsis appropriates to itself the impression thus
received and casts it into the form of thought, it follows
from this manner of origination that the mental product
will possess the character of what, in the philosophical
theory of knowledge, is called intuition. It will thus
have the note of immediacy as distingnished from that
which has been reached by the discursive method.
For the explanation of what is meant by ‘wisdom
(σοφία) no such direct hint is given us by Paul. Apart
from passages where the word is used in an un-

4759

SPIRITUAL GIFTS

favovrable sense, it always indicates with him the
content, not the manner, of the knowledge. ‘This
circumstance, however, cannot alter anything in the
fact that in our leading passage ît is parallel with
gnoòsis, and here, accordingiy, like the other, must mean
a manner of knowing. There is nothing to indicate
that the practical, as distinguished from the theoretical,
is meant. On the other hand, the wisdom of the world,
which is the opposite of that here intended, exhibits
pretty clearly the feature which would offer a cicar
contrast with grosis as explained above ; it results from
intelligent consideration of things. A wisdom which
figures as gift of the Holy Spirit must naturally be the
consequence of the inspiration of that spirit; but
nevertheless it can in its style and manner display the
note of discursive thought and reflection quite as
clearly as gnosis can display that of vision and intuition.

Holsten seeks to bring out the contrast in the following way
in Paul we have to look more for gnosis in so far as he visualised
the fundamental conceptions of his entire doctrine on the basis
of that image of the ascended Jesus which he saw in his vision
near Damascus ; ‘wisdom (σοφία) we find more in Apollos. [Ὁ
this 5 correct, the so-called pneumatic interpretation of the OT
which believes itself able to arrive at the hidden sense, would
rather fall to the side of ‘ wisdom (σοφία), including the form in
which it is employed by Paul in, for example, such passages as
1 Cor. 89/104 (A 2 Cor. $13-16 Gal. 4 21-31.’ According
to the Epistle of Barnabas, it is true (1029 £), it appears to be
called gnosis. Yet here a vacillation of expression is easily
possible. Ir must be added, further, that gnosis in Paul, where
it relates to the region of practice (x Cor. 8 1 7 10,7 and doubtless
also 2 Cor. 66) is a much .simpler notion It is easily
conceivable that the application of the word to this region may
have had a different course of development from that which it
bad when regarded as a spiritual gift.

The ‘admonish’ (παρακαλεῖν) of Rom. 128 belongs.
entirely to the practical side. Primarily it means not to
comfort but to exhort, Consolation, however, is not,
excluded ; for the literal meaning is to speak to a person.
It is presupposed that people are in nced, not so much
of instruction as of the effort made, whether gently or
more strenuously, always in a friendly and tactful manner,
to bring them, by spoken word, to a better disposition
of will or a better frame of spirit.

We should completely misunderstand ‘ prophecy*
should we suppose its essence to lie în prediction of the

future, This is not wholly excluded;

7. PrORDEES. 1.1 ;t can have had only a very modest

part as compared with more important elements in the
îdea. ‘These elements are found in 1 Cor. 14.

(@) According to 143 prophecy produces ‘ edification,”
‘comfort,’ and 'consolation’; according to w. 24 αὶ it
can penetrate so deeply as to lay bare the secrets of the
hearts of strangers and constrain them to confess
that the spirit of God speaking in the prophet has rightly
disclosed what was passing within them. Accordingly,
prophecy would seem to be distinguished from the ‘ word
of wisdom ' (λόγος roglas) and the ‘ word of knowledge”
(λύγος γνώσεωϑ) in this, that it is preaching of a purely
practical kind, often not unlike the addresses at a revival
meeting. Yet, according to v7, 31 and 19, the hearers
also learn (μανϑάνειν) and are instructed (xarmyeic9a:)
by it. Theoretical elements, therefore, cannot be
wholly absent; the real distinction as compared with
‘wisdom’ (σοφία) and ‘knowledge’ (γνῶσις) has not
yet emerged.

(3) What is more important to observe is that, accord-
ing to τ΄ 30, it is by a 'revelation' that the prophet is
led to speak. This feature is in fact so characteristic
that in the enumeration in v. 26 we actually find ‘revela-
tion’ (ἀποκάλυψις) where, alongside of ‘teaching, tongue,
and interpretation of tongues’ (διδαχή, γλῶσσα, and
ἑρμηνεία γλωσσῶν) we should have expected to find
‘prophecy' {προφητεία). In .6 also, the two pairs
are clearly so distributed that the first member of the
one (‘ revelation ') is, if not similar to, at least analogous
to, the first member of the other (‘prophecy ') just as
are the second members of the two pairs (γγῶσις and
διδαχή). Here accordingly is seen what is the really
essential distinetion between prophecy on the one hand,

4760

SPIRITUAL GIFTS

and wisdom and knowledge on the other; it lies in the
suddenness and immediacy of the revelation from which
propheey proceeds. For we must assume that a prophet
spoke from the basis of such a revelation even in those
cases where he had received it, not as we find in v. 30,
wbile the meeting was actually going on, but some time
previously—at home, let us suppose.

(€) On the other hand, prophecy has to be dis-
tinguished equally clearly from the ‘speaking with
tongues' with which it stands in such close parallelism,
Whilst that which is spoken in tongue-speech remains
unintelligible until it has been interpreted, the ‘ prophet *
can be understood by any one (θυ. 37) because, during
the time of his speaking, Ne is guided by his 'under-
standing! (voîs; Ὁ. 14). Therefore, also, it is said of
prophecy (Ὁ. 32) that ‘the spirits of the prophets are
subject to the prophets,' whilst those who speak with
tongues are at the moment in the ecstatic condition,

(4) Taking all these considerations together, we find
that the prophecy spoken of by Paul is entirely similar
to the discourse of the OT prophets. In the OT also
the contents of prophetic discourse are for the most
part of a practical character, yet also informing; the
origin is sought in a sudden revelation ; the manner of
speech of the OT prophets is quite intelligibile. This
holds good of the prophetic discourse so long as it
has not, as în the Book of Daniel, or even in Zechariah
or Joel, passed over into the apocalyptic style, but simply
85 we find it in the genuine writings of the older prophets,
not as it is described by such authors as Philo and Justin
for whom the OT prophets are men who speak in a
completely cestatical condition and are mere foretellers of
the future. Perhaps we might even go a step farther
and conjecture that the manner în which the ‘prophets'
of the apostolic age were conscious of receiving their
revelations resembled that of the OT prophets who say,
*The Lord spake to me,’ and that the contents of such
a revelation, as in the OT, had reference for the most
part to some concrete detail. From what has been said
it will be seen that on the whole the most suitable render-
ing of ‘ prophecy ’ will be ‘ inspired address ' or ‘inspired
preaching.’ On the later stages of Christian
prophecy see Ministry, $ 38 [also PROPHETIC
LITERATURE, $8 30-33]; on ‘discerning of spirits'
(διάκρισις πνευμάτων»), see below, $ 18.

The discussion of the question of speaking with tongues
has been brought into the state of confusion in which we

A find it by the circumstance that investi-
Vea E gators were determined to take Acts
the phono. 2:13 25 their starting-point, and to find
ἢ the truth of that narrative confirmed in
2menon itself. τ τ

all circumstances, in other words, sup-
ported by Paul, ‘The student, however, who is not
prepared to give up the genuineness of the principal
Pauline Epistles (as to which cp GALATIANS, $8 1-9) is
in duty stringently bound to consider the account of
Paul as the primary one, and discuss it without even a
side glance at Acts, and to rejeci as unhistorical every-
thing in Acts which does not agree with this account.
Nor will it be permissible to urge that Paul's information
may have been defective; for he himself spoke with

tongues more than they all (τ Cor, 14 18).

(4) The speaking with tongues was unintelligible
{x Cor. 1429 11 16) and therefore of no use to the church,
‘unless an interpretation followed (27.69 17). Paul goes
so far as 10 say (Ὁ. 22) that in a mixed assemblage of
Christians and non-Christians it has any purpose at all
only for the non-Christians—namely, to be to them a
sign which, in the context, can only be taken as
meaning a mark of displeasure. True, along with this
he concedes that the speaking with tongues has a value
for the speaker himself, for his edification, namely,
because it is a speaking on behalf of God (vv. 2 4 17 28).
From the latter circumstance, and particularly from v. 2
{πὸ man understandeth'), has been drawn the con-
clusion that the speaking with tongues was in quite low

4761

SPIRITUAL GIFTS

tones. Against this, however, has to be set the
comparison of tongue-speech with musical instruments
which give out loud tones, if not individually distinguish-
able, and with a foreign language which is heard but
has not been learned (ων, 7-11), as also the statement
that a stranger must regard the tongue-speaker as one
out of his mind {v. 23).

(3) The explanation of the unintelligibility of such
speeches must accordingly be sought in this, that
intelligent thought (νοῦς) had no part in their production
(v. 14). For ‘Uunfruitful’ (&xapros) in this connection
must mean not ‘receiving no fruit’ but ‘yielding no
fruit.’ Now, the antithesis to (*speaking” λαλεῖν, or
‘ praying' προσεύχεσθαι, or ‘singing’ ψάλλειν, etc.)
‘with the understanding* (τῷ vol) in τοῦ, 15/. is ‘with
the spirit’ (τῷ πνεύματι), but in τ. 19 it is ‘in a tongue”
(ἐν γλώσσῃ λαλεῖν). ‘To be in the spirit‘ (ἐν πνεύματι
εἶναι), however, is in Rev. l10 42 173 2110 the fermzinus
technicus for the ecstatic state.

Hence the meaning must be that not all tongue.speakers were
in a position to be able afterwards to explain their utterances
(wo. 13 28), and that it is only of the prophets that Paul says
that the spirits speaking through them are well known to be
subject to the will of the prophets and could therefore, when ἃ
new speaker came forward, be silent (v. 32)—although for his
own part Paul enjoins silence (τ, 28) also on the speakers with
tongues (on occasions when no interpreter is present). How
ecstasy was regarded is well described by Philo (1 sof ed.
Mangey); only, he supposes he is describing the condition of
the OT rophiets (in the Widest sense of the word so as to include
all he ints) when he says : * [he 15] a sounding instrument
of God, vini struck and played upon by him The
understanding that is in us goes abroad when the divine spirit
arrives, and returns home again when the spirit departs ; for it is
net right that mortal and immortal should dwell together*
(ὄργανον θεοῦ ἔστιν ἠχοῦν, κρονόμεναν καὶ πληττόμενον ἀυράτως
ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ. ο΄. ἐξοικέξεται ἐν ἡμῖν ὁ νοῦς κατὰ τὴν τοῦ θείου πνεύς
ματος ἄφιξιν, κατὰ δὲ τὴν μετανάστασιν αὐτοῦ πάλιν εἰσοικίζεται"
θέμις γὰρ οὐκ ἔστι θνητὸν ἀθανάτῳ συνοικῆσαι),

(c) What the listeners actually heard Paul does not
tell, because it was perfectly welî known to his readers.
For us this is unfortunate, since on this point, perhaps
the most important of all, we are thus thrown back
upon conjecture, and many are only too readily inclined
to support their conjectures by reference to Acts21-13.
If, as we ought, we bold strictly by 1 Cor., we learn
from 1414-17 to distinguish betwcen a ‘ praying' {προσ-
εὐχεσθαι) and a ‘singing of psalms' (ψάλλειν), whilst
the ‘ blessing* (εὐλογεῖν), since it occurs in a confirma-
tory clause, is doubrless to be identified with the latter
or with both, as also ‘giving thanks' (εὐχαριστεῖν)
with ‘blessing’ (εὐλογεῖν). But what are we to say as
to the nature of these prayers, songs of praise (and
thanksgivings)? They were unintelligible, and were
spoken in the state of ecstasy; from this we must
conclude that they consisted either of quite disjointed
sounds, cries, sighs, and the like, or, if of actual words
or short sentences, at all events not of connected ones.
A Christian listener, who naturally did not, like the
stranger in ὧν. 23, regard the speaker as insane, must
yet have had the impression that he was speaking in a
dreamlike state.

(d) We may, further, adduce analogies from earlier
and later times. Whilst the prophets of the best OT
period are clearly distinguished from the speakers with
tongues by the complete intelligibility of their utterances,
the oldest stages of prophecy manifest a strongly
eestatic character. Cp for example 1 S.105-12 19 20-24.
These prophets, capable of being brought by music and
sensory stimuli, to dancing and frenzy, stand for their
part in turn quite on the same plane with the pagan
oracle- givers (4avress). In this connection we can
appropriately adduce the description of such persons
(μάντεις) in Plato (Tim, 716-728, Zon, 5348-d), accord-
ing to which they need an interpreter; only, this
interpreter here bears the name of prophet. Within
Christianity, Montanistic prophecy shares fully the
ecstatic character of the primitive Christian tongue-
speech. Of Montanus, for example, Epiphanius (Her.
484, begin.) has preserved an utterance in which he

4762

SPIRITUAL GIFTS

says in the name of God: ‘behold the man is as a lyre
and I piay over him like a plectron ; the man sleeps and
I wake ; behold, it is the Lord who takes away the hearts
of men, and gives to men a [another] heart τ᾿ (ἰδοὺ ὁ
ἄνθρωπος ὡσεὶ λύρα κἀγὼ ἐφίπταμαι ὡσεὶ πλῆκτρον" ὁ
ἄνθρωπος κοιμᾶται κἀγὼ γρηγορῶ. ἰδοὺ κύριός ἐστιν ὁ ἐξισ-
τάνων καρδίας ἀνθρώπων καὶ διδοὺς καρδίαν ἀνθρώποις).
From recent times we may cite the inspired persons of the
Wetterau and elsewhere (1714-1749); also the second
stage of Jansenism from 1713 onwards, the Irvingites,
the 'preaching sickness' and ‘reading sickness’ in
Sweden, 1841-1854 (see RESURRECTION, $ 36 e), many
cases of somnambulism, also the Quakers, and especi
ally and above all the Camisards in the Cevennes!
(1686-1707); not, however, the Jumpers and Shakers.

(e) The ‘kinds of tongues' (γένη γλωσσῶν) of Paul
points emphatically to a manifoldness of tongue-speech
with regard to which we are hardly able to form any
concrete idea, Inthe ‘praying' (προσεύχεσθαι), ‘sing-
ing’ {ψάλλειν), ‘blessing’ (εὐλογεῖν), of 1 Cor. 1414-17
we have up to the present point become acquainted
with two (or three) different kinds of contents of tongue-
speech; but that by no means exhausts the subject.
We may perhaps think in addition of such contents as :
communication of a vision received, threatening of
judgment, personal confession, and the like. On the
other hand the expression ‘kinds' (γένη) can also be
taken perhaps as intended to denote differences in the
form of the speeches according as they were composed
of complete but reciprocally disconnected sentences, of
disconnected words, or of single sounds or syllables ;
whether they betokened joy or sorrow, delight or terror,
and so forth.

Proceeding now, on the basis of the preceding
paragraphs, to a consideration of what is meant by the

expression ‘speaking with tongues,' the

Si ongues first thing to be remarked is that in the

τ orelgR reset connection Acts2x-13 must be set

ANgUABeSB. aside not provisionally, but definitively.
Nothing is more certain than that ‘tongues' {γλῶσσαε)
in the case before us must not be translated ‘languages.’

(α) Were the case otherwise the expression ‘(to speak)
in a tongue’ (γλώσσῃ [λαλεῖν}) would be quite impos-
sible, although in point of fact it occurs not only in the
mention of a single speaker (τ Cor. 1424137 1926/)—
where it might be argued that each individual speaks
only in one language that is foreign to him—but also
in ©. 9 where more than one speaker îs in question.

(5) Where unquestionably the languages of foreign
peoples are being spoken of (v. 107) Paul as it happens
precisely refrains from using ‘tongues’ (γλῶσσαι) ; the
word he employs is ‘voices’ {φωναί), an unmistakable
proof that in this connection ‘tongues’ (γλῶσσαι) is
reserved for a different concept, and with these ‘ voices
(φωναί) the speaking with tongues is only compared,
whilst on the other assumption the two would be
identical.

(c) Paul concedes that the speaking with tongues is
fitted for the private edification of the speaker, and
therefore recommends that this gift should be exercised
in solitude (vv. 41828). But that speaking în foreign
languages should have this result would be indeed
wonderful.

(4) The interpretation of tongue-speech would not
have any miraculous character at all, and therefore
have no claim to be considered a charism, if it rested
upon acquaintance on the part of the interpreter with

1 Cp Hilgenfeld, Glossolalie, 115-136 (1850); Goebel, Zeckr.
Str Rist, Theol. 1854, pp. 267-322, 377-438 ; 1855, pp. 94-160, 327-
425: Evang. Kirchen-Zig. 1837, No. 54-56, δι Δ; Hohl,
Bruchsticke aus, . . Ivving, 1839; Oliphant, Life ef Irving,
1862; Joh. Nic. Kohler, ἀδέ Zrvinagisme, 1876 (contains examples
of tongue-speeches actually delivered); Reich, SAX7. 1849,
pp. 193-242; Kabri, Jie mewsten Erweckungen in America,
Irland, etc. (1860); Id., Die Erweckungen auf deutsche
Boden, 1861; Delitasch, 8184 Psychologie/l) 316-320 = (2) 364-368
(1861); Kerner, Die Seherin von Prevorst, 1829 and often.

4763

SPIRITUAL GIFTS

the foreign language in question. If, however, we are
to suppose that the interpreter understands the language
in question just as little as the speaker, the interpretation
would be a miracle of precisely the same order as the
tongue-speech itself, and it would be incomprehensible
how în τ, 28 Paul could have supposed the case that
before the beginning of a tongue-speech the speaker
could know that no interpreter for it was present at the
meeting. For the gift of interpretation on such a pre-
supposition as that under discussion could nevertheless
be quite suddenly bestowed on someone immediately
after the tongue-speech had beèn made.

(e) That no one in the meeting, apart from subsequent
interpretation, understands tongue-speech {. 2) would
not hold good of those listeners who understood in a
natural way the foreign language, the temporary use of
which had been bestowed upon the tongue-speaker in a
supernatural way,

(7) The antithesis between ‘ (speaking) with a tongue”
(γλώσσῃ [Χλαλεῖν]) could not be ‘with the understanding*
(vot: so v. 15) or ‘by way of revelation,' ‘of knowledge,"
'of prophecy,' "of teaching' (ἐν ἀποκαλύψει, ἐν γνώσει,
ἐν προφητείᾳ, ἐν διδαχῇ : so v. 6), but must run: ‘to
speak in one's mother's tongue.’ Of this we find no-
where the faintest trace.

(g) Finally, the main characteristic feature of tongue-
speech—ecstasy—would be completely inexplicable.
Wherefore this, if the whole matter îs simply to speak
in a foreign language which one has never learned?
After all, ecstasy is a psychological condition which
must have its psychological explanation. But if this
kind of speaking can really bring ecstasy with it, why
can it alone do so? One might say: the substance of
these speeches was so exceedingly joyful that it trans-
ported the speaker to an ecstasy. But why not also
the substance of many speeches held in one's mother-
tongue? We should therefore have to say: on each
occasion when a communication was received that
cheered to ecstasy, the speaker was endowed in a
supernatural way with the ability to speak in a foreign
language. In that case, however, the counter question,
Why not în his mother-tongue? would be difficult to
put to silence.

(4) The latest defender of the view that foreign
languages are intended, Arthur Wright (see below,
8 21), does so in fact quite differently.

He points to ‘the little prophets of the Cevennes' (1686-1701),
children of three years and upwards, who, according to Heath
(Contemp. Rev., Jan. 1886), preached sermons not only in their
mother-tongue, but also in good French, often for three-quarters
of an hour. ‘There was nothing hystegical or wildly excited
about their manner, only they were insensible to pain and
could not be induced to stop.' The explanation given is that
they were merely repeating sermons which they had previously
heard delivered by grown-up preachers; their memory was
abnormally stimulated by the excitement of the persecutions.
In like manner, according to Wright, the primitive Christian
tongue-speakers in each case were simply repeating discourses
which previously—of course without understanding them—they
had heard with excited attention, especially in Jerusalem, where
at one of the great feasts, for example, a multitude of unknown
languages could be heard. He lays stress upon the argument
that "they who spake with tongues are never said to have given
utterance to distinctly Christian teaching ‘ and goes on to say:
‘Accustomed to the higher tone of St. Paul and his evangelists
the Corinthians found little profit in these Rabbinic exhorta-
tions.’ He thus draws his entire view as to the contents of all
the tongue-speeches from Acts2 11 (‘speaking the mighty works
of God ’), instead of the notorious avervaluation of tongue-speech
in Corinth asserts the opposite, and moreover seems seriously
to believe that all the Corinthian Christians, bond and free
alike, who spoke with tongues had previously ‘at one period or
another been in Jerusalem, and there had excitement and
anguish of so enduring a character that their memory could be
stimulated with regard to them in this abnormai way: and this
too for discourses of which they could not by any means have
had the same impression as the Camisard children just spoken
of, that all salvation lay in them, for they did mot turn to
Judaism ; at least this is not affrmed by Wright. He is equally
silent as to what it was that brought on the ecstatic state at
the repetition of discourses formerly heard. He speaks of the
whole as ‘a miracle, not of power, but of providence'; the
latter he sees in ‘the choice of time, the preparation of
the speakers beforehand, the selection of suitable words, the

4764

SPIRITUAL GIFTS

restriction of the gifts to particular persons’ Finally, he
nevertheless finds himself competled to add to his words
quoted above, the following, as an explanation of the
ecstasy : ‘the exciting cause may finally have been not merely
mental fension, but the direct impulse of che Hoty Ghost. The
interpretation of the tongue-speeches on the other hand he
accounts for by “a knowledge of the language’; where, however,
it îs the tongue-speaker who îs himself the interpreter, this
explanation will not serve : for the speaker ‘had no recollection
of what he had said.’ In such a case, then, ‘interpretation’
must mean any utterance made in the vernacular during the
state of ecstasy.’ Wright has heen led to put forward his
hypothesis “from a sense of the very serious danger of calling
in question the historical truth of the Acts of the Apostles,'
With the purpose of obviating this danger he does as great
violence to the language of Paul as any of his predecessors.

What is excluded by the words of Paul is exactly
what is meant in Acts 21-13: the 120 of 1:15 spoke

in the nguages of the Parthians,
10, Ace 21-13 ἵν Doe Tanguag
and Mik. 1617, Medes, ele ti

*. (σὺ The expedients that have been
resorted to are innumerable : the friendly address pro-
duced in the foreigners only a homelike feeling ; or they
interpreted the disconnected sounds of the actual tongue-
speaking described in 1 Cor. in each case as utterances
of their own language; or the 120 spoke a single
language, a new one miraculously intelligible to all,
whether that of Paradise or the future language of
heaven; or they spoke not Aramaic but Hebrew, and
in this the foreigners, who all of them were Jews or
Proselytes, recognised the language of worship to which
they were accustomed at home ; or the 120 spoke only
a few languages, not wholly unknown to them but only
‘unfamiliar, such as Arabic, colloquial Greek, colloquial
Latin; or those who spoke were not by any means
only the 120 but all the foreigners who were present
with them. This and all the like is strictly excluded
by the thrice repeated statement (vv. 6 8 11) that every
man of the foreigners heard the 120 speaking in his

own mother-tongue.

(3) The only theory still left open would seem to be

that of a miracle of hearing instead of a miracle of
speaking, Yet neither does such a supposition hit the
meaning of the author ; for according to what he says
the foreign languages were not only heard but also
spoken. The words of ©. 4: ‘they began to speak
with other tongues’ {ἑτέραις γλώσσαις), receive their
interpretation precisely in the statement ‘ we hear them
speak în our mother-tongue' (ταῖς ἡμετέραις γλώσσαις,
Ὁ, 11; ‘each in his mother-speech," ἕκαστος τῇ ἰδίᾳ
διαλέκτῳ, vw. 6 8).
. Itis possible to suppose a miracle of hearing, therefore, only
in the sense of ascribing to the author a confusion of such a
miracle with one of speech. But why should ît have been pre-
cisely a miracie of hearing? If it occurred în the ears or rather
in the miuds of the hearers, there is no answer to the question
wherefore it was that the Holy Spirit exercised his miraculous
influence precisely in this quarter, whilst it is not only said (7. DI
but is also appropriate to the situation, that it was on the
speakers that he wrought. According to others the miracle, in
becoming a miracle of hearing, happened during the transmis-
sion from the mouth of the speaker to the ear of the hearer.
The Holy Spirit ‘interpreted the words during their passage
through the air, 50 as to present them to the ears of the numerous
listeners, to each în his native tongue.’ Here one can only ask
in increased surprise why it is precisely the Holy Ghost that is
named as the author of a miracle which is accomplished in no
human being but in a dead object.

{c) Another question: Wherefore the ‘tongues as of
fire’ (γλῶσσαι ὡσεὶ πυρός ) in τ. 3? In this view that
a miracle of hearing is intended, they are left wholly
out of account. Other interpreters have, in view of
what is said of the tongues, supposed that according to
Acts the miracle was one wrought on the organs of speech.

Since ‘tongue’ in 2, 3 denotes the organ of speech this seemed
to be the case also în Ὁ. 4; the meaning would therefore be:
they received in their mouthis new tongues and therewith spoke
a new speech. Here, however, not only does one miss all
possibility of conceiving the nature of what happened, so that
one is compelled to describe the suggestion of it as simply
fantastical ; the idea further 15 not in the least indicated by the
words. The ‘tongues as οἱ fire’ of Ὁ. 3 have nothing to do with
the ‘other tongues' of 2, 4; for the tongues of fire do not enter
the mouth but rest upon the head. Such remains the meaning
even if the reading ‘rested’ (ἐκάθισεν : sing.) is adopted; for

4765

SPIRITUAL GIFTS

here the subject can only be ‘fire,’ the only other subject which
is grammatically possible, the ‘sound’ (ἦχος) of Ὁ. 2 being ex-
cluded by the nature of the case, Perhaps the pl. (ἐκάθισαν) is

nevertheless to be read, as in &*D sab. cop. pesh.

{d) These tongues of fire, however, remain out of
account also in the interpretation that a miracle of
speech is intended in so far as that interpretation has
been set forth under (2). Since, however, they cannot
by any means be regarded as of subordinate importance
they urgently call for some explanation. This has in
part been given already {see MINISTRY, $ er c). ‘The
event of Pentecost is there represented as a parallel to
the giving of the Law on Sinai. To this parallel belongs
also the loud noise from heaven with which the scene is
opened în τ, 5. In virtue of this very circumstance,
however, the narrative lies gravely open to the suspicion
that it rests not upon observation of fact but upon the
activity of the imagination.

(©) In what is said about the audience the text has suffered
greatiy. ‘Both Jews and proselyies' (Ἰουδαῖοί τε καὶ προσή-
Awroi) in 2. 11 is impossible as a clause in the enumeration ; it
has sense only if taken as in apposition to all the other clauses
together, so that what is meant is : ‘and in fact of every nation,
born Jews and also proselytes.' Thus it had its place originally
either after ‘Arabs’ ("Apafes), or on the margin as a gloss, but a
correct one. In order that foreigners should be hearing their
mother-tongue ît is not in point of fact enough that born Jews
should be represented as present from foreign countries; pro-
selytes also must be there, to whom the foreign language was
really a mother-tongue în the full and proper sense of the word.

Against this, however, there is what we find in τ. 5, where
all the hearers are called ' Jews dwelling in Jerusalem” (εἰς
Ἱερουσαλὴμ. κατοικοῦντες ᾿Ιουδαῖοι} ‘Jews' in fact is wanting

Yet see below, i, end. .
(£) For the same reason ‘sojourners’ (οὲ ἐπιδημοῦντες) before
‘ Romans" (Ῥωμαῖοι) in v. 10 is open to the suspicion of being a

gioss if it means Roman citizens who were settled in Jerusalem.
Should it be intended, however, merely to indicate that they were
there on a passing visit, the expression will fitly apply not only
to Romans but also equally well to all other nationalities, and
therefore would have had its right place before ‘Parthians”
(Πάρθοι : τ. 9). That Roman citizens who were settled in Rome
(not in the province) should be intended is excluded by the
article, for this would affirm that they had come for the feast to
Jerusalem in a body.

(δ Finally, ‘Judea’ (Ἰουδαίαν) in στ. g between ‘Meso-
petamia’ and ‘ Cappadocia’ is very surprising [cp GEoGRArHY,
Feb end). That Jews understood che speakers really did not
need to be said. Already in Tertullian and (once) in Augustine
we read Armenia; in Jerome Syria. Others have conjectured
Idumza, India, lonia; Bithynia, Cilicia, Lydia, and even the N.
Syrian kingdom of Vaudi with which we are acquainted from
the inscriprions of Tiglath-pileser [cp Uzzian, $ 7}.

(i) In other passages (1046, 196) Acts mentions
tongue-speech without the idea of a speaking in foreign
languages and without the addition of ' other” (ἑτέραις)
to ‘tongues’ (γλώσσαις), so that there is no reason for
doubting that the same thing is intended as that which
we find în Paul. Now, this cannot by any ineans lead
to our finding ourselves compelled, at the cost of what-
ever violence to the words, to find the same view of the
matter also in Acts 2; but it does doubiless tend to
raise the question whether perhaps Acts 2 also may not
depend on an underlying source which spoke of tongue-
speech as fittingly as did those which have been used in
1046 196. The same idea is suggested also by the
remark of Peter in 1047 that Cornelius and his house
‘have received the Holy Ghost as well as we” (cp 1115,
17). Further it has long ago been remarked that the
reproach of drunkenness in 213, if the languages of
foreign nations were what was being heard, would by
no means have been appropriate, and that the speech of
Peter in 2 14-36 has no relation to hearers from foreign
parts or to any miracle of this description, but explains
the event by the prophecy in Joel (8 τ- 5) as to the out-
pouring of the Holy Spirit with prophetie specches,

4766

SPIRITUAL GIFTS

visions, and dreams (2116-18), ΟΥ̓ the various attempts
at separation of sources (see ACTS, ὃ 11} the simplest
and therefore the most probable is that which holds the
source to have contained 7. 4 {without ‘other,’ ἑτέραις)
followed immediately by vv. 12/.; in fact the conjecture
has been hazarded that 43: presents only another
account of the same event.

Il: would also be conceivable that a fragment of the source îs

reserved likewise in the words ‘ Jews dwelling in Jerusalem”
tan Ἱερουσαλὴμ. κατοικοῦντες Ἰουδαῖοι) in 25. Thé source in
tbat case will have mentioned not foreigners but only men of
ferosalem as witnesses of the occurrence, and ir would justly

come a question whether the event occurred at Pentecost (see
Ministry, 8 21 €, ἢ. Yet by its whole structure the sentence
is fitted to describe a speech-wonder. Should ‘Jews dwelling*
then not be a gloss (see above, /), we should have to suppose
that the redactor had very unslilfully retained these words
from his source.

(4) The occasion for bringing in the idea of the
giving of the law at Sinai, and thereby completely alter-
ing the character of the narrative, can perhaps be looked
for in the increasing importance which gradually had
come to be attached to the event of Pentecost as marking
the presumed moment of foundation of the church
{against this see MINISTRY, $ 21, 3, 4). Yet subsidiary
circumstances can also have contributed to the same
result. One such can be sought for in the passage of
Joel cited in Acts 219 în so far as it speaks of ‘ wonders
in the heavens above and signs on the earth beneath,'
and of ‘fire,’ even if this be associated there with ‘blood’
and ‘vapour of smoke.’ A still more obvious sugges-
tion is that the occasion may have been furnished by a
misunderstanding of 1 Cor. 1421 for which Paul himself
is responsible.

In 1 Cor. 14 21 Paul cites Is. 2811 as evidence of the unin»
telligibility and uselessness of tongue-speeches without observing
that în Isaiah in the case of the Assyrians by whom God is
about to speak to the people of Israel it is not the language
spoken by them that matters but only the sword by which they
are to destroy Israel, Paul, moreover, contrary alike to MT and
the LXX, makes of the whole a divine utterance, and introduces
the words ‘saith the Lord* (λέγει κύριος) at the end, changes the
preterite of the last verb (‘they would not hear ἢ into a fature,
and adds, ‘not even thus’ (οὐδ᾽ οὕτως), By this means and by
the freely chosen composite verb ‘wilî they give heed' (εϊσακού-
σονται) he has correctly reproduced one solitary feature of MT
andthe LXX. Inthe interests of his parallel with tongue-speech
what he ought to have taken from the OT passage was : “one will
not be able to understand the men of foreign speech.’ Paul, how-
ever, actually says—quite unsuitably for the purpose he has in
hand—in real if not in verbal agreement with Isaiah (‘they would
not hear’): ‘one will not give heed to them. Yet it is very in-
telligible that a superficia! reader could draw from the entire
citation in Paul nothing further than that the speakers with
tongues had spoken in the languages of foreign peoples.

(7) As Mk. 169-20 is entirely derived from the NT
literature, including Acts (see RESURRECTION-NAR-
RATIVES, $ 88, c}, there need be no hesitating in
interpreting the ‘they shall speak with new tongues”
(γλώσσαις λαλήσουσιν καιναῖς) of v. 17 simply as meaning
‘they shall speak in languages’ previously unknown to the
speakers, ‘new’ (καεναῖς) thus being substituted for greater
clearness for the “other' (ἑτέραις) of Acts24. It is quite im-
probable that an independent tradition lies before us here,

Interesting but not indispensable is the conjecture of Michel-
sen (Het Evangelie naar Marcus, 29) by which ‘new’
is made to disappear. WH has before ‘will lift up serpents”
(ὔφεις ἀροῦσιν) in brackets the additional words ‘and in their
hands’ (καὶ ἐν ταῖς χεραίν). Out of this ‘and ἐπ their” (καὶ ἐν
ταῦ} or rather out of the contracted form (κὰν ταῖς} arose ‘ new*
ἱκαιναῖς) and then ‘hands’ (χερσίν) fell away. Instead of ‘in’
ἐν), Michelsen further conjectures that the original text read

if" (ἐὰν), and writes ‘lift’ (&pwww) : ‘and ifthey lift up serpents
with their hands’ {κὰν ταῖς χερσὶν ὄφεις ἄρωσιν κἂν θανάσιμόν
τὶ πίωσιν οὐ μὴ αὐτοὺς FAVA

Returning once more to τ Cor. 14, the next interpreta-
tion of ‘tongues’ (γλῶσσαι) that invites our consideration
11. ‘Tonguea’ is the old Greek me according to

not=‘archaio VhiSh are meant archaic expressions no
expréssions,” longer understood among the people,

ΣΡ “or, strange and unusual locutions
generally, including new coinages. On this head see
especialiy Bleek (below, 8 21), and Heinrici in his own
commentary and în Meyer's. 4

(4) On this interpretation, however, ‘kinds of tongues*

4767

SPIRITUAL GIFTS

(γένη Ὑλωσσῶν) can hardly be distinguished. (Ὁ) The
sing. “speak in a tongue’ (γλώσσῃ λαλεῖν) or ‘ pray in
a tongue’ (γλώσσῃ προσεύχεσθαι) can in this view, as
Heinrici himself says, mean no more than the utterance
of a shout of praise or the heaving of a sigh. In that
case the question arises as to how a complete prayer of
such a kind as to require an interpreter can be produced
(1414) and why Paul should be indisposed to allow more
than two or three such ‘speeches’ (Ὁ. 27), each of which
would occupy a minute. (c) Even a stringing
together of such expressions, for which, according to
Heinrici, the plural “speak with tongues’ (γλώσσαις
λαλεῖν) is employed, can have resulted în no speeches of
such length as to render regulations necessary for their
restriction in this respect ; on the other hand Paul gives
not the slightest hint at discourses in which such
‘tongues’ were a characteristic feature, but which on the
whole consisted of intelligible words and therefore could
extend to considerable length. Heinrici infers dis-
courses of this kind only from τ. το. The statement
here made, however, would be quite ineffective if its
meaning was: I had rather deliver five discourses with
my understanding than ten thousand discourses in which
archaic expressions occur. It becomes effective only if
the meaning is (as in EV): ‘I had rather speak five
words . . . than ten thousand words (4) Why
the Spirit should have inspired precisely expressions of
this sort, and how the employment of them could have
served for private cdification (27, 4 18. 28) remains wholly
obscure. (e) For interpretation of this kind of
‘speech’ what is needed is not the gift of the Holy
Spirit, but philological knowledge. (7) But above
all we must ask, How is to be explained the ecstasy
that accompanies the use of such out-of-the-way expres-
sions? In short, whilst the interpretation of ‘ tongues”
as meaning speeches in foreign languages still allowed
the supernatural character of the occurrence to remain,
that which takes them to mean mere rare expressions is
simply a means of eliminating that character along with
the ecstasy. Heinrici says {in Meyer: 1 (ον. } 362=
( 378) expressly that the outsiders alluded to in 1423
could have taken the speakers with tongues to be men
possessed, because they confounded their condition with
that of the Pythia and others who really spoke in
ecstasy.
Beyschlag (below, 8 2r) accepts the speaking in
ecstasy, and in fact actually proposes to explain the ex-
pression ‘speaking with tongues’ by
19, TOngues means of it, referring for the expression
phorical (‘’ough not for the thing) to Acts23.
". He holds that the tongues of fire are an
echo of the fact that the tongues of speakers were
actually moved with fiery eloquence. This figurative
way of speaking about a tongue of fire is the origin of
the name (γλῶσσα). The pl. ‘tongues’ is to be
explained, he thinks, even in cases where a single
speaker is in question, by the circumstance that such a
tongue of fire was regarded as having been bestowed
anew on each occasion of its exercise. The oldest ex-
pression accordingly was {he thinks) ‘to speak with
other (or new) tongues' (ἑτέραις [or rawaîs] γλώσσαις
λαλεῖν) ; the simpler ‘speak with tongues” (γλώσσαις
λαλεῖν) is merely an abbreviation of this. In abbrevia-
tion, however, it has to be replied, it is not usual to drop
precisely the most important part of the expression ; the
correct abbreviation must have been ‘to speak with
other (or new)” {ἑτέραις [or rawaîs] λαλεῖν), The im-
possibility of this whole view of Beyschlag's is clearly
exhibited, however, în 1 Cor. 1426. Along with a psalm,
a teaching, a revelation, and interpretation, a tongue of
fire cannot fittingly be enumerated as a thing which one
who takes part in a religious meeting 445; for in the
connection ‘has’ (ἔχει) means ‘has to contribute.’ In
more points than one Beyschlag nevertheless comes very
near the truth.
Above all, Beyschlag has rightiy recognised that the

4768

SPIRITUAL GIFTS

literal sense—the bodily member within the mouth—is
to be taken as the fundamental mean-
x ing of ‘tongue.’
pledi (a) The decisive passage for this is
" 1 Cor. 149. In connection with v. 7
the sense must be: as the sound of pipe, harp, and
trumpet cannot be rightly understood if they give out
no clear sound, so also what is spoken by you cannot
be understood if you give forth no clear speech with
your tongue.

This is the exact logical course of the comparison : to the
musical instruments which give forth either a clear or an unclear
sound, corresponds as instrument of speech the member in the
mouth, If here by ‘tongue’ were meant the particular manner
of speech that is known as ‘speaking with tongues,’ the
case that an unintelligible speech is given could not for a
moment be suggested as merely a possible case ; for according
to Paul chis happens in all circumstances. Nor, again, have
we here a new example, parallel to that of the musical
instruments, but one drawn from what is observed in ordinary
human speech. We do not reach this till we come to 2. 10/0
and as the application of that example to the Corinthi
speakers with tongues is made in ©. 12 by the expression ‘so
also you” (οὕτως καὶ dueîs), in like manner we must regard the
same expression în 7. g as introducing an application of the
preceding illustrations drawn from the musical instruments to
the same persons, ‘Tongue’ here thus signifies in actual fact
the tongue of the Corinthian speakers, yet neither as producing
the so-called tongue-speeches nor yet as producing ordinary
human speech, but simply în so far as it is capable of giving
forth alike the (always unintelligible) tongue-speech, and also a
kind of speech parallel to this, still intelligible, in the church
meetings—such speech as prophecy, for example.

(3) Here then we have the origin of the expression
‘speak with a tongue.’ If all discourse is effected by
‘means of te human tongue and yet only this particular
kind of speech is named from it, the idea can only be
this, that in the case în question the part iît plays is
particularly strong, or even, so far as may be, exclusive,
in excellent agreement with this is the use of the
opposite expression ‘speak with the understanding’
{τῷ rot λαλεῖν). In intelligible speech the ‘under
standing ' (νοῦς) has a part, indeed so prominent a part
that it alone calls for mention; in the contrasted case
it is not engaged, and thus it might seem as if it were
the tongue alone that produced the speech.

Needless to say, the belief was that in ‘speaking with tongues*
the tongue was set in motion by the Holy Ghost (ww, 2,.15)
just as in intelligible speech it was set in motion by the ‘under.
standing’ (νοῦς); but ‘(to speak) with the spirit’ (πνεύματε
[λαλεῖν was not an appropriate verbal expression for this,
because it would have applied equally well to prophecy,
wisdom-speech, knowledge-speech, and so forth. . It Is also
quite fitting that the destgnation of so characteristic a matter
should be chosen with express reference to the impression which
it produced upon the senses, and in this case it really appeared
as if the tongue alone were speaking. True, that the lips, teeth,
palate, etc., are also engaged. But a designation that is to be
in daily use needs to be short, and here it was enough to name
the most important organ; and that the tongue is în popular
belief the most important organ of speech is evident.

(c) This explanation nevertheless leaves something
stili to be desired. The piural ‘speak with tongues'
(γλώσσαις λαλεῖν) is accounted for by it only in cases
where it is used with reference to more speakers than
one (1230 145@ 227 39); and thus not in 146 {and
v. 18 according to WHI), nor yet in τ. 53 120, although
here the singular, used of the person speaking, has a
collective sense. Where only one speaker is in question,
the attempt has been made to explain the plural
(γλύσσαι5) as arising from the idea that in passing from
one manner of speech to another the ‘tongue’ is in
some degree changed; but such an idea is much too
fantastic to have arisen in popular speech, which never
theless we must certainly assume to have been the case
with all such expressions as this. And what of cases
in which ‘tongues’ stands alone, without a verb
(121028 188 1422)?

ΑἸΙ the conditions are satisfied only by oneassumption :
‘tongue’ (γλῶσσα, apart from 149) must be rendered

_ ‘tongue-speech,’—t, speech which,

di Tongue= in the manner described in $ 134,
tai pi * seems to be produced by the tongue
This is by no means a departure from the

4769

13. The tongue

alone.

SPIRITUAL GIFTS

literal sense; rather is it simply an instance of the
same transition from the instrument to its product which
is exemplified in ordinary Greek when ‘tongue’ (γλῶσσα)
is used in the sense of ‘language.’ It is necessary
to assume that this transition was effected anew in the
primitive Christian usage in a narrower sphere, for the
reason that all other explanations have been shown to
be unwarkable, If ‘tongue’ could mean the language
of a foreign nation, or an archaic individual expression,
1426 would at least be intelligible ; as these meanings
are unpracticable we should have to render; ‘ when ye
come together, each one hath a psalm, hath a teaching,
hath a revelation, hath a (human) tongue (in his mouth),
hath an interpretation’—which clearly is meaningless.
‘ Tongue' must necessarily be something of the same
‘order as the other things enumerated; and thus a
definite kind of discourse which is capable of being
delivered în a religious meeting.

So also 2. 6: ‘if I come unto you speaking with tongues,
what shall I profit you, unless 1 speak to you [we must supply :
δὲ die came ἔπε] either by way ci revelation, or οἵ knowiedgi,
and so forth. Similarly too 138: “whether there be prophecies

. whether there be tongues . . . whether there be knowledge,
it shall be done away. Indeed, in the plural ‘tongues’
we now recognise everywhere the different ‘kinds of tongues”
(ψένη γλωσσῶν).

In accordance with the attribution of tongue-speech
to the operation of the Holy Ghost, the interpretation

of it also is regarded as a spiritual

15 Interpreta” gi. © (@) Τὶ is in the first place to be

ri ea remarked that the tongue - speaker

peo "himself, as well as another, can possess

this gift. The first is established by 1413, the second

by the co-ordination in 1210 1426 ; for as not every one

is capable of giving ali the kinds of discourse there

enumerated, the meaning must be: ‘when ye come

together each one hath eifker a psalm or a teaching
+ + + ora tongue-speech or an interpretation.’

In this sense thea, we must interpret v. 274 also. “If any
man speaketh in a tongue, let it be by two, or at the most three

+ and let one interpret.’ If this interpreter is one of the
tongue-speakers, wlo expounds his own tongue-speech, then
what immediately folfows will mean; ‘but if he is not an
interpreter* (ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἦ Becpuppevris) and this seems to he
absolutely necessary, since the sentence closes witl: ‘let Aix
keep silence? (σεγάτω), whilst if all the rongue-speakers whose
speech had no interpreter at hand had to keep silence, the
expression cught to have run: “let Zkens keep silence' (σιγά:
τωσαν). In that case, however, Paul would on the one hand be
enjoining that of the two, or three, tongue-speeches delivered,
que, or two, should remain uninterpreted, which is directly
contrary to the principle laid down by him in vo, 2-11 16-19
227 26-—and on the other hand he would be excluding inter-
pretation by some other person than the speaker, whilst yet such
interpretation is, according to 12 τὸ 14 26, a spiritual gift. Thus
we must, after all, suppose that Paul, in a somewhat careless
way, thought of ‘the person concerned’ as the subject of the
singular ‘keep silence’ (ovydrw)ì and that we ought to render
(with EV): “if there be no interpreter.' This too is inexactly
said: "let (only] one interpret' (εἷς διερμηνευέτω. What Paul
had in his mind perhaps was: ‘let one at least interpret' The
continuation ‘but if there be no interpreter ' fits this well.

If this view be correct, we learn from the passage
before us that those persons in the church who were in a
position to interpret tongue-speeches were generally
known and thus exercised this function with some
regularity. "The possibility was not excluded, indeed,
that some one on some occasion might give an inter-
pretation who had not previously done so. Cleary,
however, Paul is not disposed to rely upon the un-
certain, and therefore he prescribes that if an interpre-
tation is not assured {such doubtless will be the intention
ef his words} the tongue-speech is to be from the
outset suppressed.

(3) What, next, were the means by which an
individual other than the tongue-speaker became able
to understand the tongue-speech? If this faculty was
a purely supernatural one, our question has no point;
but the case was assuredly otherwise. With what
degree of precision the interpreter was able to elucidate

1 Similarly, ‘the persons concerned * is to be supplied as the
subject of the plurals γαμείτωσαν (1 Cor. 7 36) and παρελάβοσαν
(2 Thess. 36) as WHmg. and Tischendorf read.

4770

SPIRITUAL GIFTS

the sense of a tongue-speech we cannot tell The
more one was disposed to rest satisfied with genetal
renderings, the easier was it to supply them. The tone
of the voice, the gestures, the recurrence of particular
words or sounds certainly offered clues.! Further help
was gained from observation of the habits of the tongue-
speakers. We can hardly imagine otherwise than that
their speeches readily assumed a stereotyped character.
If, however, at any time a tongue-speaker brought
forth something unaccustomed, a knowledge of what
experiences he had recently been having would certainly
not be useless towards an understanding of his speech.
(ὦ It must be expressly noted that the things enumerated in
146 alone, with tongue-speech-revelation, knowledge, prophesy-
ing, teaching—do nc: constitute the interpretation of tongue.
speech in some such sense that the meaning will be ‘when I
come unto you speaking with tongues what shall I profit you if
I do not forthwith interpret these tongue-speeches în the form
of revelation’ etc. This misunderstanding is from the outset
precluded by this, that in v. 26 ‘interpretation’ stands in co-
ordination alike with ‘revelation,' etc., and with ‘tongue. On
the other hand, it is possible that interpretation of tongue-speech
is intended in'v. x: ‘I will pray with the Spirit, and Ì will
pray with the understanding also,' that is to say while I repeat
in intelligible language the substance of the prayer 1 have
originally uttered in ecstasy, This view is recommended by the
fact that, immediately before (Ὁ, 13), the tongue -speaker is
admonished to aim at being able to interpret his own tongue-
speeches.
On the subject of the diffusion of the tongue-charism
our information is very defective. (4) We are not
aware that tongue-speech (and the
16. Spread and - 1ie4 charisms) had any considerable

end of tOnEuO: diffusion within the Jewish-Christian
speech And area; but neither is there adequate
PrOpheeT "ground for denying to the Jewish

Christians all aptitude for such
charisms, or for accusing the author of Acts of having
as a Paulinist arbitrarily introduced it into his account
of the primitive Christian world. If he had not found
them in the sources on which he drew for 21-13 10467
196, but merely drew upon his imagination, we may be
pretty confident that he would have brought în the
same elements at other points as well. Of course, the
mere fact that they were present în his sources does not
of itself give any security that their picture of .the
diffusion of the charisms is historically correct.

(δ) In exact proportion to the intensity with which
the charism of tongue-speech was exercised in Corinth
in Paul's time does the complete silence of the Epistle
to the Romans on the same subject invite remark. In
I Thess. 519 {‘quench not the spirit’) it may perhaps
be intended, or at least included. In any case
it cannot have long survived its most flourishing
period. The author of Acts certainiy can never have
heard it exercised, otherwise he could not possibly have
fallen into the mistake of supposing that it was speech
in the language of foreign nations, or into the confusion
of identifying with this foreign speech the speaking with
tongues which occurred at the conversion of Cornelius
(Acts1046 £ 111517). It is a significant fact that
Justin for his own period (about 155 A.D.) mentions
only prophetic gifts {προφητικὰ χαρίσματα) but no
speaking with tongues (Dia/. 82, begin). Irenseus
(about 185 A.D.), in his detailed treatment of the
charisms of which numberless instances happened every
day (Her. ii. 493 [=324]: also ap. Eus. HZ v. 73-5).
speaks only of exorcisms of demons, prophetic visions
and utterances, healings, and some cases of raising of
the dead. In another place (v. 61; also 2A. Fus.
HE v. 76) he mentions tongue-speech also, but only as
something with regard to which he 4ears that ît
happens in the case of many brethren in the Church

2? The most familiar example, by which it has been attempted
to explain the process, is che following: a tongue-speaker

bbled disconnectedly the syllables αὐ and δα, the interpreter
believed himself to have discovered the Aramaic word αὖδα.
Possibly the matter often fell out so. It must not, however, be
thought that precisely this word was known only to certain
interpreters. ἂς Paul employs it in Ron, 815 Gal. 46 it must
bave been known to Gentile Christians generally,

4771

SPIRITUAL GIFTS

and without letting us know whether by it he under-
stands the phenomena met with in 1 Cor. 14, or what
is described in Acts 2. Irenzeus says:

‘We hear of many brethren in the church possessing prophetic
gifts and speaking through the Spirit in all kinds of tongues and
bringing to light for the general advantage the hidden things of
men and setting forth the mysteries of God” (πολλῶν ἀκούομεν.
ἀδελφῶν ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ προφητικὰ χαρίσματα ἐχόντων καὶ
παντοδαπαῖς λαλούντων διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος γλώσσαις καὶ τὰ
κρύφια τῶν ἀνθρώπων εἰς φανερὸν ἀγόντων ἐπὶ τῷ συμφέροντι καὶ
τὰ μυστήρια τοῦ θεοῦ ἐκδιηγουμένων). It is τὸ be noted that the
making manifest of the secrets of men of which Irenz:us speaks
immediately after mentioning tongue-speech is in 1 Cor. 14 24,f
attributed to the prophets, not to those who speak with tongues.
Tertullian also does not say that there was speaking with
tongues in his day; all that he does is contemptuously to call
upon Marcion to exhibit in the case of any of his followers the
exercise of spiritual gifts which, says he, “are forthcoming from
my side more easily’ (‘a me facilius proferuntur’): ‘exhibeat
Marcion . . . aliquos prophetas . . . qui et futura praenuntiarint
et cordîs occulta traduxerint (or: produxerint?); edat aliquem
psalmum, aliquam. visionem, aliquam orationem, dumtaxat
spiritalem, in ecstasi, id est, amentia, si qua lingue interpretatio
accessit' (edu. Marc. 58, end). Thus tongue-speech appears,
not as an independent thing, but merely in an added sentence
which with the whole of its surroundings is clearly reminiscent
of 1 Cor, 1425 The ecstatical spiritual utterance, of which
Tertullian speaks, in his time refers not to ‘tongue-speech’
but to ‘prophecy.

(c) For the ecstatical form of utterance did not
disappear so quickly as did tongue-speech. On the
contrary it became merged in the exercise of ‘ prophecy.'
This was favoured in the highest degree by the cir-
cumstance that already the OT prophecy was conceived
of as wholly ecstatical (above, $ 84). This form of
‘utterance was most strongly prevalent in Montanism.
This may be the reason why stress is laid upon it by
Tertullian ; but as Montanism altogether was nothing
new, but only a strong revival of a tendency which had
once before had prevalence within the church although
subsequently repressed, so also its view of prophecy
was, even if not exactly what might be called the
primitive Christian one, then at least the post-apostolic-
churchly one (Weinel, 78-96). It was only by way of
reaction against the exaggerations of this and against
the dangers for ecclesiastical office which grew out of it
that brought churchmen at last to the view which finds
expression in the title of the treatise of Miltiades (Eus.
HE v.173), ‘On the necessity of a prophet's not
speaking în ecstasy’ {περὶ τοῦ μὴ δεῖν προφήτην ἐν
ἐκστάσει λαλεῖν). As to how it came about that
‘prophecy' also in its turn had to recede into the
background and give place to the ecclesiastica office,
see MINISTRY, $ 38.

If, finally, we proceed to inquire into the value which
the charisms possessed for primitive Christianity, we

shall find that judges differ. (4) În the

17, Popula? church of Corinth (which is almost the
herieme. ©nÌy authority to which we can refer) they
"were valued very highly. They were re-

garded, and quite naturally, as evidences of special grace
and favour, and were therefore zealously striven after
(141). This zeal, if a right zeal, was manifested in
prayer (1413 does not mean that he who speaks in
tongue-speech is to pronounce this ecstatic prayer
of his with the purpose of interpreting it afterwards:
the meaning is that when not exercising his charism of
tongue-speech he is to pray for the gift of being able
himself to interpret any tongue-speeches he may subse-
quently receive). But we shall hardly be doing the
Corinthians an injustice if we suppose that many of them
sought to secure for themselves those ‘gifts’ by other
means also—by imitation, or by artificially working
themselves up into a condition of excitement, by efforts
constantly repeated. Vanity, it would seem, was not

altogether without its part in the matter; otherwise the
gift most prized and coveted would hardly have been
that of tongue-speech, the most conspicuous indeed of

them all, but at the same time the least fruitful. In the
i mouth of the Corinthian Christians the tongue-speaker

| alone was the 'spiritual’ person {πνευματικός τ 1437,
4772

SPIRITUAL GIFTS

and, in accordance with this, in all probability 12r
also).

(δ) From this we can see, at the same time, what
it was that properly speaking was regarded as the
valuable element in the charisms. It was the extra-
‘ordinary, the wonderful or miraculous, that quality in
them which conferred a special importance on those who
possessed them. Fundamentally the view taken does
not differ from that of the Greek religion. Man desires
to enjoy the possession of the godhead, bestowing itself
on him individually. The same view dominates in the
OT; and in Gentile-Christian cireles also the OT con-
ceptions of the operations of the Spirit of God can have
been familiar and influentiall. This conception has a
marked leaning towards the quaintly, or even, one might
say, grotesquely miraculous. Thus it is the Spirit that
enables Samson to rend a lion or burst his own fetters,
that is able to convey Elijah from place to place at
pleasure (Judg. 146 1514 1 K. 1812 2 K. 216; cp in NT
Acts 839), Whether the thing done has a religious
purpose comes but little into the question.

This way of looking at the charisms is precisely that
which makes it possible to attribute the same workings to
: τος, other spirits than the Holy Spirit. (α)
Lane "The belief în the existence of such spirits

"was at that time exceedingly prevalent.
Broadly speaking, they do not fall simply under the two
categories of good and evil, but many of them are re-
garded simply as of a subordinate character and as
restricted in their insight. Whether they were called
demons in accordance with pagan ideas, or angels in
accordance with those of the OT, was indifferent; in
either case they were thought of as quite personal and
as very active, Of such a spirit it is, for example, pre-
supposed in 2 Thess. 22 that it can produce the erroneous
belief that the day of the Lord is immediately at
hand.

(5) That these conceptions are present in 1 Cor. 14
also is shown by the plural, ‘spirits’ (πνεύματα) which,
for linguistic reasons, cannot be taken to mean ‘ opera-
tions of the spirit'—a meaning, moreover, which in
v. 32 is excluded by the connection in which the word
occurs (‘the spirits of the prophets are subject to the
prophets'). ‘Thus to each prophet is assigned a proper
spirit, conceived of personaliy, by which he is inspired
{cp Rev. 226: ' the God of the spirits of the prophets ‘).
Quite similarly 1 Cor. 14 14 also : ‘if I pray in a tongue,
my spirit prayeth,' Here it is not the proper spirit, so
to say, with which a man is born, that is intended ; for this
the apostle designates rather by the word ‘ understand-
ing' (voîs), and distinguishes in this very verse from
“my spirit.’ From this ît follows that τ, τῷ also is to be
understood quite literally : ‘ye are zealons of spirits,”
that is to say, one of you seeks to obtain an inspiration
from one spirit, another from another.

(6) If this were not the meaning, no such thing as the
* discerning of spirits’ would be possible. By the
‘spirits’ here interpreters indeed have proposed τὸ
‘understand distributions of the one Holy Spirit such as
in point of fact were actually believed in (Nu. 1125 Rev.
14 3: 45 ὅδ, Hermas, Sim, ix,132 15:-6 and often}.
Only, in this case also, any ‘discerning’ would be
meaningless. For, beyond question, any act of ' dis-
cerning' would consist in judging as to whether an
utterance founded upon spiritual suggestion was true or
false, one to be followed or rejected. τ Cor. 7 40 shows
us how easily it could happen that confiicting judgments
were put forward on the ground that they were inspired.
Since Paul here supports his judgment on the subject of
re-marriage of widows with the words ; ‘I think that E
also have the Spirit of God," we must conclude that in
Corinth other persons on the ground of suggestion by
the Spirit had decided in the opposite sense. Cp
1437} where the best reading (ἀγνοεῖται) is to be pro-
nounced as an imperative (ἀγνοεῖτε) : if any man is
ignorant, ignore ye him.

4773

SPIRITUAL GIFTS

(4) In all places where it occurs the ‘discerning of
spirits' is mentioned directly after ‘ prophecy' (1 Cor.
1210 1429, cp 1 Thess. 521). In itself considered, it is not
easy to see why mention should not be made of it in
connection with ‘ word of wisdom" or ‘ word of know-
ledge.’ Yet it is easy to understand how it needed
specially to be called into requisition in connection with
‘ prophecy,” if this last gave definite directions as to what
ought to be done in definite particular cases (8 7d).
From 1 Cor. j429 we cannot infer that only those who
also possessed that of ' prophecy' possessed the gift of
‘discerning’; ‘the others' (ol ἄλλοι) can include others
also.

{e) The recognition of a ‘discerning of spirits’ in-
volves in principle a complete abandonment of the belief
in suggestion of the Holy Spirit. With the utmost
emphasis Paul insists (τ Cor, 124-11 1433) that all
charisms proceed from the Holy Spirit or from God;
but at the same time they can also come from evil spirits
and the listeners must decide for themselves as to this,
and in fact decide again upon the basis of inspiration.
Here the most important point is that it is not Paul who
introduces the ‘ discerning of spirits’ as something new ;
rather does it exist in Corinth as a thing of course. Here
reveals itself the impossibility of continuing to hold fast
the belief in divine inspiration if a free use of it is made
in the actualities of life.

Already in the OT it had been found necessary to set_up
criteria for discriminating between false and true prophets. But
that the one class relate dreams, the others ‘speak my word
faithfully* der 23 28) was, naturally, a quite inadequate dis-
tinction. That the true prophet must be a prophet of evil (Jer.
288) may have been true in Jerusalem in Jeremiah's day ; but
az other times, as, for example, in those of Deutero-lsaiah, this
maxim might have been turned against the prophets now become
ganonical, and Jeremiah in fact finds himself constrained to add,

‘if a prophet prophesies peace and his word comes to pass, then
shall he be known to be a true propher” (289). The result is set
Up as a criterion quite expressly in Dt. 18 20-22, cp Ezek. 33 33.
Not only, however, does this criterion fail to be available early
enough; in Dt, 13 2-4 is contemplated the case in which it may
prove to have been deceptive, and for discerning the true prophet
the only way left 18 to ask whether he labours in the service of
Yahwè and (so Jer. 2322) seeks to bring back the people from
the error of their ways. [Cp PROPHET, $$ 23 23.1

Equally inadequate is the criterion set up in 1 Cor.
123: ‘no man speaking in the Spirit of God saith, Jesus
is anathema.' As to the difficulties and inconveniences
experienced by the apostolic age from the impossibility
of finding proper norms by which prophets could be
tested, see MINISTRY, $ 38 a, ὅ.

But what did Paul think of the charisms? (α)} On
the one side he entirely shares the popular opinion. He

Paul' holds them all for operations of the Holy

19. ene, Spirit, and js not sensible of the contra-
viow ot the giction which we have discovered (above,
charisms. 8 184, δ, 2) in his own words, to the effect
that such operations can proceed from other spirits also,
in fact from evil ones. Αἱ the close of the discussion,
in order that any remarks of his in disparagement of
tongue-speech may not be misunderstood, he says:
* forbid not to speak with tongues’ (1 Cor. 1439), He
makes no effort to bring into action a criterion for tongue-
speakers analogous to the ‘discerning’ applicable in the
case of prophets. ‘That no such criterion should have
presented itself of its own accord is to be accounted for,
on the one hand, by the consideration that tongue-
speeches were too unclear to admit of their showing
themselves to such disadvantage as in certain cases
definite sayings of prophets did, and, further, that even
in cases where they threatened to do so they conld be
explained away ; on the other hand, by the considera-
tion that in the case of a tongue-speaker, one was, more
than in the case of a prophet, face to face with a seem-
ingly supernatural communication which could be re-
ceived only with reverence and awe. The first-mentioned
consideration would hardly have restrained Paul from
setting up a criterion to be applied to tongne-speeches ;
Ì for his disposition towards them is much the reverse of

4774

SPIRITUAL GIFTS

favourable, and he has every reason for seeking to limit
their undesirabie influence. The second consideration,
however, did, in point of fact, hold him back, especialiy
as, according to 14:8, he himself was a speaker with
tongues more than any of the Corinthians,

(δ) Alongside of this agreement with the popular view
there presents itself, however, in the case of Paul, the
great thought that every Christian has the Holy Spirit
(Gal 325 ete.), and that the whole life of the Christian
is an expression of the Spirits activities (τ Cor. 123 Gal.
5522/ Rom.5s 84-16). This thought conld not fail,
in the case of every manifestation that laid claim to the
character of a spiritual gift, to lead to the question being
asked as to its spiritual value, but also, at the same time,
to lead to a lowering of the estimate put upon gifts in
which their wonderful character was the most important
thing, and to an increased appreciation of those which
consisted in an intensified exercise of the new Christian
life on its moral side. Im the first characteristic of our
definition ($ 1) we have already seen that the idea of

* the charisms is by no means uniform. Some of them
are expressly regarded as miraculous, in others it is
very difficult to perceive anything wonderful, To this
latter category belongs ‘ministry' in all its forms;
‘government’ also, and the simpler forms of devotional
utterance. It is hardiy probabie that all these things
owed their designation as charisms to the pagan or OT
presuppositions which had a share in the building up of
the conception 'charism' (χάρισμα). Since, then, this
idea must have come to its maturity in the course of
the missionary activity of Paul, under his eyes and with
his co-operation, it is hardly too bold to conjecture
that it was through his influence that these compara-
tively non-miraculous, but, from an ethical point of
view, all the more important, manifestations should
have come to be included in the number of the
charisms.

(c) To the same order belongs also the most important
modification which Paul applied to the idea of a charism
when he refused to recognise as being such anything
which had no utility for the life of the Christian com-
munity (127, τὸ συμφέρον, ‘profit’; 1426, οἰκοδομή,
‘edification’; see above, $ 34). By this miraculous
manifestations were by no means excluded ; but it was
no longer their miraculous character that supplied the
measure according to which they were to be valued. It
was with this principle as his basis that Paul entered
especially on his campaign against the over-valuing of
tongue-speech. Broadly speaking, his great merit in
this field consists in his having moralised, in accordance
with truly Christian principles, an idea that was only
half religious, and essentially miraculous, and, so far
forth, unfruitful.

We must proceed still farther in the same direction if
we are to arrive at an ultimate judgment on the historical

. n Significance of the primitive Christian
20. Conclusion. ciarisms. It is easily intelligible that
the joy of enthusiasm over the possession of a new
redeeming religion should have expressed itself in an
exuberant way which, according to the ideas of that
time, could only be regarded as the miraculous opera-
tion of the Holy Spirit. Apart from the exceptions
specified above ($ 17 a) we have no reason for doubting
that these manifestations were genuine expressions of the
feeling of a strong religious life, not mere artificial imita-
tions derived from the pagan cults. On the other hand,
we know with regard to Paul that his ecstasies in which
he had visions coincided in point of time with the attacks
of his malady (see GALATIA, $ 27); we shall, therefore,
hardly err if we bring into causal connection with this
malady the strong tendency to tongue-speech also, which,
în any case, was intimately associated with the ecstatic
condition. The ecstatical has always something of the
unhealthy about it. ‘Thus it is not difficult to explain
why extensive circles in the early church kept entirely
free from such manifestations. The church could get

4775

SPONGE

on very well in their absence, It is, on the other hand,
equally intelligible that, once they had made their apprar-
ance they were infectious, that they brought the church
life into serious danger, and that they led to reaction.
Paul led this reaction on sound principles; the later
church led it increasingly în the interests of its conception
of church office which was itself very unsound ; Paul by
the endeavour to persuade, the later church too often
by the exercise of force. The phenomena in question
owe their disappearance, however, by no means to this
reaction merely, but quite as much to their own degenera-
tion. ‘This degeneration was in large measure due to
the faith in their miraculous character. In this case
also it was demonstrated that miracles produce a favour-
able impression only when seen from a distance ; where
they have to be fitted into the daily realities of actual
life they always bring evil consequences in their train.
This holds true of the gift of healing the sick also, and
of miracle-working generally. The reaction just spoken
of did not venture to deny the miraculous character of
the charisms. We for our part, however, are constrained
to do so, and to account for everything in the phenomena
to which a miraculous character has been attributed by
the known psychological laws which can be observed in
cases ‘of great mental exaltation, whether in persons
who deem themselves inspired or in persons who simply
require medical treatment.

‘The non-miraculous charisms on the other hand,
which, from the outset, possessed a moral character were
of abiding value. Without them the church could not
have lived; but they have never failed her and are
destined never to become extinct; even should they
have ceased to be called charisms, it will remain ever-
lastingly true that they come from the Spirit of God.

On the whole subject sce Dav. Schulz, Geistesgalen, 1836;
Supernatural Religion {1877), 8 321-397= popular edition, 1902,

᾿ Pp. 753-800; and the commentaries on 1 Cor.
21. Literature. 12-14. Works of a more comprehensive kind
are: Gunkel, Winkwaeea des heil, Geistes
nach der populiren Anschauung der afost. Zeit u. nach der
Lehre des Pawius, 1388} © unaltered, 19003 and, following
Gunkel, Weinel, Wirkragen des Geistes u. der Geister im
machapost. Zeitalter bis auf Irenaews, 1899; Beversluis, De
heilize geest en sijne werkingen volgens het . ᾿ς N. Verbond,
Utrecht, 1896. On speaking with tongues, see Bleek, δ: Αγ,
1829, pp. 3-79} 1830, PR: 45-54; Baur, Tad. Zisch». αὶ Theol.,
18308, pp. 75-133; S&A7., 1838, pp. 618-702; Wieseler, SAA
1838, pp. 703-772; Hilgentfeld, Glossolalie, 1850; Rossteuscher,
Gabe der Sprachen, 18503 van Hengel, Gave der talen, 18643
Arthur Wright, Seme 7° Problems, 277-302 [1808].
P. WS.

SPOIL. The words are; (τὴ BA Falsi, Gen.

4927 (G τροφή), eto., σκῦλον, προνομή, διαρπαγή:;
(2) 19, dax, Jer. 1513, eto., σκύλον, προνομή, διαρπαγή!ϊ

also (3) nevip, eiissià, 2 K.21u eta, πξιδ,
meSussàh, Is. 4224t Kt, προνομή, διαρπαγή, (4) n,

tereph, Job 2917 etc., ἅρπαγμα, διαρπαγή. On the
division of spoils cp TAXATION, $ 1. See also
SACRIFICE, $ 8,

SPOKES, 1. φέδζξενε, D'PWD, 1K.733 AV ‘felloe.
See ὕγηξει, 16.
3. Gisarim, D'WSM, 1 K.T33 RV ‘nave.’ See WHEEL, 16.

SPONGE (crrorrocì). Mt. 2748 =Mk. 1536=In.
1929t. Neither σπύγγος nor σφόγγος occurs in the
LXX. The use of the sponge, however, was early
known (cp, e.g., /4 18414; 04 111); see the Classital
Dictionaries.

‘Sponge’ is the fibrous skeleton of a marine animal
—the living part of which has been removed by dry-
ing, washing, and bleaching—belonging to the group
Cornacuspongiee of the non-calcareous sponges. The
most important Mediterranean species are Ewsporgia
officinalis, the Levant toilet sponge; and £. simocca,
the Zimocca sponge, and /7ippospongia eguina, the
horse-sponge. AIl these are found at a deptàhì of

4776

SPOON

3-100 fathoms along the coasts. ‘The sponge fisheries
of the Mediterranean are still the most important in
commerce, and the Syrian trade is considerabile.

A. E 5.

SPOON (53, gyickH). See ALTAR; $ 10; Cook-
ING, $ 5, iîi., INCENSE, $ 7, and MEALS, $ το.

SPOTTED (NUM), Gen. 3032 75 Ezek.1616; see
COLOURS, 8 12.

SPRINGS. In a country where perennial streams
‘are rare, and where months of summer may pass without
satributian FaÎn, the possession and preservation of
1, Distribution water das always been a matter of
ANO PIeSeIVA” serious concern. Water means life,
tion of water. nd its value to the people of Canaan
is illustrated by manifold references and numerous
beautiful metaphors in the OT. For details concerning
the amount of rainfali in Palestine, see RAIN, $ 2, and
on the distribution of springs and other sources of
supply, see PALESTINE, $ 13. Generally speaking, it
may be affirmed that the most poorly watered districts
are the table-land of Judzea on the W. of Jordan and
the heights of the Ze/Zé on the F.! Some of these
tracts, however, were once better supplied, cp NEGEB,
pra

Constructions for the preservation of water rank
among the oldest specimens of masonry in Palestine.
The simplest plan was to dig a hole, with perhaps a
shaft of masonry, where springs were known to exist.
Such a pit (22%, “pn, φρέαρ) was often covered over
with a large flat stone, parily, no doubt, as a precaution
against accident (Ex. 2133), and partly to prevent its
being easily discovered. For this later purpose sand
or earth might be strewn over the cover (cp also 2 S.
17 19).

The water was drawn up by a pitcher (424, Gen.
2416) or bucket (42/7, Is. 4075, cp verb in Ex. 216, 19),
and for the watering of cattle was poured into a trough
{ruhat, Gen, 30/38 4at Fx. 216, JOfefk, Gen. 2420 3038).?
When dry a pit of this kind might be used as a
prison, and as no attempt was made to keep it clean
the accumulation of miry mud (/7/, Ps. 402 [3], cp Jer.
886) at the bottom added to the discomfort of the
prisoner.

The Heb, and ΘΚ. terms for ‘Spring' which require
mention are : ὅτε

1. ᾿άγέπ (py), Gen. 167 2416 15. 291, ete.; AVS

‘well’ in Gen, 2413 4922, etc., obscures
2. Words 1° force and meaning. ‘The ‘spring of
rendered 1,coh' (Dt. 33.28) refers to J's descendants;

SPINE cp the metaphors in Is. 48 1 Ps. 6826 [27].
For particular springs, see τεῆς. above in $ 1. The
connection with ‘dyir ‘eye’ is doubtful, nor, if the two
are identical, is it easy to say which is older, The
‘spring’ can scarcely take its name from the circular
shape of the orifice since this (as in English) is called
the 04/4 (Gen. 292). On the other hand, the eye
could easily be called the fountain of the tears (as in
Jer. 91(8 23] πρϑτ po vp). Perhaps some primitive
belief underlies the usage.

2. mayor (γ 9), derived from the above, properly a
place of springs, cp Ps. 846 [7], Josh. 1815 {AV
‘well’), etc.

3. δ᾿ ὅν (ng5, cp above $ τ, and see CONDUITS, $ 1
{:]} occurs chiefly in the Hexat.; for place-names
compounded with it, see NAMES, $ 101 (8).

1 Full information is given by G. A. Smith, /G 77-79. For
the evidence of place-names indicating the presence of water sce
NAMES, $ τοι. ᾿

2 Other means of drawing up water are the sZadg/in Egypt
(Wilkinson, 4uc. Eg. 1281), and the water-wheel in Babylonia
(Peters, Vi89:2; 1135 1413 cp Curtiss, Prin. δέν, Rel. 108
{Hamath]). There seems to be an allusion to the latter în
Eccles. 196. Cp AGRICULTURE, 85, .

3 Cp also Βκοοκ, ConpuzTs, $ 1, PoNb, Pool.

4777

STAFF

4 mabbia (pan), Eccles. 126 (AV ‘fountain '),
Is. 857 4910. Properly a place where water bubbles
or gushes up, cp the verb in Prov. 184 of a bubbling
spring, and metaphorically, of a gushing man in Prov.
152 28, εἴο,

5. "πάξδν' (AD), a spring that has been dwg (verb in 2 K. 1924
Is. 3725). Mostly used in a figurative sense (Prov. 13 14 3622
184 etc.)

6. misi (ai), properly, ‘place of exit' (cp also above col.
883, n. 2), with DD, α K. 22x Ps. 107 33, 35 (διέξοδον), Is 9725
(συναγωγή), etc.

7. nébek (135, orig. obscure) in Job 88 16, and perhaps also ἐξ.
28 11 for ‘932, see BDB ad loc.

8. guelioth (nba), Judg.11st ; see GoLaTH-MAIM, True mean-
ing unknown, perhaps a Canaanite word. On the supposition
that the word is corrupt see KEILAH.

9. nmtex, Dt. 8 17 RVmg., see ASHDOTH-PiscaH.

10. πηγή (the usual word in @ for nos. 1£, 4.22), Jn. 46 Jas.
3112 Pet. 227, etc.

11. φρέαρ (®s word for no. 3), Lk. 14 5 etc., an artificial well
as opposed to κρήνη (cp PooL, 2).

A full supply of water, rivers on bare heights, wells
in valleys, pools of water in place of a wilderness, and

A springs instead of dry land characterise
Li Getinent the highest possible happiness to the
Hebrew mind {1s.41:8 cp 357 443 Ps.
107 35). The possession of water is the one indis-
pensable acquisition without which the right of pasture
is useless. Hence, as Robertson Smith suggested,
property in water is more important and probably older
than property in land (RS 104 /, cp CATTLE, 8 5).
The digging of a well, accordingîy, was an important
funetion, and a typical specimen of one of the rites ac-
companying it has been fortunately preserved in Nu.
2117f (see BEFR, col, 515). Here the spring is
addressed asa living being, and indeed not only is
spring-water called ‘living water' (Gen. 2619 Nu, 1917
ete.), but springs are regarded as endowed with life.
They are regarded with reverence, credited with oracular
powers, and frequently associated with sacred beings.!
On the widespread beliefs connected with springs and
wells among the Semites see IDOLATRY, $ 2, NATURE-
WORSHIP, $ 4, Robertson Smith, A.Sî (reff. in Index).
Cp also Barton, Semitic Origins, 92 Y.; Curtiss, Prin.
Sem. Rel, passim ; and the Abbe Bourcais, ‘ La source
divine et générale conception Chaldéenne dans les
Monuments figurés des Collections ἃ Paris,' in Maspero's
Rec. de Trav, 21 177-193 (1899). S.A. C.

STABLE (ΠῚ}}, Ezek. 255;
See CATTLE, $ 5, INN (ad fin.)

STACHYS (crayxyc [Ti. WH]), greeted by Paul as
‘ my beloved ' (Rom. 169).

He is mentioned in the apocryphal lists of the
‘seventy,’ and according to pseudo-Dorotheus was
consecrated first bishop of Byzantium, by the Apostle
Andrew. In the apocryphal Acta PAIlippi, a believer
of the name of Stachys is the host of Philip in Hiera-
polis. The name has been found among the remains
of the imperial household {CZL 68607).

STACTE (2), παρᾶ, ‘that which drops'; cp Job
3627; CrakTH)is mentioned with onycha and galbanum
as an ingredient in the holy incense (Ex. 3034; Ecclus.
2415, RVmg ‘opobalsamum’ AV STORAX) A
fragrant resin is obviously intended; but whether
opobalsamum, storax, or some other substance, is
uncertain, Jewish tradition identified παρα with opo-
balsamum; but against this see BALSAM, $ 4, and
MyRRH. Perhaps gum tragacanth is meant; see
STORAX, 2. N. M.

elsewhere ‘ pasture,*

STAFF. The words are partly the same as those in
Rob (where see 1, 2, 3, 5). Nothing depends on ful-
1 This is not confined merely to medicinal waters (cp Ham.

MATH; MEDICINE, $ 2, col. 3007 and refi.) where supernatural
ideas might rendily arise.

4778

STAIRS

ness of references, By far the most interesting is Heb. |
1151, cp Gen. 4731, where it is said that Jacob, after
blessing Joseph's sons, ‘worshipped upon the top of
his staff” {προσεκύνησεν ἐπὶ τὸ ἄκρον τῆς ῥάβδου αὐτοῦ),
implying msi (the reading of (5, Pesh., IL) instead of
neon. Chabas justifies this reading by a reference to
an Egyptian custom! But it is clearly wrong, as the
parallel passage 1 K.147 shows. ‘The ‘head’ of the
bed is no doubt a peculiar expression; Holzinger
suggests that a ‘teraphim’ may have been placed at
the bed's head, But the true explanation is much
simpler. wa should of course be &ny ‘couch’; cp
“pw ΡΨ ‘the couch of my bed,' Ps.1323, RVME The
other words are—

1. mpen. men, mal'indb, mifenetk {ἔνι 10 lean),
Ex. 2119 Is. 866, etc. Used of the pastoral rod
{1039} in Ps. 234 (see note în Che. 25.0).

2. py, ‘45, of the ‘stail’ of a spear (1 5, 177 [Kt. is
wrong], 2 8. 2119 237 1 Ch. 205).

3. 355, 24k, in David's imprecation, ‘let there not
fail from the house of Joab one that hath an issue, or
that is a Ieper, or fa? /eanetà on a staff” ete., 2 S. 329.
So EV after 6 (κρατῶν σκυτάλης [-n, or -ἢ»}} and Tg.
Jon. {1282 pro; 80 read, not vga). The rival render-
ing—*that holdeth the spindle'-—does not suit the
context nearly as well (cp H. P. Smith, ad /c.), but
has a philological basis lacking to the first explanation.
Moved by Driver's learned note (7.3.5 192, with n. 1)
Lohr and H. P. Smith adopt ‘spindle’ for bb (cp
Prov, 8119, and Toy's note). ‘There can hardly be a
clearer evidence of corruption; no philology can save
this unsuitable reading. Read Sppa D, ‘one that leans
on (lit. grasps) a staff’—ie., a lame person In
Prov. 3119 the reading is of course undisputed (cp
WEAVING, $ 2).

4 si; 29ì, Nu.1323 (a pole, for bearing a huge grape-
cluster).

5. 53, dad (in plur.), Ex, 25 197 1 K.87// (to bear the arl).

6. ξύλον (πὶ plur.), Mt. 26 47 Mk. 14 43, coupled with ‘swords*
Un. 18.3 speaks of S7Aa) Cp the use of δ and δ3 (Rop,

1,2) τι κις.
STAIRS, The rendering ‘stairs’ in AV is generally
misleading.

1. In x K.68%, no doubt, p'Sb, zzzize (ἐ[ε]λικτὴ ἀναβάσις ἃ
cockiea) can be plausibly rendered ‘winding stairs' (EV ; see
however, Stade, Z47W 313677, and cp TemeLe, $ 11, n.)

2. In 2 K.913 ‘on the top of the stairs' (nibpin t0:")%) can
hardly be the right description of the place where Jehu's
supporters acclaimed him as king (see JEHU).

ἃ In Neh. 94 it was not on the stairs but on the ‘scaffold”
(πον, ma'dlei; ἀνάβασις) prepared for the occasion that
Jeshua and Bani stood, So AVmg. Cp PutpiT.

4. In Ezele 48 17 (mbyp, ma'd/024) ‘stairs’ should be ‘steps’
(RV); the steps of the altar are meant.

5. In Cant, 214 ‘the secret places (mimo, αν δέ;
ἐχόμενα τοῦ προτειχίσματος; in caverna maceria) ot the
stairs' forms a bad paraliel to ‘în the clefts of the rock” ΠΣΎΤΩ,

madregah (in plur.), is again rendered ‘staîrs’ in Ezek. 8820}
most scholars suppose ‘steep, ladder-like hills’ (RV ‘steep places,
E φάραγγεθ) to be the true meaning. The word, however, is
suspicious.

6. ‘Stairs’ is right for ἀναβαθμοί in Acts 21 40.
T.K.C.
STALL (PRW. marseh, eto.), Am.64 et. 8665
CATTLE, $ 5.

STANDARD (533), Nu. 152 οἷο, See ENsioNS.

STARS. To the Hebrews, as to other races, the
heavenly bodies were a constant source of interest and
wonder. Their great number, comparable to the sand

1 Mélanges égyptologigues,9) Lor. ‘He then pronounced
the ordinary cath, ‘ By the life of the Lord Life-Health-Force," |,
striking his nose and ears, and placing himself on the top of the
staff. The reference is to the baton which the magistrate kept
stretched out during the ceremony. ΒΥ this attitude and by
these gestures the prisoner testified his submission towards the
magistrate.”

4779

STARS

of the sea-shore (Gen. 155 2217 264 Jer. 3322), and
known only to God (Ps. 1474), their immeasurable
height above the earth {Job2212 Ob. 4 Is. 1413; cp
Dan. 8100), and the brightness of their shining (Job
255 3126 Dan. 123), formed subjects for comment;
but it was their movements that excited the keenest
attention, and opened up the widest field for the
imagination,

To realise the Hebrew conception of this phenomenon,
it is necessary to make some reference to their cosmology.

This bears close resemblance to the
1 Darth and scheme of the Babylonians (Jensen,

Kosmol. 9 75}. and may be thought τὸ
have formed part of the common property of the
primitive Semitic family.

The earth was regarded as a flat surface, bounded
upon all sides by the watery deep. Above, the heavens
formed a hollow vault, which, resting on the waters,
might be said to describe a circle upon them (Job 2610
Prov. 827). This vault was thought to be solid, and

was spoken of as a firmament {τ}, r4£id', something

beaten or hammered out; Gen.16 etc.), or, in the
language of poetry, a tent spread out above the earth
(Is. 4022 Ps.194) Upon the farther side of the
firmament, called by the Babylonians ἐγ Fazzi, ‘the
inner part of the heavens,' there was again water, ‘the
waters which are above the firmament' (Gen. 16 ΛΔ).
Indeed, one of the earliest of creative acts was the
placing of the vault of the heavens, in order to cleave
in twain the watery deep {sim téhom, Bab. Tidmat),
and thus make possible the appearance of dry land
(Gen. 16-8 Prov, 828 £). Beneat@© the earth was the
realm of the underworld (%ixzi, S4/0/), and the whole
was perhaps conjectured to rest ultimately upon the
waters of the deep (Ps. 242 1366).

Across the fixed vault of the firmament the heavenly

bodies appeared to move, seeming, no doubt, to the

Hebrews as to the Babylonians, to

pinna enter by a door în the eastern quarter

bodies, of the heavens and to make their exit

n in the W. by a similar means. Thus,

to the poet's mind, the sun has his tent in the heavens,

and at his rising is like a bridegroom who issues from
his bridal chamber (Ps. 195/).

The regularity of the movements of the stars arrested
the attention. They are governed by ‘ordinances’
established by Yahw® and’ unalterable (Jer.3135/),
beyond the reach of human understanding (Job3833).
The spectacle of the heavenly host, led forth in full
tale, is a wonderful proof οἱ Yahwè's mighty power
(15. 4026). Thus they naturally serve to mark divisions
of time. They are set in the firmament ‘to divide the
day from the night’ and to ‘be for signs, and for
seasons, and for days, and years' (Gen.lu, cp Ps.
10419). The Hebrew month (νη, 40de8; my, 96728)
is a lunar month, and the quarter of this period one
phase of the moon—appears to have determined the
week of seven days (see MONTH, $$ 1, 6; WEEK, $ x).
Since this constancy in the courses of sun, moon, and
stars was so impressive, it is natural that anything
which appeared to be of the nature of an interruption
should, by the unscientific mind, be regarded as a
portent of catastrophe. Of such a nature would be
eclipses of the sun or moon, meteorites or falling stars,
and comets.

So we find the darkening of sun and moon and the falling of
stars associated with troublous times of direst calamity (Am. 89
Is. 18 10 Ezek, 327 Joel2 10 31{84]=Acts2 20 Joel8[4]15 Job97;
cp Mt. 2429 Rev.612/ 812) Comets, as moving in orbits
which baffled the calculations of the ancients, can be spoken
of as ‘wandering stars, for whom the blackness of darkness is

reserved for every’ and ius serve to depict the lot οὗ the repro-
ate.

1 An eclipse of the sun which occurred în the year ».c.
763 is recorded in the Assyrian Eponym Canon. See Amos,
84

4780

STARS

To the primitive imagination that which moves is
regarded as possessing life. Thus the heavenly bodies
are pictured as living beings, and form subject of folk-
lore and legend. ‘Stars, în particular, are closely
associated with angels.

The phrase ‘the host of heaven' generally denotes the stars
( ΚΟΊΤ 162135 2947 Dt.419 173 Jer.82 1913 Zeph. 15; cp
Gen. 21 Ps, 886 Is. 40/26 4512); but în some cases, especially in
late writings, invisible agencies are also denoted by the same
term G_K.2219 Is.344 Neh.96, and perhaps Dan. 810). Cp
also ls. 2421 and the fine poetical statement in Job387 (cp
CreATION, $ 21, 6).

Specia] stars or constellations mentioned în the Bible
are as follow :—

(a) wp, ᾿άγέξ (Job.3832); on the versions and on the
supposed form yy, ‘48 (Job99), see ARctURUS. The

; allusion to the ‘children’ of ‘dyif

8 Special sare limits the possibilities of interpretation

BTOUPS- to such constellations as can be

pietured under the form of a mother with children.

Among the ancients there appear to have been two
such—Ursa major, and the Pleiades.

In favour of Ursa major is cited the Arabic title
for this constellation.

This is πα ᾧ, ‘the bier,' the fourstars forming the quadrilatera]
being regarded asa bier, which is followed by three mourners,
band? na'$, ‘the daughters of the bier.'

It is, however, quite impossible philologically to
connect the Arabic word ra with the Hebrew ‘dyif;
nor is there, in the passage of Job in which ἀγέξ
appears, any trace of the idea of bier and bearers or
mourners. It is the merit of M. A. Stern! (‘Die
Sternbilder in Hiob 8831 £," in Geiger's 744. Zeitschr.
3258 Z.) to have been the first among moderns to adopt
the interpretation ‘ Pleiades,' and to have stated his case
with great cogency. Stern disposes of the claims of
Ursa major by pointing out that ‘4yi$ with the three
other constellations mentioned in Job383: /, is cited
by the poet on account of its meteorological import-
ance.

This is evident from the context. In τῶ, 22-30 we have
mention of snow and hail, light and east wind, thunder-shower
and lightning, rain and dew, ice and hoar-frost. Then follow
the three 22. 31-33 with reference to certain constellations ; and
in immediate succession, further notice of meteorological
phenomena—clouds and the outpouring water, lightning and
the bottles of heaven.

Thus the inference is clear that the constellations
mentioned are such as have special significance as
weather-signs. Now Ursa major, as a circum- polar
constellation, never passes below the horizon in the N.
hemisphere ;? and, being therefore a conspicuous object
at all seasons, could never be regarded as possessing
any kind of meteorological importance. Thus_ its
mention in such a context would appear to be quite
misplaced,

On the other hand, the Pleiades, though but a small
group, possessed for the ancients great meteorological
significance.

By their rising at dawn the Greeks and Romans divined the
‘approach of summer, whilst their setting at dawn, heralded the
approach of the wet and stormy season (Hesiod, 059. 3837
371/619; Virgil, Georg. 423117; Ovid, Fast.55997.). The
expression ‘‘4y77 with her children bears close resemblance to
the name ‘hen with her chickens’ applied to this group of stars
among both eastern and western peoples and actually em-
ployed in this passage as a translation of the Targum (5y gnam
pinza gannpa).8

The name 'éyif may then be thought to denote, not
the group as a whole, but the principal star, known to
astronomers as Alcyone. It must be deemed uncertain
whether the Massoretic vocalisation τὴν is correct. The

1 Stern is followed by G. Hoffmann (247798107 /°) and by
Néldeke (διό, Lex. 4370).

2 Cp Homer, 04. 5275, οἵη 8 ἄμμορός ἐστι λοετρῶν Ὠκεανοῖο.
Virg.” Georg.1246,, Arctos Oceani metuentis aquore tingi.
Ovid, Met. 13 727, Arcton aquoris expertem.

8 It is also worthy of notice that R. Yehuda's explanation of
"ἀξ as wmv, yatha (Bèrakhoik 588) ἰς interpreted by later
‘Falmudists as my 531, ‘the tail of the Ram (£e., Pleiades), or
wbiyt wa, ‘the head of the Bull” (.e., Hyades).

4781

STARS

Peshittà renders by ‘i3y2/%2,! which probably has
philological connection with the Hebrew name, and
perhaps upon this analogy we may vocalise γόνυ, ‘dyzf
(Hoffmann), or else, with closer approximation to the
Syriac, wey. ᾿αγγῆξ, or wp, ‘nyat.

(δ) Spa, &esti (Job 99 3831 Amos 58) is generally
supposed to denote ORION (g.7.), the most remarkable
of constellations, both on account of the brilliancy and
colour of the three principal stars,® and the striking
resemblance of the figure to a gigantic human form
equipped with belt and sword. The position of this
group, a few degrees S. of the Ecliptic, renders it a very
conspicuous object as viewed from the N. temperate
zone, and among the Greeks and the Romans it was
much observed as a sign of the seasons.

Thus its heliacal rising, southing, and setting are severally

connected with different ‘agricultural operations (Hes. Of.
5957, 609.7, 6147); but, especially, the time of its setting
marks the commencement of wet and stormy weather, when
navigation becomes dangerous (Hes. 044. 6187; Hor. £6.157;
Virg. En.1533 452).

The mention of the ‘ 4az4s of Orion” in Job 3831 îs
perhaps an allusion to the three stars of the belt, and
refers to the chains with which the giant—dull-witted
obstinate’ giant—(5*03) wasthought tohave been confined
by the Deity. If man can loose these bands—the poet
seems to mean—he may then hope to gain control over
those changes in the season which the constellation
marks. [ἢ Job 99 Amos 58 ἀδεδί appears to be cited
on account of its great brilliancy.3

(€) npa, 4imdh (Job 99 3831 Amos 58) is translated
‘ Plelades' by EV and many moderns, in accordance
with the rendering of © in both passages of Job,*
Symm. and ΝΕ. in Job 3831, and Symm. and Theodot.
in Amos. If, however, the grounds upon which ‘dyi?
has been identified with the Pleiades can be considered
sufficient, it is evident that we must look elsewhere for
the consteliation represented by #imz44. Stern presses
the claims of Canis major with its bright star Sirius—
by far the largest of the fixed stars—known to the
Greeks as τὸ ἄστρον par excellence.5

A constellation of so great a meteorological interest
as Canis major and possessing a star of such brillianey
as Sirius, may naturally be expected to find mention in
Job 88 ; and the identification with 4im44 is rendered
blausible by the close connection with #%7/, just as the
Great Dog lies nearly to the S. of Orion and close to
his feet. A further point is the allusion to the ‘ chains?
of Kimak' (33 rimyp), which on this interpretation
yields a good sense, since Canis major is the hound of
Orion.

(4) The meaning of nin (Job 3832; see MAZZAROTH),
is highly uncertain By most scholars the term is sup-
posed to be identical with ribin (see MazzaLoTH), the

worship of which, in conjunetion with that of the sun, the
1 The same rendering is employed for wp, Job 99, dba, Job
1527, °b3, Amos 58, The Talmudic &Nt,y224% (note above),

perhaps represents the same word with rejection of y.

2 aBy Orionis, named Betelgeuse, Rigel, and Bellatrix : the
first and the second, of the first magnitude ; the last, among the
largest stars of the second magnitude,

3 On the phrase ‘their Alcide! (orb'oa) in Is. 1810 see
Orion.

4 In & Job 90, ὁ ποιῶν Πλειάδα καὶ Ἕσπερον καὶ ᾿Αρκτοῦρον
καὶ ταμεῖὰ Νότον, it is quite clear that the order of the con-
stellations has been changed, nm: being brought to the
beginning and rendered Πλειάδα as in 88 31, whilst #9, which
thus stands second, is translated Ἕσπερον as ey in 8832. This
change of order, which seems to have been overlooked by critics,

is substantiated by Posh. Jhanbo +35? οὐ

Jasnl did pelo limi o

5 For the ancients Sirius marked the time of greatest summer
heat (Hom. //.2227-3r, Hes. 0ff,417, Sc. 397; etc.), and its
connection with this period is Sil preserved ia the popular
expression ‘the dog days.

The rendering ‘sweet infivences’ AV, RVme. can he traced
back to Sebastian Munster (1535 A.0.), but appears to be philo-
logically: untenable.

4782

STARS

moon, and all the host of heaven, was put down by Josiah
{2 K. 235); and (δ in both passages employs the trans-
literation pafovpw0, whilst Targ., in accordance with
Kings, uses in Job the rendering wo "pe. In Rab-
binic Hebrew the mazz4/04 are the iwelve zodiacal signs
(Berakhoth 325; Shabtath 752), but also the planets,
regarded asstarsof goodor ill fortune(BérEs4z/4 7ad.,$ 10,
τος, etc.). In agreement with this latter signification,
we have, according to the restoration of de Vogilé, the
dedication ny3%in> answering to the Greck ᾿Αγαθῇ.
τύχῃ in a Phosnician inscription from Larnaca of about
the 4th century B.C. (0751 95). It is doubtful, how-
ever, whether we can safely argue back in explanation of
the earlier useofthe expression, In Arabic #25) denotes
a ‘lodging-place' or'mansion’; and thepluràl a/-mandse/
is used of the twenty-eight ‘mansions’ of the moon.
In Assyrian, according to Friedr. Delitzsch (Ass. Y/W2),
manzazu denotes ‘a place of standing,’ from the root
nasisu ‘to stand’; just as in Heb. nipp, ‘ place," is
derived from pp Marzazu occurs on the fifth table
of the Babylonian Creation series {see CREATION, 8 2)
which begins! ‘He made the mansions (mansazi) of
the great gods.' Further, there is a fem, form of
manzazu—viz., manzaltu (=mansastu), masaltu. For
this Delitzsch quotes 3 R. 59 358 : ‘The gods in heaven
in their mansions (mar-sa/-di-u-nu) set me.’ Jensen
{Kosmol, 347f.) mentions the same facts. Whilst,
however, Delitzsch identifies these weanze/ii with the
zodiacal stations (Py0/. 54), Jensen thinks that they
were perhaps fifty in number,? corresponding to the
number of the great gods, and represent, not merely
the signs of the zodiac (cp Lockyer, Dare of Astronomy,
133), but rather certain fixed stars and planets, lists of
which are to be found in the inscriptions, but of which the
identification appears to be possible only in a few cases
(Hosm. 146 f).8 Here, then, it may be supposed that
we have the original of wazza/izi of 2 ἘΞ. 235; though,
as is plain from the diverse opinions noticed above, the
precise reference of these ‘mansions,’ as objects of
worship borrowed by the people of Judah from the
Babylonians, still remains uncertain.

With regard to mazzéròtà, Stern is undoubtedly
correct in stating that in the words of Job 3832 ' Canst
thou bring forth weassaroà in its season (inpa),' mazsa-
γᾷ in conjunction with ‘in fs time’ (1ny3) denotes a
plurality which can be spoken of as a unity, and so a
group of stars which form a single constellation This
consideration, which gains weight from the connection of
mazsdroth with ‘dyi$, ἔτεϊ, and Rimdh, cach of which de-
scribes a single special star-group, cuts at the root of the
identification of mazza0t% in Job with massd/6th as men-
tioned in 2 K. 235, upon the view which has above been
taken ofthe latter, ‘The special constellation represented
by wesséràth can, however, in default of evidence, be
merely conjectural. Stern's view, that the word de-
notes the Hyades, is not open to objection, and is to
some extent supported by the position of massérdt4 after
kimah and #°sil'and before 'dyif, acccording to the posi-
tion of constellations in the heavens. But that this is the
intention of the order of citation may be questioned,
since in such a case the more natural method would be
to reverse the order, and to speak of Pleiades, Hyades,
Orion, Canis major, according to the order of rising.
‘The Hyades were of meteorological importance to the
ancients, who regarded their heliacal rising as the
portentof wet weather (Hom. 71. 18486 ; Hes, ΟΡῥι 613;
Virg. An, 1744, ete.). Stern, who would identify
mazsaroth and mazzaléth, attempts to connect weazsd/otk
with the verb 47 (4/527/) in the sense ‘rain-producers' ;

1 See Jensen, AosmoZ 288 77 ; Schrader, COT 115.

3 The wimder cf the marzazi appears to fave” originally
been given in the Creation tablet.

8 Jensen finds allusion to the zodiacal signs in the Mad stars
of 22 of the Creation table: above cited. The word meitrdte
(not misrdfa) or isvéta, which occurs in 13, cannot, with Sayce
(Religion of Bab. 380), be identified with Mazsdy0tk,

4783

STARS

but this is certainly inferior to the derivation adopted
above (see further MAZZAROTH).

{e) The expression, ‘the inner chambers of the south "
(Job 991 mon mo, dadré themàn), is too indefinite to be
taken as a reference to any special star or group of
stars, such as the bright star Canopus or the constella-
tion of the ship to which it belongs (Stern). Probabiy
Dillmann is correct in suggesting that the author of Job,
as ἃ man of travel, would know that in journeying to-
wards the 5, more and more stars and constellations
appear în the heavens, and might therefore reasonably
refer in such terms to the stars of the southern hemi-
sphere,

(/) On 4&war as a representation of the planet Saturn (Am.
526), ἀδίδί (Ὁ) as the planet Venus, and Diesewrias the constella-
tion Gemzénz (indirectly referred to in Acts 2811), see CHIUN,
Lucir:R, CASTOR AND PoLi.ux. [There is accortiing to Crif.
Bib., reason to think that the Arabic name of Saturn, φερε,
underlies the bam of τ K. 1915. It is held that the ὁ Hazael”
referred to was probably a N. Arabian, not a Syrian, king.
Adhuc sub judice lis est.]

It is highiy imprcbable (cp CALF, GoLDEN) that the
Hebrew tribes in Egypt came under the influence of the

._ Egyptian religion, which was based
4. Star-worshi. son the worchip of the sun.

But such place-names as Beth-shemesh in SW. Judah,
Har-heres, Timnath-heres, and Heres on the E. of the Jordan
permit the inference that the local Baalof the Canaanite, whose
cults confronted the Israelites on their immigration into Canaan,
was sometimes connected with the sun, See, however, SUN,
and on this and other difficult points which here suggest them
selves for consideration see ASHTORKTH, BAAL, PHGENICIA, $ τὰν
On the much disputed statement of Am. 526 seè CHIUN AND
SiccuTR, SALMA.

Am, 526 introduces us to the subject of star-worship,
The compiler of the Book of Kings regards the worship
of ‘all the host of heaven '—doubtless introduced from
Babylonia—as one of the causes of the fall of the
northern kingdom (2 K.17:6). In the case of the
kingdom of Judah we possess fuller information. Star.
worship was here, apparently, not introduced before
the time of Manasseh ; but of this king it is related that
he built altars to all the trost of heaven in the two courts
of the house of Yahwè (2 K.215). Priests were
appointed to offer sacrifice to the sun, the moon (see
Moon), the mazz4/044 (see above, $ 3 [d]}, and all the
host of heaven, and special horses and chariots were
dedicated to the worship of the sun, probably to be em-
ployed in processions (2 K. 234 str) Cp NATHAN.
MELECH. It was not until the reformation in the 18th
year of Josiah {B.C. 621} that measures were taken to
root out this Babylonian astral worship (2 K. 28), owing
to the influence of the book of Deuteronomy which
contains special injunctions agaînst the worship of the
sun, moon, and stars {Dt.172f; cp 4r9).

Josiah's efforts, however, were by no means wholly
successful, The new cult seems to have been largely
embraced by private individuals, who worshipped the
heavenly bodies upon the roofs of their houses, burning
offerings and pouring out libations (Zeph.15 Jer. 82
1913). More especially does the worship of the QUEEN
oF HEAVEN (g.v.)—i.e., probably, Istar as a celestial
goddess—appear ‘to have enjoyed popularity among
women? (Jer. 718). The reformation of Josiah, which
must have been mainly concerned with public and
national religious abuses, could not eradicate such
private σαῖς, Ezekiel {writing in the 6th year of the
captivity of Jehoiachin, 591 B.C.), pictures the worship
of the sun as carried on at Jerusalem within the Temple-
court (Ezek.816/)? and, a5 Jeremiah assures us, even
after the fall of Jerusalem the Jews still persisted in the
worship of other gods, and especially of the queen of

? Also in 879, reading with Duhm, }2'N for'#139, and omitting
nin ipo. For the wtézarim of the corresponding clause (EV

‘north Ὁ, cp MazzaLOTH, and on this passage and on 3831-38
ses Che., ΒΖ 17 103 7. [898].

2 See Che. Jer., Aîs Life and Times, 198,

3 The “holding of the branch to the nose, în worshipping the
sun is commoniy traced to a Persian origin See, however,
Tammuz.

4784

STARS

heaven (Jer. 41). The reference in Job 3126f to the
adoration of sun and moon by kissing of the hand
sufficiently shows the danger which still beset the Jews
when the poem of Job was written.

The only distinct reference to astrology in the OT
occurs in Is. 4713, where the exilic writer, in predicting

the imminent downfall of Babylon,
δ, Astrology: _civises her in mockery to resort to her
astrologers, if perchance they may save her from the
impending catastrophe. Several peculiar expressions
are used (see ‘Isa.’ SB07). The phrase ‘dividers of
the heavens' alludes to a division of the sky for the
purposes of astrology, and the reference of ‘ the monthly
prognosticators,' or, ‘those who make known at every
new moon' seems to be to the official reports drawn up
by the Babylonian astrologers to be sent in to the king
month by month (see Macic, $ 3 [5]. Many such
Assyrian reports are still extant, and one of them gives
us an astrological calendar, each month or day of which
is noted as being lucky or unlucky for the commence-
ment of a campaign, or for other operations.1

The interest and importance of astrology to the Baby-
lonians is well known. According to the Chaldean
priest Berossus {quoted by Pliny, 7/7 7 57) astronomica]
observations had been carried on by the Babylonians
for 490,000 years before his day. In the sixteenth
century B.C., a great astrological work was drawn up
on seventy clay tablets, and deposited in the library of
Sargon of Agade (see Sayce in 7.52.4 1457).

The word D'bN, αὐξαρλῦνε, which (in its Aramaic as well as
its Hebrew form) occurs several times in the Book of Daniel, is
rendered ‘astrologers'by AV (RV ‘enchanters ); but this inter

retation is merely assumed. The word is of Assyrian origin
(asîapu, afapu, etc.), and means rather sorcerer, charmer
(COT on Dan, 24; Del. Proleg. 141; cp Syr. dsofkà).

A late evidence of the celebrity of Babylonian as-
trology appears in the narrative of the Messiah's star
in Mt.2. [On the star cp NATIVITY, $ 18.] For what-
ever the description ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν (‘from the East’)
may mean, the title σεασὶ [μάγοι : see ZOROASTRIANISM)
implies that the lore of the wise men was Babylonian.
The star which they saw at its rising (ἐν τῇ ἀνατολῇ)
was evidently such as to be regarded as a portent only
by practised astrologers. Herod and ‘alt Jerusalem*
appear not to have noticed the phenomenon until their
interest was aroused by the inquiries of the strangers,
and then the king had to ‘inquire diligently ' the time
of the star's appearance. Thus the hypothesis which
represents the star as a comet or new star of exceptional
brilliancy may be considered to be excluded. Kepler
(δὲ. Chr, servatoris nostri vero anno matalitio, 1605
A.D.) thought of a close conjunetion of the planets
Jupiter and Saturn in the constellation Pisces, which
occurred in the year 747 A.U.C., and in this view he has
found many followers {cp Ideler, Z7andò. d. Chronol.
23997). A similar conjunetion in the year 1463 AD.
led the Portuguese Rabbi Abarbanel {1437-1509} to
infer (Comm. o» Daniel) that the birth of the Messiah
was shortly to be expected. J. H. Stockwell {A4str.
Jour. Nov. 26, 1892; quoted in Nature, Dec. 22, 1892)
argues în favour of a conjunction of Jupiter and Venus
which took place in the spring of 6 B.C.

It should be observed that the objection of Meyer (Comm.

ad loc.), that the hypothesis of such a conjunctioo is excluded
by the singular ἀστήρ, is quite alien to the question, since the

1 [In Is. 4713 W. Muss'Amolt (4/SZ 16 223 [igoo]), de
veloping an idea of Zimmern, would read Ὁ ὍΦ DNAN, ‘those

who scan the heavens,' DI being regarded as=biru the As-
syrian class-name for the soothsayers called seers. Another
view, proposed in rif. Zid., is to read line 2 of stanza 5 of the
Song of Triumph thus,
Some top | beume» mah ape,

‘Let the spell-repeaters of Ishmael, the diviners of Jerahmeel,
deliver thee, supposing b33 to mean the capital of Jerahmeel in
N. Arabia. το κι C.]

2 See, on the other hand, the damaging criticism of this view
by C. Pritchard in Smith's D2, ‘Star of the Wise Men'; also
Mem. Roy. As. Soc. 25.

4785

i

STEPHANAS

reference of ‘his star’ would not necessarily refer to the con.
Junction taken as a whole, but rather to one mesber of ile con-
junction, which, by its peculiar position, was calculated τὸ cast
the nativity of the King of the Jews.

For star-worship see further Narure Worsmr, $ s. Cp
Camphell Thomson, Resorts ef #he Magicians and Astrologers
of Nin. and Bab, in the Brit. Mus. (1900). Cc. FB

STATER. The word cTaTHp means properly a
weight, and was used generally by the Greeks for the
unit of weight, corresponding to the eastern sAdfel

There is no reason to doubt the current derivation of the word
from the root era, to weigh; the attempt to connect it with
Itar (Jensen, ZA 14 183, and Johns, Ass. Deeds and Docu-
mients, 2284), apart from philological difficulties, rests on the
assumption that money was originally coined in Nineveh, and
that some early coin might bear the head or figure of the city
goddess Ritar. ἢ

The word is used in Mt. 1727 (AV ‘ piece of money,
ἘΝ ‘shekel'), where it means a stater or four-drachm
piece of the Pheenician standard. As regards the actual
coin intended, it must have been a stater either of Tyre
or of Antioch, since at the time concerned these were
the only mints issuing coin of the right standard.
Under SHEKFL ($ 5) will be found an illustration of
the silver didrachm or half-stater of Tyre; the figure
given here represents a silver stater of Antioch.

Stater of Antioch.

The obverse bears the head of Augustus with the title
XAISAPOX SEBAZTOY. On the reverse is a figure of the
Fortune of the City of Antioch seated on a rock, wearing a
mural crown, and holding a palm branch; at her feet is the

‘river-god Orontes, în the attitude of swimming, halfemerging

from the waves. (This type is a copy of the famous group by
the sculptor Eutychides set up soon after the foundation ot
Antioch.) — i ᾿

The coin is dated ‘in the thirtieth year of victory"—
i.e., of the era of Actium- and ‘in the thirteenth consul-
ship’ of the emperor; hence it belongs to the year
2-1 B.C. This specimen weighs 229. 5 grs. troy. Others
of other dates bear the name of Antioch ( Αντιοχέων
μητροπόλεωΞ).

Staters or shekels are probably meant by the word
ἀργύρια used for the 'thirty pieces of silver' (Mt 2615
2735).

That denarii (see Penny, $ τὸ cannot be meant is proved by
the analogy of Ex. 21 32 (thirty s4e4e%s of silver the price of a
servant gored by an ox) and Zech, 11 12 / (where denarii are out
of the question). On the other hand, tie 50,000 pieces of silver
of Acts1919 (the value of the magical books) may have been
denarii, as indeed the Vulgate transiates them. GEA

STATUTE (PI, MEN; PP, ‘to engrave,' and so
‘a statute, fixed by being taggato, ον inscribed, on some dur-

able surface) Dr. D£ 62), Dt.55 811, See generally Law
LITERATURE; LAW AND JUSTICE.

STEEL. For NYN), neddiett: TOMI, πδάδίαλ,

sce Brass; and for NUDA, pi440:4, Nah.23 [4]t. see
Tron, $ 2, col. 2174.

STEPHANAS (crepanac[Ti. WH]), a member of
the Corinthian church. His ‘household' {cp the house-
held of CAsAr [g.v.]), ‘the first fruits of Achaia,’ had
been baptized by Paul, and its members had after-
wards distinguished themselves by the zeal with which
they had set themselves to minister to the saints (x Cor.
116 165), the ministry intended being doubtless chiefly
that of hospitality. Of Stephanas personally, all that
we learn is that, along with Fortunatus and Achaicus, he
had brought news to the apostle at Ephesus which had
*refreshed his spirit’ (x Cor. 1617f).

4786

STEPHEN
STEPHEN

The speech ΘᾺ

Style bf the Ce 69).

Significance of episode ($ 9).
Bibliography ($ 10).

Stephen {(ctepanoc) in the NT is the name borne
by an early Christian agent in Jerusalem, who was the
first to suffer for his faith. As narrated in Acts {6r-83,
cp 1119 2220) the pregnant and tragic episode of Stephen
falls into three sections : (4} the prologue (61-15), con-
taining an account (i.) of Stephen's appointment as one
of the Seven, and (ii.} of his subsequent arrest; (δ) the
speech (7 1-53) which he is represented as having delivered
upon that occasion ; and {4} the epilogue of his murder
and its effects (7 54-83). Although by common consent
this narrative is regarded critically as undeniably histor-
ical, it requires to be subjected to a close analysis before
it can be employed as evidence for its period.

The isolated character of 6-6 [7] indicates that
the editor here has a special source or tradition before
1. Acts 61-7, him. Note the first occurrence of

ui ἡ * disciples," μαθηταί, the solitary instance
{in Acts) of ‘the Twelve" (cp Lk. 81}, the church still
meeting as one small body (as against 44 5x4), the
conception of communal charity {cp COMMUNITY ΟΣ
Goops, $ 5, and O. Holtzmann, Zisckr. γεν Kirchen-
gesch. 14327-336), and the strange position of the Seven
(Acrs, $ 10) who, though ostensibly appointed to the
delicate and responsible subordinate task of superintend-
ing charity and money-matters (see Field, Otiume
Norvicense, pars fertia, 1899, p. 113), really do as
spiritual work* as the apostles (cp 68 84 218;
Holtzmann, A/C12 [1gor], 52-54). The irrelevant
summary of 87 is certainly an editorial addition which,
like 5 14, interrupts the run of the narrative. For the
increase of the church has nothing to do with what
immediately precedes, and the conversion of priests has
no connection with what follows. 68/7 is the original
and natural sequel to 61-6, 6-6 has, indeed, a retra-
spective glance. ἔτ sums up the primitive Jerusalem-
period (18) of the history, as 67—where otherwise the
words ‘in Jerusalem” (ἐν Ἱερουσαλήμ) would be super-
fluous—is meant definitely to show ; but its main object
is prospective. The editor's aim is to introduce two
new figures în Philip (84-39; see col. 3697-8) and
especially Stephen (68-83), whose activities form the
pivot of the next stage in the early church's history, as
well as to connect Antioch (65 11x9-21) with the new
mission-impulse. ‘There may be a dramatic touch in
61, where the preceding outward success of the young
church is set beside the first sign of inner friction. Yet
the immediate interest of the historian is not this juxta-
position or even the office of the Seven—a vague order,
who drop out of sight at once—but with the man who
was their most prominent member, and who found
before long that his energy led to his arrest 68-15.

Like some or all, perhaps, of his fellow-officials
Stephen was probably a Hellenist—- a Greek-speak-
ing Jew resident in some Greek city (HELLENISM, $ 2) —
and it is significant that his opponents (probably in-
eluding Paul himself, 223) came from his compatriots

The narrative in Acts
(81/7)
The charge ($ 3).

1 The pragmatism of the editor is shown in 66 where he
suggests that the apostles' ratification was needed for every new
office and departure (cp 13 1-3) in the church (even though in
this case the recipients of their blessing were already full of the
Spirit, ©. 5), and that those who afterwards became preachers to
the Gentiles were sanctioned by the heads of the Christian
community. It is certainly not Stephen's efforts în charity
organisation which involve him in the controversy of 89/ On
the other hand, the incident of this internal discussion and its
satisfactory treatment indicates not merely a certain liberality of
spirit—however tardy—on the part of the Hebraist majority but
also an absence of ecclesiasticai pretension on the part of the
apostles, since their action showed that the church was to be
a church indeed: ‘not a mere horde of men ruled absolutely
by the Apostles, but a true body politic, in which different
functions were assigned to different members (Hort, C4ristian
Ecclesia, 52). Both of these ideas were probably present to the
editor of Acts (cp CHukcH, $ 21). Cp also 1 Pet. dix.

4787

STEPHEN

(see LiBERTINES, DISPERSION, $$ 17 f., 22, CILICIA,
$ 3, PROSELYTE, 88 3 f, also the Lucan touch in Lk.
21:6, ‘delivered up ὧν #însmen'). The circumstances
of their origin rendered Hellenists often somewhat
suspect in the eyes of rigid Palestinian Jews. Hence,
by the operation of a common psychological law, many
of them—so far from being more liberal and open-
minded—cultivated exceptional strictness and suspicious-
ness in the practice of their religion Just as the
convert frequently outdoes those born in the faith by
his eager zeal to accentuate the difference between his
past and his present, so Hellenists were by no means
ipso facto emancipated from the particularism of the
Jewish faith. Their ‘colonial life' did not naturally
create an atmosphere in which ‘the hard lines faded
and the ideal depths were opened.'! In practice and
theory, as the subsequent narrative shows (cp 929 2127
223 £), they often attached themselves to the most
pronounced and bigoted habits of Judaism practised by
the Pharisees. And this throws light at once upon their
antipathy to Stephen, who perhaps had set himself to
labour among his former associates (69 £), no less
than upon his own exceptional character. To their
serupulous conscience he appeared a renegade, a dis-
credit to them personaliy and a revolutionary force
within the religious praxis of the nation. They were
the first to detect and challenge this liberal preacher,
and their antagonism proves that his wider outlook and
unique grasp of the spirituality of religion were by no
means an inevitable product of his training. As in the
case of Paul, so with Stephen: Hellenism furnished
merely the 50] of the religious growth (65 8 το).
The dual nature of the narrative in 68-15, fluctuating
between the riotous justice of a mob and a trial before
the Sanhedrin, is patent.® As almost
2. Acta 68-15. 11] the critical editors are agreed, the
conception of a trial is editorial or subordinate, and the
alternatives are to regard the passage as a combination
of two sources or as a single source edited and modified,
In the case of a single source, the alterations and
additions (possibly due to a correct enough impression
of the speech and situation) are to be found in vv, 1r f.
{13} 15 (in whole or part); so e.g., Weiss, Wendt, and
Moffatt. In the case of two sources, it 15 most tempting
to agree with those (Spitta, 1. Weiss, Hilgenfeld} who
find the second (inferior) source in 12-15 (126-14, Jingst).
The isolated allusion to miracles în 7. 8, and the better
connection of Ὁ. g with either 5 or 7, suggest that ©. 8
is also editorial.* Why the Sanhedrin-notion was intro-
ducedì, it is not easy to say. Probably the editor regarded
the Sanhedrin as the representative body of the Jews, just
as he concluded the apostles to stand for the Christian
community, and considered that here as hitherto any
Jewish prosecution must proceed from or at least through
them, to be judicial and regular. ‘Whether this idea was
purely pragmatic, or based upon some independent oral

1 Martineau (Seat 0/ Authority, 631), who goes on, however,
to point out that the fusion of Jewish and heathen thought in
Hollenistio culture could not of itselfhave produced the Christian
universalism. That renches back, past Stephen, to Jesus and
‘his infinite longing to open the soul of man to the life in God,
unhindered by the mediation of priest and ritual. Thus the
fountain of catholicity is in no confluence of philosophic, no
combination of external conditions, but in the unique personality
of Jesus of Nazareth.”

Similarly în the account given by Josephus (42. 209) of
James's murder some thirty years later (see JamES, $ 3; and
von Dobschitz, Die Urchristlichen Gemeinden (1902), 110 £
1z1/, 272). It is curions that these two martyrs, who repre-
sented the opposite wings of early Christian sentiment, should
die—or be represented as dying—in somewbat similar fashion.

3 Bacon drastically regards 611-7 1 (reproducing Mk. 14 55-60),
7 55-56 584-560 8122, 3 (reproducing Acts 224 / 20 26 τὸ Lk. 2269
23 34 46) as editorial modifications added to bring the speech into
line with the general Lucan scheme ; whilst the reference to
miracles in 68 has been substituted for the substance of 929
(unhistorically—cp Gal. 121.24—transferred to Paul), and the
words ‘and of them of Cilicia and Asia' (xaì τῶν ἀπὸ Κιλικίας
καὶ "Agias) in 69 are an editorial (cp 7 5881) addition to a
source which knew of only one synagogue (f.e., an Alexandrian
or North African one).

4788

STEPHEN

tradition which alluded to an appearance of Stephen
before the Sanhedrin, or an inference from the réle
undoubtedly played by it in the subsequent persecution,
we are not able to determine. The slight obscurity
resting on the details shows that the editor's distance
from the period prevented him from supplementing in
strictly accurate fashion the gaps in his source. For-
tunately the haze does not blur the main outlines of
what happened: Stephen's arrest was the result of a
popular dezte, which restrained itself just long enough
to allow him to defend himself before a suspicious and
exasperated audience, which numbered—perhaps un-
officially—several members of the Sanhedrin.

Stephen's persistent propaganda had created quite a
new situation. The people (612 cp 247 513) were now up
in arms against Christianity, and the
ἃ PESTO, charge was both grave and religious.

Whether ὅτι or 613 f. be taken as
the original source, the accusation was that of rank
blasphemy against the Mosaic law and the temple-
cultus. Ἔο rigid high-churchmen, like these Pharisaic
Hellenists (cp APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE, $$ 56, 58),
and indeed to the people as a whole, especially in the
capital, where prejudices naturally ran hot and hard, it
seemed a horrid impiety to suggest that these ancestral
privileges (law and culfus) were neither final nor abso-
lutely essential means of grace. Stephen had probably
appcaled to the authority of certain familiar sayings of
Jesus, analogous to, if not identical with, those cited in
Mk. 713-23 132 1458 (cp 1529 |)! Without suggesting
that Stephen spoke disrespectfully of the Iaw or of the
temple?—which woukl have been untrue to the spirit of
Jesus (particularly when Lk. bad expressly maintained
the genuinely Jewish piety of Jesus and his attendance
on the temple, Lk. 222-49), as well as out of keeping
with the normal tone of contemporary Christianity—Lk.
implies that Stephen had assumed an attitude less of
antagonism than of comparative indifference to such
national institutions, refusing to treat (.g.) the sacrificial
system as of absolute validity for Jews who believed in
a Messiah about to return and establish a spiritual era,
Zealots are angered as much by a refusal to echo their
beliefs to the letter as by deliberate opposition; t0
ignore their tenets is as keen an insult as to attack them ;
and it is a fair inference from the historical data to
assume that the negative and positive aspects of Stephen's
preaching were alike interpreted by the sterner fanatics
as a danger and a defection. Their fierce attachment

1 Cp Keim, 7. ©. Naz. (ET), 171% 5 226-230, There can be
little doubt {but cp Son or MAN) that Jesus did actually antici.
pate a messianic triumph for himself which involved at his return
the downfall, not merely the supersession, of the Jewish temple;
and yet a passage like Rev. 111 / indicates how unable certain
Tudaistic circle of primitive Christianity were to sympathise with
this outlook. It îs true that, even beyond the Essenes (EssenEs,
$ 5), there were abroad in Judaism movements of thought which
attached quite a subordinate value ta the sacrificial cultus and
the temple itself (cp Holtzmann, AZ Theo/ 104 £ 391 fo).
These, however, could hardly be very influential în Jerusalera,
although the Alexandrian culture of Stephen probably made him
susceptible to such tendencies parallel with the teaching of Jesus.
He does not notice, what a modern reader would be impressed
by, that the very temple în question (8 13) had been erected by
a man whose sympathies could not be termed—in any sense of
the term—Jewish by conviction (see IsraEL, $ 88), A rather
ancient reading which adds, after ‘nation’ (&9r05) in ΓΚ. 282,
‘and destroying the law and the prophets' (καὶ καταλύοντα τὸν
νόμον καὶ τοὺς mpodras)—is found not only in some Latin
MSS but also in Marcion,

2 The greater prominence assigned to the temple in Stephen's
oration is due historically to the fact that Jesus, to whom he
appealed as his authority, had—once at least—spoken more
explicitly upon the cultus than upon the law, and intrinsically
to the fact that the one involved the other. Sincethe exile ‘the
cultus was but a portion of the law, to be minutely maintained
no doubt, but maintained because the law ordained it. God's

lory and Israel’s were realised, not in the temple-worship, bit
in the fulfilment of the law of which that worship was but a
part' (Montefiore, Hi6bert Lect. 387), Notice that if Lk.
omits Mt, 17 24-27 he also omits Με. 15. 6. ΟἹ the early Christian
conception of God's spirituality and the universalism it implied,
see Titius, Die vulgdre Anschauung von der Seligheit i
Uschrist. 8 f. (1900).

153

4789

STEPHEN

resented his looser attitude as bitterly as a Roman
procurator's public insults. Like one of their number,
who afterwards recanted, they were shrewd enough to
anticipate disastrous consequences to Judaism, if such
liberal ideas prevailed (Gal. 113 Δ}
In its extant form the speech put into the mouth of
Stephen is, like the other addresses of Acts, the com-
. position of an author who possesses
4. The speech: considerable historical insight into his
"subject; the diction, style, and general
standpoint of the address are sufficient to show its
Lucan colouring and ability {cp 1316-41, and the fre-
quent analogies to Lk. 1-2, Acts748=1724, εἴσ.). In
the nature of the case, too, it is impossible to think of
hearers taking down a verbatim report, or of the author
having access to such archives of the court as furnished
later martyrologists with graphic and accurate details
of a Christian's last defence and struggles. But, from
the verisimilitude of the contents as a whole! and the
points which differentiate it alike from Petrine and from
Pauline speeches, it is pluin that the source drawn upon
by the editor, to say nothing of such oral traditions (from
Paul and other eye-witnesses, like Philip} as may have
reached him, must have sprung from the vivid memories
of some early Christians, possibly Hellenistic refugees
at Antioch or Cesarea; judged on the principles of
comparative historical criticism, the speech therefore
takes high rank as substantialiy exact. It is not
difficult to suppose that so memorable a death —
menmorable for its consequences to the early church, as
well as for its intrinsic details—made an exceptionally
deep impression upon contemporaries, and that this
impression passed rapidly into some literary shape.
Certainly the speech, as it stands, does not give one the
impression of an unpremeditated reply, and (as many
scholars bave noticed) it hardly lies in line with the
historical situation presupposed, even when the latter is
critically analysed. But though the report is probably
inadequate, it echoes an impromptu survey of history
delivered from a familiar position. Elaborate rather
than extempore, yet with gaps for all its elaborateness,
it is an outline or authentic summary, representing in
all likelihood ideas often repeated by Stephen in his
synagogue-preaching as he encountered objections urged
by people who, in ostentatious reliance upon the
authority of Moses, found the rejection of Jesus by his
nation an insuperable barrier to faith in him as the true
Messiah, and also cavilled at his attitude towards the
ancestral law and temple of the land. ‘The speaker
does not seize the occasion to preach repentance to the
audience, Nor does he even attempt to clear himself
specifically from the charges brought against him, being
sensible from the first that the case was hopeless. His
aim is to say all he has to say," and he manages to do
this ‘by giving a reading of history în the light of
religious experience—a light that is intensified as the
speech proceeds, and hurriedly closes with a flash of
lightning.

In several details of this speech, as elsewhere, Acts illustrates

1 “In psychological truth ît has not îts like în all Acts' (Spitta,
1t7). Αἱ the same time this long speech, the longest în the
whole book, is evidently meant and (less evidently) arranged by
the author to subserve the general apologetic motives of the
volume, The writer's sense of the situation and the literary
ability he displays here are the kind of evidence which makes
it not irrelevant to say that Acts is ‘the only one of the NT
books which anyone would think of calling clever' (W. H.
Simcox, Early Churck History, 41).

2 It is certain, however, that Stephen died under the stones.
The narrative lends no support to the idea (Wendt) that he
recovered (cp 1419 /) in time to breathe his last among pious
Christians who heard him repeat his testimony. The devout
men who buried him were, în all likelihood, respectable Jews
who had little or no sympathy with the fanatical excesses of
their fellow-citizens.

3 Consonant with the Lucan idea of Lk.2113, where the
sense of. Mk.139 is altered into that of arrest giving ar
opportunity for witnessing to the gospel.

4790

STEPHEN

the midrashic tendency which had already embellished OT
- ; Stories with rabbinic modifications and en-
δ. Midrashic Jargements (see CHrONICLES, $ 6, HISTORI-
elemente, CAL Literature, $$ 14/7). No significance
attaches to the apparent confusion of Horeb
and Sinai (729, cp Ex.31; MIpiaN, StwAl), the use of the
round number 400 in v. 6 (as occasionally in Josephus), the
divergence between 729 and Ex. 214.£ (cp Heb. 1127), the loose
version of 2 S.72./ in Acts 746 and of Ex, 116 22 în Acts719, or
the alteration of ὁ Damascus” into * Babylon' (τ. 43). Other
variations and innovations,l however, are more serious, ‘Thus
(a) in 72 the theophany to Abraham is antedated (as by Philo
and Josephus), nor can an interpolation (Blass, Sf X7. 1896,
460) be suspected; (4) Terah'sinitiative is ignored and his death
antedated in74 (as in Philo ; see rabbinic traditions cited Ὁ:
Hamburger on this point); (0) Jacob's family is numbered (2. 14
not after the Massoretic (70=Gen. 4627 Ex. 1 5) but after the
6 text (75: known already τὸ Philo); (4) Shechem is confused
(Ὁ. 16) with Machpelah in Hebron, and ail the patriarchs—
instead of foseph only—buried at Shechem (perhaps a Lucan
home-thrust [see GosFzLs, $ 109] at the contemgt felt by rigid
pes for the Samaritans ; see Lk,951 1033 17 11/ Acts 18
4.2). a curious divergence not only from the OT natrative but
even from the tradition foltowed by Josephus who buries them
all at Hebron (4at. ii.8 2); (2) ταῦ. 20-24 are tinged with the
lewish legends (Moses, $$ zo °), current also in Philo and
fosephus, upon Moses’ beauty, eloquence (in contradiction to
x.410/), wisdom, and martial prowess, 2, 25 (acquitting
Moses of rash violence and making his chivalrous interference
the first step in the deliverance) being reproduced from the
tradition in Philo, Vit. Mos.18/ and Jos. Ax ii.92,
the rabbinic division of the lawgiver's life into three periods of
forty years each, is followed in v2. 23 36; (ρ) the ‘ Red Sea'
{v. 36) îs δὰ Alexandrian touch(Wisd, 10 18 197 1 Macc. 42 Heb.
Ì1 29), taken evidentiy from Ass. 4/0538 10 / ‘nonne hoc est
quod testabatur nobis tum Moyses in profetiis, qui multa passus
est in Egypto et in mari rubro et in eremo annos quadraginta ‘ ;
(4) the association of angelic agency with the Le (136 53},
though free from the depreciatory spirit of Gal, 8 29 Heb. 22,
εἰσ,» is like them (cp Everling, Die fanl Angelologie, 61-65)
due to che rabbinic development of "Dt, 332 (cp Jos. Axà.
xv.53); and (#) the citation from Amos in vv. 42. reproduces
the mistranslation of an obscure and corrupt original (cp AMOS,
$ 13, Ciiun, MOLECA, $ 1), Stephen arguing—in opposition τὸ
the, normal and traditional view—-that while the wilderness
period had its divine means of grace (7. 44), it was yet a period
of idolatry and apostasy punished by the Exile. 0.
Such phenomena, though quite minor in importance, indicate
a speaker or an author who is drawing upon his memory ci
popular religious tales and has been trained in the spirit of
that Alexandrian Judaism which, for all its reverence, could sit
wonderfully free to the letter and even the traditions of the OT
records.
In his brilliant and skilfal address (72-8 9-16 17-43
44-50 51-53), Stephen urges one or two extremely
effective and apposite arguments, which
8, Contente. mount to a counter-accusation against
his opponents. In the opening sketch of patriarchal
history, which is quite in keeping with the senten-
tious and discursive style often affected by Orientals
in unfolding some grave issue, the speaker is mainly
concerned to explain the origin of the covenant and
promise? which culminated in the Mosaic legislation
and the Solomonic temple. But he manages indirectly
to express his personal reverence for God (61r, cp
72 ss) and the temple (613, cp 77), as well as the
common ancestry of Jew and Christian alike (0u»
father, 7 2, cp 12, etc., also Lk. 173}, ‘Then comes the
development of two leading ideas; one already sug-
gested, the other novel, yet both showing his desire to
justify himself by an appeal to the original basis and
trend of OT revelation. (4) Charged with depreciating

1 The use of ἐκκλησία (38, cp 81 3) is deliberate. The author
hints at the normal position of the early Christians, who never
dreamed of founding a sect but of continuing and developing
the ancient people of God--to whom they served themselves as
lineal heirs.

2? Cp Rom.94 ‘Israelites, whose is the glory [Acts7 2] and
the covenants [cp Acts7 6] and the sivingoî the law [Acts 7 353},
and the [divine] service [Acts7 7] and the promises’ [Acts? sì
(Ἰσραηλῖται, ὧν ἡ δόξα, καὶ αἱ διαθῆκαι, καὶ ἡ νομοθεσία, καὶ
ἡ λατρεία καὶ αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι). The allusiontotheother prerogative
of the ‘inheritance* (ἡ κληρονομέα, Acts 7 ᾿ Îa too incidental to
afford any basis for a theory (Bacon) which regards this section
in che speech as an attempt to show the Alexandrian spiritualis-
ing of the territorial ‘inheritance’ into a non-local worship
(Lk. 173-75). 75 ἱξ answered by 745. Stephen does not, like
the author of 24. Ba-x., spiritualise *the inheritance* by deny-
ing any local materia] fulfilment of it; he merely argues that,
however real, the local and nationai culmination of it in the
history of Israel was not final, implying that its fulfilment lay
in the far future (cp Heb.41/ 8-11),

4791

STEPHEN

the temple, he argues (40-43 44-50) that neither law nor
temple had come until comparatively Jate in the
national history, the temple in fact only in Solomon’s
reign ; yet, previously to that, the spiritual revelation of
God had been carried on in foreign lands (for Abraham,
Ὁ. 2, Moses, vv. 30 33, and Israel, 7. 38). Even the
temple itself, as the prophets testified, formed no
adequate or absolute medium for such a spiritual
vevelation (the tacit inference being, of course, that it
could not therefore be any blasphemy or treachery to
OT religion to assert, as Jesus had done, that even the
temple was not indispensable or final)! And as for the
law of Moses (δ), with its divine vitality and power (to
which, answering 613 Δ, Stephen does ample justice,
38 53), not only had it, like the temple, been preceded
by revelations (e.g., of circumcision), but its founder
had been misunderstood (725 Lk. 2.50), rejected, and
thwarted by the very people (in Egypt 24-35, in the
wilderness 36-39) to whom God had sent him as ruler
and redeemer, Thankless, perverse, and obtuse
such had been their nature all along. Hence their
failure to welcome Jesus with his authority and creative
power to establish a new and final form of worship
which should correspond to the ideal of the OT. This
resistance, so far from being loyalty to religion, spelt
both unfaithfulness and disaster to it, representing
indeed a conservatism to the letter and the form of
religion which the fresh and fuller current of the spirit
would leave stranded. Moses predicted ? that the
Messiah would be a second Moses, and Stephen
argues vehemently (in quite a characteristic Lucan
fashion, cp Lk. 1629 / 2427 f. Acts 2823, etc.) that
the true observance of the Law would lead its devotees
to Jesus (51-53): real loyalty to the Law and the
prophets culminates in Christian faith, the line of con-
tinuity running from the OT prophets to the gospel of
Christ. Whereas, he grimly suggests, Jesus had been
indeed a second Moses: his rejection, due t0 the same
pbstinacy and rebellious spirit (51 Α} that Moses and
his successors* (5a) encountered, is really a proof of his
genuine Messiahship, In short, the argument ends with
a flashing retort. Stephen hurls back the charge of
disloyalty on his accusers, implying, in characteristically
Alexandrian and yet also in OT fashion, that the Jewish

1 Stephen's reference to the Solomonic temple is curt and
cool, but intended to depict its relative worth rather than its
utter incompatibility with OT religion. His point, driven home
by the citation from 15. 681 £, is that God is not bound to the
temple in Jerusalem, but free to reveal himself in wider and less
external ways ; compared to the spiritual worship of God given
Ἐν Jesus (χε 48), cven the temple service ἧς merely another
golden call fr is obvious that, in a book circulated after
70 A.D., this line of argument would be specially apt, proving
that the destruction of the temple was no irreparable loss to
religion.

2 v. 37 is of cardinal moment to the argument of the speech in
its extant form, since it destroys the Fewish claim that_the
Mosaic cultus and legislation were final,” The prophet-Messiah,
as a second Moses, at least equal to the first in authority, must
have the right to supersede or transcend previous revelations.
True, the Jews had rejected him whom Stephen claimed as the
true Messiah, But that was no decisive argument against him,
for they had done the same to the first Moses. Thus, although
7. 37 has all the appearance of a parenthesis or editorial addi-
tion of Lk., even so it would only sharpen an idea already
present în the original and (like 6 11) reflect a correct reading of
the primitive source.

$ Β che Lucan addition (7 10) ‘and wisdom καὶ σοφίαν (cp
22)=Lk.2 40 52 (Bacon)? The idea dominates the Clementine
Recognitions (e.g., 130). Cp Acts3 τ3 ἈΞ 35 (Lk. 6227). Of
course the Messianic interpretation of 8157, reproduced in
Acts 737, is a misa; plicatioa of the original sense, which refers
Rot do an individual but to a succession or order of prophets in

Jsrael,

4 Why the prophets (42-52)? Because (WRS, 07/C, 294/0)
they had vainly but vigarously protested against the forma!
tendencies of OT piety which with the temple became crystallised
into yet more ceremonial worship, Without pronouncing the
establishment of the temple itself a fresh token of the nation's
sensuous bias, the speaker plainly hints that the Levitical ritual
had thereby acquired a fatal prominence which tended to
obliterate that spiritual worship for which the prophets stood,
and to produce the further effect of rendering he worshippers
incapable of estimating God's better and spiritual revelation.

4799

STEPHEN

rejcction of Jesus was an integral part of the sensuons
temper and externalism with which they had all along
been blind and dull to the spiritual significance of the
Law and the prophets.? Cireumcision they had had;
but it had brought no moral devotion (8, 58). Prophets
they had had ; yet only to disbelieve and persecute (37
42 48 s2). Δ spiritual and heavenly law (λόγια ζῶντα,
‘ vim vitale habentes,' Blass) they had received ; ὃ yet
only to prove unfaithful to it (38, 53} by turning it
into a dead letter.

As we possess only an epitome of the speech, it is
useless to inquire whether vv. 51-53% imply some

5 interruption on the part of the
Τί Acts 7545-83. angry audience, now awakening to
the speaker's drift, or whether some part of the source
has been omitted by the editor (Schwanbeck). ‘The
words are abrupt and final. This curt, stinging thrust,
which formed the climax of the harangue, roused a
heat of anger in the audience which, at Stephen's
further blasphemous cry (56), passed into a scream of
horror. Nothing is said about any formal conviction
before the Sanhedrin. The offender is simply stoned
to death outside the city—-the regular method and place
of punishmeni for blasphemy (Lev. 2414-16, cp Lk. 429).

For the Jews to put any criminal thus to death upon
their own responsibility was utterly illegal (cp Jn.183:);
and the difficulty of the story is enhanced by the
absence of any explicit evidence to show that a year or
two after the death of Jesus Roman authority in the
capital was seriously relaxed, or that—as afterwards
(61, 62 A.D.) at the murder of James the brother of
Jesus —an interregnum between two procurators was
taken advantage of, or that the sentence of the
Sanhedrin was formally connived at, if not ratified,
by the Roman official. At the same time, the broad
unquestionable fact that the Jews proceeded to persecute
the Christians without hindrance, whilst the Christians
not merely fled from Jerusalem, where the Roman
power was strong, but never had recourse to the civil
power as a shield against their tormentors, suggests
that the Jewish authorities must have had some sanction
or other 4 for their outburst, although the historian—
wishing perhaps? to convey the impression that such

1 Stephen makes no attempt to explain the cause of this
obduracy. He seems toregard it as innate. [ἢ £/. Sarx. 9£,
where the allegorical interpretation of the Mosaic customs” is
propounded as their original sense, the failure of the Jews to
apprehend this is attributed to the influence of an evil angel
(ἐσόφιξεν αὐτούς) and to their lagne into idolatry. Stephen's
speech, tpon the other hand (as Sabatier rightly points out), is
at once the complement and the development of Jesus” parable
in Lk.209/ As a historical retrospect it is undnly severe;
but as a word for the immediate situation of the speaker it
possessed a telling force. The thought of 7 51; is remarkably
in line (cp O. Holtzmann, Leden /est, 556) With ΓΚ. 18.34.1
(cp Li 49), where Jesus speaks ἴῃ the nanie of God, who has
repeatedly sent messengers to the Jews, and finally the Messiah,
only to meet the same fate, See £4. Za>n.5 11 ‘So the Son of
God came in the flesh in order that he might sum up and com-
plete the sins of those who persecuted his prophets to the death.

2 Stephen does not go nearly as far as ΚΡ Barr. (46-8) which
flatly denies that the Jews possessed the real law of God : “ours
it is, they lost it’ by the idolatrous aberration mentioned în
Acts 7 39-41. He distinctly upholds the living authority of the
Law (in contrast to Paul, Gal.8 21); ont whilst Es. Barr.
14 1-4 denies that the Jews ever got this divine covenant,
Stephen argues that they got it and failed to keep it (Acts 7 53).
So 4 Esd. ì429 / from the Jewish standpoint: ‘our fathers
received the law of life which they kept not, which ye also have
transgressed after them'; also Acts 15 τὸ,

8 L'ucan close to original (48-50), Holtzmann, ZW77 (1885),
434-438, MoGiffert finds in them the theme of che speech, viz.,
that temple-worship is not enough, demanding obedient and
spiritual hearts among the worshippers. But there is nothing
distinctively Christian în such an attitude.

4 Though this finds no support in the words ‘I gave my vote,"
κατήνεγκα ψῆφον (26 10), which are merely a rhetorically vivirl
expression of agreement (81). Paul was not a member of the
Sanhedrin,

Ὁ Consonant with his usual tendency to emphasise the Jews
as the real enemies of the faith and to avoid blaming the
Roman authorities. The first martyrdom of Christianity was
brought about by false evidence and tumultuous justice on the
part of the Jewish authorities (as 12 τ Δ, etc.), and betokened no
collision of the Roman authorities with the new faith.

4793

STEPHEN

violence was illegal—-has failed to notice it. ‘The fairest
solution of the critical problem is to suppose that
Stephen perished in a fanatical riot, the account of
which ended with 82. The editor, however, has added
not merely 61: f., 15 but also 758 818, 3 to the original
source, drawing in the latter interpolations upon a
tradition which was no doubt accurate.

The editorial band, or a different source, in at least
758 818, 3 is widely recognised—e.g. by Bleek, Weiss
(adding 755 so6c), Clemen, Sorof, Kriger (71.
1885, 299), Wendti, Hilgenfeld {adding 56, 59),
Schmiedel (AcTs, $ 10), Moffatt (/lisforica/ New Test.,
429, 431, 667-670), and Bacon. Originally the source
(58£) ran ‘they stoned Stephen," etc. (ἐλιθοβόλοι»
τὸν Στέφανον k.T.X.); the insertion of 588 left ‘stoned'
without an object, and necessitated its repetition
awkwardly in 59. Again 814 is obviously parenthetie,
whilst 8 3 repeats the proleptie 8 τὸ ς unless the latter be
also excised {as by Weiss and Schmiedel). It is plain
that Stephen died, not on the testimony of witnesses
(613 7 585), but on account of his own recent word and
confession. The references to Saul, which are quite
authentic, link the source to what follows, and it is
needless to dwell on the dramatic effect ! of this silent
figure watching the opening struggle of a campaign in
which he himself was presently to play so diverse and
prominent a part.? A similar result in general is
reached by those who bisect the whole narrative—e.g.,
Feine (6.1-6 ra-14 72-21 29-34 44-50 877 B1a 3 with θαι 15
7 20-28 35-43 51-53 54-56 59 814-2), Jilngst (69 £ 120314
7 r-21 29-34 44-50 5864-60 815 e, with 61-6, 78 c-8 11 15
77 22-28 35-43 51-582 810 2-3), and Spitta (6 1-6 g-124 72-54
57:58 διόνα, with 67/1 12815 71 55. 584-60 810 3), or
by less radical investigators such as Blass (7594, a Lucan
touch) and Ramsay (7 58 81, Lucan touches reproducing
Paul's agonised confession when Philip narrated the
episode, 69-839, at Caesarea). If one is disinclined to
follow those who (Spitta, 1. Weiss, Hilgenfeld, etc.)
adhere to the substantial integrity, as to the historicity,
of the speech, the most tenable alternative is to consider
that it represents a single source more or less edited
(B. Weiss, Wendt, Holtzmann): it is quite în keeping
with the author's practice in the third gospel (Wernle,
Synaptische Frage, 18, cp 146) to deal more freely with
narratives than with discourses in the traditional
materials which lay before him.

. The chief linguistic terms characteristic of 6 1-83 (especially
in the speech), which do not recur elsewhere either in Acts or il
the rest of the NT literature, are ‘defend,’ ἐἀμύνω ( 24);
‘murder,’ ἀναίρεσις (8 1); ‘resist,’ ἐἀντυπύπτω (7 51); ‘uncir

1 The whole story is fuli οἵ admirable effects produced by an
author who could write effectively as well as piously ; e.g., the
literary art shown in the sonorous opening of thé speech,
dramatic touches like the glow of 6 15, ‘/ley undersfood s08)
È and kept it not) and ' he fell asleed* (contrasting this death
with the three already mentioned, viz., Judas, Ananias, and
Sapphira), the vision of 7 sg with Jesus si@nding (not * sitting”
as usual) to welcome his martyr (cp Rev. 5 6), the contrast of
Stephen's denunciation and his forgiving spirit, and the
oratorical handling of the various themes in the harangue.
7 59/ seems to echo a belief that the spirits of the dead
(especially the martyrs) passed directly to God: cp Titius, 45;
Schiir, //îs4. ii, 2 180,

2 See Paut, $ 7. Mommsen (Ζ ΜΉΝ, 190r, 85/5), taking ἐν τῷ
γένει μου (Gal. 1 14) in its local sense (= birthplace, cp Acts426
18 2 24), considers that Paul directed his attack upon the separa-
tists(inclading e.g., Andronicus and Junias? Rom.167)in Tarsus;
which gives a good sense to Gal, 122, but hardly fits in with
Acts8391 Înafamovs passage (Essay on ‘ Secret Societies,”
Works [1863] 6 285-289) de Quincey distusses the unensiness
and fascination stirred by such martyrdoms in some of the more
thoughtful spectators, and argues that the radiant countenance
of Stephen ‘bringing down to earth some revelation of a
brightness in the sky, the fountains of which were intercepted
to Paul, perplexed him; haunted him sleeping, troubled him
when awake. . . , Upon this we may be sure that Pau! brooded
intensely, and that the noonday scene on the road to Damascus
did but quicken and ante-date a result which would at any rate
have followed in the end.’ [Cp col. 40817] The psychological
nexus, alluded to în this passage, is reflected in the narratives of
Acts, and probably formed one of the subordinate aims which
the writer had in view as he fused the Stephen-source and the
Pauline tradition together. See further below.

4794

STEPHEN

cumeîsed,” ἠἀπερέτμητος (7 51): ‘gnash,’ ἐβρύχω (Ἷ 54): ‘come
“ον After, διαδέχομαι (745); ‘umpire, ἡδικαστής
8. Linguistie (72735); ‘expose,’ ἔκθετος (719); ‘coming,’
fentures οἵ ἐλεύσις (752): ‘thrust out,’ ἐξωθέω (745
narrative, (273971); ‘beyond,’ {ἐπέκεινα (7 43); ‘daily,’
*nafnpepivds (62) ; ‘ill-usage,’ κάκωσις (7 34);
τ deal craftily,' ἩἹκατασοφίέῤομαι ὦ τοῦ; ‘possession, ἑκατάσχεσες
(1 5.45}; ‘lamentation,’ κοπετὸς (2); ‘ravage, λυμαίνομαι
(83); ‘redeemer,’ ἐλυτρωτής (735: cp Heb. 912 Lk.168 238);
‘remove,’ ἐμετοικέζω (74 43); ‘make a calf,' μοσχοποιέω (7 41);
‘neglect,' παραθεωρέω (81); ‘corn,’ σιτίον (7 12); ‘stiffnecked,'
Ἐνκάηροτράχηλος (I sa); Catir ubi συγκινέω (22); “Bury;
συγκομέζω (ὃ 2); ‘set at one,” συναλλάσσω (7 25): ‘slain heast,'
σφάγιον (742); ‘suborn, ὑποβάλλω (δ τι); ‘sustenance,”
Ἐχόρτασμα (ἴ τὸ; ‘buy,’ tovéoua (719); ‘appeared,’ ἐῶφθη
(E sudden human appearance, 7 26), Of these 31, no fewer
than 18 (marked 4) come from the LXX or Philo, a fact which
(especially as the citations are loose and unintentional) corrobor:
ates the impression of Hellenistic or Alexandrian colour.!
Even more remarkable is the absence of such distinctively
Lucan traits as ἄν with optative, δὲ καί, ἐγένετο with infinitive,
ἐν τῷ with infinitive, καθ᾽ ἡμέραν, καὶ αὐτός, ὀνόματι, πᾶς (das)
è Aads, τις with a πόπη, and τὸ or rà before prepositions.
At the same time, the Lucan phrascology of the passage
shows that if a written source underlies the record_it has been

It formed one of

is thus twofold.
those outstanding crises when, as the
historian of Acts loved to show, the
fanatical and malicious opposition of Judaism to the

1 Peculiarto Hebrewsand Lk.-Acts (including Acts 6.8 3) are :
* goodly,' ἀστεῖος; ‘star,' ἄστρον ἢ ‘custom,’ ἔϑος (except In.
1940); ‘bring in,' εἰσάγειντεσθαι (except Jn, 1816); “trembling

9. Significance
of episode.

for fear," ἔντρομος; Red Sea, Ἐρυθρὰ θάλασσα; ‘devout.’
εὐλαβής (group); ©he that bears rule," ἡγούμενος (except Mt. 26
citation) ; ‘rest,’ καταπαύειν (σις ; ‘change, or ‘remove,’ μετα-
τιθέναι (excepi Jude 4); sojourn «er, παροικέω «os (literal sense):
‘ patriarchi, raspidpyns ; And of God (except 1 Pet. 56); ‘made
with hands,” χειροποίητος of temple (except Mk. 14 58). See also
ActsT4 eb. 82-95.

2 This is perhaps betrayed also in the occasional roughnesses
of construction—e.g., the change of subject in 4 (‘removed,’
μετῴκισεν), 8 (' begat,' ἐγέννησεν), and το (‘ made, κατέστησεν),
though Weiss goes too far in taking passages like τοῦτό and
195-234, 26-29, 367, as editorial additions inserted in view of
Lk.'s Gentile«Christian audience.

4795

STEPHEN

new faith only served to accelerate the extension of that
faith to the Gentiles. But, further, it was an epoch when
persecution broke upon the Church in general as well
as upon individuals, owing to the fact that the Jewish
authorities for the first time (within a year or so of the
Crucifixion—i.e., 30-31 A.D.)? realised the radical con-
sequences of the gospel as preached by more outspoken
Christians, who could appeal honestly to the authority
of Jesus himself. Hitherto these distinctive principles
of Christianity, with their far-reaching issues, had been
tolerated mainly because they had not been adequately
expressed, Hence the fitful and comparatively in-
effective attempts of'the authorities to keep the new
movement in check, as well as the general popularity
enjoyed by the Nazarenes in Jerusalem. The twelve
lacked neither courage nor sincerity. For various
reasons, however, they do not appear to have shown
anything of the same insight into the tradition of
Jesus which they preserved, as outsiders like Stephen,
Philip, and Paul. Upon men like these fell the brunt
of the advance which had to be made, if Christianity
was ever to be anything more than a Jewish sect. With
the spiritual freedom and universal range of the new
faith, as urged by Stephen and others, the twelve
probably were in essential sympathy ; indeed there is
every reason to suppose that Stephen carried the
majority (yet cp 2120-22) of the church, willingly or
reluctantly, with him in his outspoken statements. It
is one thing, however, to approve a course of action,
another and a nobler thing to start it. All credit for
the more difficult step, with the wisdom and courage
which it involved at this period, is due to Stephen,
whose stand had a further liberating effect —hardly
contemplated by himself—of forcing the early Christians
into a consciousness of their real relation to the orthodox
Judaism, side by side with which most of them had
itherto lived in peace. The break had to come,
although as yet both sides had been for different reasons
slow to disturb the sfa/us guo.® ‘There is an inner
freedom which may grow side by side with an allegiance
fostered by birth and custom, prejudice and piety.
But men first become conscious of this freedom when a
demand is made that restricts it, or when it is assailed
on account of some consequence already deduced from
it by the enemy, but not as yet patent to the mind
that cherishes it' (Weizsiicker). Such an awakening
came to early Christianity at the martyrdom of Stephen.
He first expressed a latent antithesis of principle,
grasping the gospel of Jesus with a thoroughness and
penetration which enabled him to formulate certain
questions, afterwards elaborated differenty yet along
the same line by one who had been an accomplice in
his murder. ’This is all the more remarkable, because
the stimulus originally came not—as in later contro-
versies—out of practical exigencies due to the unlimited
preaching of the gospel, but entirely from the inward
fidelity of one man (who had not belonged to the
original disciples) to the principle of religious freedom
in the spirit and sayings of Jesus.®

The dependence of the Stephen-narrative upon several of the
best authenticated portions of the Synoptic tradition (for the
Johannine, see Wendt's Ze&re /esu [ET], 235/) has been
Already noted ;4 the general similarity of several details in the
accounts of his death and of the trial of Jesus (eg., Lk. 22 δότε

1 ὅπε early tradition, followed by Usnardus, Petavius, and
other mediaval and later scholars, put Stephen's martyrdom in
the same year as the Ascension.

2 As the subsequent history, down to the third century,
shows, there was ἃ recurring tendency to gravitate back into
Tudaism on the part of certain Christian circles (cp Harnack's
Dogmengeschichte, ET1 294/)).

In its account of the persecutions conducted by that
‘inimicus homo" (i.e., Paul), Clemt. Recogn. 170/, like Hege-
sippus, ignores Stephen; James is for Hegesippus the proto-
martyr, though in us. //£ ν.5 5 Stephen reappears as the
model witness of Christ.

4 Jt depends upon the critical view taken of Jn.421-24,
whether that passage be regarded as a later expansion of the
idea suggested in Acts 7 487, or as embodying a genuine logion
of Jesus (cp Jn, 2 19-22) to the effect that only spiritual worship
in his name answered to the true ideal of the OT revelation.

4796

STEPS

Acts@ 12) is not unnatural in a historian who is concerned to
describe how loyalty to the authority and ideas of the great
proto-Martyr brought one of his followers to a like fate. Such
conformation was inevitable, though it is not easy to determine
how far ît was conscious and literary. It is distinctly curious,
however, that false witnesses and an allusion to Jesus’ saying
about the temple should be introduced here by ah author who
deliberately omits both facts from his narrative of Jesus’ trial;
and also that the authentic’saying on the Cross (Lk. 383,4}.
which does not form part of the original third gospel (sec Hish
New Test, 654)—should be reflecied in ActsT6o (cp Lk.628,
Acts817 18 27), just as it was actually quoted by the brother of
Jesus at his martyrdom (ἔθηκε τὰ γόνατα λέγων κύριε θεέ πάτερ
ἄφες αὐτοῖς " οὐ γὰ pp οἴδασι τί ποιοῦσιν, cp $ 2), and by the Lyons
martyrs (Eus. v.25), There is one very significant change,
however, in Acts 7 59 (= Lk. 23 46), emphasised by the preceding
words ‘calling upon,’ ἐπικαλούμενον (sc. Ἰησοῦν). The similar

parallels between Stephen and Paul (613=2128 69=212127,
cp 2412) are of no literary significance whatever, nor is
Stephen's speech a literary expansion of certain Pauline ideas.
For, whilst criticism has leamed to do justice to the powerful
impression (see above; also R. H. Hutton's Theologica). Essays,
318.4, and Feine, Das Gesetsegfreies Evang. des Paulus, 1899,
pp. 16,£ 88) made by Stephen's religious consciousness upon
Paul, Stephen cannot be described as a forerunner of Paul
without serious limitations. In Stephen an original element
worked like a ferment, which differentiated him not simply
from his leading contemporaries, but from the line subsequently
followed by Paul. The very occurrence of similar ideas—e,g., in
Rom. 9.11 (Acts7 52=1 Thess. 214 /., see Origen on Mt. 1359)—
isone of several proofs that such ideas were widespread in
certain circles of early Christianity, and the points of difference
are upon the whole more tangible than the points in common
between the two men. Paul was not interested in the cultus-
question at all; Stephen was. Yet Stephen never raised the
question of the Gentiles,l as Paul did from the first. Nor did
he, like Paul în general, view the Law as superseded by grace ;
in Hellenistic fashion Stephen traces a spiritual current through
Jewish bistory, believing that a proper interpretation of the
Law, and obedience to the spirit, would have saved the Jews
from their ancient lapses, even from the culminating lapse at
the crucifixion. Per contra, as has been already indicated
(88 3, 6), Stephen had not advanced to the position which in later
writers may be termed distinctively Alexandrian.

The scanty and worthless legends upon Stephen, collected
by Tillemont (4/6w0ixes; Eng. ed. 1735, pp. 353-359), mainly
cluster round the place and time of his death, and the finding of his
relics. According to one tradition of the fifth century, he was
buried, thanks to the friendiy intervention of Gamaliel, at Kafr
Gamala in presence of the lamenting apostles. His festival
seems to have been held generaliy on the 26th of December, the
day following Christmas} which occasioned Augustine’s saying
that unless God had first become man to die for men, men would
never have found courage to die for God. Epiphanius (/er.
204) numbers Stephen among the Seventy, and one curious
tradizion (followed by Dante, 27, 15) describes him as a youth.

In addition to the critical editions of Acts, ad ἐφε., the mono-
graphs on source» critici (Acrs, $ 11), and various biographies

f Paul, see especially *Baurs Paw/us
10. Bibliography. ED 139-623 *Zeller's Confents and

Origin οὗ Acks (ET) 1237246 2175-1765

Ewald's Mistory of Israel, ET 7 155-164; Gfrorer, Die heilige
Sage (1838), 1408/; Renan, Les Af6tes, chap.8; Ranch,
SE Kr: (1857), 352-368; F. Nitzsch, 1814. (1860), 479-302; *Witz,
IDT (1815), 588-606 (finding the red thread of the speech in
145 £): W. Schmidt, Bericht d. Ap.gesch. ber Stepk.
(1882); Sabatier, Σ᾽ αῤδένε Pax/ (ET), 39-46; Pfleiderer, Das
Urchristenthun (1887), 559, Li Feine, /P7 (18 90), 89-108;
Beyschlag, NZ 7Aeo/. (ET), 1327/; Ramsay, SÉ. Paul ἐλὲ
Traveller, 372-317; 1. Weiss. Str. (1893), gati Absicht,
10-15 *Rranichfeld, S4A (1900), s4r-s62, ‘Der Gedanken
gang in der Rede des Steph.; *B. W. Bacon, Biblical and
Semitic Studies (Vale Univ, U,S.A., 1902), 211-296, and
Grieve, Hastings D8 4613-615; Hamack, die Mission und
verbreitung des Christentuims (1902), 34-37} and on the apocry-
phal Revedatio sancti S., P. v. Winterleld (ZA/7I, 1902, Ὁ.
358). The papers by K. Schmidt (Beweis des Glaubens, 1892, PP
69-86); E. H. Plumptre (8:8lical Studies, 347-375), and Nosgen
(Neue! Kirch. Zeîts. 1898, pp. 661-687) are unduly conservative,
and the older sketches by Krause (1786), Luger (1836), and
Thiersch (1849) have been largely superseded by more recent
critical researches prompted here, as în so many lines, by the
genius of Baur. Adequate materials for historical study may
be found in the monographs marked by an asterisk, supple-
mented by Spitta's 4/-gesch. (1891), 96-123, and discussions such
25 those of Weizsicker, Das A#ost, Zeitalter (ET), 1 62:75, and
McGiffert, Agostolic Age (1897), 76-93. 7. Mo.

STEPS (ΠΡ), =K.20::=1s.388RVME; EV DIAL,

STEWARD. A convenient and familiar term used for:
1. moby ore, lit. ‘che man over the house”; cp Gen. 48 19
1 K.169 (see ARzA).

1 One proof that the speech rests on a special source ; for the
idea of universalism was thoroughly Lucan (cp Lk. 2447 Acts
28255). InT 42 another comparatively isolated feature occurs,
in τῇς reference of sin directly to providence (Titius, 23/4).

4797

STOICS

2. ‘5 pus:]a, Gen. 152, a difficult phrase, on which see
ELIEzER, 1, and cp Dillmann, Delitzsch, and Crit. Bid. ad loc.

3. ]35; Is.2215 RVmg. (EV ‘treasurer’), applied to SHEBNA
(qu)

4 ΡΟ, Dan. 1 τὸ AVmg.; see MELZAR.

5 “e, xCh. 281 RV 'ruler.” See Prince, 3.

6. οἰκονόμος, Gal. 42 RV, εἰς, Hence οἰκονομία, Τίς, 162,7
EV ‘stewardship.”

7. ἐπίτροπος, Mt. 208 (of the master of the vineyard) Lk.83
(cp Cuuza); see ProcvratoR.

8. ἀρχιτρίκλινος, 1π. 28 See MeALS, $ 11.

STEWPAN (D'Y°3), Lev. 11 35 RVmE.
ING, $ 4; cp POTTERY, 8 4.

STOCKS. For punishments involving restraint of
the person, see LAW AND JUSTICE, $ 12 {end), and cp
Chains, PRISON.

The word is used to render:

1. n3Bmp; see col. 3850 (7).

2. D39, Prov. 7 22 AV; see ANKLETS, col, 171, and n. 1.

3. prs; sce COLLAR, 3.

4. 10, Job 1327 8811 EV (probably an Aramaic loan-word),!
here mentioned specifically as an instrument for confining the feet.

. ξύλον, Acts1624, lit. ‘wood. On the ‘inner prison’ into
which Paul and Silas were cast on this occasion, see PRISON,
$ 1 (end).

STOICS (οτοικοι [Ti.]. crwiKko1[WH], Acts 17 18}.
‘The Stoa was founded at Athens, about 300 B.c., by
Zeno ; and many of its distinetive doctrines were added
during the third century by Cleanthes and Chrysippus.
Stoicism was brought to Rome by Pancetius about 140,
and many distinguished Romans learnt its. principles
from Posidonius (about 86-46). It was the leading
philosophical school in the early empire; the chief
writers are Seneca {4-65 A.D.), Epictetus (flor. circa
100), and Marcus Aurelius (121-180) The Stoic
doctrine was divided into logic, physics, and ethics.
In logic its most characteristic feature is the search for
a critérion of truth, and the placing of this criterion in
the feeling of certainiy. In physics the Stoics returned
to the crude pre-Socratic views, and especially to those
of Heraclitus. They were strict materialists, and con-
ceived God, or nature, to be in essence a fiery process.
In ethics, Zeno formulated the end of life as τὸ ὁμολο-
“γουμένως ζῆν, ‘consistency'; but this was expanded
by Cleanthes into ‘life consistent with nature,’ and by
Chrysippus into "life according to our experience of
what happens by nature," Thus ethics was set on a
basis of theoretical knowledge—though the physical
theory does not furnish any very obvious ethical guid-
ance. Virtue alone was good, vice alone bad. Other
things were indiferent—e.g., life and pleasure, death
and pain. But of these the former were normally
preferable to the }atter—only normally, however, so
that when life was blighted suicide was laudable.

The Stoics were the first to introduce into morals the idea of
law—which is law for man because it is the law of the universe.
In passing from ‘end’ t0 ‘duty,’ from ‘virtue’ to * conscience,”
they are the forerunners of modern ethics. But in abandoning
the Greek standpoint they fall into rigorism, and set up in the
passionless sage a colourless and uninviting ideal.

It was entirely in a practical spirit that ethics was developed
by the Romans. Seneca dwells chiefly on the wickedness of
man and on the constant war which must be waged against sin.
Epictetus’ teaching is summed up in his maxim ἀνέχον καὶ
ἀπέχου, and that of Marcus Aurelius in the words, ‘to be
sufficient unto oneself by doing justly and thereby having calm.’

Stoicism owes something of its character to Hera-
clitus, something to the Cynics, something to the
political indifference of the times. But its preoccupa-
tion with conduct it probably owes to a Semitic origin.
Zeno came from Cyprus, and was commonly called ‘the
Pheenician'; Chrysippus came from Cilicia. Baby-
lonia, Palestine, Syria, Cilicia, Phrygia, and the Phoe-
nician colonies were the homes of the sect, of which
European Greece produced not a single distinguished
member. Naturally then there are resemblances between
Stoicism and some of the post-exilic biblical writings.
‘The author of Ecclesiastes had probably a general

1 Cp PorteRy, 58 (2).
4798

See Cook-

STOMACHER

acquaintance with Stoic ideas (see ECCLESIASTES, $$
ro, 13). Some of the apocryphal writings—4 Mace.
and the Wisdom of Solomon—display rather more than
this. Seneca has very many sayings which recall the
words of Jesus (especially in the SERMON ON THE
MOUNT [g.©.]) and of the Epistles (and above all those
ascribed to Paul). Many of the parallelisms are more
apparent than real; but the frequency and closeness of
those which remain exctade the hypothesis of mere |
coincidence, and it is almost certain that the influence
was reciprocal. Seneca may well have met Christians
and heard Christian views at Rome, And Paul must
have known something of Stoicism, of which Tarsus
was perhaps, next to Athens, the headquarters. Stoicism
would have its attractions for a Pharisee. Paul can
quote the Stoic Aratus (Acts 17 28), and he has at least
two conceptions which owe something to Stoicism—the
world-wide city of God {1 Cor. 1212, 27 Gal. 328 Eph.
219 Col. 311), and the αὐτάρκεια of the Christian (2 Cor.
60 981: Phil 4111318). See HELLENISM, $$ 6, 10.
W. D. R.
STOMACHER (DINA), Is 324. See MANTLE,

8 « (9).
STONES, FIGURED, AND SACRED. See IDoL,

gif
STONES (PRECIOUS)

Vague terms (ἢ 2). Hebrew names classified (84).
Uses of stones (ἢ 2). Greek names ($ 5).
Stones known ($ 3). H. Priest's breastplate (88 6-20).
i. ddem (87). ii. pifdah (88). ili. Barébeth (80).
i αὐραοὶ (β τὸλ ΚΣ ri). vi. γαξῥρηδα (ἃ τα Δ).
vii ἀέξει (8 14). ix: ablamah ($ 16).
x farsi8 (ἃ 17).
Result ($ 20)
Kadkod (ἢ 21)

Covering of King of Tyre ($ 22).
Foundations of New Jerusalem @ 23).

Bibliography ($ 24).

In addition to the more specific names for

STONES (PRECIOUS)

The first step towards identification of ancient
‘precious stones" is to record what

3. Stones stones are actually found to have been
Pag A in use on ancient sites of different
the anionte ages and countries: as in the table

below.

From this it will be seen (τὴ that universally the
commoner have preceded the more ‘ precious’ stones;
(2) that even quartz and its varieties (chalcedony, sard,
agate) were not much worked, except in Egypt, until
late Babylonian and Assyrian time; (3) that really
hard Stones, such as 4e/y/, are very rare until the time
of Alexander the Great; and (4) that it is only after
bis time that the wealth of the farther East became
available except by accident. For this latter period,
however, the centre of the Hellenistic jewel trade was
in Alexandria ; the translators of the LXX were there-
fore rnost favourably situated for the collection of
authentic evidence as to the names of the stones.

It ἴδ not to be expected, therefore, that the biblical vocabulary
will be either copious or precise: or that the Hebrew terms,
being of (at lowest) pre-Alexandrine date, will he found to
correspond accurately with those of (δ; for the latter belong to
a period when the influx of gems from the far East had recently
depreciated many stones which thitherto had been relatively
‘precious,’ Still more is this the case as between the ancient
versions and AV, the vocabulary of which represents a similar
period of acute transition, due mainly to the recent exploitation
of the sea-routes to farther Asia and to America; moreover AV'5
vocabulary seems to be used quite at random—e.g. the persistent
interchange of ‘emeraid’ and “carbunele’; and the use of ‘ruby'
for “coral. RV is equally etratic, but without the same excuse.

The Hebrew phrases (e.g., 1 Ch. 292) clearly include

all ranks of valuable stones, from ‘stones

4 Hebrew to be set' and treasured gems to the ‘stones
“. ©f divers colours’ which are coupled with
‘marbles’ (αδνιᾶ Sdyif ww vis, πάριον, marmor

STONES ACTUALLY KNOWN TO ANCIENTS

(marked with crosses)

precious stones to be discussed later there occur

ths following more general terms :— Quality. Piace and Period. Ἴ
ΠῚ ]IN. ‘en γόξαναλ, λίθος τίμιος, ἴαρὲς « lu
dretiosus gemma, 28,1230 1K.10210£ 1Ch 202 Si [ἐς _ ;
292 2Ch. 919,7 and freq. [yd44ra4, ΒΞ |3| Egypt |BabrAss | Mediterranean.
1. Vagueness prob. orig. ‘heavy’; cp 2 Ch. 36; “ΠΥ
then ‘ *; 5.31]; cp ΖΝ
of terms, then rare’; cpi Ρ ἘΝ - ---
ῬΈΠ, ᾿αδπι Abbhes, λίθους ἐκλεκτοὺς, Name and Colour. Baby alElf
lapides desiderabiles, Is, 5412 [cp Pr. 815 811}; al 181509
quJIN, “en Len, μισθὸς χαρίτων (ἢ), cemma gratis. ῷ E ali 4
sima Ῥτον. 17 8; DNS 128, ᾿αδηξ millatm {from 850 " , PI ΞΙΞΊΞΙΣ
“fill ἀρ Ἴ, λέθους εἰς τὴν γλυφήν, gemmas ad ornandum ΕΠ 4} οΓ ΦΙΈ ΕΙΣ ΊΣΙΕ
(ornatum], Ex.257 359=7005 λίθονς τῆς πληρώσεως, sla|t|318/Sls].|e|i/Sl8 Ξ
genmas, Ex. 857; ND VOR, ᾿αόπ Zak, λίθους ποι- ΙΕ ΠΕΙΞ Η ΞΙΞΙ ΕΠ ΈΞΙΕΙ E
κίλους, [lapides] diversorusm colorum, 1Ch.292! the Sie|E|EIR|RJA LITE 2] ἃ
last-named passage gives several of these phrases to- È
gether. See also MARBLE, CoLours, and the names of Κα μι x x xi
ἢ 4 able . , .
particular stones. Marble und Fospat|% 3]% ΐ
It is only with long experience, and wide | {esper > > > Οἰχ del x Bai PaPab:
knowledge, that the distinction between ‘pre. Sard, Carnelian, Agate | x T|X x xlx{xfx
E ᾿ Jacintà (zircon) 6 . ἘΠ ΠΤ x
cious,' ‘fine,’ and merely ‘ornamental’ stones iù δὰ de 75.700 τ "
becomes established. The majority of the {Few Î
ἡ : erpentine .
‘precious stones’ of the modern world were Jasper .

unknown in Western Asia, and still more in
the Mediterranean, until Ptolemaic and Roman

Cairngorm {Y. Quartz}
Ehrysolite (Peridote) »
Topaz . . .

times ; and even then they were regarded merely | Grano

as rare varieties of the commoner stones which Ἔαρος and Marble * six
most nearly resembled them—e.g., the many | Maluchite τὴν ΡΣ ΧΙΧ Χ
varieties of smzaragdzs known to Pliny, which, δ x x x
even so, do not include the modern ‘ emerald.* Beryl allkinda) na
Natural stones which are în any way re- |_Dieptsse (Chalkedon?
markable—for brilliance, colour, erystalline form, Fe roîse . xx lx
or any other property—are prized and | Lapisiazui. . xx [x
3. USeS. rreasured by many primitive peoples; | fM@s τους ΧΙ ΚῚΣ
eithcr simply for ornament, or, more commonly, |
for use as charms (for real or imaginary in |'Qianeee . xx fail |. x κ
fluences) ; as engraved seals (for their hardness ‘halcedony - xxx x|x}x{X|x{x1x|x
and resistance to wear); or as currency {for Striped τ Τ ΝΗ U
their rarity, value in exchange, and extreme | Sil, MEIEÌ

portability).

4799

+ Cut 207055 the bands, not 2/0ng them.
4800

STONES (PRECIOUS)

Parium), and were used simply ‘to garnish the house.”
No hard and fast line, however, can be drawn between
these ornamental stones, and the ' precious stones’ in
the stricter sense; and the word $#%az in particular,
though it occurs in the ‘ breastplate’ of the high priest,
and is used for the engraved ‘onyx-stones’ (AV) on
his shoulders, scems also to be used generically for the
whole category of variegated or brightly coloured stones
(sce $ 18, below)

he interpretation of the several names does not
take us much further, except to classify the qualities
for which different stones were prized. ΟΥ̓ the
descriptive names :—(a) the majority refer ‘simply to
Brilliance and must be restricted to transparent or
translucent stones ; they give no clue as to colour.

τ. ΠΡΊΞ, δάνέξεεα, Ex. 28.17, etc., from α΄ flash"; see 89.

2. Πρ, e6d44, Is.54 12, from v/‘kindle' [cp Crysrat].
Φ λίθος «pvordAAov arises from confusion with MP, 462,
‘ice’; Aq. A. τρυπανεσμοῦ gives the sense ‘kindle by rubbing*
—i.e.} either ‘polished’ or ‘striking sparks.' Compare Ezek.
281416, “stones of fire’ (Ze"y38, on which, however, cp
CHERUR, 8 2, n, 2, with the Assyrian reference).

3. 1903, Zadbod, Is.5412 ἘΠ. 2716, ftom #strike fire’;
but perliaps= Ar. ‘red,’ or a place-name. @ variable: see $ 21
fand cp CHaLceDorY, 1],

(δ) Next come descriptions of colour, without refer-
ence to brilliance, though not therefore co be confined to
opaque stones : these names are rare and doubtful,

1. DIR ddem, Ἐπ. 2317, etc., properly ‘red’; & σάρδιον

(cp_Pers. serà, ‘yellowred ); but perhaps a place-name
‘Edomite stone"; see ἢ 7.

2. Î20, #49, Ex. 28 19, etc., may perbaps= Ar. ‘red’; but is
more probably a loan-word or a place-name ; see below, $ 15.

3. Dar, ἤδλανε, Ex. 28 20, eto., from y‘pale'= Ar. ἐδλανε,
or perhaps Ar. sensaZiiaze ‘striped garment’ (Ges.), which if
established would be decisive in favour of a Zanded stone : or
Ass, sint, a dark stone from Melubba in W. Babylonia (Del.
4WB, s.2., and Schrader, (ΟΥΤΩΣ Ì 30 [cp, however, BERYL,
$ 4): ora place-name : or corrupt ; see Onyx, and $ 18 below.

{c) Other names describe qualities or uses other than
brilliance or colour :

1. notre, a44m44, Ex. 28 19, eto., perhaps from “dream,”
which ‘identifies the stone as the well-known charm against
bad dreams and drunkenness=@ ἀμόέθυστος, the mod.
‘amethyst.' (But see AMETHYST, end, and Hommel, 4477"
205/ 283.1

2, VD, safpir, Ex.2819, etc. from 2/engrave'; the
‘inscription stone’ far excellence (Tg. says the Tables of the
Law were made of ît); or perhaps akin to Ass. su ‘thumb-
nail’ signature —i.e., signet.stone, see $ E It is described as
‘like the body of heaven, Ex. 24 10; and & σάπφειρος identifies
it as /afis lazuli. See SAPeRIRE.

3. TW, Sanir, Ezek.89, ete., from ἡ βαρ, ‘hard,’ Ἐκ.
asmer, Gg. σμύρις, Germ. Smirgel, Eng, emery, is not strictly
a ‘precious stone, though translated ‘diamond’ in Jer. 171
AV, and ‘adamant’ in Ezek.39 Zech. 712; see ADAMANT.

4. DO, parhdlom, Ex. 2818, eto., from 4/‘strike hard”: cp
perhaps ZaMlameiS ‘flint,’ and Ass. eZiz4fa, a hard stone used
for rings and on chariot wheels (ZD.7G, 40728), [To the
references in FLINT (g.2.) add ZDA7G 40 570.1

(4) Others again are clearly place-names, denoting
the source of supply;

1. kadksd (sce a, 3, above) for which @ has xopyop in Ezek.
2716. In Is. δή το, Symm, has καρχηδόνιον ; cp Plim. ΑἿΝ 81 30
for the ‘Carthaginian carbunele, and Pesh: Zarkedna for #89
in Ex. 2819 3912,

2. DIDNI, γα ηδέλ, Ezek.2716 G ῥαμωρ, Vg. sericuzi, RV

*coral,’ need not be a stone at all. [See Corat, but cp also
Ruzv.]

3. 3659 (see 52, above), Ex. 2819 3912, may be the ψεῴω,
‘Psepho, of Strabo, 822, Theophr. 34, an island up the Nile,
8. of Meroé, celebrated for îts gems; but it is perhaps a loan:
word; see below, $ 15.

4. BW, ταν τι, Ex. 28 20, etc., cp ‘stone of Tarshish,' Ezek.
100, etc. ; sce TARSHISH,

5 and 6. "dem: (‘Edom,’ see ὅτ, above) and ζήλαν (see 83,
above ; 47, ‘Soheim” in Yemen) may also be place-names.

(e) Finally, several names, which have no clear
significance in Hebrew, are probably /agn-words:—

1. WD, Ziskem, Ex. 38 19, etc., recalis Ἐπ. rester (Hommel,
AHT, 283). [For another view see JAcurH.]

4Bor

STONES (PRECIOUBS)

2. NEÌ, adbhek, Ex. 2818, etc., has been compared with Eg.
wa:ph-t and Ass. Zupakku. The latter is more probable 5 sea
EmzxALD, and $ 10 below.

3. MISS, sifdah, Ex. 2817, etc., seems to be Ass. 4ipindu.
The Skt. pita, ‘pale-yellow,' is unlikely ; see Toraz, and $ 8
below.

4. 3555 (see 52, d3, above), Ex.2819 may be Ass. diebus
but perhaps also Ar. ‘red’; ‘or the place-name ‘Psepho,' see
6 and d above.

5. MIBWI, pdfehhzh, Ex. 28 20, etc. seems to be Ass. yasfw,
aspui and perhaps also=Eg. 4-5-/-d, see $ 13 below.

These vague terms [see also PEARL] obviously give
little information; and in no case do we know the
colour of the Assyrian and Egyptian equivalents. 1
any conclusions, therefore, are to be drawn from them
at all, it must be by means of the renderings of (δ.

The Greek vocabulary may be classified in the same
way as the Hebrew,

(ὦ) Brilliance is denoted only by ἄνθραξ and σμάραγδος.

'ανθραξ, “hot coal,' for πόῤλεξ (ξ 4, e2, above); σμάραγδος,
‘dazzling;’ for Saréhetk (ἃ: 4, α΄, above), and also for ὀόλανε

4, 63, above), Ex, 289 3527 896 (cp μαραγέω,
5. Greek μαρανγέιο, and perhaps pappalpew; Skt. mara:
names, zia is α derivative, like It. esweralda and
Eng. emerald; ou. itself may be a corruption

of Saréketk above).

(Colour gives Vdxerdos, λίθος ὁ πράσινος, χρυσόπρασος and

μρυσόλιθσε ; cp σάρδιον below (only in NT: from the dize
Hower of that name; the Ind. yacxf seems to be a derivative,
like Eng. Jacin/4).

πράσινος (A. è mp. for ὅδλανε [δ 4, 53, above), Gen. 212; cp
χρνσόπρασος, Rev. 21 20), ‘leek green.”

χρυσόλιθος (for farshish 18 Ἢ «4, above]), ‘gold-stone.'

() Other qualities give the following :—

ἀδαμαντινός, ‘intractable.’ In class Gk,='steel.like.’ For
Samzr (8 4,3, above), Jer. 171; cp στερέα πέτρα, Ez. 39, and
the corrupi διὰ παντὸς (ἀδάμαντος), Ez. ὃ.

ἀμέθυστος, ‘charm against drunkenness'; for αὐάνεδλ ($ 4,
δα, above), the Greek superstition taking the place of the Hebrew,

κρύσταλλος, ‘ice'—s.e., “crystal. În 15. δ4 12 a misreading
of MIPE (see $ 4, 22, above). In Rev. 46 221 a simile for clear
in Rev, 2111 κρυσταλλέζοντι, ‘turning into crystal.'
ὄννξ, ‘fingernail’ (for Sika 18 4, 53, above). Popularly
supposed, later, to be descriptive(Plin. ΑΓΑΓ ΒΤ 24); but probably
ἃ loan-word, see below.

capsovfi.e., ‘sard-onyx’; Rev. 21 χοΐ, butcp Vg. sardonya
for Sham, ἐν ὀνυχί, Job28 τό.

(4) Place-names are responsible for the following :—

s ἀχάτης (-- ξδῥδ [ξ 4,52, α 3, €4)), from the river Achates în
icily.

λιγύριον (= diem [8 4, e 1, above]), from Liguria în N. Itaîy.
The descriptive talismanic Avyyospioy does not occur in &.

σάρδιον (='ddem (8 4, è 1, 45, above], popularly derived from
Sardis in Lydia; but probably originally a loan*word; see
below (e).

᾿χαλκήδων (Rev. 21 τοῦ only), from Chalcedon în Bithynia.

Cp ϑάρσεις, ραμωθ; and Yopyop, transliterated, and the
καρχηδόνιον of Symm. in Is. δά τα (=%ad#04 [8 4, α3, di] ἴασπις).

(Ὁ Loan-words, finally, are the following :—

βηρύλλιον (= Sharm 4 53, above], ati {by error] γξῤραδά,
(8 4, 25, above), see below); Pers. di//aur, Skt. vaiddrya,
Prakt. vetariva, Pesh. ὅ-γ-ποτέτα,

ἴασπις (=yasiphz4), Heb. cp Ass. asfr.

σάπφειρος {-- ταῤῥὲν ($ 4, c2, above)), Heb,

σάρδιον(-- δάρντῖβ 4, δι, d 5, above), though actually obtained
near Sardis in Lydia, is probably from Pers, zed, ‘ yellow-red."

πάζιον (=fitdah [$ 4, 43, above], perh. Heb., gp Ass.
indu; but derived by Pliny (ΑΓΑΓ ΘῚ 8) from the word ‘to
seek” in the language of the ‘cave-dwellers' of the Topaz-island
in the Red Sea. In Ps.119127 τοπάῤιον-- τὸ mdgiov=pa2 (18),
‘refined gold

For the interpretation of this Greek vocabulary, we
have fortunately a good and slightly earlier authority in
the treatise of Theophrastus, περὶ λίθων (about 300
R.C.), which sums up Greek knowledge on the subject
just at the moment when Alexander's conquest had
thrown open the farther Fast, but before its effects had
become generaliy felt. For the interpretation of the

4802

STONES (PRECIOUS)

additional terms added by the Apocalypse, we have
again a nearly contemporary commentary in Pliny, who
represents the abundant materials, but mainly empirical
classification, of the lapidaries of the Early Roman
Empire. Thai the vocabulary of the LXX is probably
trustworthy, is suggested by the general uniformity of
its rendering. So uniform, indeed, are these, that in
the four cases in which serious discrepancies occur (see
under AGATE, BERYL, ΟΝΥΧ, and below), it is prob-
ably safe to assume that it is the Hebrew text which is
at fault. The phrases in the Apocalypse, also, display
close acquaintance with current terminology, and supply
more than one striking confirmation of the conclusions
derived from the comparison of MT and the LKX.

We may, therefore, proceed to discuss the identifica-
tions supplied by the LXX renderings. Of these, by

- sesta far the greater number are contained

δ ΕΣ i 8 in the description of the high priest's

* breastplate, Ex. 28177, to be read

with the parallel passage Ex. 39107 and the corrupt

variant, ΕΖ, 2813 (the ‘covering of the king of Tyre').

It will therefore be convenient to take these stones in

the order in which they occur, and to append ($ 212}
those which do not occur in the breastplate.

Two preliminary considerations should be noted.
(1) The BREASTPLATE (g.0.), when folded for use,
measured a span (about 8 in.) in each direction. The
space available for each stone with its setting was there-
fore as much as 2 x 24 în.; and if the same proportion
was observed between stone and setting as was
customary in ancient jewellery, the stones themselves
may have been as large as 2 Χ τῷ în., and cannot have
been much less than half that size. They were there-
fore each a good deal larger than the average size of
the common Babylonian cylinder or Egyptian scarab.
We are therefore probably safe in excluding, on the
ground of size alone, stones which are really rare and
* precious,' even if these stones themselves could be
shown to have been known. (2) Each stone was
engraved with the name of a tribe, and some of these
names are of some length. This agrin postulates a large
surface and low hardness. The private Jewish name-
signets vary from ὅ- τὰ în. in length, andare of a very
moderate degree of hardness (7 or less).

i. 'Odem, σάρδιον, sardius, Ex. 2817 8910 (cp Ez.
2813, and sardizs, Rev.2120) Both names signify

A inn Fed’ (see above, $$ 4, ὅτ, κα), and
Ti entification the stone is no doubt the modera
*Odem, © Ted or orange ‘ sard,' the commonest
” of all engraved stones in ancient
times (cp Plin. #7787 106), The best of them came în
Greek times from Sardis and Babylon, and a fine deep
red kind from Yemen (hence perhaps [cp SARDIUS]
* Edomite stone,’ from the proximate source of supply).
The material (translucent quartz stained with iron) is
quite common, and merges in the clearer and lighter-
tinted ‘carnelian’ and ‘red agate,' As this is probably
denoted by 4224 ἀχάτης (8 15), it is not impossible that
‘ddem may originaliy have meant the opaque blood-red
jasper.l which is common in early Egypt, was used in
Babylonia and Assyria, and also in Greece, and was
valued as a charm against hemorrhage.

ii. Pitdéh, τοπάξιον, topazius (Ex. 2817 8910, cp Ez.
28 13; in Rev. 21 5ο τοπάζιον is exchanged with σαρδόνυξ,

siga 5686 below) is identified with Ass. &i9:rdz, a
8. Pitdah. ὁ f.shing stone’ which recalls the ‘stones
of fire' in Ἐξ. 281416. and the abz? ekdal in Ts. δΆτο.
The rendering τοπάζιον makes it clear that the LXX
understood by pi/44%, a stone which was (1) translucent,
{2) yellow. ‘As the modern ‘topaz’ was hardly known?
before Greek times, and is indistinguishable, except by

1 So F. Petrie,in Hastings' DA, s.2, ' Precious Stones”—a valu-
able and suggestive commentary based largely upon new material.
2 Brit. Mus. Guide to Bab. and Ass. Antig. È 136) gives both
*emerald’ and ὁ topaz în a list of materials used for cylinders;
and nos, 27 and 39 în the Babytonian Room are apparently of a
variety of base emerald or beryl (‘mother of emerald’), Dr.

4803

STONES (PRECIOUS)

its superior hardness, from ‘false topaz,’ or yellow rock-
erystal, it is possible that the latter is meant. The
τοπάζιον of the Greeks was a translucent, golden:
coloured (χρυσοειδὲς ἀποστίλβον φέγγος, Strabo, 770),
or yellow-green, stone (e virenti genere, Plin. HN
378), probably the modern ‘chrysolite,’ or ‘ peridot'.
This was a noble variety of olivine, and consequenily
of the yellow ‘ serpentine' (Ar. ‘25/27, ‘yellow '), which
was in common use for scarabs and cylinders of all
dates. It is identified by Petrie [and independently by
Cheyne; see GoLp, $ 14; OPRIR, $1; Toraz, $ 2]
with the original ῥέζαδ, the only objection to this being
that &i$indz was a ‘flashing’ stone. This ‘ chrysolite'
was found in the Levant, and occasionally in consider-
able masses; but the ancient supply came from an
island (τοπάξιος νῆσος) in the Red Sea, which was the
monopoly of the kings of Egypt (Strabo, 770; Diod.
Sic. 339; Plin. 7378 &34). Like olivine, ‘chrysolite’
is soft and easily engraved—eadem sola nobilium limam
sentit (Plin. ΗΝ 378).

li. Bardketh, σμάραγδος, smaragdus, Ex, 2817 8810

(Ἐπ. 28.13, σμάραγδος ; but ὀάγόφοια [smaragdus] changes

places with γαλάῦπε [iaspis], cp ἃ τὰ αὶ
9. Baréleth. jelow); Rev. 2120 has σμάραγδος, sma-
ragdus, in the place of Sdrefek, and Rev.43 has
τρις... ὅμοιος ὁράσει σμαραγδίνῳ. In Ex, 289 3527
396, σμάραγδος translates Jam (Vg. oayx) where it is
used of the high priest's shoulder-stones. Both dare
and σμάραγδος originally denote Zri/liance only; ἐξ.
Herod. 244 describes a στήλη (probably a columnar
natural crystal) σμαράγδου λίθου λάμποντος τὰς νύκτας
μέγαθος," ‘so large as to give light at night,’ but says
nothing of the colour either of the stone or of the
gieam.” Of this same σμάραγδος Theophrastus (25)
says that it was of the ‘Bactrian' variety, εἰ μὴ ἄρα
ψευδὴς σμάραγδος, and he adds (24) other instances of
Bigantic specimens which came to Egypt, ἐν δώροις
παρὰ τοῦ Βαβυλωνίων βασιλέως, but confuscs them all
with the ‘copper-emerald‘ (diopfase) of Cyprus and
Chalcedon (χαλκήδων, Rev. 2120), Now, only two
brilliant stones occur in such columnar er\a:—the
“rock crystal,' and the ‘beryl.’ In favour of ‘rock
crystal' we may quote (1) the comparison of the rainbow
with σμάραγδος in Rev. 43; (2) the statement of Pliny
{HN 37 64), quoted by Petrie ({Hastings' DZ), that Nero
used a σμάραγδος to aid bis sight—a statement to be
compared with the superstition, which survives, that
better spectacles are made from rock crystal than from
glass; (3) Martial's association of smaragdus with
adamas {v.111); {4) the probability that hexagonat
bery] in its paler varieties was regarded as a harder and
greenish variety of ‘milky quartz’; (5) the certainty
that, as early as Theophrastus, a very large number
of stones, all brilliant, and of all shades of green, from
aquamarine to dioptase (χαλκήδων), were included
genericaliy under σμάραγδος.

In favour of ‘beryl,' on the other hand, arc the
following consideration£. (1) From Theophrastus
onward the σμάραγδος was more or less definitely
coloured—Theophrastus, however, does not say τυλαΐ
colour—and was believed to originate by the action of
water upon green jasper [ἴασπες, Theophr. 27, see 8 13).
(5) Both the ‘beryl’ and its deep-green ‘emerald'
variety have been universally believed to give relief to
the eyes; but this was through their restful colour, not
through their refractive powers, and ‘beryls’ in particular
had already given rise to It, Aare/le and High-Germ.
brille, before the invention of spectacle-glasses. {3) The

Budge kindly supplies the further information ‘we have no
eylinders which may be certainly called topaz, but 1 have seen
several in Mesopotamia among the natives’; he adds that nos.
128 and 679 (of Pehlevi time) are of ‘topaz’ In PEZO, 1902,

. 326, the announcement is made that a fragment of ‘emerald'

ras been found in a pre-historic deposit at Gezer; but no
authority is given for the mineralogica] determination.

1 So MSS.; see Stein (1881). Wiedemann defends the
conjecture μεγάλως, ‘shining with great brilliancy,* and ascribes
the glow to ancient use of a phosphorescent paint.

4804

STONES (PRECIOUS)

kindred belief that ‘beryl’ shed a light of its own was
known to Theophrastus (/.c., 23), and has survived in
It. brillare (Low Lat. deri/iare*) and Eng. Brilliant.
(4) The probability that σμάραγδος could be imitated
{ψευδὴς cu., Theophr. 25) suits the prevailing greenish
tinge of ancient glass better than a quite colourless
stone; cp, moreover, Rev. 46, θάλασσα ὑαλίνη ὁμοία
κρυστάλλῳ. (5) The collocation of κρυστάλλῳ with
σμαραγδίνῳ in Rev. d vo. 6 3 suggests that after all this
writer distinguished ‘rock crystal’ and 'smaragdus.”

As to ὀάφγάξεία, the probability is (1) that originally
it meant the colourless flashing ‘rock crystal,’ which
was commonly used for engraving, in Egypt of all
periods, in Mesopotamia from the later Babylonian
time onwards, and more rarely in prehistoric Greece ;
(2) that this meaning did not wholly die out even after
the LXX translation was made, but survived in the
use of σμάραγδος in Rev. 43, and in the confusion with
yahdlom in MT of Ἐξ. 2813 (see below, $ 19); (3) that
the obvious likeness between the words, and the current
confusion between the hexagonal forms of ‘quartz’
and pale ‘ beryl,' caused the LXX to render Sdré£e/4 by
σμάραγδος, and provoked the substitution for yditpa?k
of ya&d/5m in MT, so as to separate what now were
two adjacent greex siones.!

iv. Néphek, ἄνθραξ, carbunculus (Ex, 2818 39n1); in
Ez. 2813 ἄνθραξ remains, but ndphet [Vg. cardunculus)

x changes places with 54/77 [sapp4îrus] of
10. Nophek. 8 11. in kz.27:6 the LXX mistrans-
lates, and Vg. has simply german; Rev. 2120 substi-
tutes χαλκήδων). If noftek could be identified with
Egyptian #-/24-f(see EMERALD [end)]), either malachite
or turquoise would be meant ; and this is supported by
the equivalent χαλκήδων (copper-emerald) of Rev. 2120;
see $ 23, below. But this identification would ignore the
uniform rendering of both the LXX and Vg.; and as
ἄνθραξ (carbunculus) is descriptive and appropriate,
whilst =dp4e4 (probably a loan-word) gives no clue, it
is better to accept the identification of the LXX with a
translucent red stone. This latter, since the ‘ruby’ of
Ceylon and Burma, and likewise the true ‘carbuncle,'
were unknown to ‘l'heophrastus (see CARBUNCLE), must
denote the large class of red ‘garnets' (‘ pyrope,' ‘alman-
dine,’ etc.), which are found in abundance and of very
considerable size, were known in Egypt from prehistoric
times, were commonly used for signets in Hellenistic
times, and are easily engraved, As τὸ πόῤλδᾷ itself, the
alternative derivation, from the /x4a%% of Am. Tab.
20216 [cp EMERALD, 2], may probably be accepted. Of
the colour of this /25a##2 we have no information ; but
we know that it came as tribute to Egypt from Ashkelon
—ie., from the NE. This fact is compatible with
the occurrence of πόδε among the wares sent from
Syria to Tyre in Ez. 2716.

v. Sappîr, σάπφειρος, sapphirus (Ex. 2818 3911);
in Ezek. 2813 σάπῴφειρος remains, but saggi» [Vg.
sapphirus] changes places with πόῤλεξ,

11. Sappir. {ει ωρεμίω [8 10]; Rev. 2120 has
σάπφειρα). The true ‘sapphire' (blue corundum) was
almost unknown before Roman Imperial times, and
when known was included, from its clear blue colour,
under sdew0os? (see 823, below). The adamas
Cyprius, which occurred in the copper-mines and was
known to Pliny for its sky-blue colour, was probably
*azurite.' Σάπφειρος, on the other hand, is identi-
fied (Theophr. 37; cp 55, κύανος σκύθης, and Plin.
HN 87:20 ‘optime apud Medos'), with the opaque
blue ‘lapis lazuli* of ‘Turkestan, and the μέρ of
Babylonia and Assyria, which was known also in Egypt

1 The ‘oriental emerald’ (green corundumi is in any case out
of the question. It does not seem to have been known in anti»

uity, and Sanscr. mearaZafa, apparently a loan-word from

Κι; suggests that, when discovered, it was regarded merely as
a superior variety of σμάραγδος.

2 The only indubitabie. description is that of Solinus, see
King, Nat. Hist. of Prec. Stones, 245; the earliest specimens
are noted in King, Zc. 255.

4805

STONES (PRECIOUS)

and Greece from prehistoric times, and was frequently
sent as a present fron Babylon to Egypt în the Tell-
el-Amarna period. As its Hebrew name implies, it is
easily engraved, and occurs in large enough masses to
make tablets like the ‘’Tables of the Law' (acc. to
Targ.; cp the temple dedication on lapis lazuli, Brit.
Mus. [Depart. Assyr. Antiq] No. gro13). [Cp
SAPPHIRE.]
vi. Vakdlim, ἴασπις, taspis (Ex. 2718 39 in
Ezek. 2813 faomis remains, but ya&dlw [Vg. saspis)
changes places with ὀάγόξεί, [smarag-
di Ln dus) see ἃ 9). It is most improbable
in MT. that y.56545% ($ 13) could have so far
i changed its significance that ἴασπις
should be used by preference to render yazà/im. [Cp
JaspER, ad fix.) Either ἴασπες, therefore, or γαλά δε
must be transferred to the twelfth place ($ 19), and
we have seen reason already (under dareeth, $ 9) to
suppose that y&*4#% should be restored here, and
gakdlim transferred to no. xii. For other reasons
identifying ya&4/om with no. xii. see below, $ 19.
Valphék, which is a loan-word (Ass. vat? alpi,
Ἐξ. &-5-4-d), gives no clue, save that 4494 was large
enough, and not too hard, to Le
13. Yassphéh. cmployed for the royal seal of Afur-
bani-pal (Nabunahid stele).

That ἴασπις, on the
other hand, was (1} a dull or opaque stone, is shown
by the combination ἰάσπιδι καὶ σαρδίῳ in Rev. 43 (see
$ 23, below), by the compound terms iaspacketes and
tasponya known to Pliny (4, xxxvii. 1054 937), and
by Martial's association of saspis with sardonyehus (v.
111 ix. 6020); and (2) that it was a green stone is
probable from association with the σμάραγδος of the
Cypriote copper-mines in Theophrastus (27; cp ἰάσπιδε
κρυσταλλίζοντι, 'jasper turning into a clear ice-like
stone,' Rev. 2111} and from its mediaval character (sce
JasPER). But (3) ît had many variants; among them
2 red (faomis=40dk0d 15. δά το, cp Symm. καρχηδόνιον,
cp iasfachates, above), a yellow (/u/ve, Virg. An.
4561), and an opalescent, perhaps actually the ‘opal’
{opalus, Plin. HN 3721: n/Skt. opala, ‘stone'). [Cp
JasPER.] All this combines to show that γαΐδῥραξά,
ἴασπις, is the modern ‘jasper' (opaque massive silica),
and especially its green variety, which is widely distri-
buted, often of considerable size, and easily engraved,
being used commonly for Egyptian scarabs of all periods,
for Babylonian and Assyrian cylinders, and for the seal-
stones of prehistoric Greece (for engraved specimens
from the Syrlan coast [in Louvre], see Ledrain, Notice
Sommaîre des Monuments Phéniciens, Nos. 408, 427,
432} 437). Al varieties of jasper are liable.to occur
together, and are associated, and easily confused, with
the green chalcedony (‘ plasma,’ ‘prase’; the common
‘bloodstone’ is plasma spotted with red jasper), with
the more opaque varieties of ἀραῖς, and with the opal
group, which all have practically identica! composition.
‘The green jasper, being the rarest, was not unnaturally
the most prized in antiquity, and gave its name to the
group. As the Cypriote passage (Theophr. 27) shows,
green jasper was not clearly distinguished from the
harder varieties of ‘ malachite' and other green copper-
minerals (see $ 18, below).
vii. Lbem, λιγύριον, ligurius (Ex. 2819 8912); in
Ezek. 2813, @ has ἀργύριον καὶ χρυσίον καὶ Ney. MT
Vg. omit, ending the list with 24445
14. Lé6eM. (3%727:) in the tenth place, see $ 22,
below (Rev. 2120 gives χρυσόπρασος in the correspond-
ing place: see $ 23). Z4fex, probably a loan-word
(ὃ Eg. restem, but cp JACINTH), gives no clue.
Αἰγύριον was taken by some to be a place-name, and
the sione seems to have been confused with ‘amber,”
from its electrical qualities {which are possessed by
several different gems); but Theophr. 28 gives My-
γούριον (i.e. λυγκὸς οὐρόν) with a folk-tale ‘about its
origin, and a distinction between a clearer and a
darker tinted variety. ΕΝ gives ‘jacinth' (with mg..

4806

STONES (PRECIOUS)

‘or, amber'}; but there is no evidence that the jacinth
was either found in Liguria, or was known at all till
Roman times. Probabiya clear yellow stone is meant,
like *cairmgorm’ or ‘false topaz' (iron-tinted quartz).
The rendering of Rev. 2120, χρυσόπρασος, suggests a
greenish yellow stone, and perhaps serves to differentiare
the adjacent yellow χρυσόλιθος (8 17).
vili Sd50, ἀχάτης, achates (Lx. 2819 3912: in Ezek.
2815 (δ has ἀχάτης: 6 MT Vg. omit; Rev. 2120 in
15. $eb0. the corresponding place has ὑάκινθοε).
- + $255 may be a loan-word (Ass. ἔμδμ) or
the place-name Ψεφώ, an island S. of Meroé, noted for
its gems (Theophr. 34, Strabo, 822). [Cp CHALCEDONY,
2.1 ᾿Αχάτης (also a place-name) is definitely the ‘Sicilian
agate. Pesh. ZaxZedad in Ex. 2819 3912 may be a
corruption of καρχηδύνιος (cp Symin. on 15, 5412,
kadkid, and $ 21, below), or of Zadkod itself For
{1) Sicilian stones going castward would probably travel
vid Carthage, (2) similar ‘agates’ may have been found
in N. Africa, (3) a Carthaginian ‘carbuncle' is known
to Pliny, A 379295 What particular variety of
‘agate’ (banded translucent silica) was exported from
Sicily is not known: but banded agates, particularly
of the deeper red varieties! (approximating to sardorya
and iaspackates) were in common use in Egypt through-
out (the source here may well have been Ψεῴω on the
upper Nile), in Greece from prehistoric times lesp.
common in early Crete), in later Babylonia, in Assyria
throughout, and on the Syrian coast (engraved specimens
in Louvre, Ledrain, Zc., Nos. 413, 420, 422, 440,
449 red; 409 white).
ix. 'Aklamah, ἀμέθυστος, amethystus (Ex, 2819 8912;
in Ezek, 2813 (δ has dxdrys; MT Vg. omit; Rev.
, 2120, ἀμέθυστοτ). The folklore of the
16.’AblAmAb. siebrew and Greek names identifies
with the modern ‘amethyst’ (transparent purple quartz),
which was commoniy used, and freely engraved in
Egypt throughout {esp. under XII. dyn.}, in Greece
from prehistoric times, on the Syrian coast {Ledrain,
Le. Nos. 407, 414, CD 392, 421), and more rarely, in
Babyionia and Assyria. [Sce also references ia 8 4(c), 1.]
x. Tarsit, χρυσόλιθος, chrysalithus {Ex. 2820 8913;
in Ezek. 2813 @ has χρυσόλεθος here; and MT ‘Tarshish,”
xi Vg. chrysolithus at no. iv., see 822,
17. Tarkite. elow; in Ezek. 109 Vg. has chrgsolit4us,
but (5. ἄνθραξ [perhaps by identification with the
Carthaginian carbuncle of Plin. Z/V, 3725, see $ 21,
below]; in Dan. 106, ϑαρσείς, cArysolizius; in Cant.
δι4 (ΘΟ θαρσείς, Vg. Ayacinthus; Symm. bas ὑάκινθον
here and Ezek.1:6 2813; in Ezek.1:6 & bas θαρσείε,
Vg. visio maris). Tarti* îs simply a trade-name and
gives no clue. Χρυσόλιθος is vaguely descriptive. A
stone may be a ‘gold-stone’ in three different ways.
(1Ὲ It may apparently contain grains of gold—e.g.,
‘avanturine quartz,” and the epithet χρυσόπαστος applied
to ‘sapphire’ {(Theophr. 23, cp Plin. 2/4 3331, ‘aurum
in sapphiro scintillat,’ 3738, ‘aurum punctis conlucet ').
(2) It may be golden yellow and opaque—i.e., yellow
jasper or yellow serpentine, ‘The former is adopted here
by Petrie (Hastings, DA, σιν. ‘ Precious Stones'), and
both were used commonly in Egypt and Babylonia at
all periods, and in prehistorie Greece. (3) It may be
golden yellow and /ransparezi. This woulà be inartistie
in juxtaposition with the transparent yellow /6e72, λεγύρισν
($ 14), but would agree better with the later uses of
chrysolithus, which seems to represent the modern
* topaz' (as fofazius is the modern *chrysolite,' see $ 8,
above), and was found of very large size in Spain
(‘ Tartessus '), Pliny, Δ 37127. Petrie notes that the
topazius of the ancients {feridote) is actually a ‘noble ἢ
variety of yellow serpentine, and so may have taken its
place as the ‘stone of Tarshish' in course of time;
compare the correlation of ἴασπις and σμάραγδος
(opaque and clear green) in Theophrastus, 27.

1 For the bearing of this on Rev, 2120, ὑάκινθος, see below,
823. .

4807

STONES (PRECIOUS)

The rendering ἄνθραξ may be a reminiscence of the
Carthaginian ‘carbuncle’ (Plin. AZ 3725, see $ 21,
below), ‘‘farshish' being taken for Carthage; and
ὑάκινθος similariy may point to either ‘sapphire’ or
*zircon' as one of the products of ah eastern ‘Tarshish*
towards India (see TARSHISH).

[For other solutions of the problem of the Tarshish-stone (to
retain the traditional name), see TARSHISH, STONE oF.]

xi. δόξαν, βηρύλλιον, onvehinus (Ex. 27 20, onyx, Ezek,
2813; in Ex.3913 ὀνύχιον, oxychinusi βηρύλλιον being trans.

si ferred, cp $ 19. peepbus, 100 (87 v. 57) gives

18, Séham. ὄνυξ and for γαξαίδνε, βηρύλλιον ; but he also
makes 5287 and αἰ άνεδά change places, as also

sapfir and valloni [ἰασπις), Elsewhere also, ὀδάαρε is very
variously rendered in (5, by σμάραγδος, Ex. 289 3527 896 (of
the bigh priest's shoulder.siones); λίθος ὁ πράσινος, Gen. ὅ τον
À. σαρδίον, Ex. 399 (same context as 396; perhaps for
σμαράγδου miswritten σραράρδον, perhaps a variant for dpuxcov,
cp sardonyz, Job 2816, Vg.); ὄννξ, Job δον λέθος ὀνυχός,
1Ch. 292 (with 51 σοομ -- ἐκωρε transliterated). Vg. has ὁγεγα:

or onychinus everywhere; except fob 2816, serdonya, where
®, however, has ὄνυξ, [Cp BervL, $ 4, ONYx.]

Thus the versions everywhere vary between (a) a green
stone (λίθος ὁ 7pdowos), whether clear (σμάραγδος) or
cloudy {βηρύλλιον),1 and (ὁ) an opaque banded stone
(ὄνυξ, sardonya ? σάρδιον), the rendering adopted in
EV. Between these two renderings we must decide
according to (τ) the evidence as to ἐόδανη itself, (2) the
evidence ‘as to yakdlm (MT γάϊδραδα) in xii. (8 19),
which likewise shares βηρύλλιον and ὀνύχεον in 5, and
has probably contributed to the confusion.

1. The word $#4a7 has no clear meaning. It may be
ἃ loan-word (a) from Ass. stu, the ‘dark’ or ‘cloudy’
stone, (ὁ) from Ar. ‘pale’ {Ges.}, which suits ‘onyx'
(see $ 19, below} or ‘beryì’ {the commoner varieties,
and the ‘aquamarine,' not the deep green ‘emerald,'
σμάραγδοϑβ) almost equally well, (c) from Ar. mausaztan,
‘striped garmeni’ (see $ 45 3), which, if it were
established, would be decisive in favour of a banded
stone ; or it may be, (e) a place-name (cp Ar. Sogeim
in Yemen), which would not be inconsistent with the
indication in Gen. 212 that ἤλασε (λίθος ὁ mpdoivos)
came from HAVILAH (9.v.}. It is clear, however {from
passages like Job 2916 and 1 Ch. 292, cp Ex. 257 859
3527), either that the word had a wide generic sense
{e.g., ‘variegated stones’), or that some form of &#am-
stone was important enough to deserve separate mention
apart from ordinary ‘stones to be set." Moreover, in
1 Ch. 292 fokam is coupled with aòa? pa, ‘stones of
pigment,' which is likewise generic, and here ἔδλαηε
might well mean ‘variegated' or ‘striped’ stones.

Now there is one such stone, not yet accounted for in
our list of identifications. 1Ὲ was common in Egypt in 81}
periods, obtained from the Sinaitic mine-country, and
used throughout, both solid and as a ‘stone of pigment."
It was known to Babylonia and Assyria, probably from
the copivus Siberian source. At the same time it is
green enough (though only rarely and partially trans-
Tucent) to be compared with σμάραγδου (which we have
seen was regarded by Theophrastus as the 'noble'
offspring of the opaque green faem:s) and still more
with the cloudy ‘beryl'; and also opague and strifed
enough to be described as a variety of ‘onyx.’ This
stone is the ‘malachite' {green copper carbonate) with
its wavy or concentric bands and cloudy {sé7:fx) patches
of light, vivid, and dark green, and its occasional
crystalline varieties. It is soft enough, like ‘lapis
ΤΆΦΩΙ, to be easily engraved, and occurs in large
enough pieces to serve as a tablet for a six-line inscrip-
tion like that of the high priest's shoulder-stones. Τῇ
Viham {X. ὁ πράσινον, par excellence ; cp the later Gk,
paraXxîris, ‘ marsh-mallow stone’) be identified with
‘malachite’ (the Eg. 72°4-#, according to W. M.
Milller) the association of few with sagpir in Job
286 (6 ὀνυχὶ τιμίῳ καὶ σαπφείρῳ) would find a close
parallel in the ‘pyramids of green and blue stones'

. 1 Whence Petrie (Hastings, 2.8, ‘Precious Stones') concludes
in favour of (1) ‘green felspar,” passing later into (2) ‘beryì’:
cp the argument in favour of the latter s.v. BERYL (9.2).

4808

STONES (PRECIOUS)

which are quoted to illustrate the wealth of Rameses
111. (Brugsch, θεᾷ, 596).

In Greek times, ‘malachite,’ owing to its compara-
tive softness, and its profusion in Cyprus and other
sources of copper, either ceased to be held in regard,
or was confused with green jasper (facmis). Meanwhile,
‘other ' striped stones'—namely ‘onyx,’ ‘ sardonyx," and
‘banded agate'—came rapidly into vogue, as soon
as the art of engraving through a surface-layer was
perfected ; and consequently 10272 came to be rendered
either by words for ‘green’ (βηρύλλιον, σμάραγδοΞ) or
by words for ‘banded’ (ὀνύχιον : sardoryx). Conse
quently, confusion arose on the one hand between
Sikam (onyx) and its neighbour γαλάλδης (which includes
the white-faced ‘onyx'; see below), and on the other,
between #%azz (green malachite) and yai94e4 (green
jasper), as soon as ya4d/0m and yaWfheh were inter-
changed owing to the ambiguity οἵ 5dr4%e44 in No.
(see above, $ 9).

2. For the correlative argument from γαλάϊδηα, see
next 8.

xii. VardIom (Ex, 2820 3913, MT γάξδῥαδά,; Ezek. 2813,

MIT bardfcih)-G) βηρύλλεον, Ex. 20 13, Josephus (= Ve. bergl
Ex. 2820 8913: deri/lus, Ezek. 2813):
19. Yahàlom.

ἔκ,
=(2) ὀνύχεον (Ex. 28.13 Ezek. 28.13 cp $ 18;
Vg. has derydlus throughont). ‘The trans:
position of y644/2 has been discussed already in $ 12, above,
Where the LXX ἴασπις presumes an original yai64424. For
xii. the balance of textual evidence favours νύχιον in the

LXX, just as it favours βηρύλλιον in xi. ; and deryWlus in Vg.
may result from the same source as that followed by Josephus.

The word ya4d/77 seems to be connected with /05n,

‘strike hard," and (possibly) with epSm, 4e/l@mz
‘flint’ {πέτρα στερέα, Job 289, ἀκρότομος, ‘abrupt-
edged,” Ps. 1148); with Ass. e/m&, Aram. ‘e/mas;

and with Greck ‘pyrites'—(f.e., ‘fire-striking stone ').
[Cp FLINT, but also DIAMOND) The Assyrian
elmita was a hard and probably colourless stone
(nowhere either ‘clear’ or ‘brilliant ') which was
used, with gold, to decorate chariot-wheels {cp the
‘stone of Tarshish," Ezek. 116 [RV ‘beryl’}); and
also alone, for whole rings (Del. Prol 85, HW,
τυ), What is wanted, therefore, for ya4d/m is a
hard stone, colourless or of indifferent colour ; of which
whole rings could be made; and recognisably akin to
the ‘fire-striking stone,' to the hard stone for hammers
and pounders, and to ordinary ‘flint' or ‘ chert.’ The
alternatives are rock-crystal and white chalcedony;
the one clear or milky, the other milky or opaque.
Both were fairly common, in association with either
quartzite or flint; but both were rare in their ‘ nobler’
varieties. Both were used for whole rings, as well as
for engraved seal-stones, in prehistoric Greece, and in
Egypt of all periods; and also commonly for later
Babylonian, and for Assyrian cylinders.

At this point it should be recalled that the etymology
‘ finger nail’ for ὄνυξ ($ 5) cannot be traced back earlier
than Pliny—i.e., among Roman lapidaries, who took over
an apparently Gree8 word, and gave it its Gree£ sense,
though it is not at all an adequate description of the
majority of ‘onyx-stones.’ Meanwhile the compound
σαρδόνυξ shows that to denote a white-and-red ‘onyx'
it was the zed which must be specified; the z04ife
surface therefore is the essential character of the generic
‘onyx.’ On the other hand, the etymology, ὄνυξ τε.
Assyrian wréz, ‘ring,’ would make ὄνυξ an obvious
equivalent for a 'ring-stone,’ like e/méî% or cognate
words—especially as δίηεδῆν was apparently colourless,
and ὄνυξ meant a stone which had a surface, at least,
of ‘white carnelian’ or ‘chalcedony.' It follows from
this identification that ya4d/071 was liable to be confused
on the one hand with 34re£e## (in the sense of ‘rock-
crystal '); on the other {together with ὄνυξ) with Sam
(in the sense of ‘striped stone'); and yet again with
3@%hèk, when later study had once revealed the many
intermediates (e.g. Pliny's iasp-achales, iosponya and
sard-achates, EN, 87 s4).

4809

STONES (PRECIOUS)

Thus the high-priestly breastplate, as a whole,

; προς MAY be conceived as having
20. High priest's ἢ ᾿ i
breastplate. presented the following series of
stones :—
HiGH PrIEST'S BREASTPLATE
. Bargketh ii, Pitdah i. Gaem
1. Rock CRYSTAL | τ᾿ Ὁ Rev JASVER
white: dear red τ Gfague
2. GREEN Besvi | 2. ChevsoLiTe SaRD
green! clear. yellow: clrar. red! dell.
vi. [YAs®phòh] v. Sappir iv. Néphek
Green Jasrer | Lars Lazui GARNET
green: dfagne. blue ; ofague. red: clear.
ix. AplAmAh ὅδοῦ vii. Léiem
AMETHYST RED AGATE CAIRNGORM
purple : clear. red : ofague yellow : clear
sbriped. Ὁ ChrvsorzasE
(Rev.)
yellowegreen : de//.
xii. [YahA10m] xi. Soham x. Του
WHITE CARNELIAN | -—_MALACRITE 1. YELLOW
or green; afague SERPENTINE
ICARNELIAN-FACcED striped. yellow ; oPagne
᾿ Onvx : 2. CHRYSOLITE
white : opague, yellow : clear.
or, in order of colours i—
opague clear
Red Ὄνεν, NéFHEK striped Banò
Yellow] Tarsis PITDAH ?greenish Le$ex
Green | Yaseruik BARfKETA* |striped ὅδηαμ
Blue | SarPir (purple)
White | YanXLom

(originally)

One stone remains, which does not appear in the

breastplate, but is mentioned in several other passages.

This is Zad&od (AV ‘agate,' ἘΝ ' ruby‘),
21. Kadkod. pich is rendered în ἴδ. 5412 by ἴασπις,
iaspis, Symm. καρχηδόνιον, and in Ezek. 27 16 by χορχορ,
chodchod. The word £adkéd may be from ὙἹ2 ‘strike
fire’ (ep Ar. red'); but the renderings χορχορ and
καρχηδόνιον suggest confusion of d and x; cp Pesh.
karkedna for Shi, [ἀχάτης] in Ex. 2819 8912. The
rendering καρχηδόνιον suggests the ‘Carthaginian
carbunele' of Pliny; and if, as seems probable, ἃ red
stone is intended, the ἴασπις of 15, 5412 must be inter-
preted as a zed, not a green jasper. See Υδέῤραδώ,
δ 13 above, and cp AGATE, RUBY,

For δάπεῖν (‘ emery ') which is not a ‘ precious stone,”
and for the descriptive ’ezdat and ra’motk, see
above, 8 4.

A distorted version of the ‘high priest’s breastplate "
is offered by the ‘covering of the king of Tyre'! in

‘ A Ezek. 2813, the individual stones of
22, ‘Covering viich have already been discussed
5 above, In this passage the LXX
i repeats its list of Ex 28ry-20, in
the same order, but inserts καὶ ἀργύριον καὶ χρυσίον
between ἴασπις (vi.) and λιγύριον (vii.). This arose
probably through (1) a misreading. aprypion for
λιγυριον, and (2) a misunderstanding of the last word
in the list in MT (s@445=Vg. aurum), which would
be facilitated by the double meanings of both My. and
ἤλεκτρον. On the other hand, MT followed by Vg.
gives only nixe stones, and in a new order, as follows :—
Odem, pitdah, yakdlom (=the ‘first row,' (i.) and (ii.
of Ex. 2817 f., followed by (vi. ) interchanged with (i
by confusion of ya4dlom and dardeth); then tartz$,
Wham, γαϊδραδα (=the ‘fourth row' [x., xi., xii.] of
Ex.): so that ydi#s4e4 is brought into its right place
at(vi.) of the present list (=/aores οὔ 6); then, sappir,
rnòphek, béréketh (=the ‘second row' of Ex., but with
sappir and ndphek transposed, and d4r4%eth instead of

| pahdiom); thenzakab (Vg. aurum, ‘gold’ } as noted above.

1 [Cp CWerus, $ 2, PARADISE, β 3, and Crit. βέδ. where
the text of Ezek. 28 το Κ᾽ is considered.)

4810

STONES (PRECIOUS)

'These derangements are instructive. ‘That they
represent an old text is clear from Vg.; but that the
corruption is later than @ is probable, firstly because &
follows Ex. 28137 (the variant dpy. x. xp. being
mainly explanatory of λιγ.), secondly, because the
derangements are all explicable on the single sup-
position that they are intended to remove difficulties
which are raised by the identifications propounded by
the LXX. ᾿

(1) The identifications ὀμΐρννε -ε σάρδιον, and ndphet=
ἄνθραξ, brought two red stones together, So long as
‘odem, which is ‘red' in any case, meant red jasper, it
was opaque, and gave a certain contrast. ‘Sards,'
however, are often nearly clear. HMence a difficulty,
which was removed by transposing κπὔὄρλεξ and sappir 3
the further difficulty thus created, that the red ποῤλεὰ is
brought next to the red X%é, ἀχάτης, not being felt,
because, as we shall see, the ‘third row' dropped out
altogether.

(2) The identification δάνγόξεία = σμάραγδος had
already brought about the transposition of γάϊδράξᾷ
and yahdiGm, so as to separate the two green stones,
and had caused the confusion in the LXX between
ὀνύχιον and βηρύλλιον in xi. and xii In MT it has
had the further result that 4aré2e?£ in.the old sense of
a clear colouriess stone became interchanged with the
opaque colourless ya4d/0m. Moreover δάγέξεία, if it
meant σμάραγδος, meant ‘green’; and ἴασπις was
«green, whereas σμάραγδος was ambiguous, and
γαλδίδηε had no special colour. So on all grounds
baréketh went down to (vi.) and ya44/5m up to (ili).

(3) Further, to restore y&&p4#% to its proper place
at (vi), and perhaps as an alternative method of
separating dem and rép£ek, the whole of the ‘ fourth
row” was interpolated between rows one and two.

(4) Finally and consequently, the ‘third row' fell
out altogether; ἐόίονε, \yipior, being taken for
Fhexrpor—i.e. ἀργύριον καὶ xpuriov—and confused with
the sd%45 (=Vg. aurum), which actually ends the
description both in MT and (δ.

Another distorted version of the same list of stones is
supplied by the ‘Foundations' of the New Jerusalem,
in Rev. 21197 Here, as regards the

Frodi Fonnda” order, the problem has been, how to
Torusalem adapt the twelve stones of the breast-

plate, in their four rows-of-three, to the
foundations of a ‘foursquare' city. The result is as

follows: —
1. ἴασπις σάπφειρος χαλκήδων.
IL. σμάραγδος σαρδόννξ, σάρδιον.
III. χρυσόλιθος βηρύλλιον τοπάξιον.
IV. χρυσόπρασος ὑάκινθος ἀμέθυστος.

Of these rows-of-three, the first row is the second
row of the ‘breastplate,’ given in reversed order, (vi.),
{v.), {iv.), with χαλκήδων for (ndpret) ἄνθραξ at (iv.).
The second row is the first row of the ‘ breastplate," also
in reversed order (iîi.), (ii.), (i.), with σαρδόννξ exchanged
for τοπάζιον at (ii). The third row is the fourth row
of the ‘ breastplate' in direct order (x.), (xi.), (xii.}, but
with τοπάζιον exchanged for σαρδόνυξ at (x.). The
fourth row is the third row of the ‘breastplate' also in
direct order (vii.), (vili. ), (ix.), but with χρυσόπρασος for
λυγύριον at (vii) and ὑάκινθος for ἀχάτης at (vili.).

That is to say, the ‘ Foundations
are concelved as in the diagram
iv. appended, and to describe them
the writer has started from the
II. | v. angle * between sides IT. and III
. He has first described II. and L.,
vi. in correct sequence ; but when he
4 reached IV, and III, he has
recurred to the traditional order
within each of the ‘rows-of-three," or has perhaps
attempted to work outwards again from his starting-
point at the angle between II. and III
This account also adds several minor points. (x)

i i i

vili. vii

mn

4811

STOOL

The confusion between σαρδύνυξ and τοπάζιον suggests
that the authority, which is followed, read βηρύλλιον for
3ham at no. xi. ($ 18), and ὄνυξ, or σαρδόνυξ for
zahdibm at no. xii. (8 19). (2) The χαλκήδων which
takes the place of ἄνθραξ at no, iv. substitutes a greez
gem (*dioptase' or copper silicate) for the red ‘gamnet’;
giving some slight support to the discarded rendering
m-f-£-t (‘malachite’) for πόρλεά, but confirming the
view that σμάραγδος in Rev. does not mean a green
stone merely —for χαλκήδων was itself regarded as a
variety of σμάραγδος. Σμάραγδος here, therefore, may
perhaps stili be translated ‘crystal’ as in its primary
meaning. (3) The χρυσόπρασος which takes the place
of λεγύριον and is not otherwise found in OT or NT,
belongs, like χαλκήδων and σαρδόννξ, to a more
advanced stage of experience, when intermediate tints
were recognised; it may represent either a greerisà
‘ chrysolith," or, more probably, the opaque applegreen
‘chrysoprase' (chalcedony tinte with nickel oxide),
which is intermediate in tint between a yellow serpentine
or yellow jasper, and the λίθος ὁ πράσινος (cp μαλαχῖτεε)
ofGen. 212, ‘The modern ‘prase’ (deepgreenchalcedony}
and its variant the jasper-spotted ‘bloodstone’ were
used for scaraboid gems as early as the sixth century
B.C. in the Levant {e.g. Myres and Ohnefalsch-Richter,
Cyprus Museum Catalogue, No. 4581), but are not
clearly to be identified even in Pliny. (4) The ὑάκινθος,
which takes the place of ἀχάτης, is similarly mentioned
in OT or NT only here and in Rev. 917, ὑακίνθινος ;
cp Enoch 712 (of ‘streams of fire’). Pliny (3740)
represents it as a duli sort of ‘amethyst.’’ Solinus
describes what is evidently the modern ‘sapphire
(blue corundum) and says that it came from Ethiopia;
probably he is thinking of a port-of-exchange on the
Red Sea, and consequently of the true Indian gem.
Later, the meaning expanded, including many different-
coloured varieties {five according to Epiphanius, six
according to Ben Mansùr [quoted at length in King,
Nat. Hist. of Prec. Stones, 250 91]. But the use of
Ayacinthus in Vg. Symm. to render sarà? in Cant. 514
(where the LXX has ἄνθραξ) as well as by Symm. in
Ezek. 116 2813 (where the I.XX has the normal χρυσό-
λιθος) suggests that an early use of ὑάκινθος may have
been to render the native Indian word which appears
in Arabic as y4Z2/—this denoting the modern ‘jacinth,"
a ‘noble’ variety of ‘zircon’ (zirconium silicate}, which
is a transparent deep-red stone. Now the ὑάκινθος of
Rev. 2120 takes the place of a dark-red translucent
stone, #3, ἀχάτης. The epithet ὑακινθίνους of Rev.
917, too, is conpled with πυρίνους ' fire-like’ (cp Enoch
712, above, and the equation Ayacint4z:=d4v0paf in
Cant. 514), so that in both cases ‘sapphire’ is out of
the question, whilst the sultry glow of the ‘jacinth' is
exactly what is wanted. Moreover, both ὑάκενθος and
ἀχάτης might very well stand as parallel attempts to
transliterate y4#2/, and the displacement of the one by
the other becomes in every way intelligible.

Other passages in Rev. dealing with ‘precious stones’ have
been noted already above—er. ἴασπις, κρυσταλλίζων, 3ὶ τι
(8 13); ἴρις ὅμοιος ὁράσει σμαραγδινῷ 43 (8 Si θάλασσα ὑαλένη
ὁμοῖα κρυστάλλῳ 46 (8 ο)η. The striking εἰπε ὅμοιος ὁράσει
λίθῳ ἰάσπιδι καὶ σαρδὶῳ recalls the portrait statues of Roman
Emperors and others, in which the raiment is worked out in
hard-coloured stones—a fashion introduced in the last years of
the Republic from Ptolemaic Egypt. LL. M.

C. W. King, Natural Hist. of Precious Stones; Antique
Gems (1866); ὃ. Menani, Giyptique Orientale (1883); N. Story

Maskelyne, Catalogueofthe Mariborough
24. Bibliography. Geres ἃ Introduction) ; J. H. Middleton,

Ancient Gems (1891)i Flinders Petrie,
‘Precious Stones’ in Hastings' 2.8; Furtwangler, Anzife
Cermmen (1900).

STONING. See LAW AND JUSTICE, $ 12,
STOOL, in 2 K. 410, represents NDI, disse (A1ppoc),

on the original meaning of which word see THRONE, 1

On the DIN, Sadyim (ἘΝ ‘birthstool"), of Ex. 116 cp
Portery, $ 8, and Baentsch's note, with the references in
BDR, s.2.

4812

STORAX

STORAX. σ᾿ It is plausible to find the storax (so
RVms.) mentioned în Gen. 8037 as MID, Z4re4, where
EV has POPLAR (paBÀoc CTYPAKINHM; Ar. /ubrd
=storax). In Hos.4r3, however, the Zi8me& is men-
tioned as a shady tree; this does not suit the storax,
which is a mere bush. The shrub called storax by the
ancients (Diosc. 179; Plin. 2121725) is the Siyrax
efficinalis, a showy shrub covered with a profusion of
white flowers, found throughout Syria and Palestine
and abundantly in the hill regions of Gilead, Carmel,
Tabor, Galilee, etc., and other places (FF? 354).

Storax exuded a gum, which was used for incense (and also for
medicinal purposes), and at an early period formed an important
article of Phccnician trade. It is to be carefully distinguished
from the modem article, which is the prodnct of the Ligsid

ambar Orientale. Lagarde (Mitth. 1234) has suggested with
great probability that the name Storax is derived from the Heb.

*95, 5422 (balm'); but whether the two words denote the same
thing is is doubtful. See Bam, g 1.

2. RVini also gives ‘storax' in Gen. 3725 4811 for
πιά). 1643 th (after Aq. στύραξ [in both], Sym. στύραξ,
and Vg. storax [in 481], which was adopted by
Bochart); EV, however, has SPICERY, SPICES (g.
More probably (so RV®&) the gum intended is the
Tragacanth (Ar. nadd'a, Syr. andalà ailà, cp Lòw, 24),
which is the resinous gum of the Astraga/us gummifer,
of which numerous species exist in Palestine.

Like "1g (in connection with which it occurs), tragacanth was

an article of commerce imported to Egypt (according to Ebers,
Egypten, 292, the word has been found in Egyptian), and also
to Tyre (Ezek. 27 17, see Co. ad /oc.), There is no reference to
this: product in the mN33 ma of 2K.2013 Is 392 (EVmg
‘house of his spicery'; so Aq. Sym., Vg.), on which see
Trento.

‘storax’ for στακτή in Ecclus. 2415; but RV (as
Εὖ in | Ex. 8034) has STAGE lr. The fragrant resin ino
tended may perhaps be the gum tragacanth mentioned above ©
STORE CITIES, STORE HOUSES (ΠΏ), E
lu 1K. 919, εἴς. See City (/.), PITHOM, $
According to Winckler (G/2 στο), the phrase means ‘ cities of
the govemnore” (Ass. Salma, plur. sa&naiu; Phon. 13} cp
FRIEND)
STORE (ΠῚ ὉΠ; from ION ' pietas’ [see Lovino-

KINDNESSÌ, in allusion to the mutual affection of parents and
young; Lev. 1119 Dt.1418[17] Job30 131 Ps, 10417 Jer.87 Zech.
59; ᾿αἰσ]σίεἼιδα (in Job and Jer.], ἔποψ {in Zech:], ἐρωδιός or
dp. lin Lev. and Ps.], πελεκάν lin Dt.]; Vg. Aexodio [in Lev.]),
Agrodius [in Job and' Ps.], ozsocrosazis lin De.], wrileus fin Jer.
and Zech.]). One of che unclean birds.

Both the White (Cicoria alba) and the Black Stork
{C. nigra) are found in Palestine,

‘The White Stork is a well-known visitant to Europe,
and is occasionally, though rarely, seen in Great Britain;
in Palestine it is usually met with during the month of
April (Jer. 87), on its way N. to its breeding-places from
its winter quarters in Central and S. Africa. It is
regarded as a sacred bird and never molested, and in
return acts to some extent as a scavenger. It frequents
the haunts of man, and usually nests on such prominent
structures as chimneys or towers, more rarely on trees,
Many legends and stories have grouped themselves
around this bird.

The Black Stork has a black head, neck, and back;
it winters in Palestine, and, avoiding the habitations of
man, frequents the deserts and plains, especially in the
neighbourhood of the Dead Sea. Asa rule it lives in
small flocks and breeds on trees or rocks ; in the summer
it migrates northwards. A. E. 5.

STORY WRITER (o [eic] τὰ mpocmmtonTA).
1 Esd. 217, See REHUM, 5.

STRAIT OF JUDEA (roy mpionoc . . - THC
tovyàalac), Judith 39. See JUDEA.

1 AVmg. and RVmeg. both recognise ‘stork' as the right
rendering of 4dstd4l. The former gives, ‘or the feathers of the
stork and ostrich,' the latter, ‘Bat are her pinions and feathers
(like) the stork's?" Im the text AV, ‘or wings and feathers
unto the ostrich'; but ΕΝ (agreeing with Di.), ‘ But are her
pinions and feathers kindly?' The text is difficult, and most
probably corrupt (see Budde and Duhm).

4813

STRANGER AND SOJOURNER

STRANGER AND SOJOURNER. This phrase,
together with ‘stranger or sojourner* and ‘sojourner
or stranger,’ is used by AV to translate

1. Terms. P's phrase 20 ΠῚ δ: RY more consistentiy
has ‘sojourner’ for YAN uniformiy. “ἢ, g#7 and
avi tishabk denote a resident alien or μέτοικος, a

foreigner settled for a longer or shorter time under
the protection of a citizen or family, or of the state ; as
distinguished from 553, Jew-nebAdr, or 55), notiri
(fem. 21133), which simply denote a foreigner.
is a more general term, including both foreigner and
stranger. It is used in Nu, 1640 of anyone strange to
—i.e., not belonging to—the priestly clan. It is often
used of persons who might also be called ποῖνε, Is. 17.
The distinction between gèr and #0s4454 will be con-
sidered later ($ 117). The verb wa, g47, is sometimes
a denominative of gr in its technical sense of resident
alien, and sometimes has the more general sense of adige.

® usually has προσήλυτος for g#r, less frequentiy πάροικος ;
which latter is the usual rendering of foskéli ; gr is usually
παροικέω; and ἀλλότριος is the usual rendering alîke of nod4r9,
nékhîr, and dr; φᾶν, however, is often rendered by dAAoyerfs.
The Vulgate does not clearly distinguish these terms, but uses
advena, colonus, and feregrinus, etc., for κὸν and tashdbk;
alienus, etc., for nekhar and πᾶν, and gives very various render:
ings of pok4ri.

I. Foreigners, other than girim (strictly so-called), in
the land of Israel. —Jud. 11921 27-36 (7|} make it clear
that Canaanite clans maintained them-
Ri selves in the land long after the settle-
ment, At first, many of these clans
stood to the Israelite tribes in the ordinary relations of
neighbouring independent states. In conquered districts
surviving Canaanites would be reduced to slavery.
Where, however, they were too numerous, or submitted
on conditions, they were employed in forced labour
(corude), und... ne, Jud.1 28. Thus iu Josh. 927, JE, the
Gibeonites are spoken of as temple-servants. Probably
the status of such subject-clans was similar to that of
the girim; but the data do not enable us to decide
whether they were formally reckoned as g@rîm, or
placed in a distinet category, The deuteronomic editor
of Joshua supposes that the Israelites exterminated the
Canaanites at the Conquest, Josh. 1040 1120. Such a
view could not have been held unless, long before the
exiles, the Canaanites in Israel had disappeared as a
distinct class and been absorbed in Israel and its pérzm.
This absorption is also attested by the inclusion in Nch.
77 25 5760 of the Gibeonites, Solomon's Servants, and
the Nethinim among the Men of Israel.

Many of the slaves owned by Israelites were of
foreign birth; but the slaves became members of the

, family and shared its sacra, and thus virtu-

Se ally became Israelites. Thus, in Israel,

wiver te slave was circumeised (Gen. 1712 /. P),

* kept the Sabbath (Ex. 20r0 E), and the
Passover (Ex. 1244 P). See SLAVERY.

The examples of Moses, Boaz, David, Solomon, etc.,
and the law as to marriage with a female captive (Dt.
2110-14), show that Israelites during the monarchy
frequently married foreign wives. These, like the
slaves, became Israelites in civil and religious status;
thus Ruth, though a widow, assumes that, if she remains
in her mother-in-law's family and settles in her late
husband's native land ‘thy people shall be my people,
and thy god my god’ (Ruth 116). See MARRIAGE,

The trade of Israel was mostly in foreign hands, and
trade-routes passed through the land. For the most
part traders would enter or pass through

σι, 247,

« Trader Ὡς country in caravans. Similariy,
μ᾿ ΤᾺ ἢ
mercenaries. nomad cians would be occasional

visitors, especially in the border lands.
In ordinary times such caravans and clans could rely on

1 Kittel, #/75f. 0/5». (ET) 2 187, points out that the subjection
of Israelites to the corode, x K.12416, must have tended to

obliterate any surviving distinction between Israelites and
Canaanites, 1K.92122isbyaiateeditor. [Cp SoLomon, $6.

4814

STRANGER AND SOJOURNER

their own strength and the general moral sentiment
without seeking any special protection. Dt. 227 f
gives us the terms on which caravans might pass
through a foreign country. They were to keep to the
beaten track and pay for food and water. Further,
the more powerful Israelite kings were anxious to foster
commerce, and no doubt did what they could to afford
a general protection to traders. Facilities for foreign
traders were sometimes guaranteed by treaties; e.g.,
the ‘streets’ or quarters which the Syrians had in
Samaria, and the Israelites in Damascus, 1 Καὶ. 2034. Cp
TRADE AND COMMEKCE, $$ 467 The mercenaries of
the royal bodyguard formed another important class of
resident foreigners (2 S.818 1518 20723 1 K.158 5044
2 K.114 ΕΝ); cp CHERETAITES and PELETHITES. It
is noteworthy that David addresses the mercenary
captain Ittai the Gittite as a rodkrî who came but
yesterday and might be expected at once to quit a
Service that promised little advantage (2 5, 1519). On
the other hand, in Uriah the Hittite we have a foreign
soldier who married a high-born Israelite woman (28:11).
11. Gérim in the technical sense. —The peculiar status
of the g#» arose (1) from the primitive sentiment that a
T: stranger was an enemy, an outlaw ; (2)

5. TeMbOFAFY from the absence of any public police.
Buesi. ‘The guarantee of security of life lay in

the blood-bond between a man and his kinsfolk. He
was protected by the assurance that his kinsmen would
avenge his murder upon the criminal and ἀὲς kinsmen.
Thus the foreigner, who was far away from his kin, was
at the mercy of any evil-disposed persons. His only
safety lay in putting himself under Israelite protection,
by becoming the gèr or guest of an Israelite family.
He then became included in the blood-bond, and his
hosts defended or avenged him as if he were of their
own kin. As in Arabia, such protection was freely
accorded even to coniplete strangers. Abraham and
Lot (Gen. 18 ΧΑ) press their hospitality on unknown
travellers. In Judg.19 the depravity of the men of
Gibeah is shown by their inhospitable behaviour ; and
in Job 3132 it is a mark of the righteous man that he
does not leave the g&r—i.e., the stranger who wishes to
be received as gàr—to lodge in the street. In Arabia
{WRS, Ain., 41 32) the stranger becomes a ger by
eating or drinking with his patron ; ‘even the thief who
has surreptitiously shared the evening draught of an
unwitting host is safe. Nay, it is enough to touch the
tent-ropes, imploring protection.* Further (259), ‘he
who journeys with you by day and sleeps beside you at
night is also sacred.’ But the hospitality so readily
accorded can be enjoyed unconditionally only for three
or four days. ὙΠῸ gér who stays longer ceases to be a
guest and becomes a dependent (Bertholet, 27). But,
while the relation lasted, the obligation laid upon the
host to protect the g7 was stringent ; the stories of Lot
and of the Levite at Gibeah show what extraordinary
sacrifices a host would make to defend his guests, The
latter narrative reminds us that, in eariytimes, an Israelite
in a strange tribe was almost as helpless as a foreigner.
Analogy suggests that whole clans or tribes might put
themselves under the protection of a more powerful
people and become its g2r/w%. ‘The several

6. Clans, Jewish clans of Medina were compelled by
SÎ0 their weakness to become /irdx {φέρη} of
the Aus and Khazraj. Or a group might attach itself
to its cousinst—i.e., to a tribe with which it reckoned
kindred’ (WRS Xtr. 42). Thus the Israclites were
gérim in Egypt, Ex 2221; Bertholet, so, considers
that the subject Canaanites became a kind of ρέγζ to
Israel, and that foreign traders and mercenaries may be
considered gèrzme of the kings: but the terms gér, 247,
are not applied to any of these classes. Both the
Israelites and the Canaanites rendered service to their
patrons, We might perhaps regard as bodies of série
the “mixed multitude'—Ex. 1233 JE ap, Nu. 114 JE

npnos-—that went up from Egypt with Israel. Possibly,
4815

STRANGER AND SOJOURNER

too, the Kenites might stand in the same relationship.
See MINGLED PEOPLE, KENITES.
‘The traveller’s necessities might be met by a few days”
protection ; but foreigners often came into the country
needing a permanent home, Like
Ἰ, pani Jacob, they might have provoked the
" dangerous hostility of powerful enemies.
In Arabia, ‘men are constantly being cut off from their
own tribe, generally for murder within the kin, some-
times for other offences against society, or even for
dissipated habits. . . . ‘There were, however, many
‘other circumstances that might lead free Arabs, either
individually or in a body, to seek the protection of
another tribe and become its jirdn' {Az 45). In
such cases the gr became for a longer or shorter period
the settled client of a clan, or chief, or other individual
head of a family.

Bertholet maintains with great probability that such
ggrim would often attach themselves to the king ; and
that he would welcome them as a means of strengthen-
ing his authority. He includes among the royal g&rwm
the mercenaries and foreign traders. "He further sup-
poses that a foreigner might attach himself to a sanctu-
ary as g2 of Yahwé, and understands Ps. 15: 614 as
referring to such cases, The Gibeonites would be
another case in point.

The express references to g7rZ7 in Israel, however, deal
with the g& who is a dependent member of an ordinary
family ; in Ex. 2020, etc., the g2- is grouped with the
slaves and the cattle. There are.constant exhortations to
deal justly and generously with the g#r (Ex. 2221, etc.);
he is grouped with other needy and helpless classes, the
Levites, orphans, widows (Dt. 2611-13 Ps. 946), and the
poor {Lev. 1910). The ρῶν was at the mercy of the
individual or the clan within whose gates he took refuge.
They could take advantage of his helplessness to accoril
protection ouly under oppressive and burdensome con-
ditions. ‘The prophets (Jer.76 148 223 Ezek. 22729
Zech. 7 το Mal. 35) and the Law (Ex. 239 Dt. 2417 Lev.
19 34) alike protest against such oppression. It appears,
moreover, from Dt. 116 2417 27 το, that the g@r was not
wholly at the mercy of his patrons; disputes between
them might be referred to judges,

The gérzzi, however, were not always poor; Lev.
25 47 contemplates the possibility that the g# may prosper
and purchase impoverished Israelites as slaves. Shebna,
Hezekiah's treasurer (Is. 2215), was probably a foreigner,
and the captaiîns of foreign mercenaries and other forcign
courtiers would readily acquire power and wealth.

‘The relation of the g?r to his patron was voluntary
on both sides, and there was nothing in the nature of
the relationship to prevent its being terminated at will
by either party; but circumstances—the need of the
ger and the power of his patron—tended to make the
relation permanent, In Arabia (Air. 43) ‘sometimes
the protectors seem to have claimed the right to dismiss
their /îrdx at will . . . atothertimes . . . protection
is constituted by a public advertisement and oath at the
sanctuary, and holds good till it is renounced at the
sanctuary.®

The terms upon which g@r7m were received were
matter of agreement between them and their patrons,
and their position was similar to that of ‘hired
servants,’ “ir, s4Zkîr, with whom they are classed
(Lev. 25640 Dt, 2414). Only, the g# was more helpless
than the native sé24r, and less able to insist on favour-
able terms. Jacob at Haran, Israel in Egypt, rendered
service for their hosts; David fought for Achish—or
pretended to do so. Micab's Levite came to Mt.
Ephraim to find someone with whom he might live as
g8r (ab, Zagzr), and agreed to serve Micah as a priest
for board and lodging, and ten pieces of silver and a
suit of clothes annually (Judg. 17). ‘The prosperity of
Jacob illustrates the possibility of a ger becoming rich ;
and his stealthy flight shows that a g# might find it
difficult to leave his patron.

4816

STRANGER AND SOJOURNER

STREET

Naturally—just as Jacob married Laban's daughters, | g; but în view of this, and of the fact that everywhere

and Moses Jethro's- -g@r/m sometimes married Israelite
women—-e.g., Uriah and Bathsheba. But the case of
Jacob and Arabian parallels {Bertholet, 62) suggest
that a σῦν who returned to his native land could not
compel’ his Israelite wife to accompany him, The
gerim, as a class, would necessarily be landless. More-
over, both prophets and lawgivers did their best to
keep family estates in the family. Their efforts, and
the sentiments that prompted them, would tend to ex-
clude even the rich ρὸν from acquiring land.

In pre-exilic literature gr is essentially a term de-
scribing civil, not religious, status. But civil status
involved religious consequences. Various
104, 0° religious observances were matters οὗ

perio public order and decency, and as such
woukl be required from σέρνει, Thus, in the Book of
the Covenant, the duty and privilege of the Sabbath
extend to the gériz: (Ex. 2010 2812;) cp Amos85).
Further, a foreign gr would naturally wish to worship
Yahwé as Lord of the land of Israel, without necessarily
renouncing his allegiance to the god of his native land
{cp 2 K. 1724-41). Moreover, it is probable, though by
no means certain, that the gr may sometimes have
been included in the sacra pf his patrons, as a member
of the family. On the other hand, Moabite, Ammonite,
and Phcenician communities at Jerusalem maintained
their native worship for centuries (1 K. 1157 2 Κα. 2313).
But in any case the religious obligations and duties of
the μέν are simply the consequences of his civil status
as an inhabitant of the land of Yahwé, a guest of the
people of Yahwè; they are limited by his non-Israelite
blood.

In Deuteronomy, the g#» seems expressly included in
the family sacra ; in 189-17 the g# is to share in the

9. In DI, Fejoicings at the fensts of Weeks and Taber-

i " nacles—s.e., partake of the flesh of sacri-
fices, amongst other food. The teaching of the
prophets and Deuteronomy, which drew a sharp
religious distinction between Israelites and foreigners,
naturally furthered the assimilation of the g#r to the
Israclite—the only alternative, the entire exclusion of
gerim, was impossible. Thus, in the deuteronomistic
passage Dt, 81 τα, the g4 is to be exhorted to study and
obey the law, and in 2910-13 the g@r is to enter into
covenant with Yahwé,

The exile and return further promoted the religious
identification of Israel and the 27r7 ; those who shared

these experiences with their patrons became
10. Later. united by close ties. Moreover, in the re-
stored community, g# lost its civil, and acquired a
religious meaning. © A subject community, under a
foreign governor, hemmed in by settlement of foreigners,
was not likely to include a class of dependent foreigners.
The tendency was for the Jews to unite with their
neighbours to form a heterogeneous community. They
were saved from this fate by asserting an exclusive
relation to Yahwè and his Temple. Under such circum-
stances the foreigner who united himself with Israel
had to become a worshipper of Yahwè, g#r came to
mean proselyte, Constantly, especially in the Law of
Holiness, laws are said to apply equally to the Israelite
and the τ, according to the common formula Zagg?r
kd'esrdk (Lev. 24:6, εἰς.) The gàrim must refrain
from idolatry (Lev. 1826 202), from blasphemy against
God (Lev. 2416), must observe the Day of Atonement

8. Pre-exilic

(Lev.1629-31), the Passover (Ex, 1219 48 Nu. 914; but |

cp below), must abstain from eating blood (Lev. 17 10-13),
and must observe certain rules in offering sacrifices
(Lev. 178 22:18). The religious status of the κόρ is
almost the same as that of the Israelite—-almost, not
quite, In Lev.2342 it is the native Israelite, the
*ezrak, who is to observe the Feast of Tabernacles, in
express contradiction to Dt, 8112, which includes the

1 The references to the er în these verses are sometimes
ascribed te a deuteronomic editor.

4817

|

else 'esra4 is combined with ger,) Bertholet suggests that
in Lev. Zc. g# may have dropped out. Ἐκ. 128 lays
down that if the g7> wishes to eat the P’assover he must
be circumcised. ‘Probably, with circumcision, the μὸν,
or at any rate his descendants, attained to the full civil
and religious standing of an Israelite. Forin Dt. 238
we are told that the children of the Edomites and the
Egyptians shall enter into the congregation of Yahwè
in the third generation, and this may be extended to
gerim generally. It is true that, in spite of Ezekiel's
direction that grz should be given land in Israel
{4722/.), P's Law of the Jubilee theoretically reserves
the land for the original Jewish holders. Such a law,
however, could scarcely have been enforced against
foreigners in a country under foreign rule. And gener-
ally, the tendency must have been for ger-families to be
absorbed in the Jewish community. The main distinc-
tion between the g27 in P and the later proselyte is
that the gér is still thought of as coming to live ina
Jewish community. On the use of g@r as proselyte,
as in 2 Ch. 3025, see PROSELYTE,

III. The distinction between gir and !6shabh. —
Outside of the Priestly Code #s448% occurs only in Ps.

; 8913%(=1Ch. 2915) In eight passages
11, 96’ And ;t is either cospled with, or parallel io,
τις gèr; in three others it is, like gar else
where, coupled with sé44/; and in two others it is
qualified by Zaggarzz, ‘that are gàr's’ Neither the
usage, nor the versions (see above, $ 1), suggest any clear
distinetion of the two ternis, and of the many distinetions
drawn, none have met with much acceptance. Prob-
ably the passages in which /3s4454 occurs represent an
unsuccessful attempt to substitute a new term for the
old gir. The older gerie were now incorporated with
Israel, and a new term—either g# qualified by an
addition, or simply fò:4@544 —might have served to
distinguish newcomers from the descendants of former
g#r7m, and to indicate that the status of new foreign
adherents was different from that of the old giri.
The familiar term ρῶν, however, persisted.

Lev. 2535, ‘And if thy brother be waxen poor, and
his band fail with thee; then thou shalt uphold him:

as a stranger [gé] and a sojourner

12. Lev.1535. (25:4464] shall he live with thee," RV,
or better ‘thou shalt uphold him as ἃ g#r and foshabi,
and he shall live with thee' presents peculiar difficulties.
Ger and tòshabk are usually the antithesis of ‘ brother.”
The Hebrew naturally implies that the poor Israelite
would actually take the position of a gi&r—i.e,, fall
from his full Israelite citizenship; it might, perhaps,
be strained to mean that he was to receive the same
help and protection ; or this meaning might be obtained
by reading 5 ‘like' before g& with &. Driver and
White (5207), with Dillmann and Siegfried-Stade,
excise g#r τοῦ fishabk as a gloss.

Literature.—Bertholet, Die Stellung der Isracliten und der
Suden zu den Fremden (to which this article is greatly in
debted); WRS Ain, 42/2, 142; Rel Sem. 75 Ji; Benz, HA
3394; Nowack, 47413367 w.H. B.

BTRANGE WOMAN. For (1) MINN, αῤλόένεια
(Tudg.112), see JerHTHAN| for (2) 09), nabrizgal (Pr. 216,
eto.), see STRANGER, 8 1.

STRANGLED. AV ‘things strangled," RV ‘what

is strangled’ (πνικτόν), Acts152029 Zast. See COUNCIL oF
JerusaLEM, & 12, Foob, ἢ rr, and SHamBLEs.

STRAW (1311, Gen. 2425 εἴς, ; cp ]3MD, 15. 2510).
See AGRICULTURE, $ 8; CATTLE, $ 5; cp also BRICK,

STREAM OF EGYPT (D'IVP ὉΠ), 15. 2712, See
EGyPT [RivER ΟΕ].

STREET (2ÎM), Gen, 192, See CITY, 8 2,4.

1 No. 1513 is only ε tion ; ρει ἴῃ τὶ τῷ,

2 Tossabie im τ ΚΟΤΙΙ ἴα a ποϊοτεαάϊης - stiher an accidente

repetizion of 'the Tishbite,' or, as (58, ἐκ Θεσβῶν, for ‘of Tish-
beh” Cp Tisusen.

4818

STRING
STRING (08), Judg. 169 RVme See Corp.

STRINGED INSTRUMENTS (D'3!9), Ps. 1504 ; see
Music, 88 6-10.

STRIPES (M200), Dt. 253.
$ ra.

STRONG DRINK MIR). Nu. 63 See WINE AND
STRONG DRINK, 8 8.

STRONG HOLD (©Y2%), 2 Sam. 247.
TRESS, MILLO.

STUBBLE. (1) ©}
©) 729 #6en; so rendered in Job2118; elsewhere ‘straw.* See
AGRICULTURE, $ 8/3 CATTLE, $ 5. (3) καλάμη; 1 Cor.812, cp
1 above.

STUD (1) D'IPIN, Aaremmatim, Esth. 810 RV.
See Horse, 8 15]. (2) map, nékuddsti, Cant.l1xt. Graete
very plausibly emends to n‘p3y (See NECKLACE, 3).

SUA {coyà [B]), 1 Esd. 529 RV=Ezra244, SIA.

SUA (MD; yoyyx[el [Β], coye [AL]), a name in
a genealogy of ASHER (g.v., $ 4, îi.), 1 Ch. 736.

SUBA, Εν SUBAS (coyBac [BA]), a group of
children of the servants of Solomon (see NETHINIM) in
the great post-exilic list (see EZRA, ii. $ 9, $ 8 c.), one
of eight inserted in 1 Esd.534 @4 (om. (851) after
Pochereth-hazzebaim || Ezra257= Neh. 7 59.

SUBAI (cyBaei [BA]), 1 Esd.530= Ezra246,
SHALMAL

SUBURBS (1) ©9299, 2iderd% TrepictTOPIa and
ἀφωρισμένα în Josh., περισπόρια πιὰ περιπόλια [17 in Ch. [xara-
σχέσεως or ὧν αὐτῶν τ Ch, 188), mpodoricha.in Nu. [ἀφορίσματα,
23, συγκυροῦντα, τ. 4, ὅμορα or ὁμοροῦντα, Fom., 7. 5), διάστημα,
in Ezek., [ἀγροὶ] ἀφωρισμένοι in Lev. [cp τὴν ἀφωρισμένην 2 5.8,
and see MetHEG-AMMAH]; Lev. 2534 Nu, 352-57 Josh.21 11-19
21-37 39 £ Ezek.452 4817 1 Ch.640 Ὁ [55] 182, RVing.
*pasture.lands.’’ See CATTLE, col. 712, n. 2.

€) DID, farwarim, 2 K.2311 RV ‘precincts”
PARBAR.

SUCATHITES (D'NI), 1 Ch255 ἘΝ, AV
SUCHATHITES. See Socon.

BUCCOTE (NÎ3D, i.e. ‘thickets' or [see Gen. 3317]
‘booths’; usually voxxw@; in Josh, 1827 “θα [B], σωχω [A],
σιχωθ [L]; 2 Chi 417 σεχωωθ [B*vid:] σεχχωθ [Β1], σοχωθ [L];
σκηναί in Gen. 88 17 Ps. 608 1088 [σκηνώματα x}.

1. A town in Gadite territory (Josh. 1327: GAD, ὃ 12
[col. 1587]) in ‘the valley' (‘&re£). It is also mentioned
in 1 K.746, 2 Ch. 417, in connection with Solomon's
foundries, which were in ‘the clay ground (Ὁ) between
Succoth and Zarethan,' The description has been held
to point to ‘Ain es-Saktt, an old site, close to the Jordan,
but ox ‘Z4i5' side, some 9 m. 5. of Beth-shean (so
Robinson), which is supposed to be referred to în these
words of Jerome (Quaest, Hebr. in Gen.), ‘est autem
usque hedie civitas trans Jordanem hoc vocabulo in parte
Scythopoleos." Against this view, however, see ADAM.
Merrill (PEFO, 1878, p. 83) and Conder adopt as the
site the large Tell or mound now called Der ‘Alla, about
1 m. N. of the Zerka, discovered by Warren:;! the
special reason is that the Talmud identifies Succoth with
nby-in, Terala {Neub., Gdogr. 248), which seems to be
this Der ‘Alla. This is rejected by Moore as not agreeing
with the topographical details in Judg. 84-17. All this,
however, is precarious, unless supported by a thorough
textual criticism.

(1) As to Josh. 1327. The text must originally have belonged
toa geographical survey of the Negeb, in which ‘the rest of the
kingdom of Cuskax, king of Heshbon' was assigned to the
Gadites. map is mentioned just before 154 (see ZAPHON), and

most probably îs miswritten for nopr, ‘Maacath’ (in Negeb).2

See LAW AND JUSTICE,

See FoR-

fat; xaAamHi; Ex bia οἵο.

See

‘ 1 See Trelawney Saunders, Zutrod. to the Survey of W. Pal.
1881), 158.
2 “In the valley, Josh. 1827, should be ‘in Maacath Cp

4819

SUKKIIMS

(2) As to 1 K.7 46 (and the |), The true text probahly stated
that Hiram the artificer cast the vessels in Maacath-jerahmeel,
between Maacatb and Zarephath, See ΤΈΒΑΗ.

The other occurrences of the name in MT are very
doubtful. It has been inferred from Gen. 3317 (J},
where Jacob appears to have crossed the Jabbok before
moving on to Succoth and thence to Shechem, that
Succoth lay on the S. side of the Jabbok, near the point
where it forces its way into the Jordan. ’ This is thought
to agree with the representation in Judg.85, where
Succoth is as9a7er/y the first town reached by Gideon
after crossing the Jordan somewhere near Zererah
{Zeredah) and Abel-meholah. This may possibly have
been the notion of the redactor of the narrative ; but it
is not what the original story intended to convey.
‘Succoth' is a corruption either of n35p, Salecah =
“nb», Salhad, the border city at the S. E. corner of Bashan
(cp JEGAR-SAHADUTHA), or, more probably, of Maa-
cath, a district of the Negeb. (Cp, however, GiDEON.)

In Ps. 608 1088 the ‘valley of Succoth” is thought to be that
part of the Jordan valley which adjoins Succoth (cp Josh. 13 27);

ut this unique and obscure phrase is improbable. “The boldest
but also perhaps the most critical conjecture is that the psalmist
wrote ‘I will mete out Cusham and Maacath' (see 25.(2)).

& also recognises a place-name Succoth în τ K.2016 (ev
σοκχωθ [B), ἐν σοκχω [AL]. Both here and in 2; 12 probably
we should read pngo2°5p, ‘on their thrones*; see Cri. 816,

2. A station (N50) mentioned repeatedly in the Exodus

narrative (Ex.12.37 ἴσοκχωθα ΒΕῚ, σοχωθα F*, σοχωθ L] 18.20
coxw0 [L] Nu. 385 σοχωθ [B* 2. 5}. See Exovus, i, $ τὸ,
Gosnen, and Prrhom, ὃ 2, Here, too, ‘Maacath' may
originally have stood (εν 7udice dis est). See WILDERNESS OF
WANDERINGS, T.K.C.

SUCCOTH-BENOTHE (N33 ΓΞ ; ροχχωθβδι-
νειθει [Β]. coxxw@Benigei [A], -Bane10à [1.]}, ἃ
Babylonian idol introduced into Palestine (2 Κ. 1730).
As some critics think, a Hebraised form of Sarpanitum,
consort of Marduk (on the name see Jastrow, ZA,
121 [Germ. ed. 115], 449). So Rawlinson, Schrader,
Hommel, Delitzsch (Per. 215) explains Sakkut-binuta
(‘supreme judge of the world'?). But surely if the
usual explanation of Am, 526 is correct we can hardly
doubt that it is a corruption of jva map, Saccith-Kewan
{two names of Saturn combined; see CHIUN AND
SICCUTH).

There is, however, a better theory. It îs probably of the
non-Israelite Negeb that the original narrative spoke as the
country from which the new calonists of the cities of γῶν (see
Sumron) came. Among them were the men of Say—ie.,
Jerahmeel ; the idol they made was of ΠῚ, or rather n'w9,

‘Cushith,' a title of the so-called ‘Queen of Heaven' (or, ‘of
Jerahmeel ‘?) worshipped by the N. Arabians. 888 Cris. διό,

132. possibly comes from ΓΗ͂Σ) (‘2 written too soon). The men

of Cuth, or rather Cush, made Nergal—ze., Jerahmeel (a name
for the Jerahmeclite Baal); those of Hamath (Maacath) made
Ashima—ie., Ishmael; the Arvites (Arabians) made Nibhaz
and Tartak (=Terah); the Sepharvites (Zarephathites) made
Adrammelech and Anammelech (= Jerahmeel). ὀἠΤ' Κὶ Cc.

SUD (coyà [BAQ]; τῶν {Syr.], 504), a Babylonian
stream (canal) near which Jewish exiles are said to have
been settled (Bar. 14). Cp BARUCH [BooK], 88 1, 4.
There must be some error in the text. Since Bar. lr
88 probably had a Hebrew original, we may venture to
assume a confusion between 1 and Ἵ, and read either
mo, Sur, i.e, Sora, the seat of a famous Jewish academy
(So first Bochart), or more probably hg, ‘Shihor,' the

name of a widy in the Negeb, assuming that 055 in the
source from which the writer drew meant Jerahmeel.
See SHIHOR. For a less probable view, see Wetzstein
in Del, /es.®), 701f T.K.C

SUD {cova [B]), 1 Esd. 529 AV= Ezra244, SIA.

SUDIAS (coyàioy [BA]), 1 Esd.526=Ezra24o,
HODAVIAH 4.

SUKKIIMS, RV SUKEIIM (D"2D ; τρωγολγτδι
[BA] τρωγλολυτδι [cp Swete] coryyierm [L]; 7ro-
glodyta var. [Libyes scilicet] Trogodyt&). In 2Ch.123

Ps 6086, where mob ρὸν represents a twice written n3yp (see
1 Psi),

4820

SUN

the army of SHISHAK (g.v.) is described as consisting of
soldiers ‘of Egypt, the Lubim {fe, Libyans), the
Sukkiîm (nv50), and the Ethiopians.”" ΒΥ Sukkiim,
evidently an African nation is meant ; and considering
the position between Libya and Ethiopia, one under-
stands why & and Vg. guess at the 7rog(/)odyte (the
1 correctly wanting in B). This, however, is only a
guess; no such name is known in antiquity. The
Egyptian name for those nomadic tribes of Hamitic
blood, living between Egypt and the Red Sea, was υὐ πὲ,
‘This seems to have about the same meaning as the Greek
name, viz., ‘inhabitants of rocks, cliff-dwellers.'1
Gesenius!s explanation, “dwellers in booths' (nî3b) is philo-
logically and practically impossible. C. Niebuhr, 0ZZ 369, has
observed that the name is almost the same as the D"9N (νάβέν-
gii), 2 K. 10z2 2 Ch. 921, the supposed 'peacoths’ (see
Peacock) brought to Solomen, and conjectures that the word
really means there ‘biack slaves,’ correcting into στρ γέρε, as
above. Assucha word or name remains unknown, W. M. Miiller
proposes, 2 269, to assume pyon, ‘grey-hounds' (from Egyptian
fs), as the original reading in the African curiosities brought to
Solomon, and thinks that the chronicler mistook this for a name
ofan African nation, ‘Thus C. Niehuhr's observation, which is
undouhtedly correct as far as the similarity of both words în
vocalisation, is just reversed. Of course, the last explanation
rests on a somewhat bold assumption. w. M. M.
SUN (WE, DI; As to the
gender of the sun, Semeò or the corresponding word is
masculine in Heb. generally,? Aram. and Ass. In
Arabic it is feminine, but the heathen Arabs knew Sams
as a sun-god (see further below). For sun-worship among
the early Israelites there is Îittle positive evidence, and that
little (one would far rather think otherwise) threatens to
disappear as the result of a searching criticism of the
place-names Beth-shemesh, En-shemesh, Har-heres,
Kir-heres, ‘Timnath-heres, which it is possible are com-
paratively late corruptions of Beth-cusham, En-cusham,
Har-ashhur, Kir-ashhur, Timnath-ashhur (see Crit. Bid.
on 1 8. 6x2 Judg. 135, and other related passages). ‘The
ordinary view, of course, is that vino, Semet, and om

ἀέγες, in the traditional forms of these names, prove that
the places to which the names are taken to have be-
longed were centres of the cultus of the sun-god. We
must remember, however, that the solar character of the
Baals has not been made out (BAAL, $ 2 αὶ ; NATURE-
WORSHIP, $ 5), and (not to fall into repetitions) that it
is in S. Arabia that the worship of sun and moon was
'strikingly prevalent’ On the other hand, Winckler
has produced a considerable body of evidence (most of
it, to be sure, is unsafe) from the early narratives, to
show that solar and lunar mythology is represented în
Hebrew legends, and holds that ‘the god variously
called Ramman, Hadad, and Yahu is not only the
storm-god, but at the same time the god who, in the
spring-tide, restores fruitfulness to the earth, and one
of whose forms is the well-known Tammuz (G/ 278).
In Gen. 4910, where Diilmann supposes the moon to
be represented by Joseph's mother, Winckler holds
that, since wp may be feminine {see Gen. 15r7; and
cp Ges. Zres., sv. wing) and no, ydr24h, neither is nor
can be feminine, the mother is the true representative
of the sun, and we have here a sign of the influence
of a different form of mythology from the pure
Babylonian—viz., the S. Arabian, in which the children
of the moon-god are "Athtar, who is masculine, and
Sams, who is feminine. Winekler also (G/ 2 70) thinks
we may infer that in the early Hebrew myth (which
was also the original Semitic as well as 5. Arabian
myth) Sams, the sun-deity, was the mother, "Athtar
the wife of the moon-god. Zimmern (KA79, 365,
1 (For a consideration of the question whether 2 Ch. 12212
refers to Mizraim or Mizrim, and to Shishak or to Cushi, and
how p«5p should be read, see Siiswax, ἢ 5, and Crif. 210.1

2 Masculine in Ps. 304 19; feminine in Gen. 1517. In Sam.
Pent. it is sometimes constructed with a feminine where MF

has ἃ masculine. Vice versa, in Jer.159 Kt. has MRD where
Kr. has #3 (of the sun).

154 4821

on etym, see ΒΒ).

SUSANCHITES

369) gives a qualified support to Winckler's theories,
but thinks that Egyptian influences on Hebrew cults
may be presumed, in addition to Babylonian. If we
throw back this influence far enough, the possibility of
this may be granted. But, so far as the biblica! evidence
goes, it is surely Babylon {directly or indirectly} rather
than Egypt which is indicated as the source of such
infiuences. We must also desiderate a much keener
and more methodical criticism of the Hebrew texts,
especially of names and phrases bearing on cults and
myths, than is yet habitual among biblical and archeeo-
logical scholars. For instance, is it safe to build either
on the place-name Beth-shemesh, or on the personal
names SAMSON and SHESHBAZZAR (99.v.)? However
this may be, the worship of the sun and moon and of
the ‘host of heaven” in general among the Israelites in
the seventh and sixth centuries is not doubiful (see
Moon, NATURE-WORSHIP, $ 5, STARS, ὃ 4, TAMMUZ).

On the relation of YAhwè to the spring-sun god Marduk, see
Cgearion, $ 8, and cp Zimmern KA 78), 369, 509; on other
points, see CWakIoT, $ 13, Horse, $ 4, NATHAN-MELECH.
See also EcLise. For Sun-DIat (Is. 388) see DIAL; for
Sun-GATE (Jer.182 AVmg.) see Porrerv, HARSITH, cp
JerusALEM, $ 24; for Sun IMAGES see MASSEBAH, $ τ, δ.

τι Κα

SUPH (MID, της εργθρὰς [BAF], τ᾿ €. θδλδοσησ
[L]). the name of a locality, from which, Dillmann
conjectures, the ΒΘ ΓΝ (yam οὐρὰ, EV RED*SEA
[4.v.]) took its name, Dt.1:t (ep 48). The neigh-
bouring names in the traditional text are as perplexing
as Suph, and there is some reason to think that DD, has,
either by accident or under the influence of theory,
misread an earlier text which lay before him.

mio St may originally (cp &, Nu. 2114, épA6yere= nmp) have
been ΠΕΊΣΙ 210, and the whole verse may have run, ‘These are

the words which Moses spoke to all Israel in Arabia of Jerah-
mel, in the wilderness [in Arabia), opposite Zarephath, between
Parah and Peleth and Libnah and Misrim” In Nu.2114 the

same name appears as Suphah (n510). See Vanes, and γέ,
Bib. T.K.C.

SUPPER {AeiTrNon). Mk. 621 ete. See MkaLs,
$ 2 (ὁ), EUCHARIST.

SUR (ccyp [ΒΡ Na?ab ca]; τὶ [N*]; acc. [B*];
Syr. Serva), one of the coast-towns of Palestine which
submitted to Holofernes (Judith 228). Fritzsche too
boldly corrects to " Dora’ (Dor). If, however, OCINA is
Accho, this violates the geographical order of the places.
Most probably Judith {like Tobit ; see THISBE) was re-
dacted from a narrative in which the scene of the events
was mainly in the Negeb. The place-names easily
adapted themselves to this view. ‘Sidon and Tyre,’ as
often, represents ny, ‘ Missur,' ‘Sur and Ocina' (τ, ὦ
the Kenites), 1pi “ns, ‘ Missur and Kenaz.”

. T.K C.

SUR, GATE OF (WD Ὕ), 2 K. 116; cp 2 Ch.
235. An unexplained riddle in a cioubtful text. See
Kittel, and Cri/ 275., also JERUSALEM, $ 24.

SURETY (3), Gen. 489. See Law AND
Justice, $ 17, PLEDGE, $ 3, and TRADE AND Com-
MERCE, $ 82 (6) 1 (4); cp EARNEST, DEPOSIT.

SUSA (en coycoic [BNA'LF]), Esth. 113. See
SHUSHAN,

SUSANCHITES, RVSHUSHANCHITES(N'9VWW,
σογογνάχδιοι [Β], coycan. [AL]), one of the peoples
represented among Osnappar's colonists (Ezra 494).

Delitzsch (Per. 3073 Calwer Bis. Lex. 876), following
Lenormant, compares Shushinak, the name of the capital and
of the chief god of Susiana on the native Elamite inscriptions.
ΤΕ, however, the present writer's theory that Ezra-Nchemiah has
been recast, on the basis of a mistaken historical theory, by a
Jewish editor, be accepted, ‘Shushan" will (cp pid in Is. 66.20)
have arisen cut of Cushan (cp Cusx, 2) and ‘Susankaye'(Ezra 49)
out of Cushanaya ‘Cushanites," "See Suuswan, and on ‘Os
nappe-' see Cif. Hib. T.K.C.

1 Perhaps written ‘my.
4822

SUSANNA
SUSANNA (coycanna, de. MIVAY, ‘lily,’ $ 69).

1 ‘The pious and beautiful wife of Jorkim, in one of the
apocryphal additions to Daniel. See DANIEL (Book), $ 5.
Ghe of the women who ministered to Jesus (Lk. 83).

SUSI ("51 : coycleli [BAFL]), a Manassite, father
of Gaddi, Nu. 1811[12] (col. 2919, n. 6).

SWADDLE, SWADDLINGBAND. The verb (SN,
4afkal, in Pu. and, Hoph.) is found in Ezek. 164; the
noun Ad#z/lak ann) ), in Job 389, figuratively of the
dark cloud enveloping the circumambient ocean.

The mortal speaker in Wisd,73% says, ‘I also when I was
born, drew în the common air, and fell upon the kindred earth,
uttering, like all, for my first voice, the selfsame wail. Tù
swaddling clothes was 1 nursed and in ‘iwatchfal] cares (ἐν oa,
γάνοις ἀνετράφην καὶ ἐν φροντίσιν). See also Lk. 27 12 (έσπαρ-
γάνωσεν, ἐσπαργανωμένονλ ΟΡ ROLLER; Famiuv, $ 10;
MEDICINE, $ 1. In Lam. 222 the verb is non, ἐέῤῥαξ, more
probably ‘dandled’: so ΕΥ̓͂. See SPAN.

SWALLOW. τ. ὙΠ, ddr: Ps 843 [4], Prov.
262%; τρυγών in Ps., στρονθοί in Prov. See below.

2. DID, sis, Is.3814 Jer.87,t Καὶ; DD Kr; χελιδώντ;
correctly rendered in RV; AV wrongly CRANE (gm., for
explanation of error),

Canon Tristram considers that dér0r is rightly inter-
preted swallow or martin, whilst the identity of 555?
with the swallow or swift has been satisfactorily proved
by Bochart 2110 (cp Lagarde in GGW 1888, p. 6£.),
and receives interesting confirmation from the fact that
Tristram heard this name given to the swift {Cypselus
apus, L) by the present inhabitants of Palestine
{FEP, 82£.).

Although zoologists place the Hirundinidze (swallows
and martins) some distance from the Cypselidze (swifts},
swallows and swifts are very frequently mistaken for
each other, and it seems improbable that the ancient
Jewish writers distinguished between them.

There are three species of swallow, Zirwxdo, now found in
Palestine. (1) The common swallow, #7. rustica, which, like
its congener (2) Δ΄. rx/kla, returns from its winter quarters
towards the end of March, whilst (3) 27. sarignzî, the oriental
swallow, winters in the Holy Land. Four species of martin
and three species of swift are known in Palestine, one of them
being the common swift, CyAselus a#us, referred to above.

The swifts fly, like the swallows, with great rapidity,
and their return from the S. in the early spring is a
most striking event (Jer. 87). It usually occurs at the
beginning of April, ‘Clouds pass in long streams to
the north, but still leave prodigious numbers behind."

‘They return to their winter quarters in November.
It is thought that the reiterated complaining cry of the
swift 15 referred to by the prophet (Is. 3814) rather than
the more musical and less frequent note of the swallow
{see further Che. ad /oc.).

Both swifts and swallows frequent towns and villages. The
swallows build their nests of mud (Ps. 843) The swift usually
builds its nest of straws, feathers, etc., cemented together by
saliva ; it uses such materials as it can obtain without recourse
to the ground, as with its long wings and short legs it experiences
difficolty in rising from the earth,

3. (nap, ‘ag@r: Is 8814 Jer.874), rendered in RV CRANE
Gr.) ALE. SN. M

[It seems probable that “ny should also be substituted
for M'T's mg in Job 76. ‘My days are swifter than
a crane’ will be instinct with pathetic force to those who
remember travellers' descriptions of the migration of the
crane. See Cris. βιό. τ. K. C.]

SWAN (DPUIN, tinSmeth, Lev. 1118 πορφυριὼν

[861]. τρῶν [A]], Dt, 1416 [(e)\ Bic BAFL]).

two species of swan, Cpenxs musicus (C. ferus), the
Whooper or Wild Swan, and C. οἶον" (C. mansietus), have
been found in Palestine; but they appear to be comparatively
rare, and scholars do not now defend AV,

Following @& in Dt., Tristram identifies finte

1 χελιδὼν represents both mp and map in Is, in Jer. χελιδὼν
nà, or op Aq. ἵππος in Is. 8814; Sym, χελιδών in
τέττιξ in Jer.87; Theod. αἷς in 15. 88 14.

"This form, which is Che re in Jer.87, ἧς alsò supported by
Thi in Is.8814 and is the name which Tristram heard (see
above)

4823

SWINE

with the sacred ibis (7 ὲς @e/4zopica ; but see HERON),
or with the purple gallinule (Porp4yrio cerziezs) allied
to the moor-hen. See, however, OwL.

The same Hebrew word is found in Lev. 1130 in the list of
unclean quadrupeds, where AV has MoLE (9.2, 2), RV Cham-
eLEON. See Lizakb, 6. ALE. 8.

SWEARING (Δ᾽, Gen. 2123, εἴς. ; OMNYEIN;
Mt, 534, ete.), See OATH.

SWEAT, BLOODY. Of the passage in Lk. 22.44
(the agony in the garden), ‘and his sweat became as it
were great drops of blood falling down upon the ground
(καὶ ἐγένετο è ἱδρὼς αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ θρόμβοι αἵματος κατα-
βαίνοντος ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν), three interpretations are current ;
(a) that a literal (and preternatural!) exudation of
blood is intended ; (4) that the sweat-drops resemzbled
blood-drops in colour, size, abundance, or the like ; (0)
that the expression is to be taken rhetorically, somewhat
as the modern ‘tears of blood.'

It is'to be observed that 2v. 43f are absent from
many MSS (see the discussion in W264 7). Itisa
question whether they were suppressed by the ‘orthodox'
(ὀρθόδοξοι δὲ ἀφείλαντο τὸ ῥητόν, Epiphanius, Arcorat.
31), or whether they are to be regarded as a later în- -
Sertion, explicable perhaps on some such principle as
that suggested above in col. 1808, middie. Among the
most recent commentators Holtzmann accepts them as
genuine, whilst B. Weiss rejects them. There is a
recent discussion of the subject by Harnack (584 17,
1901, 251-255), who holds it to be certain that BNA
give an intentionally shortened text, and places the
excision perhaps in the beginning of the second century,
but perhaps also many decades later. His arguments
are four: (1) Every feature in the disputed passage
which can be compared with certainly genuine Lucan
passages bears the Lucan stamp. (2) There is no
direct evidence that the words were wanting in the
MSS. before 300, whilst Justin, Tatian, and Irenzeus
attest them for the first half of the second century. (3)
In two important points the passage could not fail to
offend the orthodox: (4) the statement that an angel
strengthened Jesus: we remember how earnest was
the struggie in the earliest times for the super-angelic
dignity of Jesus; (5) the ἀγωνία with its consequences
was produced not by external attacks but by a terrible
inward struggle (this goes beyond Heb. 57). (4) We
cannot, it is true, give a full answer to the question
whence the fourth evangelist drew his material; but it
is clear that in the narrative of the Passion and the
Resurrection he had no other source than the Synoptics.
Now is it not highly probable, asks Harnack, that
Jn. 1227 7 is the Johannine transformation of Lk.
2243 //? Cp Cross, $ 5.

SWEET CANE (MD)
REED, 16.

SWEET ODOURS.
1614, εἴς, See Srice, 1; cp BALSAM. 2.
Lev. 263, etc. Cp SACRIFICE, $ 36.

SWEET SPICES (Ὁ 95}, Ex. 3034. See SPICE, 2.

SWINE (ὙΠ cp Ass. ἀεσηρέγ, 3 γο yoipoc, Lk.
8327, 1515. ete.). Apart from the prohibition of eating
1. Biblical 3%iN®S fiesh (Dt. 148, cp Lev. 117) there
Ν is probably no pre-exilic reference to
references. this animal in the OT. The fine
proverb comparing a ‘fair woman without discretion '

Is. 43824 Jer. 620. See

(1) Da, sei4mzme, α Ch,
DIM), πεζσλξνε,

1 According to Professor Macalister (Hastings, PESA:
‘There are no modern trustworthy cases of genuine bÌ
sweat ; and although in some older writings comparable i instances
are quoted, none of them are properly authenticated.'

'umsiru and fiazu are two animals which belong to the
clasì represented ideographically by S4& (i.e, swine) They
lived in reedy, marshy ἀιϑιτίςις. Whether Zuwssirw is quite
the same as the Arabic Zixzir is uncertain; but the affinity
must be great (Jensen, ZA 1300). The Aramaic Abzirà ts, like
the Arabic form, derived from Babylonian; references in
Muss-Arnolt, sn. Amonsira. ‘Narrow-eyed' ΡΒ) ie nota
satisfactory explanation.

4824

SWINE

to ‘a jewel of gold in ἃ swine's snout’ (Prov. 1122)
may already presuppose the proximity of Gentiles who
kept swine. This is certainly the case with the two
most familiar N'T references to swine—viz., ‘he sent him
into his fields to feed swine' (Lk.15:5), and ‘neither
cast ye your pearls before the swine' (Mt. 76). But
we can go deeper into the meaning than this. [{ 15
difficult not to think that, at any rate in its present form,
the crowning error of the ‘prodigal son' consisted in
his becoming paganised! {an ever present danger of
Jews in the Roman period); ‘the swine,' as well
as ‘the dogs’ (note the article) in Jesus' warning,
are Gentiles of the class described so often in the OT
as ‘the wicked” (contrast Is. 4245). Such passages are
intelligible only at the period when both Judaism and
the young religion of Christ were confronted by an alien
religious system in the very midst of the sacred land,
No more striking exhibition of this perpetual contrast
can well be imagined than that in the narrative of the
demoniacs of Gerasa (see GERASA). This place was
{like Gadara) in the heathen territory of Perzea, where
a ‘herd of many swine' (Mt. 830 Lk.832)—we need
not lay stress on the too definite detail in Mk.513%
{about two thousand ')—was a familiar sight.

it is probable that the story of the Gerasene
demoniac or demoniacs has not reached us in its
earliest form, and that the departure of the ‘legion'
of demons into the half-legion of swine is a secondary
element. If so, we gain a fresh illustration of the
Jewish way of regarding heathenism as a ‘swinish'
error {see Weizsicker's weighty remarks, Apost. Age,
265). The author of 2 Peter regards the immoral
heresy of his day as just such another (2 Pet. 222,4
where EV ‘sow,' ὅ9).

There are three references to swine in @ which are not found
in MT. Probably, however, they are due to corruption of the
text. See 2 5.178 (where (58 appears to insert ὡς ds τραχεῖα
ἐν πεδίῳ; but see Klo. 24 doc.) and x K.20 1922 38 (where the
[αἱ] de of BAL and BA respectively has evidently sprung ont of
κύνες),

‘The swine occupied a highly honourable place as a
sacrificial animal in Asia Minor, Greece, and Italy, but

was neither sacrificed nor eaten by the
2 A BACIO Jews5 Their feeling of repugnance was

not shared by the Assyrians, who relished
swine's flesh ;5 though the hog, which was only half-
tamed, was not included among their ordinary domestic
animals.? In Egypt the pig was unpopular, if not
tabooed.® Swine were certainly kept, but only in
certain localities—e.g., in the district of el-Kab (the
city of Eileithyia}. Among the live stock belonging to
Rcnni, whose tomb is at el-Kab, 300 swine are
mentioned. As Renni (r3th dynasty) was a prophet of
the goddess at el-Kab (perhaps to be identified with
Selenè; cp Herod. 247), it is probable that he had to
provide swine for sacrifice; for swine, as Herodotus
states, were sacrificed to Selen and Dionysus (Osiris).
The drove of swine depicted in the tomb of Paheri
(18th dynasty) at the same place may be for agricultural

1 The parable is even Ztexa/y accurate. That Jews were
sometimes tempted to keep swine is proped for he time of John
Hyrcanus by a probibition quoted by Grotius in his comment
on Mt. 832.

2 Keim's statement (/esw von Naz. 2457) is correct; ‘the
report of Matthew is by far the simplest, the most original’
Cp Badham, S. Mar#s Indebtedness, 427.

3 Nestle (?’4ilologica Sacra, 21) suggests that the story may
have arisen as a popular explanation of a place-name such as
Ras el-hinzîr, ‘swine's head’ (or ‘promontory '), or Tell abu-l-
binzir, ‘hill of the father of swine.*

4 In this passage the reference to the wallowing of the swine
appears to have sprung from a misreading of a well-known
proverb (Prov. 26 i.

Cp Frazer, Pausanias, 4137/7

6 On certain days it was expressly forbidden to eat it (Jastrow,
Relig. Bab, Ass, 381), Was ît sacred to Bel at Nippur? See
Peters, ifpur, 2131. . ΜΝ

7 Maspero, Dawx gf Civ. 56. The illustration given by
Maspero represents a sow and her litter in the reeds of the
marshes.

8 Erman, Zgy/5, 44τ.

4825

SWORD

purposes. Elsewhere swine came to be regarded as
embodiments of Set and ‘Typhon, and were loathed
accordingly. To the Syrians and Pheenicians, however,
the swine was sacrosanet and its flesh prohibited (cp
Lucian, Dea Syr. 54). Antiphanes states that it was
sacred to Aphrodite or Astarte {Athen. 849).

Probably it is from the Furopean boar (Sus scrg/@)
that the domesticated swine of Palestine is derived,
though this is still to some extent a matter of conjecture.
Swine are very uncommon in Palestine, and there may
have been the same scarcity in Jewish territory in ancient
times on account of the repugnance of the Jews to this
animal. This repugnance (which is shared by Moham-
medans) is not to be explained on mere sanitary grounds
(cp Plut. De 25. e? Osir. 8). It is but the reverse side
of that earlier veneration for the swine as sacrosanct,1
which also accounts for the original taboo upon swine's
flesh ; and the legend of the death of ADON!S may be a
primitive (Phcenician) explanation of this change of
feeling. ‘There is indeed some evidence among the
Jews of a survival of the ancient feeling in certain
quarters. As Robertson Smith has pointed out,? the
strange statements in Is. 654 (cp 6617) and 663 are
most easily explicable if the flesh of swine was partaken
of in secret sacrificial meals.

The correctness of this view is by no means bound up with
his view of the date of Is. 65.7, which later criticism regards as
belonging to the time of Nehemiah, and referring to certain
unorthodox rites practised by some ‘at least of the Jews and
by the Samaritans, or the N. Arabians (Che.), and dendunced by
the adherents of a legal orthodoxy. It has also been made at
any rate plausible by Robertson Smith that the swine, the dog,
and the mouse (see Doc, Mouse) were the totems of the Jewish
families which took part in the mysteries described in those
strange prophecies,3

The Boar in Hebrew bears the same name as the
swine. ‘The Talmud for clearness uses the phrase
wo n (cp “a, ‘the open country,

8 References J0b394); a psalmist (Ps. 8013 [14] cds

» [BA], is[N'ART]) once speaks of ‘ the
boar from the jungle" (39, EV ‘out of the wood').
This is in fact the more descriptive phrase. Iti
‘jungle’ of the Jordan, from Jericho to the Sea of
Galilee, that the wild boar specially dwells, though he
is also to be found in the lowiands of 5, Philistia and
Beersheba and on the slopes of Hermon. ‘A party of
wild boars," says Tristram (2 54), ‘will uproot a
whole field in a single night” The Assyrian storm-god
in his fury is likened to a wild boar (fwmsirz); not
unnaturally we may interpet Ps. 8013 [14] of the havoc
wrought in Palestine by the armies of Artaxerxes Ochus.
Similarly in 4 Esd.1530 the CARMANIANS [g.2.] are
compared to ‘the wild boars of the forest’ (in one of
the late additions to 4 Esd.); and in Enoch 8972 the
Samaritans who attempted to prevent the rebuilding of
the Jewish temple are symbolised by wild boars,

A, Fi S.S, A, CT. K. C.

SWORD (291, Adreb ; mayaipa, pompara, Zipoc).
In Ecclus. 462 ῥομφαία (EV ‘sword)' represents
ἀξαάδη, fg. See JAVELIN, 1, 5. In Job2025, Sarde,

pa. lit. ‘lightning,’ is poetically used for ‘sword' or
*blade' (cp Dt. 3241).

1 The theory of the primitive sanctity of the swine is unassaîl-
able (cp ΕἸΒΗ͂, δ 9 /). Callistratus’s explanation of this
sanctity (Plut. $yw05,4 5) may be absurd; but the fact
remains. Cp Frazer's important remarks in his Pansarias,
4138; and see CLEAN AND UNCLEAN, ὃ 8; Foop, $ τό, and
“οι, ρος, Ρ. 422. ᾿

Kinshtp, 307 9. 1 RS 343, 357, 368. (Other iNustratione
of the subject of this article will also be found in X:S(.)

8 {See SHAPHAN, SANBALLAT, ZERUBBABEL, and especially
Crit. Bib., where the evidence relative to the captivity of the

cople of Judah and their subsequent relations to their oppressors
15 considered, and Is. 65 4 66 3 17 are restored to what the present
writer takes to be their original form. He would gladiy have
come to other results, as the new considerations compel kim to
abandon the brilliant and piausible theory adopted from W. R.
Smith in Zafe. /5. 3667—T. k.C.]

4 On the reading see HrrforoTAMUS.

4826

SWORD

SYCHAR

Other words doubtfully or wrongly rendered ‘sword’ | As. «. Zwr. 375); and we meet with ît again on the

are:
1. Fal πον, Joel 28; RV ‘weapons’ (EV's usual rendering).
‘Dart’ would be better (ποι, to send, shoot) So in Neh.
4 17 [11], and elsewhere, ‘weapon should be ‘dart’ (BRA βολίς).
2. mékerak, 90, Gen. 49 st. So AV, RV. The mean.

ing is suitable; but the sense has no philological justification
(ce Spurrell's note). See SHECIIEM.

3. γέραξ,, MS), Ps. 42 τὸ [11]; δ καταθλάσαι (-θλᾶσθαι [NC-2]);
AVing., ‘Or, killing*; RVmg., ‘Or, crushing.' Baethgen agrees
with ἘΝ, comparing 62 3 [4 See Che, 25.12, We. $807, on
the text of both passages.

The A4#xeb or sword (the sheath of which was called
“ya, ἐμέ αν, or 11, nddin) was suspended from the girdle
{Gen. 4822 1 5. 17 39 2513 2 5. 208), probably on the left
thigh (cp Judg.316, with Moore's note), as was also
usual with the Assyrians (see Layard, quoted below}
and the Greeks. ‘Though so frequently mentioned in
the OT, we need not infer that it was in very common
use; the sword cannot have been so easy to make as
the arrow (see WEAPONS, $ 2) or SPEAR. Nor must
we suppose that an instrument of the same size and shape
is always intended by 448; the same word may have
denoted the most primitive form of sword, as well as
the later knife-like weapons (cp Josh. 52 and see KNIFE,
2), including scimitars and the longer poniards,

Taking a wider survey of the evolution of the sword,
we notice that the earliest form of this weapon was of
wood ; the antelope's horn, merely sharpened, which is
still used in every part οἱ the Fast where the material
can be procured, may also, as a writer in Kitto suggests
(Bibl. Cycl), have served the same purpose. The
Egyptian soldiers of the first Theban Empire were
armed in some cases with wooden swords (Maspero,
Dawn of Civilisation, 452), and swords of heavy wood
are said to be still used in Nubia; in Mexico and
Yucatan the wooden sword was provided with a flint
edge, and ‘the destructive powers of this formidable
weapon are frequently dwelt upon by the early Spaniards*
(Wilson, Pre&isterit Man, ligo), Later, bronze and
iron were used,

The sword, however, would not appear to have been
a favourite weapon in ancient tinies. Where it is
found, it seems to be carried as a rule as an additional
security, The Chaldzzan soldiers, whose equipment
was of the rudest kind, though they seem to have used
the dagger, did not apparently carry a sword (see
Maspero, Dawn ef Civ. 722) According to Erman
(Life în Anc. Fgy?t, 516), the swords (472%) imported
into Egypt in the eighteenth dynasty came from Syria.
Wilkinson (πὸ Egypt, 12107.) gives the following
description of the Egyptian sword:

“The Egyptian sword was straight and short, from two-and-
a-half to three feet in length, having apparently a double edge,
and tapering to a sharp point; and Herodotus compares the
sword of Cilicia to that of Egypt. It was used for cut and
thrust; but on some occasions they held it downwards, and
stabbed as with a dagger. The handle was plain, hollowed in
the centre, and gradually increasing in thickness at either
extremity” (cp the picture of the storming of Dapuru, the
Fortress of the Heta, by Rameses II., reproduced above, col.
1223).

This is very like the sword of the bronze age as we
find it elsewhere (cp the bronze swords given in Evans,
The Ancient Bronze of Great Britain, 273-300; Wilson,
Prehistoric Annals of Scotland, 1 353). Like other
bronze swords it is without cross-piece? or handguards ;
and like these, in spite of what Wilkinson says, it was
perhaps ‘intended for stabbing and thrusting rather
than for cutting’ (Lubbock, Prekistorie Times), 30).2
The swords of the Mediterranean pirates seem to have
been of the same kind (Wilkinson, 246; cp WMM,

1 Cp the earlier broadsword of the ante-Norman period ; see
Evans, Ancient Armour and Weapons in Eurape, 13: Κι:

2 “The handles of the bronze swords are very short; and could
not have been held comfortably by hands as large as ours, a
characteristic much relied on Dy those who attribute che intro.
duction of bronze into Europe to a people of Asiatic origin
(Lubbock, 07. ci£.).

4827

silver patera found by Gen. di Cesnola (Cypres,
pl. xix., opp. Pp. 276) at Curium.! For cutting, a
eurved sword, like a sickle, was often used, In the
nineteenth dynasty the Pharaoh himself is represented
as fighting. ‘He even takes part in the hand-to-band
fight, and his dagger and sickle-shaped sword are close
at hand” (Erman, Arc. Ἐργῤέ, 527).* The Assyrians,
whose martial equipment was remarkable, used swords
of various kinds and sizes. The spearman, besides his

| spear and shield, often carried a short sword in his belt

(Maspero, Ancient Egypt and Assyria, 321). But
Assyrian soldiers also used long swords; ‘the swords
were worn on the left side, and suspended by belts
passing over the shoulders, or round the middle’
(Layard, Nineveh and its Remains, 2342) ; some of the
swords have quite a modern appearance (see Ball, Lig4f
rom the East, 199). That amongst the Israelites the
sword was sometimes slung in the same way seems t0
be shown by such passages as 1 S.1739 2 $.208 τ K.
2011, Both sword and sheath amongst the Egyptians
and Assyrians were often highly ornamented (see
Wilkinson, Arc. Egypt, 1210, Layard, Nineveh and ils
Remains, 2298; cp also the poniards found in the
coffin of ‘Ali-hotep, as shown in Maspero, Zgyprian
Archeology, 318 f., Struggle of the Nations, 97}.
Amongst the metal objects found by Bliss (A Mowrd
ef Many Cities, 105) were spear-heads, lance- points,
and knives, but apparently no swords. On p. 106,
however, he gives what he describes as ‘a large knife,
which fitted on to a wooden handle, as a few slivers of
wood still clinging to the end show.” Perhaps this was
rather a poniard. Schliemann in his Mycensean explora-
tions (A/yceze, 283) found swords the length of which
‘seems în a great many cases to have exceeded three
feet . . .; they are in general not broader than our
rapiers.* But, strange to say, he found no swords on
the supposed site of Troy (see ///0s, 483). At Hissarlik
' weapons of copper and bronze occur frequently—lance-
heads, daggers, arrow-heads, Knives, if we may designate
these as weapons—but no swords' (Preface by Prof.
Virchow, xii), The reputed sword of Goliath was
preserved as a sacred object in a sanctuary {1 S.218/).
There are Babylonian parallels (see GOLIATH, $ 3), and
Lubbock (Origin gf Civilisation®, 323) points out that
to some peoples the sword itself has been an object of
veneration and even of worship. MAC

SYCAMINE TREE (cykaminoc, Lk.176t) is. as
all agree, the mulberry, that being the invariable

meaning of the Greek word (Cels. 1288 7).
Both the black and the white mulberry (Morus migra L. and
M. alba L.) are at this day commoaly cultivated in Palestine.

The Greek name is probably derived from Heb, D'OPY, ἐῤξννεῖννι,

though this denotes a different tree—the sycomore or fig-mul-
berry. The Mishnic name for the mulberry is nia.‘ Mulberry

trees” as a rendering for D'R33 is a mere guess. Cp Mut-
BERRY TREES, N. M.

SYCHAR (cyyap [Ti WH]), mentioned in the
account of the conversation of Jesus with a Samaritan
woman (Jn. 45). It was a ‘city of Samaria,' and it
was ‘near the piece of ground (χωρίον) which Jacob
gave to his son Joseph.” ‘Jacob's fountain' {π777) was
there, by which we are told that Jesus sat, ‘wearied
with his journey.’ From the expression ‘a city...
called Sychar' (cp 1154. ‘a city called Ephraim') we
may plausibly assume that the place referred to was
not very well known. On the other hand, it is not
impossible that the redactor of the Gospel may have
misread the manuscript which lay before him, and that,
not knowing any places called Sychar and Ephraim, he

1 The weapons of Cyprus were greatly prized; ‘ Alexander
had a Cyprus sword given him by the king of Citium, and
praised for its lightness and good quality’ (p. το).

2 Cp the curved sabre of Ramman (Adad)-Nirari I.; Maspero,
Struggle of the Nations, 607; Ball, Light from the East, 133.
The Etruscans also used the curved swordj Dennis, The Cities
and Cemeteries of Etruria, 1201 2.442.

4828

SYCHAR

inay have modified the phraseology so as to suit these
apparently obscure places.! Naturally there has been
much debate as to this ‘ city called Sychar,' otherwise
unmentioned ; and the theory which has the first claim
to be considered is that which identifies ‘ Sychar' with
ovxep (Sychem)—i.e., the chief city of the Samaritans,
Shechem.

From the time of Eusebius, no doubt has been
entertained as to the identity of ‘ Jacob's fountain.' It
is called later in the gospel narrative a
well (fpéap=ax2, 4827), and this double
title is, in fact, applicable to the vener-
able ' Jacob's Well” of our day, if the various reports of
travellers are correct. It is no doubt rain-water that
produces the softness claimed for the water of ‘Jacob's
Well’; but it may nevertheless also be true that, as
Conder says, the well fills by infiltration.® Few of the
sacred sites in Palestine thritl one so much as this, because
of the beauty of the narrative with which it is connected,
and because of the unquestioning and universal accept-
ance of the early tradition. Jacob's Well is situated
1% m. E. of Nablus, 1100 yards from the traditional
tomb of Joseph (Josh. 2432). It is beneath one of the
ruined arches of the church which Jerome, as we shall
see ($ 2), speaks of, and is reached by a few rude steps,
being some feet below the surface. ‘The situation is
very appropriate, if the well was designed for the use of
the workers în the grain-fields of el-Mahna ;* for it is at
the point where the Vale of Nablus merges into the
plain of el-Mahna. The reputation of its water for
sanctity and for healthfulness might conceivably have
led a woman to go there from Shechem [if Sychar=
Shechem) to draw water, although the well was ‘ deep.’
A doubt may, indeed, arise as to whether the city of
Shechem could have been described by the narrator as
‘near the piece of land which Jacob gave to Joseph,' if
this piece of land enclosed the present ‘Jacob's Well'
and *Joseph's Tomb.’ It would seem, however, that a
writer who had the statement of Gen. 3318-20 in his
mind would almost inevitably speak of the ‘piece of
land’ as near Shechem; for the writer of that passage
(we assunie the text to be correct) certainly suggests
that Shechem and Jacob's purchased estate were near
together. ΤΠ, therefore, our present ‘'Jacob's Well” was
already known by that name in the time of the evangel-
ist (or the writer on whom the evangelist relies) there is
no difficulty in the statement that Sychar (if Sychar=
Shechem) was near Jacob's possession. Nor can we,
in accordance with the tenor of the narrative, venture
to place ‘the city’ very near Jacob's Well, for Jesus'
disciples, who had gone away into the city to buy food,
returned (Jn. 48 27) only after Jesus had had a conversa-
tion with the woman, which we cannot well suppose to
have been a short one.

If ‘Sychar’ were the only somewhat improbable
place-name in the Fourth Gospel, ît might perhaps be
rash to question the accuracy of the reading; but
ZEnon, Salim, Ephraim all warn us to caution in the
treatment of 'Sychar.’. Jerome Iong ago ascribed the
reading to the error of a copyist, nor has modern
criticism disproved the possibility of his hypothesis.4
It is, however, in the document used by the redactor
of our Gospel, not în the Gospel itself, that we may

1. Sychar=
Shechem.

1 It is remarkable, however, that in Gen. 88 10, as the text
stands, the well-known Shechem îs described in a way which
would rather befit an obscure place like ‘Sychar’ (on the
Issumplion that Sychar” is right.

2 Cp G. A. Smith, ΗΟ 374; and papers on the water of
Jacob!s Well, PEFO, 1897, Pp. 67, 149, 196. “The source of
supply to the well has not been accurately ascertained, but il is,
doubrless, greatly due to percolation and rainfall,” Barclay, 68.

3 Trumbull, PZFO, 1897, p. 149.

4 ‘Transient Sichem, non nt plerique errantes legunt Sichar,
quae nune Neapolis appellatur’ (Ep. 86)‘ Hebraice Sichem

icitur, ut Johannes quoque Evangelista testatur ; licet vitiose,
ut Sichar légatur, error inolevit’ (ρέει, în Gen. cap. 48, no. 22).
“Sichar concluso sive ramus. Conrupte autem pro Sichem . ..
ut Sichar legeretur, usus optinuit' (05 6620).

4829

SYCHAR

suppose the corruption to have arisen. ‘The text may
have become indistinct, and the redactor may have
misread ‘Sychar' for ‘ Sychem,”

To suppose that the narrator, being an.allegorist, deliberately
changed *Sichem' into ‘Sychar” in order to suggest that the
Samaritan religion was a ‘lie’ PW, ἔόξεν; cp Hab. 218), orthat
the Samaritans were * drunkards’ (ἐξ γε, cp 15. 231), is rash
in che extreme. The latter suggestion (Reland) is absurdly
inappropriate, for Is. 281 relates to the nobles of ancient
Samaria, and has nothing to do with Shechem. (Cp, however,
Gosves, $ 54 y.)

The above, however, is not the only solution of the
problem of Sychar. By a curious coincidence it
2, Sychar happens (4) that early Christian travellers

nei vi in Palestine speak of ἃ Sichar distinet from

Sichem, (4) that the Talmud several times
speaks of a Suchar, and (c) that at the

Bhechem. present day the name ‘Askar is found in the
neighbourhood of Jacob's Well.

(a) As to the early travellers’ notices, it îs almost enough
to refer to G. A. Smith's compact and lucid summary.
Every one who either has, or desires to have, an intelligent
delight in biblical geography knows this writer's .istorica/
Geography, and may therefore be aware that the Bordeaux
Pilgrim (about 333 A.D.) speaks of a Sychar, about 1 R. m. from

Shechem. The piigrim also says that the monument of Joseph
was at the place called Sichem, by Neapolis at the foot of Mt.
Gerizim. ‘he abbot Daniel (1106-1107) speaks of ‘the hamlet

of Jacob called Sichar. Jacob's Well is there. Near this place,
not half a verst away, is the town of Samaria . . . at present
called Neapolis’ Fetellus (1130) says, ‘“A_ mile from Sichem is
the town of Sychar; in it is the fountain of Jacob, which,
however, is a well” John of Wirzburg (1160-1170) says,
‘Sichem is to-day called Neapolis. Sichar is E. of Sichem."
Quaresmius (about 1630) gives the report of Brocardus (1283)
that ‘to the left(N.) of Jacob's Well'he saw ‘a certain large
city deserted and in ruins, believed to have been that ancient
Sichem'; the natives told him that they now call the place
Istar,

In addition to other notices we may add the Itinerary
of Jerusalem {333 A.b.), which places Sychar at the
distance of mi//e passus from Neapolis, and the follow-
ing testimony of Eusebius (0.5 297 26) : ‘Sychar, before
Neapolis, near the piece of ground, etc., where Christ
according to John discoursed with the Samaritan woman
by the fountain ; it is shown to this day,' to his trans-
lation of which Jerome adds (0.5 154 31) in lieu of the
closing words, ‘where now a church has been con-
structed.’2 ‘The latter statement, it may be said in
passing, throws back considerably the date of the
belief in the traditional Jacob's Well. It should also
be noticed that Eusebius in the same work writes thus
of Sychem or Shechem: ‘The place is shown in the
suburbs of Neapolis, where, too, the Tomb of Joseph
is shown’ {OS 290 s6), with which cempare this state-
ment of Eusebius on Βάλανος Σικέμων (the Oak of
Shechem= the present hamlet of Balata): ‘It is shown
in the suburbs of Neapolis at the Tomb of Jos«ph'
(05 28769), Now if the Tomb of Joseph was in the
suburbs of Neapolis, surely the Well of Joseph must
have been there too. Both Tomb and Well werg
certainly placed in the traditional ‘piece οἵ land’
purchased by Jacob, ‘before Shechem.' It may be
added that there is abundant evidence in the texts of
carly and mediceval pilgrims for identifying Sychar and
Sychem (see #G 373, n. 1).

(ὦ) It was long ago pointed out by Lightfoot (+ 7675) that the
Talmud mentions a place called Suchar (ao, Ν2ΙΩ) or Sichar
Cop, "2: ), and a fountain of Suchar (mn 73); and a plain
of En Suchar (πη py nyp3). It was from En Suchar (fountain
of 5.) or the plain of En Suchar that the Passover sheaf and the
two Pentecostal loaves were brought to Jerusalem during the
war of Aristobulus Il. against Hyrcanus IL (Babà Zamzze,
828; Mènahith, 646). The other references (Ada mdsl'd, 420
(Pesahim, 316] and 830; Nidda, 360; Hullin, 188) relate to a
time when the Samaritan population had no doubt given place

1 HG 3695 ‘Askar must be meant. Cp a similar uncertainty
about the pronunciation of another Palestinian name (LacHISH).

2 Cp Jerome, E4. 86, ‘Et ex latere montis Garizim exstructam
circum puteum Jacob intravit ecclesiam.' The church built over
the well'was visited by Antoninus Martyr near the end of the
sixth century, and again in the seventh century by Arculphus,
and in the cighth by Willibald, The ruins ofthe church have
doubtless raised the bottom of the well.

4830

SYCHEM

to a Jewish! That at che time referred to by the evangelist a
Samàritan Bopulation occupied Sychar is explained by the fact
that under Herod the Great, Archelaus, and the Roman pro-
curators, the Samaritans were able to recover from the fearfal
blow dealt to them by.the vindictive John Hyrcanus.

It is difficult not to conjecture that the localities
intended in the Talmud are the Sahil el-'Askar (Plain of
el'Askar) and the ‘Ain el-'Askar (Fountain of el-'Askar}
discovered early last century by Berggren. ‘Though
Prof. ἃ. A. Smith does not mention this evidence, it is
hardly likely that he rejects it.

(6) On the siope of Mt. Ebal, about τῇ m. ENE.
from Nablus and little more than half a mile N. from
Jacob's Well, is a little hamlet called ‘Askar, with rock-
tombs and a fine spring called ‘Ain el-'Askar (or el-
‘Asgar), The neighbouring plain, too, bears the name
Sahil elAskar. It is tempting to think that this is the
Sychar of the Fourth Gospel (cp Conder, Tenéwore,
175). Not only does it at once virtually prove the tradi-
tional Jacob's Well to be the true one, but it seems also
to show conclusively that the evangelist had a singularly
minute and accurate knowledge of the scene of his
narrative, and this suggests in turn that the narrative
itself may be, at least, founded on fact, It is true,
there still remains the difficulty that nothing is said of a
Sychar distinct from Sychem before the fourth century ;
that Eusebius's language is indecisive ; and that Jerome,
the most learned scholar of his time, and, like Eusebius,
‘a resident in Palestine, maintains that Sychar is a bad
reading ; but perhaps the evidence of the Talmud and
of the native nomenciature may plausibly be held to
counterbalance this. Von Raumer, Ewald, Keim,
Furrer, Lightfoot, etc., adopt this theory.

The disputants on either side may sometimes have
been unduly influenced by their interest in the question,

; Did the fourth evangelist make great
8. Gonelusion. mistakes in his geography ? The author
οἵ Supernatural Religion, for instance {(}, 2421 [pop.
ed. 531]), whose tone is not altogther dispassionate,
holds that the mention of a city of Samaria called Sychar
is one of several geographical errors which show the author
not to be a disciple of Jesus, or indeed a Jew. There is
another point of view, however, already briefly referred
to. The Fourth Gospel, as it now stands, may have
several errors in names ; but these errors may not be due
to the writer, whose work has been edited and largely
transformed by a redactor. It is most unlikely that the
city which fills such a prominent place în the narrative
of Jn, 4 should be any other than Shechem. Sychar is
most probably incorrect, and it is a mere coincidence
that the Talmud contains the name sop—i.e., probably
Sychar—and that the native nomenclature has preserved
the name ‘Askar. How “mp, ‘Sychar.’ is to be ex-
plained, is by no means clear ; it can, of course, have
no connection with pag, Shechem. “‘Askar, however,

‘may quite well have grown cut of Suchar; the ‘Ain, as
G. A. Smith well remarks,? may quite well represent an
original 'Elif. It is one of the many plays on names
discernible in the Arabic nomenclature, ‘Askar being a
common Arabic word for ‘soldier, army.‘ ΟΡ Taylor,
Pirke Abottid, 170. T.K. C.

SYCHEM (cyyxem [Ti. ΜΗ], Acts716; Sychemite,
è Συχεμ [BRA], Judith 516 AV, ΕΥ̓͂ Suecaemite) AV, ΕΥ̓͂
Suschem (9.0).

SYCOMORE (cykomopea; Lk.194t) and SYCO-
MORES (ΟΡ, ξήνεδνε, 1 K. 1027 x Ch. 27 28 2 Ch, 115927 15,
910 [9] Am. T'r4i, and NIOpd, ξέξνιδέλ, Ps. 78471).

& wrongly renders by συκάμινος (ἢ in R_of Ps. 7847, -α in
Am.), a word which is probably derived from #77, but denotes
the mulberry. Si4md% (10pP) and Aram. se#224, on the other
hand, denote a quite different tree—Ficus sycomoras, L.—whose
leaves to some extent resemble those of the mulberry, but its
fruits those of the fig.

1 Delitzsch, ‘Talmud, Studien, 8, Sichem and Sychar,' Z4£
Luther. Theol Τ [1856] 240.7; cp Neub. Glogr. 170/
3 In opposition to Robinson, Laler Researches, 133.

4831

SYNAGOGUE

From the deep shade cast by its spreading branches the
sycomore is a favourite tree in Egypt and Syria, being
often planted along roads and near houses, It bears a
sweet, edible fruit, somewhat like that of the common fig,
but produced in racemes on the older boughs. The apex
of the fruit 15 sometimes removed, or an incision made
in it, to produce earlier ripening. This is the process
denoted by the verb 24/5 (053) in Am. 7 14 (cp FiG, 8 3).
‘The sycomore, as a common and a lowland tree, is
repeatedly contrasted with the more valued and majestic
mountain cedars (τ K. 1027, etc.) At the present time,
it grows in Palestine mainly on the coast and in the
Jordan valley (ZFP 4x1) Cp Amos, $ 2, end,
PROPHET, $ 35.

The British ‘sycamore,’ which is a species of maple, îs of
course an entirely different tree. N. M

SYELUS (HcyHAoc [B*A], H cywoAoc [B??>]),
τ Esd. 18=2 Ch. 358, JEHIEL, 7.

SYENE (010, MID). Ezek. 2910 threatens de-
struetion to Egypt "from Migdol [10] Syene (ΕΝ
Seveneh) and even unto the border of Ethopia” {thus
EVme.); similarly 806 without the reference to Ethiopia,
Cornill, following 65, sees the same name in 3016: ‘Syene
{reading po", swz, for po, Sir) shall have great pain,'
ἢ Thebes—that is to say, even the most remote cities of
Egypt shall tremble (in 515, however, Cornili keeps po
Sin as Pelusium) ΟΡ also SIN, SINIM. Seroznek,
or Sewzrek (nuo or ano), is rendered in Ezek. Συήνη
(A. Σοηνη ἴερ @ in Is. 485, see SERA], Σουηνη) in (δ,
Syene, Vg., and the context shows that this is correct;
cp especially the allusion to the Ethiopian frontier with
Strabo, 32, 118, 669, 693, 787; Jos. 2/ iv. 105; Plin.
v.-101r. The ancient Egyptians wrote Stwr, Stozw,
Stont (no safe etymology of the name is possible); cp
Brugsch, Dict. Geogr. 666 ; the Coptic form is coyAN.
The Arabs rendered this Uswaz(x); the modern ortho-
graphy is Aswedz. The Massoretic punctuation is,
evidently, taken from the Greek form, which also the
English Bible has taken from the Versions.

This cataract-city seems to have been very old; but
it was completely eclipsed by the capital of the nome,
the island-city of Elephantine (Egyptian Y#%}, directly
opposite. Syene does not seem to have been more than
the landing-stage for the famous quarries, from which
the ancient Egyptians cut e.g. most of their obelisks,
The stone, however, they called ‘stone of Elephantine,”
and the troops guarding the Nubian frontier had their
headquarters in that isiand-city. Herodotus therefore
does not mention Syene, not because he had not been
there (Sayce, Jozrx. PRI 14271), but because for him
it belonged to Elephantine. The great garrison of
Elephantine, of which he speaks, must have had its
quarters mostly around Syene {not on the island) to
protect the desert roads alongside of the cataracts against
inroads of the nomadic Ethiopians. It is the more re-
markable that Ezekiel knows the name of Syene and its
importance as a frontier-fortress. Under the Romans
Syene came more into prominence, receiving a garrison
of 3 cohorts (Strabo, 817); Juvenal lived there in exile
as governor of the city. Elephantine still had the
temples. Under the Arabs Elephantine was deserted,
and Syene became a very considerable town, being the
point of arrival for the caravans from the Stdan,
Modern Asuan (Aswan) is a very small town, owing to
the decline of the caravan trade; its population, which
had fallen to 6000, is said to be now about 10,000.
The most remarkable antiquities are the tombs of the
monarchs of Elephantine (beginning from dyn. 6) on
the mountain opposite, discovered in 1883, large Arab
cemeteries, and the quarries. W.M.M.

BYMEON (cymewn [Ti ΝῊ], Lk.330 Acts 18:
1514 RV, AV SIMEON (g.7., 4-6.)

SYNAGOGUE. The term synagogue conveys a
4832

SYNAGOGUK

narrower and a broader meaning : in the broader mean-
ing, a synagogue is a local community in
its corporate capacity and as under religious
and more or less civil jurisdiction ; in the narrower, it is
the building with its assemblies and services. Naturally,
the two meanings often merge into one. The designa-
tion common to both is 4éxdse/&.

The Heb. hb39, and the Aram. NNWI9,1 are derived from DIA
and W)2 respectively, ‘to gather'; hence they strictly corre.
spond to τῆς Gk. συναγωγή,2 ‘congregation’ or ‘assembly.’
The narrower meaning is expressed also by ΠΡΣΘΗ͂ N°9, Aram.
sRG"19 3, and in Gk. by προσευχή,3 συναγώγιον (Philo, 2 591
1675), προσενκτήριον (Philo, 2 168), and σαββατεῖον (Jos. Ant.
avi 62).

At first, the church also seems to have been called
synagogue.* Ja. 22 is often quoted as evidence ; but it
may well be questioned whether ‘ assembly’ (as ἐπισυνα-
γωγήν, in Heb. 1025) would not meet all the requirements
of the passage (so v. Soden, #7C on Ja. 22). Of more
weight is the fact that the Ebionites called their church
‘synagogue ' ; that the anti-Jewish Marcionites inscribed
upon one of their church-buildings : συναγωγὴ Μαρκίων-
ἱστῶν κὠμ(η8) Λεβαβὼν ; and that in patristic literature
συναγωγή is occasionally used for the church.9 That
the church abandoned the term in favour of ἐκκλησία
may be accounted for by the fact of the separation of
the two faiths; the two terms are used interchangeably
in the LXX, and ἐκκλησία was like and unlike enough
to be just the designation wanted. Schilrer thinks that
the word ecclesia was adopted because of its deeper
ideal and spiritual significance (see GY 2433, and cp
ASSEMBLY, CHURCH).

The origin of the synagogue as an organised religious
<ommunity is bound up with the general history of Israel
a. Origi after the exile (cp GOVERNMENT, $$ 25-31).

+ Origin. vyhen the assemblies first began, and when
buildings were first set aside for this specific purpose,
cannot he definitely stated. It seems most probable
that the assemblies originated during the exile (cp
Wellh. 7/G®, 193). In strange environment, and in
default of a centre of worship, something of this sort in
@ limited form and extent must be presupposed to
account for the religious zeal that emanated from the
exiles. Whether, on the return to Palestine, any need
was felt for such assemblies, the sanctuary becoming
now again the centre of worship, may well be ques-
tioned. ‘The activities of Nehemiah and Ezra and the
introduction of the Law must in time, and in connection
with the springing up of Jewish communities outside
of Jerusalem, have given a new occasion for them (see
CANON, $ 18). No reference to the institution of the
synagogue, however, is met with in the canonical or
apocryphal books of the OT except Ps.748, where
md'dde δἰ (bg ‘myio) is best taken as meaning ‘sacred
meeting-places,' and as belonging to the Maccabean
period. (See Che. Psalmst!), ad loc., but cp PSALMS, $
28, v.) In NT times the synagogue is already a well-

1. Name.

1 The rabbinical references will appear in the course of the
article.

2 Jos. «ἀπέ, xix. 63; 2/1. 144£ vii. 83. IntheNT συναγωγή
occurs fifty-six times; with the broader meaning in twelve cases:
Ml 1 911 ΜῈ 10,9, Li. 51 τα Mt. 2824 ΓΚ. 8211211 Acts69 92
2219 ότι Rev.29 89. Of the remaining forty-four cases it
means ‘assembly! twice : Acts 1942 (not in BRA) Ja.22; and
the synagogue-building and its services in the others: Mk. 121
1226 Lk. 433, 129 ll Lk. 4 38, 1 3011 Lk. 4 44,81} Mt. 120, Lk, 66
41 Me 1254, Lie 4x6 1239 1 Me 286, LE 20 46 (doubict 1143)
Mt. 423 (doublet 935) 625 Lk.415 2028 75 1310 Jn.659 1820
Acts920 185 14 1411521171 10.17 18471926 18.

3 Acts161316; Philo, 2523£, προσευχή implies the Heb.
nbonma, of which it is &’ translation in Is.567 (quoted in
Mt.2113); but as a designation of the synagogue ît is not found
‘until late.

4 Epiphan. λίαν. 3018: συναγωγὴν δὲ οὗτοι καλοῦσι τὴν
ἑαυτῶν ἐκκλησέαν καὶ οὐχὶ ἐκκλησίαν.

δ. Re Bas et Waddington, /uscr/ftione grecques et latines,
Ὁ 3; n. 2558, quoted by Schir. GU/B), 2443. I
8 Cp Harnack, ZW7, 1876, pp. τος δὴ; Zahn, Cesck. NT

Kan. 2 (1883) 165; Zinl. 1665

4833

SYNAGOGUE

known institution with a hoary past; ’Moses from
generations of old (ἐκ γενεῶν ἀρχαίων) has in every city
those that proclaim him, being read in the synagogues
every Sabbath‘ (Acts 1521). (Forfull references in NT
see $ 1 n. 4; sce, further, $ 8.)

In considering the function and organisation of the

synagogue, it will greatly conduce to clearness if the

A distinction between the broader and the
3. Function, narrower meaning of the term is observed.

i The synagogal assemblies and services
presuppose the existence of an organised Jewish com-
munity of which they form an essential part. "The wider
function is evident in ἀποσυνάγωγος, ‘put out of the
synagogue' (Jn. 922 1242 162), which means more than
mere exclusion from the synagogal assemblies—viz.,
exclusion from social and religious intercourse, that is,
from community life (cp ExcoMMuNICATION), ὙΠῸ
wider function included not only the religious but also
the civil and municipal affairs of the community. The
distinction between secular and religious is foreign to
Judaism. Mishnic legislation throughout presupposes
Jewish control of civil life (Nedarim 55, Mégilla 81) ;
but this is ideal, and could not actually prevail except
in towns where the Jewish population preponderated.
Where that was not the case the organised synagogal
community was found by the side of the civil. in the
former case, the synagogal officials were identical with
those of the town; in the latter case, they only ruled
more or less the Jewish portion of it. Larger towns had
more than one synagogal community. ln Jerusalem,
for example, according to Acts 69, the Hellenistic Jews
had either two or five separate organisations, represent»
ing aggregations homogeneous in nationality or condition
(sp Schirer, Ze. 2430/ 16 25}. -

Members of the synagogal community (nou va.

Bèkoroth 55) were subject to discipline and punishment
by the synagogal government. . The local
4 GOverD- governing body, within whose jurisdiction
"it lay to try disciplinary cases, was called
beth din, }vi n'a, ‘court,’ or (its Gk. equivalent) sar-
Aedrin, mo! συνέδριον, ' council ' (Mt, 552 1017 Mk.
139); also βουλή (Jos. B/ii. 141). It was composed
of twenty-three members in larger towns; and in
smaller, of seven members {cp GOVERNMENT, $ 31;
and see Schiir. 2176 233). The members were called
‘elders’ (πρεσβύτεροι, Lk.73) or ‘rulers’ (ἄρχοντες,
Mt. 9:823 Lk. 841), and the chief γερουσιάρχης (see
Schiir.346/£).

The chief methods of punishment were (2) scourging,
(3) excommunication, and (c} death.

{a) Scourging (nisp [M/2420/4, 312], Gk. μαστεγόω
EMt. 1017 2334] and δέρω [Acts 2219 Mk. 189) was în-
flicied in the synagogue building by the synagogue
attendant (npiso jin, ὑπηρέτης, MaZ2., ibid.) The minor
offences for which it was administered are given in
AMakkòth 3: fi The number of stripes was forty save
one (μαξᾷ. 810, 2 Cor.1124, Jos. Arz.iv.821). The
tribunal competent to decide vpon the punishment is
variously given as consisting of three or twenty-three
members (Sax4edrin, 12).

{3) The punitive exclusion of unsubmissive members
of the Jewish community is met with already in Ezra
108; it was to be the means by which to keep exclusive
Judaism intact. ‘There seems to have been at first (so
in NT times) but one form of excommunication—viz.,
hérem (onn).3 ‘ban,’ that is, absolute exclusion from
the synagogal community, Its origin and conception
lie in the OT (see BAN). Z/4rem and its Gk. equivalent

1 Sankedrin,15f; thetwo terms primo and vi nea are used
interchangeably ; and 701 n°3 should not be limited to the lowest
tribunal, as is done by Weber, ζῆ, 74eo/. 141,

2 Scourging by Roman officials, referred to in NT (Mt. 2019
Jn. 191), is. not considered here.

% For the rabbinical use of non, which does not differ from OT
usage (see Ban), cp Jastrow, Dict., 5.2,

4834

SYNAGOGUE

ἀνάθεμα mark an object as ‘ devoted,” or under the curse
of God and deserving death (cp Holtamann, Neudest.
Zeitgesch. 150).

Hèrem meant, în fact, the penalty of death, and its infliction
was prevented only by lack of power. We must take it that the
NT terms ἀφορίφειν, ὀνειδίῤειν, ἐκβάλλειν τὸ ὄνομα (Lk. 622),
ἀπασυνάγωγον γίνεσθαι οἵ ποιεῖν (Jn.922 1242 162), and
ἀνάθεμα or ἀναθεματίζειν (Rom.93 1 Cor. 123 1622 (41.18.5
Mk. 1471 Acts28 1214 21), all contain tris meaning.i

{c) The tribunal composed of twenty-three members
was competent to inflict the penalty of death {SarA4. 14},
and it is most probable that excommunication was pro-
nounced by it; if so, 'shall incur the penalty of the
judgment' (ἔνοχος ἔσται τῇ κρίσει), Mt. 522, refers to
the lighter puniskment of scourging ; ‘shall incur the
penalty of the council’ (ἔνοχος ἔσται τῷ συνεδρίῳ), to
the severer punishment of excommunication or death.

The Mishna mentions a second kind of excommunication—-
via, nid4ty, ‘94, ‘isolation, called also by its Aram. equivalent

Fammattà, PMI Its main purpose seems to have been to
guard the dignity and authority of the rabbinical teacher; it
might be imposed for disobedience to a rabbinic decision, for an
impertinent remark to a teacher, or for failure to greet him
properly. It might be imposed by a mere hint—for instance, by
saying, ‘I have never known thee !’ or ‘Some oneis callingthee |
outside Γ᾿ The Gémara mentions a third kind of excommunica-
tionviz, adzis4d4, ND, ‘rebuke It seems to have been a
severe reprimand uttered by a rabbi, carrying with it in Palestine
one day's, in Babylonia a seven day», overhanging displeasure.
The widday-ban, according to the Gémara, extended over a
period of thirty days, and involved greater restraint as to inter-
course, though not exclusion from the temple or synagogue
service. But both forms are later than NT times, and they are
too mild to represent the NT terms quoted above,3

Recently discovered ruins of synagogues în Northern
Galilee, belonging probably to the second, some perhaps
to the first, Christian century, furnish

syiazozne scanty, but the Safest, information regard-
‘building. ing the architecture of ancient synagogues.

Negatively, they show that the rabbinic
directions ( 7ds. Ag. 422 /.) that synagogues should be
built on a height of the city and should have the entrance
on the E. (like the temple) had not yet come into force.
‘The ruins do not lie in the most prominent positions of
the towns, and, with the exception of the synagogue at
Irbid, whose entrance is ἕν, they were built from N. to
S. with the entrance on the 5. On the whole, a Graeco-
Roman influence in style is noticeable. The buildings
were quadrangular in form, divided into five or three
aisles by means of four or two rows of massive columns.
The columns bore an architrave of stone, the roof was
of wood, and the ornamentation, especially of the
cornices, was extremely rich, and figures of animals are
frequently met with, The entrance was by means of
three front portals, a larger for the centre and two smaller
for the sides ; the lintels have carved on them Hebrew

inscriptions and sacred Jewish symbols,*

Various parts of the synagogue building, outside of Palestine,
fin occasional mention in Gk. inscriptions: é£éBpa, ‘ portico* ἢ
πρόναος, ‘vestibule'; περίβολος τοῦ ὑπαίθρον, ‘court. The
synagogue of HammAm-Lif, not far from Carthage, had a mosaic
floor with varied animal forms in its design (sce Schirer, 2.437,
n. 26). Kaufmann has shown that both painting and sculpture
were in use in decorating the synagogues, even at a later time,
the lion being a favourite symbol (‘ Art in the Synagogue,' JO

1 It seems most probable that 1 Cor. 5 3-5 and 2 Cor. 26-11 do
not refer to a Jewish form of excommunication : see Excom-
MUNICATION, $ 2, and cp article ‘ Anathema in PREVI.

2 See Ta'inzth38, Moved KatanB1 f. and 14a 166, ‘“Edaysth
56, Middoth 22. The full details of procedure in excommuni-
cation, as found în Hamburger, R £, s.v. ‘Ban and in Eder.
sheim, Li/e and Times af Jesus, 2183 f., are based upon a codi.
fication of Talmudic law of the Middie Ages and do not illustrate
NT times,

3 There are eleven of these ruins: im (two), Meiron,
Irbid, Tell Hum, Ker&zeh, Nebratein, el-Jish (two), Umm el-
*Amed, and Susaf} cp PEFO, 1878, pp. 1237, PES Mem. 1224.
234 240-243 251-254 396-402 414-417; Baed, Pal), aaa 255-260
333 (1894). ἴτ is not impossible that the ruin at 161} Him (see
CaAPernAUM, $ 3) is that of the SYpagogue referred to in Lk.7 s,
in which Jesus often taught ; cp Wilson and Warren, Recovery
of Jerusalera (1871), 342-346.

4 Tn Athribi (Egypt), Mantinea, and Phocis respectively ; cp
REJ 17 236/3414812 2367

4835

SYNAGOGUE

92544 [1897]). In arabbinic description of the synagogue of
Alexandria we meet the following terms: ‘pipi, βασιλική,
basilica ; vpobo, διπλῇ στόα, a double-colonnade ; yup, στόα,
colonnade.

The synagogue of Philippi was outside the city gate
by a river (Acts 1613), and a decree of Halicarnassus
6. Site. (in Jos. Ant. xiv. 1023) speaks of synagogues

as customarily placed by the sea-side (on these
passages see PRAYER, $ 4). This, however, does not
seem to have been the usage in Palestine, nor is it taken
account of in the ideal rabbinic legislation. Schitrer's
contention (2444), as against Lòw {27 1W/, 1884, pp.
167 7), that the ceremonial ablutions made the water-
site preferable, is overdrawn. These ablutions do not
require a river, and though orthodox Judaism now, more
than ever, demands them, no preference is shown for
such sites, which are, moreover, opposed to the positive
requirement to build them on the highest point of the
town. Neither does the position of the discovered ruins
bear out Schiìrer's view. It would seem then that in
foreign lands a preference was shown for sites outside
the city (for obvious reasons), and then near the water-
side; whilst on native soil, or in strong Jewish environ-
ment, a central site was chosen.

The chief piece of furniture was the ‘ark' (ngn, fine,
Aram. eman, ΠΣ) containing the scrolls of the Law
A and other sacred writings, which prob-

1. Interior. ΚΡ] stood by the wall farthest from the
entrance. In the centre, upon a raised platform (mp3,

βῆμα), stood the lectern (ἀναλογεῖον, Heb. puuibig or

| γα), The rest of the room contained wooden seats

{Spro, sudsellium ; mabp, κλιντήρ) for the congregation
(cp Jer. Mégilla, 73d ‘foot; Kelim, 167), The chief
seats of the synagogue {πρωτοκαθεδρία) were near the
ark, facing the people, and were occupied by those held
in highest honour, {Mt.236 Mk.1239 Lk. 1143 2046;
Tos. Mégilia, 421.) Schirer (2451) takes it for granted
that the women were seated separately in the synagogue,
This is not at all certain; such evidence as there is
points the other way. That the Talmud and all the
ancient sources should not mention such an arrange-
ment is hardly accidental, and the facts gathered by
Τὸν (4J/GW/, 1884, 3647.) show a prominent activity
of woman in the synagogal service ; to these should be
added what Schirer himself mentions (8 50), that they
could bear the titles of honour, ἀρχισυνάγωγος and
mater synagage, and could sit în the seats of honour in
the synagogue (2451). ‘The present writer has pointed
out elsewhere (* Woman in the Ancient Hebrew Cult,”
JBL, 1898, p. 1rt 7) that the exclusion of woman from
the cult was gradual, and came with the progress in
the development of the cult itself. Relegation to the
galleries of the synagogues was seemingly the last stage
and belongs to the Middle Ages {cp Israel Abrahams,
Jewish Life in the Middle Ages, 25f.).
The primary function of the synagogue assemblies
was the popular instruction in the law. The children
8. 5 ΜΝ were taught in the ‘school’ (ἼΡΘΣ ma;
. SYABOBUO Ter xetab. 326, K?tab. 2r0), and the
Rssemblie8. ποῦς technical training was furnished
in ‘the college’ (το ma; Jer. M@giZZa, 734); but
the synagogue assemblies were for the religious instruc-
tion of the people. ‘Worship, in the narrower sense,
was only a secondary object. That this was so in the
times of Jesus we learn from Josephus (c.42. 2x7;
Ant.xvi.24), from Philo (2168), who calls the syna-
gogues διδασκαλεῖα, 3 ‘schools,’ and from the NT, where
‘to teach’ (διδάσκειν) appears as the chief function of
the synagogue {cp Mt. 423 Mk.12r 62 Lk.415 31 66
1310 Jn. 659 1820). But there is evidence that at this
time the synagogue assemblies stood, as it were, in the
medium stage of their growth. In earlier times the
synagogue was called ‘the assembly of the common

1 Tos. Sukka, 46= Jer. Sukk&, 550, 6.
2 προσευκτήρια τί ἕτερον ἔστιν ἢ διδασκαλεῖα.

4836

SYNAGOGUE

people' (ny noi; Skadbdtk, 32a), and corresponded
more nearly to the ‘gate’ {0} as a common meeting-
place.! ‘The Targum translates ‘gate’ (syg) in Am.
51215 bath kénittà (nazio ma) But after the destruc-
tion of Jerusalem, when the synagogue began more and
more io take the place of the temple, the assemblies
took on gradually more of the form of worship. ‘The
name ‘assembly of the common people '(pyn noia) was
then seriously objected to (5445. 32 e), and the sacred-
ness of the synagogue was specially asserted ('Tos. A/te.
37).2

bor conducting the synagogue service, an official,
strictly speaking, was not deemed necessary ; any com-

petent Israelite could officiate. The free-

9. Officers. dom with which Jesus and Paul took
part in the service illustrates this fact. The person who
led in the exercises was called ‘representative of the
community ' {nas mby), and if he erred while perform-
ing his duty, some one else present might immediately
take his piace (224454 53). The same freedom still
prevails, in theory at least, in the present synagogue
service; but naturally those who are especially qualified
by experience and efficiency are preferred.

The chief official of the synagogue as a religious
assembly was the ἀρχισυνάγωγος, EV ‘ruler of the
synagogue' (Mk. 52235 38 Lk.849 1814 Acts18rs
18817; Heb. πριϑπ ved, So 77/.). The office was
not identical with that of the ‘elder’ (πρεσβύτερος) or
*ruler' (ἄρχων), nor with that of the ‘ president of the
gerousia’ (yepovardpyns; see $ 6), though one might
serve in both capacities at the same time. The duties
of the Archisynagogos related to the care and order of
the synagogue and its assemblies and the supervision of
the service.

A second functionary was the 4ezsdz (npi3a jin, Sd
775, YomaT:), the ὑπηρέτης, AV ‘minister,’" ΕΝ
*attendant' of Lk. 420. It was his duty to present for
reading, and return to the ark after the reading, the
sacred scrolls; he also taught the children (Sab. 13),
and acted as the lictor in scourging, as the agent of the
synagogue council {pr ma); cp $ 8.

The giving of alms was a religious service în the time of
Christ, and was administered in the synagogue by special
officials called ‘administrators’ (Ὁ. 15), who had under them
‘collectors of alms’ (17975 Ἢ and ‘distributors of alms'
Cs php); see ὁ δα, 1185, and cp Arms, $3/

The rabbinic requirement was that at least ten men must be
present for the conduct of divine service (“γάρ 4 3). Whether
this was already in force in NT times is doubtfulj but it led in
post-Talmudic times to the custom of providing by payment ‘ten
men of leisure’ (}oybw3 miwy: deceme otiosi), whose business it

was to attend the service ; they possessed, however, no officia!
rank.

The Mishna (Mé. 43) enumerates five principal parts
of the service: (4) the Shéma'; (3) prayer; (δ) the
10. The Feading of the Law; (4) the reading of the
cgina 3 LIOPhets, and the benediction ; but to these
service.” must be added (e) the translation and ex-
planation of the Scripture lesson. How much of each
of these was already în use in NT times will appear
in the sequel. On the whole, as has been indicated
above ($ 8), the synagogue service was much simpler
before the destruction of the temple; that crisis in
Judaism exerted a strong influence upon the develop-
ment of synagogal institutions.
{a) The Shéma' (νον, 'Hear!'), so called from the

opening word of the first passage, ‘Hear, O Israel:

1 Cp Ps.1275, Ecclus. 6.34 714 (where for ἐν πλήθει πρεσβυ-
τέρων stood probably in the original text ΠΣ 9Mp2; so
Kau. Agok., ad loc.) 38.33 89 τὸ 4118.

2 At the end of the first century A.D. ît was still possible to
class sitting in the synagogues with sleeping away the morning,
drinking wine at neon, and playing with children, as bringing
failure in life (455248 14).

3 See also TEMPLE, $$ 34/77

4837

SYNAGOGUE

1 Yahwè our God, Yahwè ìs one,' is composed of three

passages of Scripture (Dt. 64-9 11 x3-ex Nu. 1537-41), two
introductory benedictions for morning and evening, one
closing benediction for the morning, and two for the
evening.!

That the benedictions in their present form are the result of
gradual additions was pointed out by Zunz (Goztesdienst!. Vor.
ἐνᾶγε εἰ, Juden [1832], 3697.); the same is most probably true
‘also of the selection of the Scripture passages,

The origin of the reciting of the Shéma' (ybw ΠΡ) is
most probably to be sought in the endeavour to incul-
cate the sacredness and importance of the Law, for
which the selections are most admirably adapted in that
they not only emphasise these attributes, but also insist
on certain outward symbolic signs as reminders of them
(see FrINnGES, FRONTLETS}, As the phylacteries and
fringes are well known in NT times (Mt. 235; Jos.
Ant.iv.813), the origin of the reciting of the Shéma'
must date back into the pre-Christian period as probably
one of the first customs introduced by those who caught
the spirit of Nehemiah and Ezra. That the object of
the ceremony was accomplished may be seen from the
fact that the act is regarded in the beginning of the
second century A.D. as ‘receiving the yoke of the king-
dom of God’—i.e., the obligation to keep the Law of
Moses (2Bérakk.25; see Dalman, Worte Jesu, 1 80).
The conception of it as a confession of faith {Schir.
2459). or as a substitute for the daily sacrifices (Hamb.
RE21088), belongs to later times. In the NT the
opening words of the Shéma' are quoted in Mk, 1229
{cp_Mt.2237 Lk. 1027), but without any reference to
îts liturgical character.

(3) That the disciples could ask Jesus, ‘Teach us to
pray, even as John taught his disciples,' Lk. 111, would
seem to indicate that a fixed form of prayer was at that
time not in vogue (cp PRAYER, 8 7). This is made
the more probable by the history of the most ancient
synagogal prayer, the Skèmdne ‘esré (mey mby), the
‘eighteen'—i.e., petitions and benedictions. There are
now two recensions of this prayer, a Babylonian and a
Palestinian? It appears evident that in the original
form each of the petitions consisted of two members;
the Palestinian recension has more nearly retained its
original form, and is the shorter as well as the older;
the Babylonian has received considerable additions.
We have, therefore, here also to deal with a piece of
synagogal liturgy which has passed through various
stages of growth. The present writer is inclined to take
the hint of Dalman (ΡᾺ ΕΘ), 710) and regard the eight
petitions mentioned in Jer. Yomd, 44 è, as pointing to
an earlier form of the Shémoné 'esrè. If the legislation
regarding these eight petitions is not ideal, they fit into a
period prior to the destruction of Jerusalem (70 A.D.)
The fuller forms cannot be as early. ‘The arrangement
in the present order of sequence is ascribed to Shimeon
ba- Pekoli (about 110 A.D., BéraZ4. 28%). Dalman
thinks it probable that, as petitions 7 and 10-14 are
later than the destruction of Jerusalem, the form in
vogue before that event consisted of three opening
benedictions (1-3), six petitions (4-6, 8, 9, 15), and
three closing benedictions (16-18), and holds that this
prayer, composed of twelve petitions, may be regarded
as the Pharisaic-Judaic counterpart of that of Jesus,
composed of five or seven petitions (Mt. 69-13 ΓΚ.
112-4). An abbreviated form of the Palestinian recen-

1 Translations of these may be found in Hebr.-Eng!. Prayer

100ks.

2 Detailed rubrics, dealing with the manner and time of
itation and the persons who are and who are not under
obligation to perform it, are given in £%r2440141-3. The
authorities differ as to whether it may be begun in the morning
when it is light enough to distinguish between sky-blue and
white, or between sky-blue and leek-green.

3 The Palestinian was recently discovered by 5. Schechter in
a Gàniza of Cairo, and published by him in /0X10654-659
(1898). Dalman has published both recensions (the probabie
later additions enclose brackets) with notes in his Worze

Lesa t2997; they are also contained în his .Messianische
Texte.

4838

SYNAGOGUE

sion (from Jer. δέγαξα. 8 2) is here given for comparison
with the ‘Lord’s Prayer.’

“Grant us understanding ; graciously accept our repentance ;
forgive us, our redeemer ; heal our diseases; bless our years;
for thou gatherest the scattered, and it is thine to judge the
erring; put thy hand upon the wicked ; and may all who trust
in thee rejoice in the building of thy city, the renewal of thy
sanetuary, in the Branch of David, thy servant (2.4 the sprout-
ing of a horn for David); for thou answerest before we call.
Blessed art thou, Lord, who hearest prayer.'1

Petition 12 of the Palestinian recension calls for
special mention, The text and its translation are as

follows:

Zopn
I] veg Dr
[nas PID DY9I È
[ana be pps ὈΡῚ omo ἼΘΕΌ ine]
30° 19995 Ὁ ANN FD
May the apostates have no hope;
And the kingdom of arrogance he quickly uprooted in our day ;
And the Christians and heretics perish în a moment ἃ
Let them be blotted out of the book of life, and not be written
with the righteous.
Blessed art thou, Lord, who bringest low the arragant.8

The third line has settled it beyond question that
Justin Martyr and the Church fathers were right in their
statements that the Christians were mentioned in the
daily synagogal prayers (Dial c. Tryfk. 93133137;
and see Schilr. 2463).

By the end of the second century a.p. it was an established
custom to close the synagogal service with the priestly bene-
diction (D9In5I n3m2), Nu. 6822-25. As this was originally a
part of the temple service, it was probably not introduced into
the synagogal liturgy until after the cessation of that service.
When priests were present, they pronounced the benediction,
standing between the ark and the congregation and facing the
latter (Tos. Mégi/a, 421); raising the hands as high as the
shoulder (597, 76), and repeating the formula after the precentor
word by word, the congregation responding after each of the
three parts with Amen. ἴῃ the absence οἱ priests the bene-
diction was offered in prayer, and then, just before the closing
prayer for peace, petition 18 (Még. 18.2).

(e) The Sabbath lesson from the Law and the
Prophets, and the occasional exposition or exhortation
following upon them, were customary in NT times
{Lk. 416} Acts13x527 1521; cp 2 Cor 315; Jos. c.A4f.
2:8; Philo, 2630) The lesson from the Law was
unquestionably the oldest, and so the most prominent,
part of the synagogue service, ‘The tradition says that
* Moses instituted the reading of the Law on the sab-
baths, feast-days, new moons, and half feast-days;
and that Ezra appointed the reading of the Law for
Mondays and Thursdays and the Sabbath afternoons'
(Jer. 2g. 754). Such early and general origin, how-
ever, is out of the question. That here also there has
been a gradual development is made probable by the
fact that the present system of dividing the Pentateuch
into fifty-four sections (p»ip), to be completed in an
annual cycle, can be traced back to an earlier cycle of
two years’ duration, and that again to one of three
years and three years and a half ‘The special lessons
still in use for the sabbaths of new moons, the four
sabbaths before the Passover, and for other festivals
(32%5illd85 f.) give ground for the supposition that the
lessons originated in the selection of appropriate passages
for particular occasions, and that only out of these grew
the more definite arrangement.4 Since the reading of

3

1 The Hebrew text may be found in Dalm. Wor/e Jesw, 1304.

3 Another fragment of this recension adds, yy #5 pa
guin9, and omits 1, 4 The parts that are bracketed are
regarded as later additions by Dalm. Woxfe Jesu, 1300.

$ The Babylonian recension of this petition omits pmx3, and
for DID it reads D'YYHD, ‘slanderers.' According to A#rd44-
58%288, Samuel the Small added the petition against heretics
to the original eighteen, making thus really nineteen; the
Palestinian recension combines the petitions for the restoration
of Jerusalem and the coming of the Messiah into one, and so

has only cighteen in all.
4 Cp Hamb. RE21263,: Biichler, ‘The Reading of the
Law and the Prophets ina Triennial Cycley ΤΟΝ ὃ 420/77 (1893),

GI (1894).

4839

SYNEDRIUM

the Law was binding upon all, every Israelite, even
minors, could partake in the public reading; and on
the Sabbath morning seven, at least, were called upon.
Each person read his own portion ; and only in cases of
inability τὸ read was a public lector employed (Jer.
Més.75a: Phil 2282), The Mishna (4/25. 44) provides
for a benediction before and after each person's reading.
According to S2p42r7 13, both closed with : ‘ Blessed
art thou, Lord, who hast given the Law.*

(4) ‘The selection of a portion from the second part of
the Jewish canon, ‘the Prophets' (δ᾽ κ᾽), to be read

after the lesson from the Law, marks a further step in
the synagogue ritual, Its original aim may be gathered
both from the term by which it was called and from the
character of the earliest selections. ὙΠῸ terni Haphtarà
{mepa; Aram. nmeor) is derived from polar (wp),
which, in the Hiphil, means ‘to dismiss’ or ‘to adjourn
a meeting'; the Haphtarà was, therefore, the closing
exercise. The selections show that they were meant to
enforce, by an historical example or by a promise, the
lesson from the Law on a particular occasion.

The Haphtara for the first day of the Passover was Jos. 59/4;
for the second day, 2 K. 23; for Pentecost the lesson from the
Law was, Dt, 16 ὁ δῇ, the Haphtara, Hab. 8, including vr, 1775
on the Day of Atonement, it was in the morning 15. 57 τς δὲ, in
the afternoon Jonah. Here again the earliest selections on
record (los. Me. 41-43 Mg. 314) are those for special days;
and most likely they served as the nucleus for the present
arrangement.

It is most probable that in ΝΎ times the prophetic
portions were not yet fixed, but were chosen by the
reader, and that the selection of Jesus (Lk. 416 £) was
his own choice,

(e) Both the lessons from the Law and those from
the Prophets were translated or paraphrased into the
vernacular Aramaic by an interpreter (j5 în the
case of the Law, one verse at a time; in the lessons
from the Prophets, three verses might be taken at once
{.l/tg. 44). These translations and paraphrases (mim)
were of the nature of explanations, and led gradually
to the more extended expositions (yo, vm ΟΥ̓

teaching in the synagogues the NT contains many
illustrations (Mt. 423 Mk. 121 62). The preacher (jy
sat while speaking (Lk. 420). ‘The Scripture exposition
was not a required part of the service; neither was it
the prerogative of an ordained class; any one able to
instruct might be invited to speak (Acts1315), though
ordinarily it fell to the rabbis of the community

283 21:
Holtamann, Meutest. Zeitgesch. x47 Ji; Dembita, Jemisk
Services în Synagogue and Home (popular), Philad. 1898.

SYNEDRIUM (συνέδριον), a Greek word
means ‘assembly’ and is especially used of judici
representative assemblies, is the name by which (or by
its Hebrew transcription, "TIMO, sarkedrin, sankedrim)
is known that Jewish body which in its origin was the
municipal council of Jerusalem, but acquired extended
functions and no small authority and influence over
the Jews at large (see GOVERNMENT, $$ 29 75; ISRAEL,
$$ 817; ΒΥΝΆΘΟΟΥΕ, $ 4). In the Mishna it is called

Μ ‘the .sanhedrîn,' ‘the great sanhe-

1 Meaning and grin, ‘the sanhedrin of seventy-one
" [membhers].' and ‘the great court of

justice’ (424% din haggàdsl), The oldest testimony
to the existence and constitution of the synedrium of
Jerusalem is probably to be found in 2 Ch.198; the
priests, Levites, and hereditary heads of houses there
spoken of as sitting in Jerusalem as a court of appeal
from the local judicatories do not correspond with

4840

SYNEDRIUM

anything mentioned in the old history, but may be
taken as representing an institution of the Chronicler's
own time, And just such an aristocratic council
is what seems to be meant by the gerusia or senate
of ‘elders’ repeatedly mentioned in the history of the
Jews, both under the Greeks from the time of Antiochus
the Great (Jos. 44. xii. 33) and under the Hasmonean
high priests and princes. The high priest, as the
head of the state, was doubtless also the head of the
sente, which, according to Fastern usage, exercised
both judicial and administrative or politica! functions
{cp 1 Macc.126 1420), The exact measure of its
authority must have varied from time to time, at first
with the measure of autonomy left to the nation by
its foreign lords, and afterwards with the more or less
autocratie power claimed by the native sovereigns.

As has been shown under IsRAEL ($ 817), the
original aristocratie constitution of the senate began
to be modified under the later Hasmoneans by
the inevitable introduction of representatives of the
rising party of the Pharisees, and this new element
gained strength under Herod the Great, the bitter
enemy of the priestiy aristocracy,* Finally, under the
Roman procurators, the synedrium was left under the
presidency of the chief priest as the highest native
tribunal, though without the power of life and death
{Jn. 183:). The aristocratic element now again pre-
ponderated, as appears from Josephus and from the
NT, în which ‘chief priests' and ‘rulers’ are synonymous
expressions, But with these there sat also ‘scribes’' or
trained legal doctors of the Pharisees, and other notables,
who are called simply ‘ elders’ (Mk. 151). The Jewish
tradition which regards the synedrium as entirely
composed of rabbis sitting under the presideney and
vice-presidency of a pair of chief doctors, the ndsî and
db detk din,%is quite false as regards the true synedrium.
It was after the fall of the state that a merely rabbinicai
Sîtk din sat at Jabneh and afterwards at Tiberias, and
gave legal responses to those who chose to admit a
judicature not recognised by the civil power. Gradually
this illegal court usurped such authority that it even
ventured to pronounce capital sentences, — acting,
linwever, with so much secrecy as to allow the Roman
authorities to close their eyes to its proceedings {Origen,
Ep. ad Afr., 8 14). That this was possible will appear
less surprising if we remember that in like manner the
synedrium of Jerusalem was able to extend an authority
not sanctioned by Roman law over Jews beyond Judzea
—e.g., in Damascus (Acts92 225).

‘The council-chamber (βουλή) where the synedrium
usually sat was between the Xystus and the temple,
probably on the temple-hill, but hardly, as the Mishna
states, within the inner court. W. ΒΕ. 5.

‘The term ‘Sanhedrin' does not occur in EV; but
the Greek συνέδριον is found in a number of passages
in NT where EV has ‘the council.’
2. τὸ συνέδριον 7 n τ

in NT. n some cases it denotes an ordinary
Jewish tribunal (Mt.1017); in others
it seems to be used of the supreme Jewish Council, the
Sanhedrin (Mk. 1455 Acts521). In this latter sense the
writers are commonly understood to have employed the
word in the natratives of the trials of Jesus. It may
be doubted, however, whether we have before us the
original text,

In Mk. 14 55 (=Mt, 25 59) the writer, after relating that Jesus
was led away to the high priest, adds: ‘Now the chief priests
and the whole council (ὅλον τὸ συνέδριον) sought witness against
Jesus to put him to death." In ΜῈ. 1ὅ τ again it is said, ‘ And
straightway in the morning the chief priests with the elders
and scribes, and the whole council (ὅλον τὸ συνέδριον), held a
consultation’; but the parallel passage, Mt. 27 1, has simply ‘all

the chief priests and the elders of the people took counsel.' In
the narrative in Lk. the word is introduced very awkwardly.

1 The name syuedrizne first appears under Hyrcanus II
(os. Ant. xiv. 94).

2 Nasi properly means the sovereign, and ἐδ de/4 din the
president of the tribunal. The false traditional application
is post-Mishnic.

4841

SYNEDRIUM

In Lk. 22 66 Ît is said, ‘And as soon 85 Ît was day the assembly
of the elders of the people was gathered together, both. chief
priests and scribes; and they led him away into their council,
saying, If thou art the Christ, tell us’ (καὶ ἀνήγαγον [2.2
ἀπήγαγον] αὐτὸν εἰς τὸ συνέδριον ἑαυτῶν (1.2 αὐτῶν , λέγοντος,
ERA) Here the abrupines with which the λέγοντος and
following words come in, together with the use of συνέδριον for
the place of assembly as ‘well as for the Cotnoll itself (fot which
the evidence usually brought forward from other sources is not
very strong), arouses suspicion.. εἰς τὸ συνέδριον looks very like
ἀπ Insertiore and καὶ ἀπήγαγον (01 ἀνήγαγον) αὐτόν an alteration
Of καὶ ἐπηρώτων αὐτόν.

ἐπ has been found that whereas τὸ συνέδριον occurs in Mk.
151 ît does not appear in the parailel passage, Mt.27 1. lf,
in addition to this, the word is a late insertion in ΕΚ. 2266, it
is ἃ question whether în aq egriler stage οἱ the narratives τὸ
συνέδριον was present În any of the passages.

When thie article was already in prin an important work,
by De. Adolf Biichier, Vas synegrion fn Jerusalem appeared
(3902). Ης thinks chat the ‘scribes’ in Mk. 14 34 are clearly an
Addition, ard that in all the passages ἀρχιερεῖς ineans (not the
“chief priests' bu) the Temple autborittts. by whom (and not
by the Synedrium) Jesus was seized (see p. 209).

In any case the narratives of the trial are not

3 solo Satisfactory when examined from a
3. Jewish trial? critical and scientific! standpoint.
€The meeting in the palace of the high priest which condemned
aur Lord was exceptional, The proceedings also on this
Occasion were Nighiy imegular, If measured by the rules of
procedure which, accerding to Jewish tradition, vere laid ἀον ὃ
to secure order and a fair trial for the accused'{WRS, 4.89}
226126). Cp Son or MAN, $ 37, end.

It has been pointed out by Brandt (Die Zvarng.
Gesch. p. 67) and Edersheim (Zi/e and Times of Jesus,
2.553) that the whole proceedings of the Sanhedrin, if
they were such as they are represented to have been,
contradict all that we know about the ]ewish method
of trial from other sources, even when we admit an ideal
element in the Rabbinic notices.? The Jews, no less
than the Romans, have at all times shown great
reverence for the law (see Hamburger, Pea/-Zrey-
clopidie Qirs1). If, as Renan (Lift of Jesus, p. 252)
supposes, Jesus was condemned not so much by Tiberius
or Pilate as by the old Jewish party and the Mosaic
law, it is remarkable that ‘Paul’ in dealing with this
very law is silent on the subject (cp Brandt, p. 56).

But it is still possible to bold that Jesus was con-
demned at an informal meeting of the Sanhedrin
{Edersheim), or by a smaller Court of Justice (Graetz,
Hist. of the Jews, 2:63). Edersheim (2557) thinks there
can be no question that Jesus was condemned and done
to death by the whole body of Sanhedrists, if not by
the Sanhedrin, “in the sense of expressing what was
the judgment and purpose of all the Supreme Conncil
and leaders of Israel, with only very few exceptions.'
I1 is difficult, however, to think that the Romans would
pay much attention to an informal Council. The high
priest's task was simply, Edersheim thinks, ‘to formulate
a charge which would tell before the Roman Pro-
curator? ; but the charge he selects, that of blasphemy,
however serious its estimation among the Jews, could
hardly influence a Roman (cp Keim, p. 83) The
charge of claiming to be the Messiah (Keim) might
have had more weight; but Keini admits that the
refusal of Jesus to explain what he meant by the claim
is ‘surprising’ {p. 89). It is more reasonable to
suppose that the charge (whatever it was} was formu-
lated by a mere clique of Jews who in no way repre-
sented the nation, and that the condemnation and
erucifixion were brought about by the hirelings of such
a clique.* It is true that Josephus {Az xviii. 33) is

1 We are thinking of ‘Science’ as defined by Huxley (£ssays)
and Herbert Spencer (Edwcafion), and are not unmindiul of
what Tolstoy (Modern Science ; cp his recently published [1902]
What ἐς Religion?) has said on the subject.

2 “Ali Jewish order and law would have been grossiy infringed
in almost every particular if chis had been a formal meeting of
the Sanbedrin' (Edersheim, Ze.) On Jewish ‘law’ cp Pascal,
Thoughts on Religion, chap. 8, towards end.

3 This seems to be the view of Jost, Gesch. d. Judeneh.
1 402-409 (as cited in Edersheim, Ζ γε, 2.553, n. 2). He describes
it as ‘a private murder (Privat-Mord) committed by burning
enemies, not the sentence of a regularly constituted Sanhedrin,

to.
4 ‘The Jewish punishment was by stoning (cp the case cf
4842

SYNEDRIUM

supposed to assert that Jesus was condemned ‘at the
suggestion of the principal men among us'; but it has
been contended that this passage is ‘an interpolation
(De Quincey, Collected Works, 7127 [1897]), and in
any case the statement would not prove much,
The trial before Pilate, as it is represented in the
Gospels, seems to have been no less irregular, and the
τ judge's conduct can only be accounted
4. Roman trial. τον ty making him quite an exception
to the general rule, a man of all men the most perverse
and inconsistent (see Keim, 6837; Farrar, Life of
Christ, chap. 60).2 Pilate, however, it would seem,
was not such an exceptional character. See PILATE.
When, therefore, he condemned Jesus to suffer crucifixion
he must surely have done so on other grounds, and the
proceedings must have been different from those
recorded by the synoptists. ‘The charge would have
to be a political one (cp Tac. Azz. 1544) It may
have been, as ΕΚ, 232 suggests, only with more circum-
stantial evidence arising out of misconstruction of
* sayings,' that of ‘forbidding to give tribute to Caesar’
(cp Mt. 1724-27 22x7-22= Mk. 12 14-17=Lk. 20 22-26,
where the words of Jesus, as reported, are ambiguous).
With this charge Pilate would have been competent to
deal, as Roman Procurator, more perhaps than with
any other.?
Keim has made a serious and important attempt to give a
reasonable account of the trials of Jesus on the basis (mainly) of
νος the synoptiîc narratives. His work is the more
δ. Origin of valuable as it takes note of the investigations
Narratives, of so many other critics But the variety of
views to which he refers, and his own failure
to present a satisfactory picture, show the insurmountable
difficulties of his task.4 It seems better, therefore, to admit that
ît is difficult, if not impossible, to gather from the NT really
reliable details of the trial that resulted in the cracifixion of
fesos (cp Brandt, p. 67).5 In trying to transmit a complete
ife of Jesus the hiographers may have done Jesus himself; the
Jews, and the Romans some injustice. They can hardly have
had more than rumours about the trial to draw upon ;6 but they
also seem to have made free use of the OT? andof the Messianic

interpretations.8 There are perhaps also indications in the
narratives that they, or their redactors, borrowed features from

Stephen). At a moment of great excitement, and on such an
occasion, would the cry of cordemnation that would burst from
the lips of Jews be ‘Crucify him{'? Edersheim, in spite of
his view mentioned above, confesses ‘that such a cry should
have been raised, and raised by Jews, and before the Roman,
and against Jews, are in themselves almost inconceivabie facts,
to which the history of these eighteen centuries has made
terrible echo’ (ἢ 577).

1 “It was their appreciation of law, their respect for law, their
study of law, far more than anything else, which gave its great-
ness to the character of the Roman people. Even in the most
degraded ages of their history, and with the worst individual
types of men, this is the one bright spot which relieves the
gloom’ (Lightfoot, PiZefe [a sermoni).

2 Cp Pearson, Ax Zagosition of the Creed, art. iv. Jeremy
Taylor (14/2 gf Christ, Works 2613) says, ‘Not only against the
divine laws, but against the Roman too, he condemned an
innocent person, upon objections notoriously malicious; he
adjudged him τὸ a death which was only due to public thieves
and homicides (crimes with which he was not charged), upon a
pretence of blasphemy, of which he stood accused, but not
convieted, and for which by the Jewish law he shoutd have been
stoned if found guilty. And ‘this he did put into present
execution, against the Tiberian law, which about twelve years
before decreed in favonr of condemned persons that, ‘after
sentence, execution should be deferred ten days."

8 See Pearson, art. iv. p. 284 (1866).

4 He is obliged to admit that the actors in this drama acted
in quite an extraordinary and exceptional manner. Cp Renan's
account.

5 The end therefore îs as uncertain as the beginning. See
Mary, NatIviTy, RESURRECTION. These matters should not
be made of vital importance. ‘About the birth of Jesus I know
nothing,' says Tolstoy (4/4); ‘nor do I need τὸ know. Cp
Brandts eloquent conclusion to his work, Die Evang. Gesch.
p. 577; see also Leo Tolstoy, Wal is Religion? Herbert
Spencer, First Princibles, chap. v.

8 Cp Brandt, Die Zvang. Gesck. p. 8r. The 'Pauline'
Epistles have no details to give us, though the authors know
that Jesus was crucified (Rom. 66 1 Cor. 11323 22 2 Cor.134
Gal. ὅσο 31 524 614) by ‘the rulers of this world'(1 Cor. 28).
Ca Drescher, Das Leben Jesu dei Paulus, pp. 17, το.

Cp Pearson, art. iv.j also Strauss, Zeben Jesu, R. W.
Mackay, The Tibingen School and its Antecedents (1863), pp.

146 ὅς
ΟΝ these see Aug. Wiinsche, Die Leiden des Messias(3870).
4843

SYRACUSE

the ceremonies connected with festivals kindred to the Satur
nalia;3 or it may even be that in collecting materials for an ex-
panded life of Jesus the editors seemed to find in the ceremonies
that were performed at the sacrifice of the corn- and wine-gods
information regarding the Master who suffered asomewhat similar
fate.? The narratives in their present form seem also to indicate
that at the time the Life was re-edited, the gap between Jews
‘and Christians had become wider, and the effort to win converts
among the Gentiles keener.
Of the older literature of the subject it is enough to cite
Selden, De Synedriîs. The most important critical discussion
᾿ is that of Kuenen in the Versiager, eto., οἵ
6. Literature. the Amsterdam Academy, 1866, p. 131 seg.
good summary is given by Schirer,
Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes, $ 23,3. See also Hamburger,
Real-Eneyclopédie, sv; Ginsburg, ‘Sanhedrin’ in Kitto's
Bibi. Cyelop., and the works on the Life of Jesus ; and for an
apocryphal account of the trial, E. v. Dobschitz, ‘ Der Process
Jesu nach den Acta Pilati, in ΖΛ ΤῊ, 1902, p. 69,7
W.R.S., δ 1 MA.C., 88 2-5.

SYNTYCHE (cyNtyXH [Ti WH]), Phil. 42, See
EUvVODIA. .

SYNZYGUS (cyNzyre [Ti. WH]}in Phil. 43, though
rendered ‘ [true] yokefellow' in EV, is, though not met
with elsewhere as such, almost certainìy to be regarded
as a proper name {Zyr{wye [WHM8:]). Various un-
successful attempts have been made to guess who is
meant, the Pauline authorship of the epistle being
assumed, Clement of Alexandria thought that the
apostle's own wife was intended; Chrysostom, the
husband or brother of Euodia or of Syntyche; Light-
foot, Epaphroditus; others, Timothy, Silas; Ellicott
and De Wette, the chief bishop at Philippi; Wieseler,
even Christ himself, ‘val introducing a prayer.’ Judg-
ing from the context, we can only say some one who
was worthy of that designation and thus could be ad-
dressed in the words γνήσιε Zirtvye, ‘genuine Synzygus
—i.e., ‘Synzygus who art rightly so named’ (Vincent).
In fact, Σύνξωγος means, as contrasted with ἐτερόξυγος
{cp ἑτεροζνγεῖν, ‘to yoke incongruousty,' in 2 Cor. 614),
one who has the power of bringing together what
belongs together. ‘The name is a symbolical one, the
use of which in this passage cannot be explained as
coming from Paul, who is represented as writing to the
church ‘with the bishops and deacons' (11. The
force of the name does not become clear until we
suppose it to come from an unknown author writing
to the Philippians in the character of Paul. In ad-
dressing a certain circle he introduces the name with
the purpose of showing in what manner men of high
ecelesiastical position ought to act with regard to
brethren from a distance visiting their church. Cp
Lipsius, AC, 1892; Vincent, Comm. 1897; and
PHILIPPIANS, ὃ 3.1 W. C. ν. Μ,

SYRACUSE (ογρδκογοδο, Ti. WH), a city on the
SE. coast of Sicily, famous in Greek and Roman history,
is mentioned in the journey-narrative of Acts (2812) as
having been for thrée days a halting-place of Paul on
his way from Melita to Rome, Cicero often speaks of
Syracuse as a particularly splendid and beautiful city,
and still in his own day the seat of art and culture
{Tusc. 566, De Nat. Deor. 881, De Rep.1ex), and in his
speech against Verres (52-54) gives an elaborate descrip-
tion of ils four quarters (Achradina, Neapolis, Tyche,
the Island), or rather the four cities which composed it.
We hear nothing of importance about Syracuse during
the period of the Empire. It had local self-government
—its own senate and its own magistrates—like most of
the Greek cities. Caligula restored its decayed walls
and some of its famous temples (Suet. Caîzs, 21).
Tacitus, in a passing mention of it (πη. 1349), says
that permission was granted to the Syracusans under
Nero to exceed the prescribed number of gladiators in
their shows.

1 See Frazer, Golden Bought®), 2 [= Fortnightly Review,
Oct.-Nov. 1900]; Grant Allen, Zvol. ef the Idea of God.
*2 Cp Edward Clodd, Pioneers 07 Evolution, Part 11, $ τ,
middle.

4844

SYRIA

SYRIA

Hatti, Egypt, Assyria (88 13-15).
Aramzans (8 16).
Tigtath-pileser 1 @ 17)

Syria left to itself ($ 18).

Later Assyrian Empire (88 το"

23).
Later times (88 24-27).

Babyionta (8 12)
abylonia (Ὁ 12/1).
μ Literature on Gcography ($ 7).

“Syria' is unknown to Hebrew, but possibly
identical with Bab. Swr:, a N. Euphratean district of
uncertain boundaries. We find Syria first
1. Name. ;n Herodotus (232, ete.). In Homer's list
(42. 2783) only “Apiuot (Aramaans) appear. @ em-
ployed Συρία to translate ARAM {g.v.) in its divers
applications (e.g., Συρία Δαμασκοῦ, 2 8.85; Meroro-
ταμίας Συρία, Gen. 2520), and EV followed. Herodotus
{763}, misled (?) by the resemblance of ᾿Ασσύριοι
and Σύριοι, stated that these were ‘barbarian’ and
Greek forms of a single ethnic. In consequence he
used ‘Syria’ and ‘Syrians' even more widely than
OT used ‘Aram'; and his vagueness reappears in
Xenophon (4748. ì. 44) and in one passage of Strabo
(16737).
Strabo, followed by Pliny and Ptolemy, in stricter use
{see $ 1, end) confined Syria to the geographical area
bounded N. by Taurus, S. by the
2. Greater Arabian Desert, W. by the Mediter-
yT18 ranean, and NE. by Euphrates. The
SE. limit was formed by the vague frontier of the
*Syrian' desert, known în antiquity as the ‘ Arabian.'
Both ancient ‘Arabia Deserta' (=N. Hamad) and
‘Arabia Peîrea' (i.e. the Arabia of Pefr2=S. Hamid)
would be included now by most geographers in Syria;
whilst Arabia would be restricted to the ancient ‘ Felix,' 1
i.e., all peninsular Arabia S. of and including the
Nefùd or desert belt between the heads of the Red Sea
and the Persian Gulf. In the Roman provincia arrange-
ment ‘Arabia’=— Petreea and Deserta, Roman ‘Syria'
{at first one province and under Hadrian three) ended
S. with Palestine, and E. with the limit of the Hama&d
Steppe, 80 also Byzantine Syria split into seven
districts. Moslem geographers had some doubt whether
to reckon the Hamid to Syria or to Arabia. Mukadassi
{early roth cent. A. D.) protested against the extension of
Syria or esh-Sham (2... the ‘left-hand' land, relative to
one facing E. in Mekka) into the E. desert; and the
later geographers (e.g., Edrisi and Abulfeda) mostly
agreed with him in drawing the limit of Arabia obliquely
NE. from ‘Akaba to Rakka on Euphrates, thus detach-
ing the Hamad from Syria, For the purposes of the
present articie we shall follow them, and confine Syria
to the area contained by N. lat. 38° and 31°, by the
Mediterranean sea, and by an imaginary line drawn
roughly paraliel to its coast and on an average 150 m.
inland.
There seems also to have been a special use of
‘Syria,' which still prevails, restricting the term to that
part of the wider area which lies N. of
3 θέμε Palestine, but excluding the Lebanon littoral
Syria. (Pheenicia). This territory was regarded
as peculiarly Aramzean, and when the large Roman
province Syria was divided, it retained its name without
qualification. It had at most periods a distinet history,
having been successively the peculiar seat of the ‘Hittite*
dominion, of the Aramasan confederate power, and of
the Seleucid monarchy, at a time when Palestine and
Pheenicia were Egyptian. Only the inclusion of the
whole of wider Syria in a great alien empire, such as
the Egyptian or Assyrian, ever made the history of all
parts identical.

1 The vulgar restriction of ‘Arabia Felix” to the SW. of the
peninsula (Yemen and Hadramaut) is due to a medieval error,
repeated and confirmed by D'Anville. Strabo, Pliny, and
Prolemy alike apply the term Felix to ail peninsular Arabia.

4845

SYRIA

Syria has strong natural boundaries : high mountains
N. (average summits 8g00 ft.}, sea W., and deserts S.
and E.; but there are weak points,
vi ti whose influence is shown in Syrian

of greater history. ‘he deserts S. and E, being

yria. of the steppe character form very
indeterminate social limits. Supporting nomad popula-
tions, which are constantly being reinforced from /oci in
the Arabian oases, and forced outwards by the inability
of the desert to maintain their increase, these steppe-
deserts do not divide nearly as sharply as the N. moun-
tains, which retain barrier populations of peculiar
character. Settled folk do not migrate into deserts, but
desert folk constantly migrate into settled lands.
Throughout the S. and E. border of Syria, therefore,
‘Arabisation’ has always gone on; and especially in
Palestine, even W. of the Ghòr, many features of
nomadic life appear intrusively in the settled society.
The history of the Aramaean Semites has never been
wholly distinct from that of the Arabian.

NÉ. and NW, are easy passes. Euphrates, fordable
in an ordinary summer at various points below the
Taurus gorges, has not served strongly to differentiate
N. Mesopotamia from N. Syria. These regions are of
very similar character, and the eastward roads pass
readily from one to the other. On the other hand the
Amanus mountains, though rising to 6ooo ft., have
many low and not difficult passes, notably those
traversing the depression which divides the two main
constituents of the system, the Elma and the Giaur
chains, and will shortly be traversed by a railway.
The strong boundary lies much farther W., where the
main Taurus runs obliquely down to the sea in the
‘ Rugged Cilicia (7rackeia). Eastern influence, there-
fore, which entered Syria from NE. passed readily cut
of it to NW. and caused the civilisation of Tarsus to be
more Mesopotamian than that of Jerusalem.‘ Plain'
Cilicia may more fitly be reckoned to Syria than to Asia
Minor, as indeed was apparently the view of Herodotus,
who included Commagene in Cilicia (cp CILICIA, $ 2).
The influence of Mesopotamia is, therefore, as marked
in N. Syria as that of Arabia in 5. Syria,

The area within these limits has always presenterì
a certain social homogeneity; but its great excess of

length over breadth has militated against

Ὁ, General politica! unity, and given to its internal

BeoBTRPAY- seographical barriers a separative power
which their own character would hardly confer. ‘The
main internal barrier is a mountainous region extending
to almost an equal distance N. and S. of lat. 34°.
Here the land slopes up from N. and 5, to a sill of
3000 ft. elevation (Calegyria). On either flank
E. and W. of the plateau so formed rise longitudinal
calcareous ranges. That on the E. (An/ilibanus—
7. esh-Sharki) is a five-fold system, radiating N. from
A lofty nueleus on SE. of the plateau (1, esh-Sheikh,
Hermon, 8600 ft.). ‘The average elevation of the other
principal summits is about 8000 ft. and of the valleys
between the radii 5000 ft. ‘The main drainage of the
E. slopes flows SE. into a lacustrine pan, about 30 m,
in diameter, where it is absorbed by irrigation, or goes
to form marshy inundations, united or divided according
to the season Of these the principal are Bahr el-
‘Ateiba N., fed by the Barada (442za) and Bahr
Kibliyeh S., fed by the A'waj (2&ars4ar).
of this oasis stretches a very barren steppe falling away
to Euphrates. Ν. of it the swell of the central plateau
is continued NE. from the spurs of Antilibanus by a
barren ridge which runs to Euphrates and beyond. W.
there is easy approach from the central sill of the plateau
by a pass {4200 ft.) which leads between Hermon and
the spring of the radii of the Antilibanus system to the
upper valley of the Baradi. SW. there is also an easy,
though at first barren road to the low country S. of the
central plateau (= Palestine). This oasis gf Damasczs,
therefore, placed almost on the axis ot partition

4846

4. Boundaries

SYRIA

berween N, and S. Syria, and communicating readily
with both these regions and with the elevated frontier
district, is marked by nature for the locality of the
capital city of an independent and undivided Syria.
Were it not for its oasis character, Damascus would
have played the part of capital more often. The
W. range of the central plateau (1. el-Gharbi or
Libnan = Lebanon) îs a single chain of jurassic lime-
stone with basaltic intrusions, very steeply inclined and
without passes under 6000 ft. The highest summit
reaches 10,200 ft. (see LEBANON, $ 6}, This walls
off from the rest of Syria a narrow maritime strip,
stretching from N. el-Kebir (Eleutheros} on the N. to
Carmel on the S., much interrupted by spurs of Lebanon,
very fertile, thanks to the heavy precipitation on the
western slope, and supplied with many harbours,
good in the days of small sailing craft. Communica-
tion being difficult both with the interior (except by
artificial ways made at great cost, such as the French
mountain railway opened from Beyrout vid Zahleh to
Damascus in 1896), and within the littoral strip itself,
the inhabitants of this region have not shared in the
main currents of Syrian life, but have been attracted
towards navigation (see PHCENICIA, ἃ 9). The dis-
tinctive character of their small territory was recognised
by its constitution under Hadrian as a separate province
{Syria Phoenice). The main floor of the central
Syrian plateau falls graduaily N. and S, from a scarcely
perceptible sill just N. of Ba/albek, which is the main
water-parting οἵ Syria, It is an ancient lake-bed and
the most important part of the mod. ‘ Lebanon” district,
administered since 1861 as a province independent of
the vi/zyet of Syria. Along this deep and easy upland
valley of e/-Bu&d' (ano. Coolesyria), and between the
flanking ranges, flow to N. the head-waters of the ‘Asi
{Axios or Orontes): to 8. those of the Litanî (Leordesì,
called in its lower course el-Kasimiyeh, which force
their way W. between the 5. butt of Lebanon
and its continuation, the massi” of Galilee, to the
sea; and those of the Waidy et-Teim, which, after
receiving the drainage of the S. butt of Hermon, be-
comes Nahr el-Kebir (Jordan), and flows down into
the rift of the Ghér and to the Dead Sea (see JORDAN,
$ 37), where it is dissipated by evaporation at 1300 ft.
below sea-level. The Beka' and the central plateau
in general terminate S, in a steep and rugged
hill-system, rising to 3860 ft. in J. Jarmak, This,
which is the N. beginning of Galilee, renders access
from the S. difficult, and diverts the natural trunk road
eastward of the E. flanking range and to Damascus,
whence it either gains the Buka' through the Barada
pass (see above), or it continues N. under the E. flank
of Antilibanus, to debouch in the ‘Asi valley lower
down (near Hums), or it crosses the steppe N. or
NE. to Euphrates. S. Syria is all that les S.
of the central plateau and the oasis of Damascus, from
the sea to the Euphratean watershed and the edge of
the steppe-desert, which is here fringed in great part by
lava-fields. All this district formed the Syria Palestina
of Hadrian’s provincial arrangement. It is divided
longitudinally by the deep rift în which Jordan flows;
and its eastern half, being thus in great measure detached
from the western, and from all maritime influences, is
especially open to influences of Arabia, W. Palestine
merges insensibly in the desert on the 5, For
further geographical details concerning S. Syria see
PALESTINE, $ 2/7 D. G. H.

It has been pointed out under PALESTINE (col.
3542) that, owing to the geographical position of
the land, the fauna, though in the main
Palzearctic in character, was modified by
the intrusion of certain forms from the Oriental region
towards the E. and from the Ethiopian region towards
the S. Syria, lying to the N. of Palestine, is equally
with it subject to invasion from the E., but is naturally
much less exposed to intruders from the S., which,

4847

δ. Fauna.

SYRIA

indeed, in Palestine, chiefly affect the hollow cleft which
contain the Dead Sea and the valley of the Jordan.

The fauna of Syria, like that of Palestine, is to a
great extent a steppe-, desert-, and rock-fauna, but it
differs considerably from that of southern or even central
Palestine in the character of its mammals. As might
be expected, there are many animals with a northern
provenance found in Syria which do not penetrate as far
S. as southern Palestine, whilst the latter area hatbours
many forms which extend into the Peninsula of Sinai,
Egypt, and Nubia, but which do not reach into Syria.
Nehring! has recently pointed out that a line which
leaves the coast in the neighbourhood of Kartha, skirts
the southern limits of the Carmel group of hills, and
then turhs NE. to strike the Sea of Galilee a little W.
of the exit of the Jordan, corresponds with the lower
limit of the distribution of several of the more con-
spicuous Syrian mammals. Nehring's line, although
it includes a considerable portion of Galilee, may be
taken as the boundary of Syria considered from a zoo-
logical standpoint. It does not of course correspond
with any historical limit; but animals are seldom found
to respect political deliminations.

N. of this line we find the Syrian variety of the bear, Ursus
isabellinus, which frequents the heights of Lebanon, Hermon,
and îs met with in Bashan and Gilead, The badger, Afe/es
taxus, like the bear, seems to reach its southernmost limits in
the wooded and hilly districts just mentioned. The pole-cat,
Mustela futorius, anà the ermine, M. ermiinea, are found on
the slopes οἵ Hermon, Lebanon, and Tabor, but do not pass
Nehring's line, Their congener, M. /0/na, the heech-marten,
however, spreads through Palestine. The otter, Lutra vulgaris,
is also not uncommon on the shores of the Sea of Galilee. The
striped hyena, /yeza striata, a nocturna! animal, the hunting-
leopard, CyraZurus jubatus, are amongst the commoner car-
nivora, Wwhilst Melis c4ass, the jungle-cat, is found în Syria in
a special variety. The roe.deer, Cagreo/us caprea, reaches its
southernmost limit on the slopes of Mt, Carmel; neither it nor
the fallow-deer passes the above-mentioned line. The Syrian
wild-ass, Eguus demipr, îs another conspicuous form which
very rarely enters Palestine. The wild-boar, Sus scraf@, is
more widely distributed. It frequents not only wooded and
marshy localities, but even the desert, where it lives on roots.
"The gazelle, Gaze/la dorcas, extends southward from Lebanon,
as does the Syrian hare, Legus syriacus. Of the enormous
family Rodentia, which supplies so large a proportion of the
mammals in this part of the world, the Alpine-vole, Microfes
nivalis, and the water-vole, AM. amphibixs, are common in
Syria but do not pass Nehring's line. On che other hand,
several species of ground-vole extend far beyond it, as do three
common species of dormice, Myoxws g4is, the squirrel-tailed
dormouse, #7. #ifela, the garden dormouse, and 47. d>yas. The
Syrian squirrel, Sciurus syriacus, îs peculiarly Syrian, and
the pouched-marmoset or souslik, Sferwofhilus zanthoprym-
nxs, is not encountered S. of Gilead. The gerbille, GevBilZus
feniurus, ἴα also peculiar to Syria. According to Nehring, the
Piammomys myosurus mentioned under PALESTINE ($ τῷ δ᾽ is
more correctìy referred to the genus NVesoZia, and thus repre-
sents one of the intrusive elements from the Oriental region.

It will be seen from the above that Syria has several
mammals peculiar to itself, and a number which reach
their southernmost point in or about Mt. Carmel. The
fauna of this region is further characterised by the
absence of many creatures we are accustomed to
associate with the Bible-lands. Conspicuous amongst
these are: the coney, which recent research seems to
confine to southern Palestine; the genus Acomys, a
hedgehog-like mouse with spiny fur; the fascinating
little jerboas, and several other rodents ; and the Syrian
ibex or beden. Enough has been said to show that the
mammalian fauna of Syria (including a large part of
Galilee) differs considerably from that of S. Palestine, .
and that probably there are few spots on the world of
so restricted an area in which the mammals at one
extremity differ so much from those at the other as they
do în the little country of Palestine. A. E, 8.

N. Syria is all that land which lies N. of the central
plateau, and E. of Lebanon; but politically it has

;. always terded to include not only

δ. Lesser Syria. te plateau itself (there being no such

barrier to the N. as the mountains of Galilee form to the

1 Globus, 81, 1902, Ὁ. 309.
P. 394

See also WMM, OLZ, 1902,

4848

SYRIA

S.). but also the oasis of Damascus, between which and
Palestine intervenes a barren tract. It comprises the
NE. steppe as far as Euphrates, and all the N. land up
to Taurus, Since this region is most strictly ‘ Syria"
and is not treated elsewhere, a more particular descrip-
tion is subjoined.

(a) The'Ag13 basin.—The Buk! valley, after a course
of about 100 m., opens cut in lat. 34° 4o The
mountains on either hund fall to grassy downs, and the
river ‘Asi leaves the rocky gorge in which it has fallen
over 2000 ft. and expands at a level of about 1600 ft.
into a lake of 30 m. area, formed in part by an artificial
dam of ancient construction. At the head of this stood
the ancient Kadesh; at the foot now stands Hums
{anc. Aszesa)--to hold the pass between the plateau
valley and the lower Orontes lands, the heart of Syria
proper {Selexcis) At the same point come in natural
roads (1) from Tripoli (Tarabulis) on the W. coast,
round the N. butt of Lebanon by way of the valley of
the N. el-Kebir, (2) from Tadmor and Damascus round
N. of Antilibanus. Railways will, not improbably,
be laid shorily over both these roads, and Lums will
regain its old importance. ‘The ‘Asi flows on through
a widening valley for about 25 m. to the rich marshy
district of Hamat{Hamath-Epiphaneia),tothe E.of which
point the steppe grows more down-like and habitahle as
far as the Euphrates, while to the ἍΜ, rises a broad, low,
and fertile range (7. Nuseriyeh) which on the W. leaves
considerable littoral strips here and there of its own crea-
tion between itself and the sea. ‘The most important
of these contains the town eli-Ladakiyeh (Zaodicea). The
range ends N. in the abrupt mass of 7. el-Akra' (φέρ),
5750 ft., which falls direct to the ‘sea and closes the
littoral. A road over J. Nusgriye meets, at HamAt, the
direct Aleppo road, which continues the easiest route
from Fuphrates. _

Leaving Hamàt, the ‘Asi bends somewhat W. of N.
and flows through rich pastures (el-Gh&b) bounded on the
E. by a triple system of basaltic hills (7, el-A'l4) with fertile
intervals, which contain numerous remains of ancient
inhabitation. It passes successively the sites of Larissa
(S&jar) and Apamea {Kal'at el-Mudik), and after a
course of go m. from Hamat, is turned sharply W. by
a rocky obstruction (Jisr el-Hadid) and hugs the N.
butt of ]. Nustriye. Τὸ the N. in the line οἵ its former
course now opens out a wide plain (el-‘Amk), partly filled
by a marshy lake (Bahr-cl-Abyad, or Ak-Deniz) into
which it once fiowed, and where it once met important
tributaries, the Afrin and the Kara Su. These now
fecd the lake which discharges into the ‘Asi by the
channel, Nahr el-Kowsit. The Afriîn flows down a
broad valley (ance. Cyrrkestica) from the NE., which pro-
longs the plain far up towards Euphrates and carries
a trunk road thitherward, which crosses a low water-
parting E. of ‘Ain Tab and strikes the great river at
Bire jik, or following the valley of the Sajùr at Carchemish
a few miles S. ‘he proposed Baghdad railway will
ascend the Afrîn valley after descending that of Kara Su,
‘The Kara Su comes from the N. bringing the eastward
drainage of S. AmAnus. A natural road leads up its
valley to its source on the marshy sill of Zinjirli
(1650 ft.), and there forks (1) W. through the lowest
Amanus passes to Cilicia and Asia Minor, and {2} NE.
into the valley of Mar'ash and ancient Commagene.
Ancient remains of a palatial Assyrian fortress of an
importance suitable to its strategic position have been
explored at Zinjirli by Dr. Von Luschan {FORTRESS, $ 5}.
From the ‘Amk plain a direct road also leads due E. to
Aleppo and the Euphrates near Rakka (Thapsacus). The
deep and ferti}e region in which all these waters and roads
meet is the natural centre of N. Syria, and accordingly the
locality in which its greatest city of antiguity, Antioch,

1 ‘Agi în Arab.="rebel," and the title is variousiy explained
by the turbulence, the inaccessibility, or the anti-Meccan direc-
tion of this stream. But it is undoubtedly derived originalty

from the same ancient native name which the Greeks wrote
Axios.

4849

SYRIA

} was situated (sce ANTIOCH, $ 1). “The modern Antàkieh
lies near the point at which the ‘Asî, having at last
rounded the butt of 1. Nustriye, is about to plunge
SW. into a gorge worn down between that range and
the S. masses of Amanus. Through this it falls about
150 ft, in 10 m. to the sea in a series of unnavigable
rapids. ΟἹ the small deltaic fan N. of its mouth stands
Suediah (απο, Selezcia of Pieria) which was the port of
Antioch. But the unsheltered character of the port and
the difficulties of the road in this gorge have caused N.
Syrian trade to seek the more distant Alexandretta
(Iskanderin), which lies NE. of the plain of Antioch and
behind the S. extension of Amanus, here crossed by the
low cel of Beilîn (2230 ft.), about to be pierccd by the
Aleppo railway. ‘The whole course of the "Asi is about
170 m. _

(δὴ Commagene.—To the N. of the‘Àsi basin a small
district intervenes before Taurus closes Syria. It is
bounded S. by the heights in which the Afrin and Kara
Su rise, These heights start from Euphrates near the
mouth of the Sajùr, and run NW. to ‘Ain Tab; thence
they bend sharply to the SW., rise in Κατά Dagh to 4500
{τιν and are linked to Amanus by the Zinjîrli sil. The
hollow N. of them is divided into two basins by a low
swell running N, from Kurd Dagh to Taurus. The W.
basin drains W. by the Ak Su through a rift in Amanus
to the Cilician Jihun (Pyramzs), and -is the territory of
Mar'ash (Germaziceia): it communicates, as we have
seen, with the rest of Syria readily by way of Zinjirli.
The E. basin drains to the Euphrates, looks eastward, and
communicates less readily with the lands to the 5, This
is the ancient Commagene proper (Assyr. Aummzt), dl
which Samosata (Sumeisat) was capital. Two important
crossings of Euphrates, at Samosata and Zeugma
(Bire jik), placed it in communication with N. Meso-
potamia and especially Edessa (Urfa). _

(€) The Fuphratean plains.—To E. of the ‘Asî basin
lies the lean steppe-like plateau described above as
sloping E. to Euphrates. It is one in formation with
the Arabian desert which limits Palestine on the E., but
more fertile by reason of higher latitude and greater
precipitation It must be reckoned therefore to habit-
able Syria. ΤῈ îs limited on the S. by the ridge already
mentioned, which runs NE. to Euphrates from Anti-
libanus, and along whose S. foot lies a chain of cases,
marking a natural route from Damascus to the E. ΟΥ̓
these the chief are Karietein (Nesa/e) and Tadmor
(Palmyra), both just ‘on the verge of Arabia, The
rolling downs to the N. of this chain once contained a
large number of villages, dependent on wells, whose
ruins have been explored by De Vogiié, Burton, Drake,
Ostrup and others. This region is now deserted
owing to its ‘nomadisation’ by the migrant Anazeh
Bedouins, who have been pressing N. from central
Arabia since the thirteenth century. In the latitude of
7. ΑἸΔ, whose E. slopes fall insensibly into it, the
plateau is still steppe-like ; but immediately N. of this
point occur a series of pans, whose northern limit is the
ridge which bounds Commagene on the S. These pans
reccive water draining S. from that ridge, and are all
of more or less saline character. Of the two principal
basins, that on the E. receives a watercourse (N. el-
Dahab), which rises just 5. of Membij (Zierzgolis) and
ends în the great se&z6484 (salt-pan) of Jabul. That on
the W. is more fertile and better supplied with fresh
springs. It receives the Kowaik, which rises near
‘Ain Tab, and ends in a tract of permanent saline inunda-
tion {Mat} near Kennisrin. Fine pasturage surraunds it,
and its lower Iands are arable, This is the ancient dis-
trict Chalybonitis, which now supports Aleppo (Haleb ;
απο, Ckalybon- Berea), 1 town οἵ 65,000 inhabitants and
the successor of Antioch, Through it lie the directest
route from Asia Minor to Baghdad, or Babylonia, which
erosses the Euphrates at Rakka (7kapseczs), and the
easiest road from S. Syria to the same point or to the
more northern crossing at Bire jik (Zeueme).

4850

SYRIA

For 8. Syria see under PALESTINE and Pacnicta, For N,
Syria ste Burckbardt, Travels in Syria (1822); Porter, Hive
Vears in Damascus (1855); Burton and
©. Bibliography. Drake, Unexblored Syria (1872); Ains-
worth, Narvative of the Euphrates Ex-
dedition (1888); Humann and Puchstein, Reiser in Nordsyrien,
etc. (1890); and a recentaccount of part of the E. steppe by H. C.
Butler, in the American Jowmal ef Archaeology, series 2, 4
(2900); cp also Oppenheim, Vom Mittelmeer 20m Persischen
Golf (1900), and Blunt, Bedowins ofthe Eupkrates (1879), The
summary by Reclus, Gfogr. Unio. (Asie Antérieure) îs very
good (1884ì; and for more recent statistics, as well as local
detail, see Cuinet, Syrie, Liban ef Palestine (3896).
D. G. H.

II. History

The region which we designate as Syria has never
constituted a political unity ; of itself a proof that it 15
not, like Egypt or the Euphrates-country,
8 gdea of a single land held together by common
τᾶ... conditions of living. There is no river to
furnish a natural chamnel of inter-communication and
bond of union, For the same reason, there has never
been any such separate entity as a Syrian civilisation ;
in this respect also, precisely as in things political, the
various districts gravitated towards the countries of the
neighbouring great civilisations. If Syria as an idea
has maintained its existence for millennia, it is possible
to see in this also a proof of the tenacity of the ancient
Babylonian conception of the world, For it is to the
ancient geographical division associated with that con-
ception that the idea of Syria owed its origin, and its
revival upon the fall of Assyria, after the Assyrian
ascendancy had well-nigh sent it to oblivion.
Suri-Syria is closed in by the two civilisation-areas of
Babylonia and Asia Minor, and thus its development
was determined by them. Being separ-
9. Relat{onS. ted from the Egyptian area by Pales-
tine, it was not so directly influenced from that side.
The movements of nations, the immigrations, to
which it is exposed are, mainly, those from the S.
(Arabia) and those from the N., by way of Armenia
and Asia Minor. The first are those of the Semites ;
the second, those of the peoples whom we are accus-
tomed to call Hittite because they stand to Asia Minor,
the seat of the Hatti or Heta, in a relation analogous to
that of the Semitic immigrants to Babylonia. The
natural consequence is that the population of Syria is în
the main a mixture of both racial elements, and that in
the course of the millennia and centuries representatives
now of the one, now of the other, give the prevailing
character to the whole.
For any knowledge of the conditions in detail we
must turn, for the remoter antiquity exclusively, for
later times chiefly, to the accounts we
10. Bourees of nossess of the neighbouring peoples—
* primarily of the Assyrian-Babylonian,
and then also of the Egyptian conquerors. The soil of
the country itself has as yet yielded but few documents.
Of these, for the older time, the monuments excavated
at Zenjirli-Sam'al are of primary importance. The
many monuments bearing Hittite inscriptions, which
the soil of Syria, both in the narrower sense of that
geographical expression (Hamath, Aleppo, Mar'a$, Car-
chemish) and in the wider (the eastern borderlands of
Asia Minor), has yielded, still remain undeciphered.
The oldest Babylonian period shows Syria standing
in the same relation to Babylonia as afterwards to
Assyria. Sargon of Agade and Naram-
Babyionii, Sin must have directed their armies
thither precisely as was afterwards done
by Tiglath-pileser I., Shalmaneser II., and the later
Assyrian kings. That Sargon went forth to Amurru
{Palestine) is repeatedly mentioned in the Omina, and
‘Sargon subjugated and settled all Syria’ is said of
that monarch exactly as Shalmaneser II. and others
might have had it said of them.
In the time of Naram-Sin and the period that

4851

SYRIA

followed, at least down to that of the first dynasty
12. Later ° Babylon, the ascendancy in Syria is

dada already held by that Semitic wave of immi-

perl gration which we regard as the second and

call the Canaanite. At that time, accordingly, Syria
must, like Babylonia itself, have received a considerable
infiux of population of this race and language. The
next Semitic wave consists of the Arameans, whose
lordship in Syria does not emerge until comparatively
late. Until that event, accordingly, that is to say,
during the second millennium B.c., and even later,
‘Canaanite’ dialects--;.e., languages like Hebrew and
Phoenician—must have been spoken in Syria. Even as
late as the eighth century B.c., we can learn from the
inscriptions of Zenjirli-Sam'al that the influence of the
Aramaic had still to struggle with the older Canaanite
dialects. A fragment of an inscription of Hasan ΒΟΥ],
not far from Zenjirli, and inscriptions of Zenjirli dating
from the ninth century (of Kalammu bar [!] Haja)
show, indeed, that by that time the Semitic language
of ordinary intercourse must already have become
Aramaic, but at the same time exhibit purely Canaan-
ite forms of speech, closely corresponding to Pheenician.

In the middle of the second millennium we find a
Hittite people, the Mitani, masters of Mesopotamia

stesi, 204 N. Syria (Hanigalbat = Melitene).

15. Hrittito Though they are the first people of this

race which we have as yet been able to

Egyptian. discover on Syrian soil, we must not
therefore conclude that they were the first to force their
way thither. On the contrary, it seems as if we were
able to trace, in the Amarna despatches, the existence
of an older Hittite layer of population even in Palestine
(such names as Sura-sar are unquestionably ‘ Hittite').
Both phenomena alike are to be interpreted as conse-
quences of a larger Hittite migration into or conquest
of Syria, advancing from N. to S., in other words, in
the opposite direction to that of the Semitic immigration.

To the same period belong also the Egyptian con-
quests of the eighteenth and the nineteenth dynasty.
How far the Egyptian lordship over Syria was în point of
fact extended by these, hardly admits of ascertainment ;
but the princes to the N. of Aleppo, we may be sure,
will hardly have accepted the Egyptian suzerainty for
any longer period than that during which the Pharaoh
was in a position at any time to despatch an army
against them. Thus in N. Syria relations will have
prevailed towards Egypt, similar to those which under
Sargon and Sennacherib prevailed towards the adjacent
border countries of Asia Minor {Tabal, Hilak).

In the Amarna letters in the fourteenth century, we
find three powers keeping an eye upon Syria and
Palestine : Babylonia (under the lordship of the Kass-
ites), the Mitani, and the state of the Hatti or Heta in
Asia Minor. Of these the Hatti would seem to have
been at that time the most dangerous to the influence
of Egypt. Again and again mention is made of the
advance of princes of Heta into the Beka'.

In the thirteenth-twelfth century Egypt is powerless,
until under Ramses 11. it again takes up a somewhat
more vigorous foreign policy. During this interval
Syria was naturally at the mercy of the other great
powers, and it is in agreement with the picture pre-
sented in the Amarna letters that Ramses in the
twelfth century comes into conflict with the Heta in
northern Palestine and Ccelesyria. In the interval the
movement which we find already in existence in the
fourteenth century must have been completed, and
Syria have fallen in the main under the power of the
Hittite state. The fourteenth-thirteenth century would
thus be the time which witnessed a Hittite predominance
in Syria and saw Syria drawn politically into closer
connection with the Hittite empire. All the great
Syrian cities from the N. to the 5, were at this period
governed by viceroys or vassal princes of the Hittite
sovereign; from Commagene to the valley of the

4852

I. EGYPTIAN MONUMENTS. II. AMARNA LETTERS.

essa il's name was favi

umant with

Map of 7

SYRIA USEA Map οἵ
after the
EGYPTIAN MONUMENTS 5 Y RI A
of th iter the sl
Pia) rsttezb. century B.C. AMARNA LETTERS|?"
sa — Beale of Miles 1g Scale of Miles
DA

10° 20 30 15 50 e_10 20 30 40 so [8
uit Ὁ Ὁ τ ὃ Ὁ Ὁ τ Ὁ καὶ

B Long. E. 36° of Greenwich (ἡ B Long. E. 36° of Greenwich ©
Walker & Cockerell sc. Cdl, A Billerbeck del, Walker δὲ Cockerell sc.
ENCYGLOPAEDIA BIBLICA 1903, ENCYCLOPEDIA BIBLICA 1903.

I EGYPTIAN

Accho, B6

Adumfa), A7, 8

‘Aka, B6 (Provemais, $ 1)

Amafu)r(a), C4

Arad, B7

Aranti, C2, 3, 4

Arasa, A3

A(ra)siy, A3

Aratàî, B4

‘Arka, B4 (Premia,
$4 10)

Arvad, B4 (PuÙenicia,
8 4 το)

Ashkelon, Az

Askaruni, A7

Asfs)er(u), Bs, 6

Astirat(u), C6

Byblos, B4 (Pacenicia,
$49)

D(0)ra, ‘A6

Edrei, C6
Egyptian frontier οὗ
Rameses II., Bs, C5

Gasar(a), A7
Gasat, A7
Gaza, A7
Gezer, A7

Hamat{u), B6
Hamat(u), C4 (Hamarn)
Hermon, Mt., Bs
Huditi, B7

Joppa, A6
Jordan, B6, 7

Kades, C3

Kadm(a), B6, 7

Kana'an(a), the, As, 6,
B3, 4. 5

Kharu, A7, B6

Khetè, Land of, Ar, Br

Khér, Αγ, B6

Khòr," ‘Great Sea of, A3,

4, 5
Kode (?), Β3, 4, 5
Kupni, B4 ἰΡπακισια, 8 3

note, $ 4 9}

Lebanon, B4, 5
Leontes, B5 (Acusnarn)

Mannus, Ba

MAPS OF SYRIA
INDEX TO NAMES
1. AMARNA LETTERS— continued

MONUMENTS

Marnus, Ba
Mediterranean, A4, 5

Naharin, C2, 3
Nazana ? Bs

Ono, AG

Orontes, Cz, 3, 4
{Lepanon, 8 6)

Otara'a, C6

Purasati, etc., A6, B6

(Ρεπιοτικε)

Ramanfa)n, ΒΆ, 5

Rameses II, Egyptian
frontier of, Bs, C5
Rapeh, A7

Raphia, A7 (Ecver,
$ 660

Reinu (Upper), Bs, 6, 7,
c

5
Reznu? (Upper), Bs, 6,
7, 5

Sa'arfa), B8
Sakema, B6
Samar(a), B4
Sardun(a), B6
Sar(u), Bs

Sauko, A7

Sety 1., Monument of, C6
Sharahan, A7
Sharuhen, A7
Shaua ? Mt., B5
esh-Sheikh Sa'd, C6
Sidon, Bs
Sidun(a), Bs
Sinsara, C3

Timask, C5 {Damascts)
Tyre, 85

Ung, Ca

W'n-tree?, banks of the,
Ca

Y(a)pu, A6

Var(a)dun(a), B6, 7

V(a)sraél, B6 (Isnaer, $7;
col. 1242, ἢ. 31 4692, n. 1)

Zahi, Β3, 4, 5
Zakkari, A6 (PanustINEs,

83)

IL AMARNA LETTERS

Accho, B6

Adana, Ba

Adumu, B8

N. ‘Afrin, C2 (Syma, 8 6)

“Akk&a, B6 (PToLEMAIS)

Aku, B6

Alaîia, A3 {Trape AND
Commerce, $ 26)

Aleppo, Cz

Alexandretta, C2 (Svrta,

85)

Amurru, Bs, 2, 3, 4
(Αμοκιτεβ, ϑύκια, $ 21)

‘Anàb, Α7 (Ατηλθη)

Jebel εἰ Απρᾶτῖγθ, C3, 4
(Puaenicra, $ 4 12)

Antioch, Ca

Apamea, C3

‘Arara, ΑΒΖ (Arokx 3)

Araru, AB7

“Arka, BC4 (Ρηανισια,
$ 4 10)

Armada, B4

Arwad, B4 (Promicia,
ξ 4 το)

N. el'Asi, Ba, (3
(Lesanon, 8 6)

‘Askalan, A7 (AsukeLon)

A3kaluna, A7

Amki, Β΄

Amma? Β4, C4

Amurru, Bs, C2, 3, 4

Ayaluna? B7

Azzati, A7

Ba'albek, Cs (Lesanon,

86)
Batron, B4 (Gesat)

Beirit, Bs (Puomicia,
848) .
Biruna, Β5. (Phcnicia,

$4
Birutu, Bs (Puonicia,
8.48
Byblos, Β4 (Ρηανισιὰ,
849)

Cilician Taurus, Ar
Cyprus, A3 {TrapE AND
Commerce, $ 18)

Damascus, C5
Dead Sea, B7
Dimask, Cs
Dimaska, C5
Dunip? Cs

tell Erfad, Ca (Arpao)

Gari, B8

Gath, A7
Gaza, A7
Gazara, A7
Gazri, Α7
Gennesaret, B6
Gezer, A7
Ghazza, A7
Gidti, C4
Gimti, A7
Ginti, A7
Gòk-su, Br
Gubli, B4 {Genat i.)

Harabu, C2

Tell el-Hasi, A7

Hatti, Cr, 2, 3, 4 (Svrta,
$$ 13 and 15)

jebel Haurîn, C6
(Βαβηαν, $ 3)

Hebron, B7

Hermon, Bs

Hinatuni, B6 (Hax
NATHON}

Hinianabi? A7 (Anas)

Homs, C4 {HerHLox) "

Bahret el-Hulch, Bs
{Jorpan, $ 4)

Irkata, BC4 (PuUessicia,

$ 410)
Jebeil, B4 (Gesat. i.)

Jefat, B6
Jerusalem, B7
Jezer, A7
Jihan, Br, 2
Tiphtah-el? B6
Jordan, B6, 7

Jotapata, B6

Kara Su, C2 (ϑνκιλ, 6)

J. Karmel, B6 (CarmeL)

Katna? C4

Nahr el-Kebir, B4
(Lesanon, 8 6)

N. el-Kebir, B3, C3

Kedesh, C4

Nahr el-Kelb, Bs
(Pueenicia, $ 5)

el-KhaHl, B7

Kidsi, C4

Kinabbi, A6, 7

Kinsi? C4

Kubli, B4 (Grsat i.)

el-Kuds, B7

Lachish, A7
el-Ladikiyye, B3
Lakis, A7

Lakisi, A7
Laodicga, B3, C4
Lapana? C4
Lebanon, B4, 5, (4
Lebneh, C4

Lejjan, B6

Bahr Lat, B7

Magidda, B6

Makida, B6

Mar'ash, Οἱ (Syria, $ 23)
Martu, Bs, C2, 3, 4
Megiddo, B6

tell Nebi Mindu, C4
Misri, A8

Kal'at el-Mudîk, C3

Nubas3i, Ca

Orontes, ΒΩ, C3 (Lesano»,
8 6)

Raphia, A7 (Eaver, 664)
tell Refah, A7

tell es-Safieh, A7
Saida, Βς
Samaria, B6
Sebastiye, B6
Seihun, Br
Sidon, Bs
Sidunu, Bs
Sumur, B4

Sar, Β5

Surru, B5

Bahr Tabariye, B6
Tabor, B6
Tarsus, A2
Taurus, CI
Timaîgi, Cs

1. et-Tor, B6
Tyre, Bs

Ubi, C5
Urusalim, B7
Usù, Bs

Vila, A6 (Parestixe, $ 8)
Vapu, A6 (Jorra, $ 1)
Yarpuz, CI

Zenjirli, Ct (Aramare, $ 2°
Zituna, Bg

SYRIA

Orontes, in Malatia, Mar'af, Aleppo, Hamath, and
Kadesh on the Orontes the sovereignty of the Hittites
was established. From this period, we may be sure,
CARCHEMISH on the Euphrates also was reckoned a
Hittite city. It must have been the principal seat of
the Itittite rule in central Syria, for with the Assyrians
later it passed as the capital of Syria, in so far as it
was Hittite, and they called its king also, without
qualifying phrase, the Hittite (Hatti) king.

The advance of the Hatti southwards over Cilicia
must have occurred in connection with these move-
ments. For if their power had its seat in Asia Minor
and on the Halys, they would have needed first to
overthrow the Milani power in Hanigalbat, if they had
wished to force their way through Melitene and Com-
magene. Struggles with this power were not wanting ;
the Amarna letters tell of a victory of Dusratta of
Mitani over the Hittite king, but the overthrow of the
Mitani was accomplished by Assyria.

‘The Mitani and their successors, accordingly, held
northern Syria, whilst the advance proper of the Hittites
upon Cilicia (the Kué of the Assyrian inscriptions)
appears to have been made through the ‘Cilician Gates’
and through Cilicia and over Amanus.

At the same time we can learn also from the Amarna
letters that Assyria under A3ur-uballît is beginning to

be dangerous to its overlord, the

14. Appearance Ling of Babylon, and to arouse his

of ASeyri8. ;eaousy as well as that of the king
of the Mitani. Soon afterwards, under Ramman
(Adad}-nirari I. and Shalmaneser I, Assyria broke the
power of the Mitani, and thus subdued Mesopotamia,
settling it în part with Assyrian colonists, as well as ex-
tending also westwards of the Euphrates, Shalmaneser
I. took possession of the lands to the N. of the Taurus
and subjugated umani as well as Musri—i.e., Cappa-
docia, at least between Taurus and Anti-taurus. In
other words, he took possession of the whole area of
the Mitani empire and brought that power to an end.

In doing so, Assyria at the same time stepped into
the place that the Mitani had occupied over against the
Hatti, and this new ecquaintance thrust itself in almost
like a wedge between the original land of the Hatti and
their new acquisition. The territory of the Hatti
would in the event of any fresh advances of Assyria
through Cilicia down to the sea be torn in two. The
necessary consequence would then have been that the
Assyriaris would be compelled, as were the Mîtani kings
în the Amarna period, to go to war with the kings of
the Hatti, in which all Syria from Commagene south-
ward would have been involved.

The Hatti, however, were apparently spared this
struggle by the sudden collapse of the Assyrian power

πε, At the death of Tukulti-Nînib 1., and by

15. Hittite h;; efforts to secure his position in Baby-

and lonia before pressing westward. This

Esyptian. nappened in the thirteenth century, and
in this way the Haiti were enabled to develop and
establish themselves in Syria undisturbed by the new
and dangerous enemy.

The advance of Egypt under Rameses did not
curtail this Hittite territory, for in spite of all alleged
triumphs over the ‘miserable Heta' Rameses acknow-
ledged their lordship over Syria, the mutually-recog-
nised frontier having been possibly the Nahr el-Kelb
near Beirut, if not some river still more to the S.

By the peace concluded between the two powers,
expressed in an offensive and defensive alliance between
Ramses and Hetasar--an alliance rendered famous by
the preservation of the terms of the treaty1 was effected
a definition of political rights in Syria of great import-
ance; the Pharaoh renounced his rights în Syria in
favour of the Hittite king, and thus the country which
hitherto had been in theory Egyptian now became
Hittite,

1 See WMM 27775 1902, no. 5 (7(e)-tà-sd-ra).

155 4853

SYRIA

This theory was taken advantage of and zealousiy
pressed by Assyria. If în the sequel Syria figures with
the Assyrians as ‘ Hatti land,' they employ this designa-
tion because they come forward as lawful heirs to the
Hittite claims.

The same period which witnessed the subjugation of
the Hatti saw also the gradual pressing forward of the

Aramzaeans into Syria. Already in the
16. ATRDUSAE. ‘A marna letters we find mention of the
ablamà, by which expression we are to understand the
Aramaic bedouins. Ramman (Adad)-nirari L and
Shalmaneser I. fought with Arameeans mainly on
Mesopotamian territory, and similarly also, about 1100,
Tiglath-pileser I. speaks of struggles with Aramzean
ablamQ who had forced their way across the Euphrates
into Mesopotamia,

The reign of Tiglath-pileser 1. brought with it a
renewed advance on the part of Assyria along the paths

᾿ which had already been trodden b
inni Shalmaneser 1 Pressing across. he
*. Euphrates through Melitene to Kumani
and Musri, Tiglath-pileser became master in the first
instance of the former territory of the Mitani which
belonged to him as lord of Mesopotamia. This was
not possible without a previous clearing out of other
invaders. For now also the ‘Hittite' tribes of the N.
were seeking to make their way into Mesopotamia and
Syria, a counter-current to the Arameaean immigration.
T'iglath-pileser names the peoples of the Kummuh—
who thus, perhaps, at that time, gave their name to the
country—of the Muski, and Kaska, as having been
repelled by him from Mesopotamia. The people in
question are racially of the same kindred as the then
masters of Asia Minor and the Hittite empire. This
empire was, of course, still more profoundly affected by
this same movement of population, and in the reign of
Sargon II in the eighth century, it reappears still
under the name of Muski,

‘These peoples thus, from the present period onward,
constituted the population of the borderlands of Asia
Minor and of Asia Minor itself. The Hatti empire
also, accordingly, was the scene of new displacements
of population. From a statement of Tiglath-pileser we
learn, too, that the collision with the Hatti empire
which had not yet occurred under Shalmaneser I, was
no longer delayed. The Hittite king—this is our only
reminder of the existence of a Hilttite power at all at
this period—was defeated by Tiglath-pileser, and the
way to N. Phoenicia was once more open, and with ît
access to a port on the Mediterranean.

Tiglath-pileser I. pressed on as far as to Arvad, the
most northern city of Phcenicia, and so found himself
on territory which had formerly been recognised by
Rameses as Hittite, and at the same time he had cut
off the Hittite possessions in Syria from the mother
country farther N. He tells us how (in Arvad) he
received gifts from the ‘king of Egypt'—amongst them
a crocodile, apes, and the like. "This means nothing
either more or less than that the then Pharaoh—his
name is not recorded—recognised him as conqueror of
the Hatti and as heir of the rights which had been
ceded to these by Rameses II. Assyria thus bad
become the rightful successor of Egypt in Syria.

Even Tiglath-pileser I. advanced by the most
northerly route to N. Pheenicia. ‘Though recognised
by Egypt he had not yet gained the recognition of the
Hatti nor, above all, that of the broken-up Syrian
vassal-states or provinces themselves. We do not
yet know what was the attitude of these states —
Carchemish, Aleppo, and those further to the S. That
matters would not have been settled without an appeal
to arms may be taken for granted; but they do not
seem to have come as far as that, for once more, as pre-
viously at the aeath of Tukulti-Ninib I, the Assyrian
power speedily collapsed.

In this way Syria was rid at one and the same time

4854

SYRIA

SYRIA

of both its lords, for the Hittite power also must at that ; years of his reign to strengthen his hold on the territory

τ period have been severely shaken by
lat stase the iruptions οἱ the Muski and others,
“and so precluded from effective inter-
vention in the affairs of Syria. Syria, therefore, exactly
as Palestine, was in the eleventh and tenth centuries
virtually left to itself and at liberty to follow its own
political development independently of the great powers :
Ἀ5 such at this date come into account not only Egypt
and Assyria but also Babylonia, In Palestine and
Phceenicia arose the kingdoms of David and of Hiram,
in Syria a number of states with populations essentially
of one and the same character, a mixture of Hittite and
Aramzean. Needless to say, under these conditions
the Aramasan immigration went on with much less
impediment than would have been the case if a strong
and great power had held sway. We have evidence
for this Aramaan advance in occasional statements
made by later Assyrian kings regarding the time in
question. Thus Shalmaneser II. bears witness that
under the Assyrian king ASur-irbî the Arameeans had
taken possession of Pitru (see PETHOR) on the Sagur.
This movement will have been in the tenth century,
for from the second half of that century onwards we are
+ again able to follow the course of the
19. ASurnasir Assyrian kings (from Tiglath-pileser IL.
pai onwards). In the ninth century Afur-
nasir-pal begins anew to expand. He begins by
subjugating the Aramzean states which had in the
meantime sprung up in Mesopotamia {the most im-
portant of them was Bit- Adini which had its centre
about Harran), and next* he proceeds to cross the
Euphrates. It is nevertheless worthy of remark that
he did not follow quite the same route as had been
taken by his two predecessors Shalmaneser I. and
Tiglath-pileser 1. Whilst they took possession of the
territory which had belonged to the Mitani and from
this base were thus able, after the conquest of the Hatti,
to make their way to the sea, Afur-nasir-pal advanced
direct through Syria proper. He already possessed legal
claims to the ‘Hatti land’—for as such Syria is now con-
stantly represented by the Assyrians, whilst the Hatti land
proper on the Halys is henceforward known as Muski.
The development which had gone on in the interval
appears from what ASur-nasir-pal tells us. In the N.
it was Kummub, on both banks of'the Euphrates, that
was always most fully exposed to the Assyrian influence,
and it acknowledged the Assyrian sovereiguty im-
mediately upon the subjugation of the Arameean states
of Mesopotamia. ‘he region to the S. of Kummuk
embraced in Afur-nasir-pal's time the state of Car-
chemish, now called the capital of Hattiland {sec above,
$' 13). Its king submitted in like manner without
a struggle, thus recognising the claims of Assyria.
Westward of this had grown up a state which included
the northern portion of Syria proper (substantialiy
Cyrrhestica) from the borders of Carchemish—[let us
say the Sagur-—southwards to the mountains of the
Nosairi ; its southern and eastern neighbour here may
have been Hamath, of which ASur-nasir-pal for very
good reasons says nothing, The new state was that of
Patin (see PADDAN-ARAM), which had Liburna or
Lubarna for its king, and Kunalua or Kinalia as its
capital. Liburna did not submit until his capital had
been besieged. In the southern Nosairi range, that is
in the mountains of North Pheenicia, ASur-nastr-pal
founded an Assyrian colony in Aribua.? ΟΥ̓ any
further steps he took ASur-nasir-pal tells us nothing ;
but the state of affairs under his successor shows us
what occurred in the immediately following years in this
Aramzean state in the ‘Ami.
Shalmaneser II. procceded immediately in the first

1 From the order of the aninals ît is possible to doubt whether
this happened in 876 or în 868 5.5, The latter date is probably

to be preferred.
2 Ral'at el-Arba'in, ESE. from el-Ladaliyeh? sce Sanda in

MVAG, 1902, 78.
4855

which Afur-nasir-pal had sub-
20. Shalmameser IL; \eated in Mesopotamia and

Syria, Kumrub, Bit-Adini, and Carchemish had to
submit, or were overthrown. In piace of the single state
of Patin, however, Shalmaneser set up in the same area
several smaller states. Liburna had thus to share his
dominion with the various princes of the districts of his
former territory—perhaps in virtue of an arrangement
of A3ur-nasir-pal's on the principle of divide et impera.
Shalmaneser mentions by name Mutallu of Gurgum,
Hani or Hayan bar Gabar of Sam'al, Sapalulme, and
afterwards Kalparunda of Patin in 853. Thus, on this
first campaign which carried him to the Amanus,
Shalmaneser kept himself practically within the limits
of Patin, which had recognised the Assyrian overlordship.
Some years later (in 854) he already names along with
this the people or tribe of Gusi {or Agusi), which had its
seat near Arpad under its prince Arame, and (in the N.)
Lalli of Melitene.

The same expedition was destined to bring the whole
of Syria or Hattiland under the Assyrian sway, and the
course of it explains why formerly A$ur-nasir-pal had
advanced by the ‘Amk-route. For the territory of
Hamath, and that immediately adjoining it on the S.,
were at that tinie the seat of a greater power which
possessed the ascendancy over Central Syria. Here in
the tenth-ninth century DAMASCUS (g.v.) had developed
into a principal state, Shalmaneser II. reckons up the
‘allies’ of Benhadad {Bir-'idri,—i.e,, vassal states which
had to render military service—in 854 B.C. and follow-
ing years thus : Hamath, Kue, Musri, North Pheenicia,
the ‘ Arabians,' Ammonh.

The humiliation of Damascus was the task which
henceforward confronted Syria. Shalmaneser grappled
with it in vain. Even in 842 when Hazaei was besieged
in Damascus it was fbund impossible to force him to sub-
mit. On the other hand, from that year we hear no more
of any ‘allies.' Assyrian politics had drawn them all
over to the Assyrian side. ‘The question of adherence to
Damascus or to Assyria is at this period the decisive one
for every prince in Hatti-land, and it is accordingiy the
one of'supreme importance for Israel also (see JEHU),

Towards the end of the reign of Shalmaneser (832)
a revolt broke out in Patin; but it was quelled

- Shalmaneser, 06. 147 7). The
21. Later kings. Me comici mill È) change
of government and the reign of Sam$i-Ramman (Adad)
IV. left Syria, in particular Damascus, in much freedom,
Ramman (Adad)-nirari III. was the first to get energetic-
ally to work again. Mari’ of Damascus made sub-
mission to him, and thus all Hatti-land acknowledged
Assyrian suzerainty. At the same time ‘Amurri' also,
down to its most southerly extremity Edom, was
subjugated, and thus Assyria now went beyond the
limits of the claims which could be inferred merely from
the acknowledgment made by the Pharaoh under
Tiglath-pileser 1.3 Henceforward, accordingly, Amumu
also is included in the expression ‘Hatti-land.’ We
are unable to say how far circumstances of the Amarna
period were held to justify the claims made (cp $ 13).

Next follows a period of decline of the Assyrian
power, bringing along with it greater freedom for Syria
and Palestine. Mention is made of risings in Damascus
(773) and more particularly in Hadrak (Hatarikka)
(772. 765, 755). The latter must thus at that period
have been a town of importance in Syria. Probabiy
Aramzean princes sought to establish a kingdom there

The powerlessness of Assyria had as one of its results
that the northern part of Syria came under the influence
of the Urarti, which at that time was strongly asserting

1 /e., the name «91 of the Aramaic inscription in CZS,
2 no. 75; see Sachau in ZA, 6432. The names are partiy,
Aramaic, partly Hittite, and thus show the mixed character of
the population.

2 Meanwhile SoSenk had again asserted the Egyptian claims
to Palestine,

4856

SYRIA

itself. This is true specially of the states of a pre-
vailingly ‘Hittite' character, — Kummuh, Melitene,
Carchemish. By contiict with the ‘Hatti'--£e., the
Hatti properly so called, who are now designaied as
Muski by the Assyrianst—the kings of Urartà had
doubtless acquired like claims with those of Assyria.
Under the changed conditions in Assyria, we see it now
already designing to extend its influence also over
Middte Syria. Sometimes the kings of Urartu take the
title of ‘king of Suri," with the old-Babylonian méaning
(cp 8 8), and in opposition to their adversaries the kings
of Assyria.

In Middle Syria Arpad was in the hands of Mati-el
prince of Agusi ($ 20), and his subjugation, as well as

᾿ the expulsion of the Urartà king Sarduris
22. Tiglath- rom Syria, was thus Tiglath-pileser ΠῚ. 5
pileser ΠῚ. rst task. The reîgn of this monarch with
its rapid increase of the Assyrian power, brought about
in the end the subjugation of Syria and Palestine, and
the prosperity of the Assyrian empire proper under the
dynasty of βάγροπ. ‘ Hatti-land," in the extended sense
which includes Amurru and thus reaches to the Nahal
Musri, comes under the sway of Assyria as a province or
vassal-state.

After the subjugation of Arpad and Urartà, the ‘Amk
was again overthrown in 738. Here Azriya'u of Ya'udi
sought to make a stand. His capital Kulanî (see
CALNO) became the chief city of an Assyrian province ;
the other districis of what had formerly been Patin
{(Sam’al, Gurgum) retained in the meantime their own
princes. In Sam'al Tiglath-pileser mentions Panammi
whom we know from the inscriptions of his son Bir-sur
in Zenjirli. The king's next effort was directed against
Damascus, which fell under Rasén in 732 B.C., and
became an Assyrian province.

By avoiding collision, Hamath seems to have main-
tained a government of its own from the time of Shal-
maneser II. It is not mentioned again after it had given
up the 'alliance' with Benhadad to submit to the
Assyrians ($ 20). By the formation of the province of
Kulanî in 738 it had sustained a great loss of territory.
The whole of the North Phcenician district which had be-
longed to it was—as belonging to Patin (cp end of $ 19),
and therefore rebellious—annexed by Tiglath-pileser as
23. 5. Ir, 22 Assyrian "province Simirra.” After

+ Sargon I. the fall’ofSamaria in 722 B.c. an attempt
was made in conjunction by Samaria, Damascus, and this
‘province Simirra' to cast off Assyrian sovereignty.
Eni'il, the king, doubtless, of the old ruling house, had
been set aside, and a certain Ilu-bi'di, ‘a peasant,' called
to the throne. The previous peasant condition of the
new king shows that here there was a question of
internal revolution which connected itself with similar
movements in the adjoining countries and was somewhat
belated. In Israel some fifteen or twenty years earlier
Amos had în like manner spoken out in favour of a
popular movement. The result naturally was that
Hamath too lost its independence {720 B.C.).

‘The same fate overtook Carchemish under its last
king Pisiris in 717.
from Mita of Muski (i.e., Midas of Phrygia!), the ruler
of the 0/4 Hatti-land. Thus the whole of Middle Syria
down to the borders of Judah had come under the
provincial administration of Assyria.

In the ‘Amk Sam'al kad also in the meanwhile lost its
independence, doubtless at the time of the rising of
Hamath. The same fate befel Kumani (Kammanu)
and Melitene in 712, Gurgum with its capital Markas
(Mar'a8) in 711, Kummub în 708, so that North Syria
also was now once more under Assyrian administration.

Under Sennacherib Assyria made no progress; on

Lat the contrary, in Palestine repeated efforts

24 Later vere made, simultaneousiy with a like effort

ER88 on the part of Babylonia in the rear, to

shake off the Assyrian yoke. This applies, however,
1 Wi. 40F, 2135.

4857

He had vainly sought support ;

SYRIA

only to the self-ruling countries—Sidon-Tyre under Luli,
and Judah under Hezekiah; the Assyrian provinces
remained tranguil— perhaps because they felt themselves
at all events better off under the Assyrian administra-
tion than they had been under rulers of their own.

Under Esarhaddon and ASur-bani-pal, in like manner,
more of the Syrian territory changed hands; broadly,
the conditions which had been established under Sargon
continued, with the single exception that the territory
of ‘Tyre and Sidon (not the city gf Tyre), also had
become Assyrian.

On the fall of Assyria, Necho made the attempt again
to establish the old rights of the Pharaohs over Hatti-
land. He advanced to Carchemish
where he was defeated by Nebu-
chadrezzar.! At this period he must
like Nebuchadrezzar have had his headquarters in the
Bekà. ‘ Riblah seems then to have played an important
part. The district of Hamath to which it belonged
was very favourably situated for such purposes.

By the victories of Nebuchadrezzar Hatti-land or
ebir néri (min “mp)—for it is now again occasionally
designated by its old name—came under the power of
Babylonia, and there it remained, The rebellions of
Judah which eventually led to the abolition of that
kingdom, met with no support elsewhere in Syria,
During the whole of this period the capitals of the
former states of Syria figure as the administrative
centres of an equivalent number of Assyrian (afterwards
Babylonian) provinces.

The same position of affairs is still indicated by
Nabuna'id in his third year (553), when this ruler
once more summons the kings ‘of Gaza and the Middle
Sea, beyond the Euphrates' to take their part in the
rebuilding of the temple in Harran. At that time,
therefore, ‘ Hatti-land' in the widest sense of the word
was still acknowledging the Babylonian supremacy.
Fourteen years later the new king of Babylon was
Cyrus the Persian.

Under Cyrus and Cambyses the government of the
country seems in the first instance to have been carried
5 on unchanged; thus the provinces re-
26. PersiaM. mained under their péhas and Saknus as
before. The internal revolution within the Persian
empire and the rearrangement of the administration
under Darius next brought about the division of the
empire into satrapies. As a result of this the ‘Abar
Nab?rà (sm say), as it was now officially called in
Aramaic (δὲν πᾶγέ still in the Cuneiform inseriptions),
became a separate satrapy. Its first satrap was Ustani
(see TATNAI), who was also at the same time satrap
of Babylonia and thus received the whole Chaldaean
kingdom as his satrapy. At a later date the two

satrapies were separated. The Mace-

27. Later. donian Conquest brought about, în the
kingdom of the Seleucida, a fresh revival of the kingdom
of Babylon. Very soon, however, the capital was
transferred to Syria (Antioch). Through the Roman
and the Parthian ascendency Syria was severed from
Babylon ; its civilisation, through closer contact with
that of the West, received new impulses, whilst the
Babylonian came to ruin under the Parthian influence.
The same state of things persisted under the Sasanian
rule in Babylon, and the Byzantine in Syria. The two
were again united by the Mohammedan conquest which
once more brought together the whole of the east into
‘one common area of civilisation. Even then, however,
the contrast was marked, The seat of the caliphate is
at first in Syria; not, however, in the Christian Antioch
but on the borders of Arabia, in Damascus, where
formerly Berhadad had sought to found an empire. On
the other hand ‘Ali found himself compelled to transfer
his seat from the native land of Islam to the other region
of Eastern civilisation, to Babylon (Iràk) By his

1 Nabuchodonossor in Antilibanus and in Wady Brissa ΟΝ,
from Ba'‘albek).

25. Babylonian
supremacy.

4858

SYRIA MAACHAH

overthrow Syria triumphed in the first instance, and
continued for a century to be the seat of the caliphate
under the Ommayyads. ‘Then the East obtained the
upper hand once more, and the Abbasids took up their
residence in old Babylonia, in Baghdad. ‘The Orient
had its last period of prosperity, which came to an end
in the overthrow of Baghdad by the Mongols, by which
time Syria as well as Mesopotamia had already for long
displayed the old tendency to break up into detached
kingdoms or sultanates.

D.G.H., $$ 1-52, 6, 7; A.E.S., 8 55; H.W., $$ 8-27.

SYRIA-MAACHAH, RV ARAM-MAACAH (τ Ch.
196). See ARAM, $ 5, and SyRIA, ὃ 1, MAACAH.

SYRIAN LANGUAGE (2 K.1826 Is.36r1; also
Ezra 47 Dan, 24). See ARAMAIC,

SYROPHCENICIAN (Mk.726). See SYRIA, $ Ss,
and compare GOSsPELS, col, 1842 n. 2.

SYRTIS, AV QUICESANDS (ἢ οὐρτιο, Acts2717
τι, WH), The Great and the Little Syrtis (Zypres
μεγάλη καὶ μικρά, Ptol. 43) were the eastern and the
western recess respectively of the great bay or indentation
în the coast of northern Africa between Tunis and Tripoli.
The Great Syrtis, the eastern recess {the modern Gulf
of Sidra), extended from the promontory called Boreum
on the E. to that of Cephalae on the W. (Str. 8355).
The Little Syrtis, the western recess (now the Gulf of
Gabes), was included within the promontories Zeitha
and Brachodes (Str. 834; Scyl. 48).

Ifa vessel became involved în them escape was regarded as
almost hopeless (Str. 836, σπάνιον δ᾽ εἶναι τὸ σωζόμενον σκάφος);
consequently, ships kept far out to sea in passing between the
enstern and the western Mediterranean (#51d., διόπερ πόρρωθεν τὸν
παράπλουν ποιοῦνται φυλαττόμενοι μὴ ἐμπέσοιεν εἰς τοὺς κόλπους
ὑπ' ἀνέμων ἀφύλακτοι ληφθέντες). Polyhius (1 39) records how
the consuls Gnaeus Servilius and Gaius Fempronius were caught
unawares in the Little Syrtis (253 8.c.), and had to jettison
their stores in order to get off (cp Apoll. Rhod, 41235, Σύρτεν
o οὐκέτι νόστος ὀπίσσω | νηυσὶ πέλει, dre τόν γε βιῴατο κόλπον
ἱκέσθαι).

The danger was attributed not so much to the

TAANACE (ΤΩΡ or ὭΨΕΙ Josh. 2125, TanaX [BI
@aanay [AL]; Egypt. 7ααξα, Ta'anak [WMM, 45.
τ. Eur, 179]), a royal city of the Canaanites (Josh. 1221,
danay [A]. zakay [B], Gaanay [L]}, in the territory of
Issachar, but assigned to Manasseh.

So, in Judg. 127 (θανακ [Β], ex9avanò [AL]) 5.19 (θανααχ [Β1,
Gevvax [AL]) Josh. 7 11-21 (ταναχ [A], dafa]vay [L], Bom.)1 Κ΄.

i ieri [Bì, θααναχ [A], αἰθαμ {1.1} 1 Ch. 7 29 (ϑαλμη [B],

Schubert (Morgen/and, 3164), followed by Robinson
(BR3:56), found it in the modern 7a'anzzi, now a
mean hamlet on the S. side of a small hill with a
summit of table -land, where Dr. Sellin is now excavat-
ing. It lies on the south-western border of the plain
of Esdraelon, 4 m. 5. of Megiddo, in connection with
which it is mentioned in the triumphal 'Song of Deborah"
(Judg. 529). It is a question, however, whether in all
the Biblical passages the redactor has not, through a
geographical misapprehension, substituted the northern
city T'aanach for a city in the Negeb called probably
Beth-anak (Che.). See Crif. 258.

TAANATH-SHILOH (15 ΠΡΆΞΗ), a landmark on
the frontier of Ephraim situated eastward of Micmethath
(Josh, 166}, @Hnaca kai ceAAÒca [B], THNABCHAWw
TA] 6HNa@ac{[L]}. I 'Taanath’ has the right vowels,
we may identify with the mod. Tana or ‘Ain Ta'na, N.
from Yaniin, a ruined site with remains of large cisterns.
The form given in @, however, favonrs a different
pointing—w mn, ‘fig-tree of Shiloh' (NAMES, $ 103);
cp θηνα[θ}, OS® 261 τ6. T.K.C.

4859

T

jeu d'espritin the old Jewish manner.

TABEBL

shallowness of the water and the treacherous bottom, as
to the sudden and unaccountable action of the tides and
consequent variations in the position of the banks
(Pomp. Mela, 17; importuosus atque atrox et ob vadorum

frequentium brevia, magisque etiam ob alternos motus

‘pelagi affuentis ac refluentis infestus. Cp Str. 836;
Apoll. Rhod. /.c,), It was from this action of the tides
that the name Syrtis was derived (Sallust, 2. /zg. 78:
nomen ex ve inditum . . , Syrfes ab tractu nominate.
From the Greek σύρειν, ‘to draw'), —Nevertheless,
masters with local experience found little difficulty in
running along the coast (Str. 836). It is probable that
the dangers of the two bays were exaggerated in the
minds of those unfamiliar with the coast; exaggerated
accounts were also given of the inhospitable character
of the mainland, which was represented as a desert of
sand full of dangers {Diod, Sic. 2042; Sallust, 29. ci£.
79; Verg. Aen. dgr, ‘inhospita Syrtis'), As a matter
of fact the coast of the Syrtes in ancient times was
fringed with small towns (Str. 834/), and the territory
was rich (Pol. 322).
From what has been said it is easy to understand th
fear on the part of the crew of the Alexandrian grain-
ship of finding themselves on a lee-shore—and that, the
shore of the dreaded Syrtes. From the probable
direction of the wind {ENE. ; see Smith, Voyage and
Shipwreck of St. Paul, 110 f.), which can be inferred
from the bearings of the island of Clauda with reference
to the region of the Syrtis, it is probable that the Great
Syrtis was the immediate object of alarm, for a ship
scudding before the wind (ἐπιδόντες ἐφερόμεθα, v. 15)
must inevitably have found herself entangled in that
bay ultimately. It was to check this course, and
to lay the ship upon the starboard tack, that the
operations described in 2. 17 (χαλάσαντες τὸ σκεῦος,
wrongly in AV, ‘strake sail’; RV, ‘lowered the gear.”
See Smith, οὐ. cit. r1of; Rams. Sf Paul the
Traveller, 329) were undertaken; with the result of
throwing the ship ultimately upon the coast of Malta.
WLW

TABBAOTH(MWV30, $ 71; ‘[signet] rings,’ but see

TasBaTH; τάβδὼθ [BRL]; cp HorHaw), the family name
of a company of (post-exilic) Nethinim: Ezra 243 (ταβωθ [B],
ταββαωθ [Α}} Neh.7 46 (γαβαωθ [B], ταββ. [A)=1 Esd. 529
Tabaoth (7afw@ [A)).

TABBATH (N35, with the retention of the old: fem.
ending, $ 78: taBa@ [BL], ra. [A]), mentioned only
in the account of the defeat of the Midianites by Gideon,
where it is probably a corruption of JOTBAH [g.v.]
{Judg. 7 22). See ΟἼΡΕΟΝ, col. 1720, n. 4, and note
that this name, disguised as Tabbaoth, which comes
from the Negeb, is borne by a family of Nethinim or
Ethanites (Ὁ). See TABBAOTH, SOLOMON'S SERVANTS.

T.K.C.

TABEEL, AV Tabeal (DIM, in Is. pausal form
ὈΝΞῸ [see K6., Lelirged. 2537], ‘ God is good,’ or [Wi.
Alt Unt. 74] ‘God is wise,” cp Tab-rimmon; taBenà
[BNAQUL]).

1. Ben-Tabeel (RV ‘the son of Tabeel, AV‘. .
Tabeal') is the only name given by Isaiah το the person
put forward by Rezin and Pekah as a substitute for Ahaz
on the throne of Judah (Is. 76). € regards the name as
a compound, the second part of which is bp, ‘God.’ The
points, however, imply the pronunciation Tabtal—i.e.,
‘ good-for-nothing' {cp NUId. ZDMG 83330 [1879]): ἃ

Winckier (47test.
Unt.74) and Guthe(ISRAEL, ὃ 32)take ‘thesonof Tabeel'
(as is usually read) to be Rezin (Rezon). Most scholars
suppose that an Aramzaean or Syrian is meant, but not

4860

Electronic publication prepared by

Kelvin Smith Library
Case Western Reserve University
Cleveland, Ohio
for

ETANA Core Texts
http://www.etana.org/coretexts.shtml

WETANA

Electronic Tools and Ancient Hear Eastern Archives

SYRIA MAACHAH

overthrow Syria triumphed in the first instance, and
continued for a century to be the seat of the caliphate
under the Ommayyads. ‘Then the East obtained the
upper hand once more, and the Abbasids took up their
residence in old Babylonia, in Baghdad. ‘The Orient
had its last period of prosperity, which came to an end
in the overthrow of Baghdad by the Mongols, by which
time Syria as well as Mesopotamia had already for long
displayed the old tendency to break up into detached
kingdoms or sultanates.

D.G.H., $$ 1-52, 6, 7; A.E.S., 8 55; H.W., $$ 8-27.

SYRIA-MAACHAH, RV ARAM-MAACAH (τ Ch.
196). See ARAM, $ 5, and SyRIA, ὃ 1, MAACAH.

SYRIAN LANGUAGE (2 K.1826 Is.36r1; also
Ezra 47 Dan, 24). See ARAMAIC,

SYROPHCENICIAN (Mk.726). See SYRIA, $ Ss,
and compare GOSsPELS, col, 1842 n. 2.

SYRTIS, AV QUICESANDS (ἢ οὐρτιο, Acts2717
τι, WH), The Great and the Little Syrtis (Zypres
μεγάλη καὶ μικρά, Ptol. 43) were the eastern and the
western recess respectively of the great bay or indentation
în the coast of northern Africa between Tunis and Tripoli.
The Great Syrtis, the eastern recess {the modern Gulf
of Sidra), extended from the promontory called Boreum
on the E. to that of Cephalae on the W. (Str. 8355).
The Little Syrtis, the western recess (now the Gulf of
Gabes), was included within the promontories Zeitha
and Brachodes (Str. 834; Scyl. 48).

Ifa vessel became involved în them escape was regarded as
almost hopeless (Str. 836, σπάνιον δ᾽ εἶναι τὸ σωζόμενον σκάφος);
consequently, ships kept far out to sea in passing between the
enstern and the western Mediterranean (#51d., διόπερ πόρρωθεν τὸν
παράπλουν ποιοῦνται φυλαττόμενοι μὴ ἐμπέσοιεν εἰς τοὺς κόλπους
ὑπ' ἀνέμων ἀφύλακτοι ληφθέντες). Polyhius (1 39) records how
the consuls Gnaeus Servilius and Gaius Fempronius were caught
unawares in the Little Syrtis (253 8.c.), and had to jettison
their stores in order to get off (cp Apoll. Rhod, 41235, Σύρτεν
o οὐκέτι νόστος ὀπίσσω | νηυσὶ πέλει, dre τόν γε βιῴατο κόλπον
ἱκέσθαι).

The danger was attributed not so much to the

TAANACE (ΤΩΡ or ὭΨΕΙ Josh. 2125, TanaX [BI
@aanay [AL]; Egypt. 7ααξα, Ta'anak [WMM, 45.
τ. Eur, 179]), a royal city of the Canaanites (Josh. 1221,
danay [A]. zakay [B], Gaanay [L]}, in the territory of
Issachar, but assigned to Manasseh.

So, in Judg. 127 (θανακ [Β], ex9avanò [AL]) 5.19 (θανααχ [Β1,
Gevvax [AL]) Josh. 7 11-21 (ταναχ [A], dafa]vay [L], Bom.)1 Κ΄.

i ieri [Bì, θααναχ [A], αἰθαμ {1.1} 1 Ch. 7 29 (ϑαλμη [B],

Schubert (Morgen/and, 3164), followed by Robinson
(BR3:56), found it in the modern 7a'anzzi, now a
mean hamlet on the S. side of a small hill with a
summit of table -land, where Dr. Sellin is now excavat-
ing. It lies on the south-western border of the plain
of Esdraelon, 4 m. 5. of Megiddo, in connection with
which it is mentioned in the triumphal 'Song of Deborah"
(Judg. 529). It is a question, however, whether in all
the Biblical passages the redactor has not, through a
geographical misapprehension, substituted the northern
city T'aanach for a city in the Negeb called probably
Beth-anak (Che.). See Crif. 258.

TAANATH-SHILOH (15 ΠΡΆΞΗ), a landmark on
the frontier of Ephraim situated eastward of Micmethath
(Josh, 166}, @Hnaca kai ceAAÒca [B], THNABCHAWw
TA] 6HNa@ac{[L]}. I 'Taanath’ has the right vowels,
we may identify with the mod. Tana or ‘Ain Ta'na, N.
from Yaniin, a ruined site with remains of large cisterns.
The form given in @, however, favonrs a different
pointing—w mn, ‘fig-tree of Shiloh' (NAMES, $ 103);
cp θηνα[θ}, OS® 261 τ6. T.K.C.

4859

T

jeu d'espritin the old Jewish manner.

TABEBL

shallowness of the water and the treacherous bottom, as
to the sudden and unaccountable action of the tides and
consequent variations in the position of the banks
(Pomp. Mela, 17; importuosus atque atrox et ob vadorum

frequentium brevia, magisque etiam ob alternos motus

‘pelagi affuentis ac refluentis infestus. Cp Str. 836;
Apoll. Rhod. /.c,), It was from this action of the tides
that the name Syrtis was derived (Sallust, 2. /zg. 78:
nomen ex ve inditum . . , Syrfes ab tractu nominate.
From the Greek σύρειν, ‘to draw'), —Nevertheless,
masters with local experience found little difficulty in
running along the coast (Str. 836). It is probable that
the dangers of the two bays were exaggerated in the
minds of those unfamiliar with the coast; exaggerated
accounts were also given of the inhospitable character
of the mainland, which was represented as a desert of
sand full of dangers {Diod, Sic. 2042; Sallust, 29. ci£.
79; Verg. Aen. dgr, ‘inhospita Syrtis'), As a matter
of fact the coast of the Syrtes in ancient times was
fringed with small towns (Str. 834/), and the territory
was rich (Pol. 322).
From what has been said it is easy to understand th
fear on the part of the crew of the Alexandrian grain-
ship of finding themselves on a lee-shore—and that, the
shore of the dreaded Syrtes. From the probable
direction of the wind {ENE. ; see Smith, Voyage and
Shipwreck of St. Paul, 110 f.), which can be inferred
from the bearings of the island of Clauda with reference
to the region of the Syrtis, it is probable that the Great
Syrtis was the immediate object of alarm, for a ship
scudding before the wind (ἐπιδόντες ἐφερόμεθα, v. 15)
must inevitably have found herself entangled in that
bay ultimately. It was to check this course, and
to lay the ship upon the starboard tack, that the
operations described in 2. 17 (χαλάσαντες τὸ σκεῦος,
wrongly in AV, ‘strake sail’; RV, ‘lowered the gear.”
See Smith, οὐ. cit. r1of; Rams. Sf Paul the
Traveller, 329) were undertaken; with the result of
throwing the ship ultimately upon the coast of Malta.
WLW

TABBAOTH(MWV30, $ 71; ‘[signet] rings,’ but see

TasBaTH; τάβδὼθ [BRL]; cp HorHaw), the family name
of a company of (post-exilic) Nethinim: Ezra 243 (ταβωθ [B],
ταββαωθ [Α}} Neh.7 46 (γαβαωθ [B], ταββ. [A)=1 Esd. 529
Tabaoth (7afw@ [A)).

TABBATH (N35, with the retention of the old: fem.
ending, $ 78: taBa@ [BL], ra. [A]), mentioned only
in the account of the defeat of the Midianites by Gideon,
where it is probably a corruption of JOTBAH [g.v.]
{Judg. 7 22). See ΟἼΡΕΟΝ, col. 1720, n. 4, and note
that this name, disguised as Tabbaoth, which comes
from the Negeb, is borne by a family of Nethinim or
Ethanites (Ὁ). See TABBAOTH, SOLOMON'S SERVANTS.

T.K.C.

TABEEL, AV Tabeal (DIM, in Is. pausal form
ὈΝΞῸ [see K6., Lelirged. 2537], ‘ God is good,’ or [Wi.
Alt Unt. 74] ‘God is wise,” cp Tab-rimmon; taBenà
[BNAQUL]).

1. Ben-Tabeel (RV ‘the son of Tabeel, AV‘. .
Tabeal') is the only name given by Isaiah το the person
put forward by Rezin and Pekah as a substitute for Ahaz
on the throne of Judah (Is. 76). € regards the name as
a compound, the second part of which is bp, ‘God.’ The
points, however, imply the pronunciation Tabtal—i.e.,
‘ good-for-nothing' {cp NUId. ZDMG 83330 [1879]): ἃ

Winckier (47test.
Unt.74) and Guthe(ISRAEL, ὃ 32)take ‘thesonof Tabeel'
(as is usually read) to be Rezin (Rezon). Most scholars
suppose that an Aramzaean or Syrian is meant, but not

4860

TABERAH

Rezin himself, who is surely the chief speaker in Is. 75.
Marti, however, suggests that the name of the father of
Rezin’s nominee may have been Fab®'l or ΤΟΡ εἰ, so
that he would have been a Judahite (but see Tomian);
he declines, however, to speak positively. If, however,
the view referred to elsewhere {REZIN, TIGLATH-PILESER)
be correct, and the invaders of Judah were Rezin (Rezon),
king of Aram, and Pir'am(?), King of Ishmael, it becomes
at once probable that the title of the pretender's father
was Ben-Toùbal, TUBAL (9.v.) being an ethnic name of
the N. Arabian border-land, According to this view,
the invasion was from the S., and the news brought to
Ahaz may have ceen “Aram has encamped against
Ephron’; Ephron (;wmby), corrupted in Is. (Zc.) into
* Ephraim” (ova), was the name of a town of Jerahmeel
which became Judahite, according to 2 Ch. 1319, under
king Abijah ; it may also have been Judahite under Ahaz,
and if so have been om the frontier of Judahite territory
towards the 5, There are parallels enough in corrupt
passages elsewhere to warrant our reading in Is.76,
“Let us go up against Jerusalem . . . and let us appoint
a king ἴῃ the midst of it, namely, the son of Tubal {the
Tubalite).'

2, A Persian official in Samaria, Fzra47, who in
1 Esd. 2:6 is called Tabellius (ταβέλλιος [BAL]). It
is very possible to read the name ‘barn, ‘Tubalite” (e,
a man of the N. Arabian Tubal). This is connected
«with a critical theory on the original narratives in Ezra,
for which see Crit. Bib. It involves holding Shobal
(Gen. 3620, etc.) to be the original of Bishlam, and
perhaps Ramathi (1 Ch. 2727) of Mithredath in the same
passage, the present readings being due to a later editor.

τ. Κι α.

TABERAH (17429, ‘burning’ of RVME:; emmYypie-
moc [BAFL]), a locality in the wilderness of Paran
{presumably near Kibroth-hattaavah), which is said to
have derived its name from the 'burning' which took
piace there (Nu. 113 Dt. 92zt). See KIBROTH-HAT-
TAAVAH, WANDERINGS, $$ 7, το.

TABERNACLE
Traditional view (8 1). Symbolism (9).
Descrip tion in i δὰ ‘historical chiracter of re-
The tabernacle: its walls (8 3). cord ($ 10).

Its coverings (ἢ 4). Impossible in the wilderness

Curtains (ἢ 5).

Court (8 6).

Furniture (8 7).

Significance of tabernacle in
Ῥ( 8.

τ).
βροῦν tent in E ($ 12).
Tabernacle non-existent in

historical times (δ 13).
Literature ($ 14).
According to the traditional view, which goes as far
back as to P, and even to the period of the exile, the
τὰν temple in Jerusalem had its prototype
1. Traditional in the Eh sanctuary—the taber-
view. nacle—set up in the wilderness by
Moses. In accordance with directions received on
Mount Sinai (Ex. 261 77, P) he constructed for Yahwè
and the ark a sumptuous tent which accompanied the
Israelites as their only sanctuary during their forty
years’ wandering in the wilderness. Though never
anything but a ‘tent,’ a provisional and temporary
house of God, designed for the journey from Sinai t0
Palestine, it continued long after the settlement in
Canaan to be Israel's sole legitimate sanctuary—set
up, now here now there, in various parts of Palestine
until at last Solomen built his temple, to which the
ark of Yahwè was finally transferred.

The most usual designation for this tabernacle in P is
’ohelmb'id(gio pr; eg, Ex. 27212843294 10//, εἴα. ;
see ASSEMBLY, 2; col. 346). According to Fx. 2942f
Nu, 17 r9[4] this expression denotes the tabernacle as
the place where Vahwè meets with Moses and the people
and communicates to Moses from the Zappdresà (see
MeRcy SEAT) between the cherubim his messages
to the children of Israel On this view the usual inter-
pretation of the expression as meaning ‘tabernacle of

4867

TABERNACLE

the assembly' or ‘tabernacle of the congregation’
(Bahr, 1:367, Ewald, 168) is incorrect; moreover in
point of fact the sanciuaries of the Semites never were,
primarily, places of meeting for the community ; they
were places where the deity dwelt and revealed himself
{see TEMPLE, $ I). So also the tabernacle (see below,
8).
$ de tabernacle is expressly spoken of (Lev. 174 [cp 1531 mg.
‘tabernacle '], Nu. 169 1913 31203047 Josh. 2219) as snsitan

Fiok (mM j380)—a phrase which on the other hand, ît is true,
is also used to designate the holy of holîes, the dwelling place
proper of the deity as distinguished from the rest of the struc:
(Ex, 20x 6/ 3511 8813. 8033. 40197 Nu. 325; cp also
8932 402 6 29) Another name for the tabernacle is
naledztà Cogo ba; Nu. 915 1722 £ [75] 182), οἵ miftan
Ad'adztà (Myn }305; Ex. 8821 Nu.1so 53 1011), ‘tabernacle’
or ‘dwelling place’ of the ‘testimony’ or ‘witness’ (cp
ARk OF THE COVENANT, $ 3). This after the analogy of ‘a4e/
mò'ed is taken by Riehm and others as meaning ‘the dwelling-
place where God bears witness to himself and to his will,’ in
other words as equivalent to ‘tent of revelation' It seems
more probable, however, that here as in the expression ‘ark
of the ὁζώπελ᾽ (Ex, 2522 2633) the word ‘24724 means the two
tables of the law, and the whole expression the tent in which
the two tables are deposited (cp G σκηνὴ τοῦ μαρτυρίου, Vg.
tabernaculum testimonii ot faderis; cp also Ex. 31 18 34 29).!

The details of the tabernacle and its furniture have
been preserved to us in two-fold form-—once in the form
of a divine instruction to Moses in
which all the measurements and speci-
fications to the smallest detail are
given (Ex. 2510-27 το), and again in that of a narrative
relating how this instruction was carried out, when
practically everything is repeated (Ex. 368-38 31). These
two sections belong to different strata of P.

The whole description leaves at first sight such an
impression of painstaking precision that the reader
might be tempted forthwith to take for granted its
historical truth. As soon, however, as he begins to
examine more closely, and on the basis of this descrip-
tion proceeds to attempt to form for himself a definite
picture of what the tabernacle was, he finds that in
spite of the multitude of data supplied, or rather pre-
cisely because of their multitude, it is impossibte to
arrive at any clearness on the subject. As Wellhausen
very truly remarks (20/.0, 353, cp ET 348): ‘ without
repeating the descriptions of the tabernacle in Ex, 2577
word for word, it is difficult to give an idea how circum-
stantial it is; we must go to the source to satisfy our-
selves what the ‘‘narrator" can do in this line. One
would imagine that he was giving specifications to
measurers for estimates or that he was writing for
weavers and cabinetmakers ; but they could not proceed
upon his information, for the incredibly matter-of-fact
statements are fancy all the same.’

The tabernacle consists of two parts: (1) the
* dwelling-place' {redi4x), and (2) the enclosing court

2. Description

(hastr).
i . 1. The ‘dwelling-place' is spoken of
ita wr alle in the narrative as a ‘tent' or tabernacle

(ὀλεῖ). On closerexamination, however,
this accords very imperfectly with the detailed descrip-
tion.* For the so-called ‘tent' forms an oblong with
upright walls made of thick ‘ boards’ (EV, dop, ξέγεξ,

3 {Other words rendered ‘tabernacle’ in EV, but only în the
more general sense of that word, are: n3D, su4%44, see TARER-
NACLES, Feast 07; gb, «δῷ, Ps. 762 (RVmg. ‘covert’), or
nè» “δ, Lam. 26 (RVmg “‘booth or hedge’); mb, siZ4zià,
Am.526, AV; RY ‘Siceuth, see Ciiun; σκηνή, Mi. 17 αἴο,
σκῆνος, 2 Cor. 514; σκήνωμα, Acts7 46 2 Pet. 113. See TENT.Ì

2 It is clear that the writer is at great pains to make it appear
that the structure is a tent. Only in this way can we explain
the surprising circumstance that în both cases—both when the
instructions are being given and when the construction is being
described—he begins with the roof. Plainly he feels that the
walls, etc., as he is about to describe them, do not give the
impression of a tent. Therefore he gives to the curtains—the
roofthe place of chief importance, which of course they would
have in the case of a tent, and treats all else, the walls, ete.—as
secondary and merely as necessary accessories for the curtains
Just as tent-poles are.

4862

TABERNACLE

& στύλοι, Philo and Josephus xdres). These boards
are each τὸ cubits! high (thus quite rightìy designated
in the Greek: ‘ pillars’ or ‘ posts’), the wall itself some-
what more, as the ‘feet’ (see below) of the boards
have to be added in. In all there are 48 boards, zo
on the N. and zo on the S. side (the structure facing
eastward) and 8 forming the western (rear) wall. The
front has no such wall ; it is closed merely by curtains.
The boards themselves are (as Ex. 26:67 expressly
states) each 13 cubits broad. From this, their arrange-
ment and the thickness of each can be easily calculated.

The long side of the oblong (interior measurement) as 15 im.
lied in Ex. 2615/77, is to be 30 cubits, and that of the rear wall
thus interior measurement also) is rocubits. Thislast measure-

ment indeed is not expressly given, but it is clearly implied by
the whole context ; the holy of holies at the west end of the
structure is conceived of asa cube of ro cubits, just as that of
the temple of Solomon is a cube of 20. This being so, the
boards of the rear wall were so placed as to make it the exterior
wall which covered the breadth of both the longitudinal walls.
The eight boards of the rear wall together made a breadth of
8x1}=12 cubits; as the interior measurement was only 10
cubits there remained a difference on each side of 1 cubit which
could only have served to cover the ends of the side walls,
These, therefore and the rear wall also were 1 cubit thick (so
Bihr, Ewald, Kamphausen, and others).

Holzinger,à it îs true, supposes thai these dimensions (o
cubits and 30 cubits) are meant to be taken not as interior but
as exterior measurements. In support of this he points to the
measurement of the curtain of goats' hair which is calculated
for a framework ef roXIoXx30 cubits. This argument holds
good, however, only if we ignore Ex. 26 12 (Holzinger eliminates
it as a gloss) and double che curtain for 4 cubits in front whileat
the rear it comes down to the ground (4+30-+10=44 cubits).
The passage just referred to, on the other hand, clearly reckons
11 cubits as hanging down at the rear and 2 cubits in front as
doubled ; thus leaving 31 cubits to be Accounted for (viz 30
cubits as length of the exterior and 1 cubit as thickness of rear
wall), In Ex. 2622, it is true, the two corner boards of the rear
wall are distinguished from the others; and from this the
inference has been drawn that they were of slenderer proportions
and thus the boards altogether thinner than has been caiculated
above (so, for example, already Josephus, who gives their
thickness as half a cubit). The motive for this îs manifest; a
structure formed of boards 2 ft, 7 in. broad and 20,67în. thick can
no longer in fairness be called a tent; beams of such a size are
no longer mere supports for a curtain roof} they are substantial
walls, and it is also hard to say where in the wilderness trees
capable of yielding such massive timber are to be found. Hence
the pains taken in the apologetic interest to reduce the beams.
Thus, for example, Knobel cites Ezek. 27 6 where the same
expression Zére is used for panelling (EV, RVmg. ‘deck'),
thus plainly indicating thin boards, not thick beams. Α5
already observed, however, the writer's manifest object is to
make the structure appear as a tent, and therefore he may very
well have deliberately chosen this word even although (or
rather because) it elsewhere means only ‘plank.’. Keil maintains
that the interpreter has no reason for magnifying mere planks
into colossal beams such as can neither be obtained from the
acacia tree nor be transported on wheels in the wilderness.
Nevertheless there is no getting past the fact that in Ex.
26 15/7. it is expressly stated of all the boards that they were
alike: The text of Ex. 28 22/7, however, is hopelessly corrupt
and unintelligible, The numerous attempts at explanation that
have been made at various times cannot be discussed here ;
some of them are in the highest degree artificial, as for example
that of Riehm(/7178, 5.2, ‘Stiftshiitte,' p. 15784). Cp, further,
Dillmann and Holzinger, ad /oc.; also Riggenbach, 23 25,
Keil, 85£ [Starting from Stade's study of the construction of !
Solomon's lavers (1 K.7 287.) in Ζ.4 ΤῊ, 1901, pp. 1457 where
n° and b'2294 are shown to have had the technical sense ot
‘stays’ and ‘cross-rails’ respectively, Prof. Kennedy holds that
the wp of P—which is found elsewhere only in Ezek.276 in
the sense of ‘panel’—is ‘a frame of wood, such as builders in
all countries have employed in the construction of light walls.*
He renders 22. 152. thus, taking the parenthesis last: “And
thou shalt make the frames for the dwelling of acacia wood,
standing up, two nprights for each frame, joined to each other
by cross-rails—ten cubits the height and a cubit and a half the
breadth of the single frame,’ Τῆς third dimension is not given,
because a frame has, strictly speaking, no thickness.]

Further, all the boards are uniformly furnished each
with two niw. y4d0% (EV ‘tenons'), which are con-
nected with one another by a slip of wood (Ex. 26 16/).
Josephus understands by the expression ‘pivots' (arpò-
@ryyes) at the foot of each board, and this is not

1 [It is assomed throughout this article that the longer cubit
of 2067 in, is meant; see WeicHTs AND MEASURES, $ 1.]
ἢ So also A. R. 8. Kennedy, ‘Tabernacle,' in Hasting®' DS

46sra,

4863

TABERNACLE

improbably correct. For according to Fx. 2619 two
bases (0318, dd@zim, EV ‘sochets,’ βάσει) are pro-
vided in each case for the two pivots. They are of
silver, and each weighs a talent (95 lbs.) ; Ex. 38.7.1
Interpreters differ widely as to the purpose and the
form of these sockets. ‘The most natural view seems to
be that of Josephus, according to which the tenons and
sockets were placed at the lower edge of the boards în
such a way that the function of the tenons was to con-
nect the boards with the sockets. For throughout the
whole description no word is said as to che manner in
which the boards were set up on or, as it may be,
fastened into the ground. As to this, some interpreters
think of the sockets as having been wedge-shaped and
as being driven into the ground, the boards then being
fitted into them by means of the tenons. Against such
an explanation, however, must be urged the light weight
25 the silver ; gg 105. of that metal (if the text be correct)
are not enough for a wedge large enough to carry a
pillar having a cross section of 30 x 20 in. and weighin;
something like half a ton. Moreover the use of silver
for any such purpose at all would be very odd ; silver
and gold after all are best applied for the decoration of
a structure and are not usually buried under ground,
Other interpreters accordingly take the meaning to be
that the γάσσέξ (tenons}, were designed for driving into
the ground and that the ddarim were merely quite
shallow projecting bases of the boards through which the
pivots passed. But not even thus is the object of fixing
the boards in position attained, for simple pivots would
have been insufficient, and the boards would have had
to be driven into the ground (see below). Thus we are
shut up to the view that the d4@n222 were quite shallow
bases of the boards serving more for ornament than for
stability. By the pivots în that case these bases were
attached to the boards. It will be enough merely to
mention here the quite different explanation of Riehm
(4WB, τον. * Stifishiitie, 1578 f) according to which
each board consisted of two pieces which were held
together by the ténons at the sides and by the feet
below.

These boards were attached to one another by cross
bars (EV ‘bars’; uvm5, déri4iz), Fach board had
on its outer side golden “rings’{EV; nipzo, fas2a'ar4),2
through which were passed strong bars of acacia wood.
To be precise, there were five such bars on each side
(Ex. 36317). The middle bar, half-way up the boards,*
ran all the way along and thus was in the case of the
rear wall 12 cubits long, and in the case of each of the
other two walls 30 cubits, or, let us say, 31 cubits, since
doubtless we may safely assume that the boards of the
rear wall which covered the ends of the longer walls,
and thus the rear wall as a whole, were connected with
the longer walls by these crossbars. From the state-
ment about the middle bar that it went right along we
must conclude that this was not the case with the others.
These, accordingly, were shorter and we shall be justi-
fied perhaps in supposing that each bar joined together
oniy one half of the tota! number of boards, and thus
that each individual board had only three rings and
bars. The position of the bars as given in the figure in
Riehm (Z7W/2 1579) is derived from the consideration
that the narrator plainly has it in his mind that five bars
could be at once distinguished by simple inspection,
which would not so readily be the case if the upper and

1 [This passage, however, belongs to a very late addition to
P based on the census in Numbe

2 It is not indeed expressly said in the text that the bars were
upon the outer side ; but this is the most natural and likely
supposition. Ewald, however, amongst others, thinks of the
rings and bars as on the inner side.

3Riggenbach and others take Ex. 26 28 as meaning that the
middle bar went through the interior of the boards themselves
and not through rings, but such a construction can hardly be
put upon the expression D'W9p1 yin2, apart from the improb-

ability ofthe whole idea.

4864

TABERNACLE

lower bars had each run at a uniform fevel and each
contiguous with the other.®

Finally, the boards and bars are, according to Ex.
2629 7., overlaid with gold, that is to say, with thiu
gol plate so that the inner and outer surface ef the
structure was golden,”

These walls formed a framework for the coverings—
the roof, which, as already observed, was regarded

Th by the narrator as the main thing, the

4 The essential part of the structure, as indeed ît
SOVErIDES: would be in the case of an actual tent. It
has four coverings, laid successively the one upon the
other.

{1) The innermost was of costly linen. It is de-
scribed (Ex. 26:77 ) as the work of the cunning workman
(mna'dsék 43585), of fine-twined linen (35; see LINEN, 7)
violet purple and red purple (2464 and argaman ; see
CoLeurs, $ 15, PURPLE) and scarlet (ἐδ ά' «ἰὴ Sanz;
see COLOURS, $ 14, SCARLET), Cherubim were woven
into it How the colours were applied we are not
more precisely: informed. We can imagine either a
patterned textile in four colours with inwoven cherubim
or a white texture with cherubim inwoven in three
colours. The latter appears the more likely supposition.
The curtain of the enclosing wall of the court was also
white (see below). ‘The whole covering was made up
of ten separate ‘curtains’ (EV; yéi'@44); each of these
strips was 28 cubits long and 4 cubits broad, and five
of them were joined side by side to form one large
covering. No partitulars are given as to the mode of
their attachment. The two large coverings thus com-
posed, 28 cubits long. and 20 cubits wide, had each of
them along one of the longer sides fifty ‘loops’ (EV;
taldotk) of violet purple so piaced that each of the loops
was opposite a loop on the other curtain, In these loops
were inserted fifty golden 'clasps’ {RV, AV 'taches’;
ppnp, 4244552), by means of which the two large cover:
ings were held together.® The whole of the great cover-
ing thus made up, 28 cubits by 40, was then laid over
the wooden framework. On the outer side of each of the
two longer walls ît thus hung down to a distance of 8
cubits (the whole breadth of the structure, including the
thickness of the walls, being, as we have seen, 12
cubits). To the rear, on the other hand, there were
9 cubits to spare, as of course the covering was not
allowed to overhang in front. In this position of the
covering, the joining of its two great sections, with its
loops and clasps, ran exactly along the top of the hang-
ing curtain which, 20 cubits from the front. separated
the holy place from the holy of holies. This errenge-
ment was certainìy designed. Nothing is anywhere
said as to any special attachment of this great covering
to the walls; nor indeed was any such attachment
required, îts own weight combined with that of the two
others superimposed upon it being amply sufficient to
keep it in position This inner covering constitutes the
miikan properly so-called, the wooden walls being
regarded merely as supports for it; and we find it
accordingly in one place (Ἐκ. 26 13) expressÌy so called.

a. Kurz, Keil, Bahr, and others(including Holzinger), take it
that this covering hung down on the inner side of the structure,
covering the wall as with a hanging of tapestry. ΤῊΣ reason

rimarily alleged for this opinion—that otherwise the cherubs
etween the wall and the hair-covering would not have been
shown—disappears on the assumption we propose to make that

the hair-covering was drawn out (see below). Two other
reasons, adduced by Holzinger, carry more weight. (i.) In the

1 The circumstance that the middle bar ran right along and
thus must have been 31 cubits in length naturally caused diffi-
culty from very early times, and Josephus accordingly represents
it as having been made up of several lengths of 5 cubits apiece,
which were screwed together.

2 Perhaps we ought with Holzinger to regard v. 29 as being
in the main a gloss ; [1 Nu. 4 careful packing of the gold-plated
objects is enjoined, and this would certainly not be easy in the
case of the boards of the tabernacle. Yet an oversight such as
this, on the part of the narrator, îs not difficult to imagine.

3 'Schick's supposition, that ore curtain had loops and clasps,
is contrary to the language of the text.

4865

TABERNACLE

first place he urges that the fine linen fabric would have taken
damage if stretched over the wooden wall in contact with the
rough covering of goats hair, would have been torn by the
nails, and so forth. As against this, however, it has to be
pointed out that the whole structure is a creation of the
imagination, and that in any case the author has not thought
out, the details with such practicality and minuteness as
eriticism of chis kind would imply. (ii.) Holzinger's other reason
is that, in Nu.45, when the tabernacle is being removed it is
represented that the byssus covering can be applied as a cover-
ing for the ark without more ado; this certainly could be done
most easily if it hung wholly within. The fact, however, that
in striking an actual tent the first thing to be done is to take
down the tent covering, is of course one that does not need
to be particularly emphasised ; and the implied oversight of
the narrator thus becomes intelligible. 3. On the other side there
are preponderating considerations against the theory that the
covering hung within. (i.) In the first place, had it done so, this
would have rendered necessary special arrangements for the
attachment of the covering to the upper edge of the wooden
walls, but of any such, no mention is anywhere made. (1)
Further, in the case supposed, the covering would bave hung
down g cubits on each cf the side wails, and as many as ro om
the hinder wall, thus resting on the ground—an inequality which,
in combination with the great protruding cornerpieces, would
have greatiy disfigured the ‘Holy of Holìes. (iii.) Finally, in
Ex, 2612 it is expressly said that the tent-covering proper
which lay above this covering overlapped it in all directions ; but
this is meaningless unless the inner covering also hung down
the outside of the wooden walls. This last passage, it is true,
is regarded by Holzinger as a gioss; ît shows, however, in any
case at least that from a very early date this linen covering was
thought of as an external hanging. Nor is it by any means
necessary to treat the verses as a gloss, For on any construction
it is impossible to give precision and accuracy to the descrip-
tion (see below). For all which reasons the majority of modern
interpreters (Dilimann, Riehm, Nowack, Kennedy, and others)
adopt the view that the covering was an external one. On
this view, let it be added, the general effect was not impaired
by the inequality of the hanging on the side walls (Β cubits),
as compared with the hinder wall (9 cubits), nor yet by the
comer folds coming down to the ground with 2 cubits to spare.

(2) Above this inner covering came, as a second
‘roof,’ a real tent covering (Ex. 2677) like those in
ordinary use, made of black or brown goats' hair,l a
material that quickly felts in rain and allows no moisture
to pass through, ‘This covering is also spoken of,
absolutely, as ‘the tent." Like the other, it also,
naturally, is made up of separate strips ; of which there
are eleven, each of them 30 cubits by 4. Of these
eleven, five and six respectively are fastened together so
as to form two larger coverings. Uniformly with the
linen covering both parts of the goats' hair covering
have each on the longer side fifty loops exactly opposite
one another and are fastened together by clasps ; only
here the clasps are made of copper—a less noble metal.
The material and colour of the loops are not specified.
It will be observed that if a covering of these dimensions
were to be laid over the linen covering, it would overlap
it all round by a cubit, and this is expressly stated
in Ex. 2613. On the hinder wall, on the other hand,
the overlapping part was 2 cubits longer than the linen
covering. For the hair covering was so adjusted that
of the eleventh (extra) breadth of 4 cubits only the half
hung over the back of the tabernacle (Ex. 2612), that is
to say, overlapped the linen covering.® The extra
portion over the entrance in front, 2 cubits in width,
was not allowed to overhang but was turned back so
that in this way the first strip to the front was folded
along the medial line and lay double. According to
Josephus (4x2, iii. 64) there was thus made a sort of
gable and portal. A simpler explanation perhaps will
be that of Riehm and others, that the weight of the
doubled front strip was intended to prevent the wind

1 Bahr chinks that this covering was entirely white, The
text, however, does not say so, nor is the thing likely in itself.
Ordinary tent:coverings are black or dark-brown, often having
white stripes also (Cant. 1 5).

2 Holzinger (ad doc.) it is true, holds this reckoning which
brings out an exGess to be a mistake, and considers 26 χα to be a
gloss. The mistake arises according to him out of a false
notion as to the manner in which the Îinen covering was placed
(ee above). [Kennedy (04. ciz.) follows Holzinger in regarding
9. 12 as a mistaken gloss, but holds that the whole of the
cleventh curtain hung doubled over the edge of the sool'in front
for which he claims the support of a Jewish treatise of the
third century.]

4866

TABERNACLE

from catching it too easily, Behind and at the sides
the covering was protected against this by the fastening
with tent pins (see below). The effect of the arrange-
ment was that the joinings of the linen and of the goats' -
hair coverings did not coincide; and this is evidently
quite right. In like manner the places at which the
separate strips were fastened together by the loops and
clasps were not coincident as Bahr, and recently
Holzinger and Kennedy, erroneously have held. In
point of fact, since in the case of the goats'-hair covering
the larger portion (of six strips) was put in front, the
joining came to be over the holy of holies, 2 cubits
farther back than the joining of the linen covering
which as we have seen was exactly over the veil between
the holy place and the holy of holies.

To this tent covering pertain the ‘pins’ (EV;
y@thédoth) and ‘cords’ (EV; metharim) of which re-
curring mention is made (Ex. 2719 8518 3820371 3940}
‘The pins, unlike the ordinary wooden tent peg, are of
brass (9831). From the mention of these pins and
cords we must infer, although this is not expressly
stated, that the hair-covering did not, like the under-
covering, hang down over the outer walls, but, as
would be the case with a regular tent, was fastened by
means of ropes to the pins driven into the ground and
thus spread out slantingly. Hence also it must in all
directions have been longer than the linen covering.
By this supposition we also get over the other difficulty,
otherwise hard ta meet, that at the rear this covering
hung down Ir cubits (2 cubits more than the linen
covering) and thus, since the wall was only τὸ cubits
high, would have had one whole cubit upon the ground
unless thus drawn out.!

(3) Above this tent covering were placed—obviously for a
protection from the weather—two additional coveringsj; one of
rame’ skins dyed red (D'9K ΠῚ 1050), and over this another of
porpoîse skins (D'UNA ΠῚ DID; but see BapcERS SKINS),
As to the dimensions of these two coverings no details are
given (see helow, note τὸ. Riehm (#7/5) and others have
supposed that they served the purpose only of a roofing, and
were not so large as the coverings properly so-called. This,
however, cannot be deduced from the expression ‘covering’
(3930) nor yet from the ‘above’ (#9p29019) of Ex. 40 τὸ Nu, 425;
and all further conjectures based upon this, such as that the
roof ran to a point or to a ridge, and the like, are wholly
without solid foundation (see $ 10 end).

In front the structure was closed in, as has already
been said, not by a wall of waod and a door, but only
; ing by 2 curtain (AV ‘hanging,’ RV
5. The curtains. ‘screen’; pp, γε, Ex.2716,
ete.), which like the inner covering was a textile fabric
woven in four colours ; white spun linen, violet purple,
red purple, and scarlet. This curtain formed a single
piece τὸ cubits square, and was held up by five pillars
of acacia wood, Whether the pillars were placed
between the first boards of the longer walls, or so that
the two outermost were attached to the outer corners of
these walls is not stated. The pillars have copper
bases and according to Ex. 26 are overlaid with gold ;
according to 3637, indeed, only the capitals were so.
How the curtain was fastened to these pillars is not
explained. Besides the golden pegs or ‘hooks’ (so
EV; wédwrm, Ex.2637), rings {EV 1 fillets'; 4diz4z7e,
Ex. 27 τοὺ are also mentioned. By these some inter-
preters (Ewald, Dillmann) understand rings which
formed a sort of garland under the capitals and thus
served for ornament. Others (e.g. Riehm) explain them
as rods which connected the hooks and on which the
curtain was hung. ΑἹ all events the τοευξης are not

1 Holzinger (σα /oc.) will have it that the cords and pins
helonged to the upper coverings. In that case we should have
to think of these as having been very large. The circumstance,
however, that the hair-covering is actually called the tent ('4425;
see above) permits the inference that just as in its material ît
resembled an ordinary tent, so also in its use it is thought of as
such—-that is to say was spread like an ordinary tent. [Kennedy,
on the other hand, finds the ‘cords’ mentioned only în the
latest strata of P, and thinks the hair-covering was pinned to
the ground all round after the manner of the Ka'ba at Mecca.]

4867

TABERNACLE

nails with which the curtain was nailed up—had this
been so they would have to be pulled out every time
the tabernacle was moved—but hooks to which the
curtain was fastened somehow, with rings or otherwise.
From this outer curtain the inner, by which the
structure is divided into two parts, is distinguished only
by its greater elaboration; the materials are the same,
but, over and above, it is adorned with cherubim, the
work of the skilled workman. The four pillars by
which this inner curtain is supported, are of acacia wood
completely overlaid with gold, and have silver bases, in
this respect differing from the pillars of the outer
apartment, which have bases of brass only, and only the
capitals overlaid with gold. This inner curtain has its
place directly underneath the row of clasps which fasten
the two portions of the linen covering together, and
thus is τὸ cubits distant from the hinder wall It
divides the entire space into two apartments, the outer
and larger being 20 cubits long and the inner only half
as much, having thus the form of a cube of τὸ cubits.

Nothing is said as to how this curtain is hung upon the
golden nails. The curtain bears the designation of ῥάγόξεξα
(0999, Ex. 26.31, AV ‘vail RV “νεῖ! } or fardhelA hammasak
δα N37D; Ex, 8512 9934 402: Nu. 45, AV ‘the vail of the
covering” RV ‘the veil of the screen’) ‘The meaning of the
word (ζῦ καταπέτασμα, Vg. velum) is uncertain. It is generally
explained as ‘parting’ ‘Separation’ More probably it is an
original feminus fechnicus used in connection with worship,
and denotes the boundary of the cella of a sanctuary (sec below,
and cp Ges.-Bu, and BDB, sie. 1, li. also Dillmann, 24 Voc.;
WRS, Journ. Phil, 13223; Halévy, MEL 187).

The outer and larger apartment was ‘the Holy”
(λαξξδάεξ, Ex.2633, EV ‘the holy place’), the inner
'the Holy of Holies' (fddeY ha&f0da}im, Ex. 2633, EV
“the most holy’). ‘The latter could be entered only
once in the year on the great day of atonement, and
that by the high priest alone (Lev. 1627); the former
was accessible to the priests only, in the discharge of
their sacred duties.

The sanctuary was surrounded by an enclosed court
too cubits long and 90 broad {Ex.279-19 8810-20),

The enclosure was by means οἵ curtains

6. The court. (rv ‘hangings, 42/47) of white spun
linen (EV ‘ fine twined linen,' f#fm0dzdz). This curtain-
wall which was 5g cubits high was supported by pillars
of wood; whether of acacia is not stated, but this 15.
probably meant. The total compass of the enclosing
wallwas(100+100+50+50=}g300cubits. Thenumber
of pillars is given as 20 for each of the longer sides and
10 for each of the shorter. The view of the author
plainly is that there were sixty pillars in all at a uniform
distance from each other of 5 cubits.

The number given for the pillars on each side is obviously
inexact if the total number is to be taken as 60. If we take che
statement quite literally and reckon all the pillars on each side,
then on the given data we get a total of fifty-six pillars only, for
of course each corner pillar is counted twice—once as part of the
longer side and again as part of the shorter. It is in this way
that Lund, Bahr, Winer and others view the matter. It is not
very probable, however; for în that case the distances of the
pillars from one another on the shorter sides (#9 cubits) would
not be the same as those on the longer (γ᾽ cubits), For this
reason other interpreters prefer to think that the describer in
giving his figures for each side did not count the last pillar în
each row (so Keil, Dillmann, Riehm, Nowack and others).
This doubtless would be in itself quite possible if it did not so
happen that we are able to reckon exactly with regard to one
side—the eastern with the entrance—that it actualiy had only
ten pillars, neither more nor fewer. For this side had in the
middle four pillars which carried the curtain of the door, and if
we are to assume σεν at all in the structure, the door
must have been in the middte, and thus to right and left there
must have been an equal number of pillars—namely three, as îs
expressly stated in Ex.2714/7 Thus we shall doubtless be
justified in assuming that the author has allowed himself to be
‘guided simply by his scheme according to which the proportion
of 2:1 is applied to the whole structure without caring very
minutely about details.

Each pillar has a base of bronze and a capital overlaid
with silver The diminution in the value of the
materials in proportion to the distance from the Holy of
Holies is noteworthy. ὙΠῸ curtains are fastened in
their places by means of silver nails which here also,

4868

TABERNACLE

doubtless served as hooks for hanging (3817 2717), In
the same connection mention is made also of silver
hafakim).

The meaning of the word PWM is disputed. Many under.
stand by it silver bars, or bars of wood overlaid with silver,
which reached from one pillar capital to another and rested
upon silver nails, and to them the curtains were attached either
dtrectly or by means of rings (so Lund, Keil, Riehm, Knobel,
and others). According to Ex. 38 17 το, however, the 4asz4iz
seem to have been integral parts of the pillars themselves, and

the expression »εὄμτεξ ξεῖνε Adseph (ADI D'PEMD; Ex. 27173817,
EV, ‘filleted with silver,’ can hardly mean ‘fastened with silver
crossbars.' Other interpreters therefore (such as Ewald, Dill-
mann, Kautzsch, Nowack, Kennedy) understand by the
expression ‘rings’ or fillets which surrounded the pillars above,
probably at the base of the capitals (5 ψαλίδες, explained by
Hesychius as ἁψῖδες τῶν στύλων; Tg. ΦΎΣΙΣ, a lacing orgarland).

The E. front differed from the other sides (Fx.
2713/.). From each corner only 15 cubits were pro-
vided with an enclosing curtain, in each case having
three pillars. ‘The middle space of twenty cubits was
left open for the entrance and had a special curtain of
violet purple and red purple; scarlet and white linen în
embroidered work (and thus exactly lîke the curtain at
the entrance of the tabernacle itself) which was attached
to four pillars.!

In connection with this enclosure of the court of the
tabernacle, finally, are mentioned also tent-pins of
brass and cords (Ex. 2719 3518 302031 3940, etc.)
Here also we see accordingly that the bases of the pillars
are not designed for fixing them into the ground but
that the pillars are kept in position by pegs and ropes
which of course are applied on both sides. On another
view (Riehm, Nowack, and others), these ropes and
pegs held the curtain itself taut and therefore close to
the ground.

As for the position of the structure, the milkdr,
within the court we learn that the orientation of the
whole was eastward, As the altar of burnt offering
stood to the E. of the tabernacle and thus the most
characteristic acts of worship, the sacrifices, were per-
formed here whilst the space behind the tabernacle to
the W. was set apart for no special purpose, we must
suppose that the structure was not in the middle but
stood more to the W. On this point we may take it
that Philo {Fid δος, 37) hit upon the right con-
jecture when he supposed that the front of the taber-
nacle was so cubits from the enclosing wall facing it,
thus giving a free space of 50 cubits square before the
tabernacle.

According to P the portable sanctuary possessed
already in the times before the settlement in Palestine

T. The the following sacred vessels i
furniture, (Ἢ) Inthe Holy of Holies stood the ark

of the covenant (Mp7 Di “Arda hd ‘6d&th) with
the mery seat (MIBI, 409657644) and the cherubim. See Ark,
Mercy SAT, CHERUB.

(2) ‘The Holy place' contained the table of shewbread,
the golden candiestick and the altar of incense. The table of
shewbread according to Ex. 2635 stood on the N. side, and to it
belonged various golden dishes (EV ‘chargers,’ #2‘720#4, Nu.
T13./) and bowie ΕΝ ‘spoons, κα ῤῥδέλ, Ex. 2529 Nu. 7147),
poîs or cups (AV ‘covers, ΕΝ ‘fiagons,’ #é5274) for the
wine, and libation ‘bowls' (so EV) for the wine afferings
Gnénaktivyoth, Ex. 2523 #7. 87 το 7.). For further details as τὸ
the table, see ALTAR, £ 0; col. 126. Opposite the table, on the
S. side of the sanctuary, stood the seven-branched’ golden
candlestick (EV ‘candiestick.of pure gold,’ mònarati hazzà! db
fano, Ex, 2531 2Ch. 1311, or 4ammenirah hatthorak [ἘΝ

1 Here also, as in what is said as to the total number of
piilars (see above), one observes that the author has not
counted, or let us say drawn his plan, with exactness. He has
simply assumed a regular interval of 5 cubits between the
pillars, thus giving 20 cubits for 4, 15 cubits for 3. But this
does not work out; the end pillar is forgotten. The whole side
requires eleven pillars $rhen such an interval is assumed; for
the door five ought to have been reckoned or at any rate for
each side of it to right and left four pillars. If we are to
calculate with precision from the data he supplies, we shall have
to reckon the distance from pillar to pillar of the doorway as
8=63 cubits and tha: between the pillars at each side of the
doorway as 5 cubits. [Τρ Kennedy, Hastings' 22 46574.]

4869

TABERNACLE

*the pure candiestick '], Ex, 318 39 37 Lev. 244 ; see CANDLE-
STICK). ΑΒ vessels pertaining τὸ the candlestick are mentioned
the snuffers (EV ‘snuffdishes,’ medka&dyim) and little pans
(ΕΥ̓͂ ‘censers'; m@410%4),0n which, according to some interpreters
(Dillmann, Knobel, and others), lay the snuffers; according to
others (Nowack, etc.) snuff dishes are meant (cp Ex. 2531 δὲ
87177). On the form of the candiestick, see CANDLESTICK τ
on the custom of burning a light in the sanctuary, cp LAmP, and
see TempLE, 817. Between the shewbread table and the candle»
stick, facing the entrance and pretty far back, near the curtain
shutting off the Holy of Holies stood the altar of incense (Ex.
301 [EV ‘an altar to burn incense upon’), weizka4 mibtar
sotbreth, m.k. hassammn, Lev.47 (EV ‘the altar of sweet
incense ’), or neizda/ hazzakab, Ex.9938[EV ‘the goldenaltar ')},
with regard Lo which, and its absence from the older strata of
P, see ALTAR, $ 9.

(3) In the court stood ‘the altar’ κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν
(manna, Aemmisbiàh, Ex.271 3018 407, eto.), “the altar of

burnt offering* (vzizba? Aa ‘9/24, Ex. 3028 81 9, etc.) or ‘the
brazen altar” (nizéal πόλόξεα, Ex. 3830 88 39), on which see
Atrar, $92; TEMPLE, $18; and cp below, $ ro). To the altar
of burnt offering belonged a multitude of accessories :
(AV ‘pans,’ ΕΝ “ροῖς, sirotà), ‘shovels' (EV, y4 72) for
clearing the altar, bowls (EV ‘ basons,’ mi2r445t4) for sprinkling
the blood, forks (EV ‘fleshhooks,' 1/2/4624) for the sacrificia!
flesh, various sorts of ‘firepans’ (r10420/4). The vessels, like
the altar ἔμεν, were all of brass (Ex. 211 241 881,95), as alto
was the other main object in the court, the laver, used by the
priests for washing their hands and feet; see SEA, BRAZEN,

As already mentioned above and as set forth fully
under TEMPLE ($ 1 £.}, the tabernacle, like all the sanctu-
coni. aries of the Semites, has in the first

5. puEmificanee instance the meaning not of a meeting-
in P. place for the community or congrega-

" tion, but of a dwelling-place of the

deity. It is the place where Vahwè dwells in the midst
of his people (Ex. 258 29457. Lev. 174 Nu. 169, etc.).
When the tent is finished the cloud of Yahwè over-
shadows it and the glory (+39, 42444) of Yahw fills it;

by day Yahwé's pillar of cloud and by night his pillar of
fite overhangs it (Ex. 4037 2). ‘Thenceforward it is
invariably from the holy of holies that Yahwè speaks
to Moses. More precisely, the 4appdorell (see MERCY
SEAT} of the ark, beneath the cherubim, is the place
where Yahwéè establishes his abode. It is from here
that Moses hears the voice of Vahwé (N. 7 89).

As Yahwè's dwelling-place the tabernacle naturally
becomes also the place where he is worshipped, for the
deity is worshipped in the place where he is {see
TEMPLE ; cp Ex. 27 42 Lev. 135); and, in point of fact,
for P_the tabernacle is the only legitimate place of
worship. This follows inevitably from his standpoint
throughout; for him it is a self-evident proposition
that sacrifice can be offered and Yahwè approached
only at the place where Yahwè has his abode, So
much so that it is not found necessary in P expressly to
say 50; the centralisation of the worship is for him
simply taken for granted.

Nor is the tabernacle in P the centre of the worship
merely; it lies also at the foundation of the entire
theocracy as the indispensabile basis without which all
else would simply hang in the air. The instructions
regarding it constitute the main contents of the divine
revelation at Sinai. Until it has come into existence
the whole organisation of the rest of the divine common-
wealth must remain in abeyance. In this respect there
is an element of truth in the symbolical interpreta-
tion of many writers (such as Keil), that the tabernacle
symbolises the kingdom of God, is the centie of
the theocracy where the calling of Israel to be the
people of God is realised. Its importance in this
respect—as centre of the entire theocracy—finds its
visible expression in the fact that in P the position
assigned to it is exactly in the centre of the camp and
of the people. The order of encampment detailed în
Nu. 2 starts from the tabernacle, immediately around
which are placed the Levites as a sort of bodyguard;
then to the E. the tribes of Judah, Issachar, Zebulun
pitch their camp; to the S. Reuben, Simeon, Gad; to
the W. Ephraim, Manasseh, Benjamin; to the N., Dan,

4870

TABERNACLE

Asher, Naphtali. This too gives the order on the
march, Cp CAmP, 2.

In this attribute as Yahwè's dwelling-place the whole
arrangement of the tabernacle finds a ready explana-
tion in so far as this is not to be found

9. Symbolist. cimply in its character as a portable
sanciuary.

The innermost chamber is the dwelling-place proper of the
deîty, the holiest part of the entire structure. Next come the
holy place and the outer court in descending degrees of ΠΟΙ
answering to the degrees of holiness attachiug to high priest,
priests, and laity in Israel, and to their respective rights of access
to Yahwà. The holy of holies can be entered by the high

st alone, and that only once a year; the holy place is for the
riesthood and the court for the people. This gradation of
Roliness finds expression also, as already said, in the material
equipment : in the holy of holies everythingis of gold ; nought
save the bases of the boards resting on the ground—-though here
an exception caunot well be justified and the bases of the
pillars which support the dividing veil and which perhaps
stand rather în the holy place than în the holy of holies, is of
silver. In the holy place only the furniture, and particularly
those pieces which stand in the neighbourhood οἱ the holy
of holies—table of shewbread, altar of incense, candlestick-are
provided with ‘fine gold’; elsewhere it is simply ordinary gold
that is used. The exterior piltars of the entrance-curtain, which
doubtless are reckoned as belonging to the court, have but
brazen bases. Similarly in the court itself we find brass only, save
for the silver used in the nails and capitals of the pillars. In
lîke manner the clasps of the goat-hair covering are of brass,
whilst those of the inner covering are of gold. The interior
covering which covers also the holy of holies, and the vail of the
holy of holies are the workmanship of cunning workmen out of
the four costly materia(s enumerated, with figured cherubim ; the
curtain at the door of the holy place is without cherubim and the
curtains of the court are simply of white linen.

With these simple ideas, however, which find expression in
the equipment of the tabernacle in the manner just indicated,
the whole symbolism of the structure is by no means exhausted.
A symbolical interpretation of the tabernacle that reaches
much further is of ancient date. We find ît already în Josephus
(Ant. iii. 77) and Philo (De vit. Mos. 81475), who interpret
the tabernacle as an image of the universe ; the holy of holies
inaccessible to men is for them a figure of heaven, the holy place
and the court represent the ocean, the four materials ont obvhich
the coverings and curtains were woven denote the four elements,
the table of shewbread with its twelve loaves is the year with
its twelve months, and so forth, And from their time onwards
symbolical interpretation of this kind has persisted from century
to century down to our own time, In the Christian church the
typological view made its appearance very soon; cp Justin
Martyr, Colort. ad gent. 29; Ciem. Alex. Strom. 562 fi
Origen, οι, 9 ἐμ Exod.; Theod, Mops. ad Zebr.d1;
Athanasius, ‘Orat. in assumi, Christi," οὐ. 25, col. 1686;
‘iheodoret, Qrest. 60 ἐκ Exod.; Jerome, ed. 64919 2 ad
Fabiolam. Tn modera times Bahr, Friedrich, Hengstenberg,
Kei, Kurtz, Riehm have exercised great acumen upon the
symbolical interpretation of the tabernacle and in particular
upon the symbolism of the numbers and dimensions (the
number 4 signifying the cosmos, 10 completeness and perfection),
as also upon the significance of the colours of the coverings, and
so forth, ΑἹ such interpretations, however, are wanting in any
solid basis in the OT; nowhere does the author hint even in
the remotest way that hehind these externalities he is searching
for deeper thoughts. It is hardly worth while therefore to
discuss the various attempted interpretations in any detail.

Can we now regard the structure thus described in
P as historical? Very great difficulties confront us in
the endeavour to do so, quite apart

10. Tnhietori: from the fact that the description
e of record. occurs only in P, the latest source

of the Pentateuch. They have long
been urged—by Voltaire for example—and may be
summed ‘up under the following four heads :—-(1) the
imaginative character of the account itself; (2) the
physical impossibility of such a structure in the wilder-
ness; (3) the inconsistency with the older Pentateuch
sources ; (4) the want of evidence for any such tabernacle
during historical times.

(1) The description itself from the outset presents
great difficulties, and raises in the mind of the reader
the question whether any such structure can ever
have really existed. It has already been pointed out
how in stating the number of the pillars of the court the
narrator is plainly not describing something of which he
has any clear picture in his mind's eye, not calculating
and planning with practical preciseness, but only filling
in figures according to a scheme of his own. Yet
another point has also been noted already—that the

4871

TABERNACLE

fabric bears indeed the name of ‘tent’ and the author
takes great trouble to produce in the reader's mind
the impression that the sanctuary was such in reality,
but in this effort has succeeded (and could have suc-
ceeded) but illl Beams some 21 inches thick and 2 ft.
6 in. wide cannot be fastened together so as to form a
massive wall by means of mere tent pins, and they are
purposeless if they are intended merely as supports
for a light textile fabric. It is perfectly evident that
the model for this structure was not supplied by a
bedouin tent, a dwelling place made of (goats') hair, of
which the essential part, the roof, is spread upon three
rows of poles, usually three in each row, 5 or 6 ft. high
and closed behind by a similar fabric of hair{see TENT).
On the contrary, the model was quite clearly a solid
house rendered portable only by the expedient of
breaking up the walls into separate beams. In this
respect the whole structure becomes a huge anachronism
when regarded as the workmanship of nomad hordes.

This becomes specially prominent in the description
of the altar. In viewof the ancient practice of building
altars of stone (Ex, 2024 7) one reasonably asks how
the narrator could have arrived at an altar of brass,
and then one remembers that the temple of Solomon
also had such an altar, ‘That this latter was the real
model for the altar of the tabernacie becomes still clearer
from another point of view. The altar of the tabernacle
is of acacia wood plated with brass, a construction which
in itself considered must be characterised as utterly
senseless if the explanation were not so manifest; the
altar of Solomon must remain as it is, a brazen altar:
but it must be made portable.

A further detail may be singled out in this connection: the
whole fabric is internally pitch dark. The walls have no
windows nor gpenings of any kind; the roof in like manner is
unpierced. This inay serve well enough in the holy of holies;
the Holy of Holies in the temple was also quite dark (see
TEMPLE, $ 7); but in the holy place it is impossible; there
the priests had their priestly duties to discharge—arrange the
shewbread, offer incense, and the like, And it will not do to
call attention to the seven-branched golden candlestick (see
CANDLESTICK, $ 1).

Finally, there is the fundamental question: Is a
structure of this kind capable of standing at all? Simply
as a technical question of architecture (see Schick, as
below, $ 14) this must be pronounced utterly impossible.
Nor is the reason difficult to perceive. The weight of
the heavy coverings and above all the pressure brought
to bear by the spreading of the tent-covering by means
of cords and pegs, must necessarily tend to make the
walls lean inwards. ΝῸ opposing pressure is anywhere
present. Even if we suppose that the bars connected
the side walls with the rear wall, only the boards of
the side walls that were nearest the rear wall were thus
supported ; but în any case it was impossible that weak
bars should support the entire wall, 30. cubits long,
formed as it was of heavy beams. For this reason, and
in order to relieve the walls of the weight of the cover-
ings, Schick finds it to be absolutely indispensable to
provide the tabernacle with a sloping roof. This he
obtains by changing the middle bar into a ridge-pole,
following the English architectural authority Fergusson,
who first propounded this theory în the article ‘ Temple”
in Smith's DZ (1863). Such a construction, however,
flatly contradicts the clear tenor of the text. The text
knows nothing of such a sloping or pointed roof—which,
furthermore, would be wholly inconsistent with the idea
of a bedovin tent,

(&) Over and above the inherent impossibility of any
such structure, account must be taken of the incidental

3 impossibility of constructing and trans-
11, Impossible porting such a fabric in the wilderness
ἴῃ the The contrast between this sumptuous

WildernesB. fabric—made of the costliest materials
of the best workmanship in wood and in metals which
the East could command—and the soil on which it is
raised, the bare wilderness ; the contrast too between
this tabernacle and the people amongst whom it stands—

4872

TABERNACLE

primitive uncivilised nomads—is too great not to have
excited doubts from a very early date as to the authen-
ticiyy of the account. ‘hey were raised by Voltaire,
and Colenso and Nowack (see below, $ 14) have
elaborately shown the impossibilities involved. © First
of all comes the difficulty as to the materials. According
to Ex. 3827 no fewer than 29 talents 730 shekels of
gold, 100 talents 1775 shekels of silver and 70 talents
1400 shekels of copper are employed. To see what
these figures mean, let the reader turn to the articles
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES, SHEKEL. The amounis in
themselves are not very great when compared with those
which were applied in the great Babylonian sanctuaries ;
but for wilderness nomads, poor to beggary as regards
gold and silver, they are impossible. It [5 indeed re-
plied to this that the gold is simply the gold which had
been obtained from the Egyptians; but such an answer
becomes impossible in the case of the timber. Where
on Sinai the cypresses grew from which beams over
17 it. long, 2 ft. 7 in. wide, and 20 in. thick could be
obtained no one has yet been able to say.! The working
of the timber, moreover, presupposes a knowledge of
arts which nomads do not possess ; that Israel did not in
point of fact possess this knowledge is clearly shown by
the fact that even a Solomon had to go to Pheenicia
for his temple and workmen. A word may be added
as to the difficulties of transport. Four waggons with
six oxen apiece are assigned to the Merarites for this,
while each of the 48 beams weighs more than τὸ cwt.

(3) Decisive on tae question, finaily, ought to be the
©bservation, that the older sources of the Pentateuch,

and E, know nothing of a tabernacle
12, The sacred ὩΣ ἢ ΘΡΙν is there no
ent in È mention of this central sanctuary, but
E in point of fact has a quite different sacred tent which
completely excludes any possibility of the tabernacle
of P, The tabernacle of E is a tent which Moses
pitched outside the camp (Ex 337 7) and where
Yahwè was wont to reveal himself to him in the pillar
of cloud which descended for the purpose and stood at
the door {Nu.1125 125 14r0); it is on this account
called δεῖ mé°#4, ‘the tent of tryst.' No description
of it is given, nor is its origin spoken of; but part of the
old narrative has obvionsly been lost before Ex. 337,
in which what is now lacking was probably explained.
It appears, however, that it was very different from the
tabernacle described by the priestly narrator. It was
not in the centre of the camp but stood some distance
outside it, and it was not the seat of an elaborate
organisation of priests and guarded by a host of Levites,
but had ἃ single minister and custodian—viz., Joshua,
who wds not a Levite at all but Moses' attendant
(Ex. 8311),

The existence οἵ such a simple tent-sanctuary pre-
sents none of the difficulties that beset the priestly
narrative. Portable shrines were familiar to Semitic
antiquity, and tents as sanctuaries were known to the
Israelites in much later times at the high places and in
connection with irregular worships® (see TENT). Such
idolatrous tabernacles were probably relics of the usages
of the nomadie Semites, and it is only natural that
Israel în its wanderings should have had the like. And
it is noteworthy that the portable chapels of the heathen
Semites were mainly used for divination (cp /ourr. of
Phil., 13283 7), just as the Mosaic tabernacle is
described by the Elohist, not as a place of sacrifice
{such as the tabernacle of the Priestly Code is) but as a

place of oracle,
‘The heathen shrines of this sort contained portable idols or

1 [Kennedys novel theory (see above, $ 3), that the so-called
‘boards’ were în reality light open frames, would, of course,
meet this difficulty if it stood alone.] Ν

2 Ezek.1616, ‘thou didst take of thy garments and madest
for thyself sewn high places’—ze., shrines of curtains sewn
together; cp Hos.96 and Syriac ῥόγαξξᾶ, Assyrian ῥαγαξξε, a
small chapel or shrine, from the same root as Hebrew ῥώγόξοία,
the vail of the Holy cf Holies.

4873

TABERNACLE

baetylia (see Selden, De Dis Syris, 16); but what the Mosaic
tabernacle contained is not expressly stated. The ordinary, and
at first sight the easiest, assumption is that the ark stood in it.
But neither in Deuteronomy nor before it, are the ark and the
tabernacle. ever mentioned together, and of the two old
narrators it is not clear that the Yahwist ever mientions the
tabernacle or the Elohist the ark. ‘The relation between the
two calls for further investigation, especially as the ark retains
its importance after the occupation of Canaan, whilst the ‘tent
of tryst' is not mentioned after the time of Moses, who, accord»
ing to the Elohist (Ex.12), enjoyed at it a privilege of direct
access τὸ the Deity not accorded to later prophets (cp also AKK
OF COVENANT),

(4) Lastly, the whole historical tradition from the

period immediately following the settlement down to
the date of the building of Solomon's

13, The faber semple has no knowlege of any taber-
existent in nacle. True, apologists like Keil have
historical succeeded in writing to their own
times, satisfaction itscomplete history through-

out the period of the judges and the
first kings: at one time it was at Shiloh, at another at
Nob, finally at Gibeon, whence it was removed to the
temple. The Chronicler has indeed much to tell about
it, proceeding as he does cn the—to him self-evident—
assumption that in every case where the older books
made mention of sacrifice at all this must have been at
the tabernacle (1 Ch. 1639 2129 2 Ch.13 55). The
elder historical books, however (with exceptions to be
mentioned immediately), know nothing of it. 1K.
817, in explicit contradiction of 2 Ch. 13, states that
Solomon sacrificed on the great high place of Gibeon
and excuses this proceeding, which from the redactor's
point of view of conrse seemed illegal, on the ground
that the temple was not yet in existence. But no
temple was required for the purpose if the tabernacie
was then at Gibeon. The sanctuary at Shiloh, on the
other hand, was not a tent at all but a solid house
EV ‘temple of the Lord," (mm dvn, λέξαι: γαλτοὲ,
1 S.19 33), with mé222d44 (AV 'door posts,’ RV ‘ side
posts') and 4@414544 (EV ‘doors'); cp especialiy Jer.
7127 Moreover, the ark is spoken of in 1 S.4-6 in
such a manner as shows that there was no fixed place
where it was kept, and thus no Tabernacle. After it
has been recovered from the Philistines, for example,
it does not come to its proper house but first to Beth-
shemesh and next to Kirjath-jearim, to the house of a
private individual, where it remains for years. Thence
it îs fetched by David, who, however, after the disaster
to Uzzah brings it into the house of one of his generals,
and that too a gentile, Obed-edom of Gath (2 8. 7).
Not till later does he transfer it to his own city, where
he sets up a tent for its reception plainly in remembrance
of the fact that the ark had formerly also been so
housed. This tent was in time removed by Solomon
to the temple (1 K. 84), for if these verses are old and
belong to the context it is only this tent that can be
understood by the ’64e/ 22074 (more probably, however,
the statement is of a later date ; see Benzinger 24 /oc.).
Thus the only remaining passage will be τ S.222, a
passage which is already open to critical doubt owing
to its absence from @. From all that has been urged
we may safely conclude that the tabernacle of P is
simply the temple of Solomon carried back into the
older time by priestly fancy and modified accordingly.
It was not the temple that was built on the model of
the tabernacle ; it was the tabernacle that took its shape,
character, and importance for worship and the theocracy
from the temple,
Josephus, Ant. 868; Philo, De mit. Mos. 31457 The
older literature will be found more or less fully registered in
such works as those of Bahr or Riggenbach.
14. Literature. Of later works we mention the following:
Bibr, Syondolik des Mos. Kultus®), 1979;
Friedrich, SymBolik der Mos. Stiftshitte (1843); W. Neumann,
Die Stiftshatte, 1861; Ch. 1. Riggenbach, Die Mosaische
Stifishitte (1837): Popper, De bili. Bericht ber die Stifts-
Aditte (1862); articles by Winer in RW2 2.529: Diestelin BZ
540577; Leyrer in PRZW), 15927; Riggenbach in PRE
147327; Riehm in #48; Ferguson, art. ‘Temple’ in

4874

TABERNACLHS, FEAST OF

Smiths DB; Weltein Fyeiburger Kirchen-lezicon 1 Kurtz in St
Ar. 1844, pp. 3157: ; Kamplausen, ibid. 1858, pp. 97%, 1859,
pp. 1107 5 Fries, id. 1850, pp. 103 Κι, Riggenbach, i0id., 1863,
Pp. 3612: s Engelhardtin 22771868; pp. 40027 ; alsothe Areas:
alogies of Jahn (8 2267), De Wette-Rabiger, 268 7; Ewald,
8) 163,75, 367 75, (8 387 7, 450 25, Saalschitz, 231877; Κα,
@ 82/2 ET198/; Scholz, 123% ; Haneberg, 1617; Schegg,
406

enzinger, ZA 3957, and Nowack, 74 2 53.2.} Schick,
Stiftshitte u. l'empel, 1898; À. R.S. Kennedy, art, ‘T'abernacle*
in Hastings' 28. On the question of the historicity of the
accounts of the tabernacle cp especially De Wettc, Beifr.
12587, 22597; Vater, Corn. 36587; Von Bohlen, Genesis,
112 ff; George, /adische Feste, ax τ Vatke, Bibl. Theol 224f.;
Noldeke, Betty. 2. ritik, 120 ff. 1 Graf, De templo Silonensi,
1855, and Die Gesch. BI. d. AT, 1866, 752: Kuenen, Gods:
dienst, 2755 Reuss, L'Aistoire sainte ef la lot, 240; Well
hausen, 27/8), 407 ET 38/7 LB

TABERNACLES, FEAST OF. The Israelitic cycle
of festivals came to a close, in autumn, with the feast
;; οἵ Tabernacles, In the old legislation

1 Agricultural (Ex. 8422 23:6) it is called hag ἀδ᾽δηρὰ
(ηθκς 2m), ‘the feast of ingathering,' arid

is to be celebrated ‘at the turn of the year’ (noipn
gn). The very name shows quite clearly that the

festival in its essential meaning is agricultural, a harvest
feast ; it is the autumn thanksgiving which no doubt has
reference primarily to the fruit harvest and the vintage,
but from the outset was regarded as the great thanks-
giving for the whole produce of the year.

Hence the general expressions ‘when thou gatherest in the
produce of thy field’ (Ex, 2316, TITO TEPODN ABORI),
‘when thou gatherest în from thy threshing-floor and from thy

nected with the possession of the land of Canaan, and
was celebrated for the first time there by the Israelites,
who in all probability took it over from the Canaanites,
It is with regard to the autumn festival specially that
our information as to its having been a Canaanite festival
is explicit ; of the people of Shechem we are told that
they went cut into the field, gathered their vineyards,
trode the grapes, and held festival and went into the
house of their god and did eat and drink {Judg. 927).
Cp also FEASTS, $ 4.
As the closing harvest thanksgiving, and probably the
oldest of the three feasts of harvest (see PASSOVER, $ 4;
PENTECOST, ὃ 6), the autumn festival
πο σα pa excels both the other great annual festivals
ἀπο venriy (iSgEIm, ὉΠ) of the Israelites in im
festivals, Portance. In the law of JE, it is true, all
three are already found on the same plane
as equaliy necessary and equally important; for all of
them attendance at the sanctuary is enjoined (Ex. 3422
2316). Yet how great was the special importance as-
signed in practice to the autumn festival as compared
with the others appears at once in its very designation
as ‘the feast' (ann, 4ebag) or ‘the feast of Yahwè'
(mm um, δα γαλτοὲ) κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν (τ K.82 1232 Judg.
2119; and even as late as Lev. 233941 Ezek, 4525 Neh.
81). Even in Zechariah (1416 25) it is to the
feast of tabernacles that the remnant of the heathen go
up year by year to Jerusalem to worship the King,
Yahwè Séba'oth. In these circumstances it cannot be
regarded as merely accidental that the feast of taber-
nacles and the feast of tabernacles alone is more than
once mentioned in the historical books when dealing
with the more ancient period, and its celebration thus
attested from the earliest period after the settlement in
Canaan. At Shiloh, for example, the maidens celebrate
it by going forth to dance in the orchards and vineyards
(Judg.2136)! So also we learn from the story of
Samuel that in wide circles it was customary year by
year at the ‘revolution of the days' (opa miopnò, 1 S.

1 The narratives in
form late Midrash. Yet there need not he on that account any
doubt as to the accuracy of this statement or of many other
touches preserved in them See DANCE, $ 6, and cp further,
Budde, ad loc.

4875

‘udg. 19.21 are certainly în their present |

TABERNACLES, FEAST OF

120; cp the same expression in Ex. 3422) to go in
pilgrimage with the whole family to the sanctuary at
Shiloh, and there to sacrifice to Yahwè and hold a joyous
sacrificial meal {15.13 2). ‘The high importance
attached to the festival is shown also in the fact that
Solomon dedicates his temple at the same date {1 K.
8265, cp 2 Ch.78 7; on the passage cp also below,
$ 3). Answering to the yearly observance of this feast
at Jerusalem, Jeroboam, according to a thoroughly
trustworthy statement in 1 K.12321 (cp Benzinger,
ad loc.) instituted a similar solemnity in the northern
kingdom ; here the only error of the author is in sup-
posing (from his Deuteronomistie point of view) that
before Jeroboam's time such a feast was observed only at
the temple of Jerusalem, and not also at the sanetuaries
of the northern kingdom. Pilgrimages of the same
sort as those to Shiloh were in use also in other parts
of the country to the various famous sanctuaries. The
passages just cited show also at the same time that this
autumn festival from the very beginning was celebrated
in common by wide circles of participants. This does
not seem to have been the case in the olden time with
the two other harvest feasts ; if observed at all, it was
enough that they should be observed in quite small
local circles; at least the complete silence of the histori-
cal books on the subject would be most easily ex-
plained in this way. The special importance of the
feast of tabernacles continues to show itself in the
Deuteronomic legislation. In contrast to what is re-
quired at the two other 4aggim:, it is enjoined that all
the days of this festival are to be observed at the central
sanctuary in Jerusalem {Dt. 1615; cp ©. 7).
In the older legislation no more precise details than
those already indicated are given as to how and where
3. Original the feast ought to be observed. Else-

n icon of where {FEASTS, $ τὸ} it is shown that

τ brati the oiden time had no thought at all of
ΟΘΙΘΌΓΑΨΙΟΣΙ, fr ing the three harvest festivals to any
definite day. This lies in the nature of the case.
The great autumn thanksgiving was held as soon as
the corn-harvest, vintage, and ingathering were finished,
This happened, of course, in the various districts, and
in different years, at different dates, In the hill-country
around Jerusalem the feast was held of old in the eighth
month. ‘The completion of the temple was in the month
of Bùl, the eighth month, and its dedication was at the
time of the autumn festival (x K.638; cp 82)? Itis
evidently in order to bring it into accordance with the
Jerusalem date of the feast on the fifteenth of the month
that the autumn festival at Bethel was fixed for the same
day by Jeroboam (1 K. 1237}.

For the observance of the festival the offering of gifts
from the fruits that had been gathered and of animal
sacrifices accompanied by a sacrificial meal were matters
of course (cp 1 S.13 #). In the olden time the gifts
and offerings were left to the freewill of the worshipper
according as his heart impelled him to show his thanks
to Yahwè (cp TAXATION, $ 8). So also it is matter of
course that the feast was observed as a joyous occasion,

1 [See also SuecHem, and cp Cri4, B:4.] .

2 In the present text of τ K.82 Ît is indeed said that the
dedication was ‘at the feast in the month EÉthanim, which is the
seventh month.’ To reconcile this date with 1 K. 6 38, according
to which the temple was finished in the eighth month, it would
be necessary to suppose that after its completion the dedication
of the temple was put off till the seventh month of the following
year—that is to say, for eleven months. This is in the highest
degree unlikely. Since, moreover, we leam from 1 K.1232
that at that period the festival was observed at Jerusalem în
the eighth month, we must suppose the original text of 1 K.82
to have read merely ‘at the feast.' The name of the month
Ethanim is a later insertion easily explained by the consideration
that, on the one hand, the fixed tradition was that the temple
had been dedicated at the feast of tabernacles, and, on the other
hand, that this feast, at a later date, but before that of Deuter
nomy (8 4), had been assigned to this month, The explan:
of the name of the month— which is the seventh month’—is
the addition of a still later hand, as is shown by its position ; it
is also wanting in @8L (@A has a curious reading αὐτὸς ὃ μὴν
ἑβδομηκοστὸς ἕβδομος]. Cp further, Benzinger, ad loc.

4876

TABERNACLES, FEAST OF

Compare what we read of the feast of the Shechenites (Judg.
927) or of the dances of the maidens (cp DANCE, $ 6) at the
feast of Shiloh (Judg. 21.194).

When, then, in Dt. the feast is for the first time
designated {in our present texts) as the ‘feast of
tabernacles' (Dt. 16 13; see betow, $ 4) and the priestly
law {Lev. 2342) expressly enjoins living in booths as
part of the ritual of its celebration, or when the Law of
Holiness (Lev. 2340) orders the participants to take
‘the fruit of goodly trees, branches of palm trees,’ and
the like, we may be perfectly certain that these are not
newly invented innovations, but that very ancient custom
lay at the foundation of the practices thus prescribed.
"The living in booths and the name ‘ feast of tabernacles'
or ‘booths’ are connected with the simple fact that at
the time of the olive and grape harvest it was usual to
spend days and nights in booths of this kindt—a practice
which still holds its ground in those parts (see Robinson,
BR 27:7; cp Is.18)! If these booths at a later date
found a recognised place in the official ritual of the feast,
this shows that, properly speaking, all these days of
harvesting during which people lived in the open under
booths were regarded as constituting a festal time, which
was brought to a close in, let us say, the pilgrimage to the
sanetuary. With this also we may connect the precept in
Dt. (see below) to observe the feast for seven whole days
at the sanctuary. The other injunction, referred toabove,
to furnish oneself with fruits of goodly trees, branches of
palm trees, and so forth (if the reference be not simply to
the branches needed for making the booths ; see below)
we may perhaps connect with what we read of the
festal dances in Judg. 21:97 It would be natural for
those who took part in these to adorn themselves with
sprigs and garlands.

In its festal legislation Dt. (1613-15), as already
remarked, designates the autumn festival by the name

4. In Di. Of bag has-sukkòth (ni30n 20) *feastof taber-
nacles' or ‘booths—a designation which,
although not employed either in H or in P {see
below, 58 5, 6), it continued to retain® As has
already been said, it was not to any change in the
significance of the festival or to any new ritual that this
new designation was due; if Dt. had intended to
introduce something that was new when it spoke of the
celebration under booths, this piece of ritual would
have been expressly prescribed. On the contrary, Dt.
simply assumes both name and thing to be already
familiar ; thus the name also was already in use before
the time of Dt. The duration of the feast is fixed at
seven days, and in fact all the seven have to be observed
at the sanctuary in Jerusalem (see above, $ 3). The
joyous character of the feast is also thoroughly preserved
in Dt., as well as the idea ofits being a harvest feast; and,
in full agreement with the general spirit of solicitude
shown in the Deuteronomic law for the welfare of the
poor and the like, it is expressly enjoined that the bond-
man and the widow are all to take joyful part in the
celebration (1614).

1 For evidence of the ancient practice of spending the
festival under booths we cannot with confidence appeal to
1210(9]. The expression there made use of, γηδ' δέ, instead
of 10, Zag— is quite unusual. Still less suitable, it is true, is
the interpretation which (so Wellhausen)refers it to the passover
feast. In no other place do we read anything οἵ a dwelling in
tenes during that feast. In the prophetic threatening ‘I will
yet again make thee to dwell in tents, as în the days of the
Gp) solemn feast τὸ reference to any joyous festival, merely
a reference to the wandering in the wilderness is required by
the connection. Hence Kautzsch's rendering ‘as in the day of
the assembly [at Horeb}* seems the best, "If the prophet is
really intending the feast of tabernacles in this allusion, we
shali then have our first distinct trace of an assumed paralle!
and connection between this ‘dwelling in booths' at the feast
of tabernacles and the dwelling in tents in the wilderness at the
exodus from Egypt. Cp further, Wellhausen and Nowack,
ad loc.

2 In the NT and în Josephus it is accordingly spoken of as
σκηνοπηγία, in @ as ἑορτὴ σκηνῶν, in Vg. as scenafagia, and în
Philo (2297) as σκηναί,

4877

TABERNACLES, FEAST OF

It is shown elsewhere (FEASTS, $ 10) how the cen-
tralisation of the cultus in Dt., even without any
express intention on the part of the lawgiver, inevit-
ably altered the character of the feasts. It became
necessary that they should be observed at one common
definitely fixed date, they lost their intimate connection
with the life of the husbandman, and the tendency to
change them into historical celebrations was greatly
strengthened by this circumstance. No express refer-
ence to any historical event in connection with the
feast of tabernacles is met with as yet in Dt. The
bringing of the first-fruits at all is connected only in
a quite general way with the historical fact that it is
Yahwéè who has delivered his people from the land of
Egypt and given them the land of Canaan to possess.
As thanks for the gift of the land the Israelite brings
the firsi-fruits of its produce as a gift to Yahwe (Di.
26-11). The bringing of the first-fruits enjoined in Di,
in conjunction with a liturgica] formula of thanksgiving
is not indeed in the law itself (Dt. 26r-21) expressiy
connected with any definite time. It is, however,
exceedingly natural to assume that the author of the
injunction thought of it as to be carried out on the feast of
tabernacles, for it deals with the offering of the first-
fruits of the wine and oil-harvest as well as with the
first-fruits of corn, and contemplates this as being done
at Jerusalem. For this the feast of tabernacles was the
convenient opportunity, unless one is to read the precept
as implying a special piigrimage to Jerusalem for the
purpose. In this connection a quite general reference
to the Exodus is implied for the feast of tabernacles.
Lastly, in Dt. it is further laid down that every seventh
year, the year of release, ‘thìs law’—i.e., the Deutero-
nomic law—shali be read before all Israel at the feast
of tabernacles (Dt. 311077).

Ezekiel is the first to give to this feast—designated
‘the feast' or ‘the feast of Yahwè‘—a definite date ; it

is to begin on the 15th day of the seventh
5. Tn Esel: month, and to last for seven days (Ezek.
and Ε΄ 4525). He orders for it the same offer-
ings as for the passover; every day seven bullocks
and seven rams as a burnt-offering, a he-goat as a sin-
offering, an ephah for every bullock and every ram, with
a hin of oîl to each ephah as a meal-offering. The
Law of Holiness (Lev. 23 39-41) in its present form has no
precept as to the offering. The date in τ. 39 is hardly
original! On the other hand it is here prescribed that
the Israelites on the first day of the feast are to take to
them the fruit of goodìy trees fm Py "8; cp under
APPLE, $ 2 [3]), branches of palm trees and boughs of
thick trees * and willows of the brook, and rejoice before
Yahwè seven days. That the palm branches and the
boughs are to be used for making booths is nowhere
said. Itis equally possible to suppose that they were
carried by the participants in their hands {cp above,
$ 3). Such a custom is attested at any rate for the
later post-exilic period (2 Macc. 106 7; Jos. “πὲ.
iii. 104, 8 245, xii. 185, $ 372). What could be the
application of ' fruit of goodly trees’ in the construction
of booths is not easy to see, and it is more natural to
suppose that the fruit formed part of the thyrsus which
each participant carried in his hand {cp below,

8 7).

The laws of P concerning the autumn festival are

1 How much of Lev. 2339 belongs to the original law
of holiness is yery questionable. As in what follows this
verse mention is always made of only seven feast days,
v. 395, which speaks of an eighth day, may be presumed to
be a later addition (see below, $ 6). The same holds good
of the time determination in 7. 394. The other festivals also
are not yet assigned to a fixed day in H, On this question
see further the various introductions, especially the tables in
Holzinger.

2 ni3y py is explained by tradition as meaning ‘myrtle.’
Occurring as ît does between ‘ palms’ and ‘willows,' the expres-
sion would certainly seem intended to denote some definite kind
of tree. :

4878

TABERNACLES, FEAST OF

found in Lev. 2333-36 4: fi Nu. 2912-38. The name of
6. In P. the festival is there the same as in Dt. : feast

i " of tabernacies or booths, 4ag Aas-su44otk
(niava an: Lev. 2334). ‘The preference of P for this
designation is not a mere accident; it is intended to
denote, not a part of the ritual merely, but the meaning
of the entire festival; it conveys, not only that during
the festival it is necessary to live in booths, but also
that the festival commemorates the booths in which
Israel lived at the exodus from Egypt. It is exactly to
this that the peculiar usage of the feast is intended to
point (Lev. 2342/). The change of meaning, designed
to give the feast a place in the history of redemption,
has thus been fuily accomplished ; there is now no
longer present any trace of a reference to husbandry—
a reference which, indeed, is absent also from the Law
of Holiness. As with all festivals in P, so also in the
case of the feast of tabernacles, the chief emphasis is
laid upon the public sacrifices which are offered with
lavish abundance, no longer as in Dt. upon the volun-
tary gifts of individuals and the sacrificial meal arising
from these, The public sacrifices consist, over and
above the regular daily burnt-offering with the customary
meal and drink-offerings, οἵα sin-offering of a he-goat to
be offered on each of the seven days of the feast, with
in addition a daily burnt-offering of two rams and
fourteen lambs, and on the first day thirteen bullocks
besides, on the second day twelve bullocks, and each
succeeding day a bullock the less—thus, on the seventh
day seven bullocks, two rams, fourteen lambs, In
each case there are, of course, the appropriate meal-
offerings of fine flour mingled with oil—three-tenths for
every bullock and two-tenths for each of the two rams.
As compared with the offerings prescribed for the other
principal feasts, those here enjoined are enhanced to an
extraordinary degree—in some instances being more
than doubled. Thus down even to so late a date as
that of P we can clearly trace the continued operation
of that pre-eminent importance which attached to this
feast above all the rest in the oldest times.

There is yet one other point in which P goes beyond
Ezekie! and H; to the traditional seven days of the
feast it adds yet an eighth as a closing festival, ‘Istret&
{nwsy). As compared with the other seven days, this
has an independent character of its own; it does not
simply continue the sacrifices of the preceding days, but
there are offered a he-goat as sin-offering, a bullock, a
ram and seven lambs as a burnt-offering—in each case
with the appropriate meal and drink-offerings, of course
in addition to the regular daily burnt-offering. This
day, however, as can readily be understood, is always
reckoned as part of the main festival itself, and in later
times it was customary to speak of an eight-days' feast
(2 Macc. 106 ; Jos. 4x6 iii. 104, $ 245). This eighth
day, like the first, is celebrated by ἃ great assembly and
by abstinence from every kind of work; for the inter-
vening six days this is not demanded.

In post-exilic times, just as în pre-exilic, it is pre-
cisely of the feast of tabernacles that we most often

n hear ; it always continued to be one of the

7 Later. most important festivals. Of the exiles
after their return we forthwith read that when the
seventh month came round they did not neglect the
feast of tabernacles. And, as matter of fact, after the
introduction of the law in 444 B.c., the feast was
regularly observed ìn strict conformity with the legal
prescriptions. ‘This is expressìy emphasised in Neh.
8:47. It is, however, very noticeable that here the
legal innovation is the revival of a custom which had
passed out of use: not, as might be expected, the
sacrifices, but the dwelling in booths. From this no
other conclusion is possible than that this dwelling
in booths was practised in the older time, not as a
festal rite, but as a harvest custom. After Dt. had
transferred the observance of the feast to Jerusalem, the
practice had gone out of date ; what had formerly been

4879

TABERNACLES, FEAST OF

quite natural had now in the capital no meaning.
When, however, the custom was brought into con-
nection with history and judged to be a reminiscence
of the tents of Israel in the wilderness, it received a new
meaning which gave it fresh significance as a part of the
ceremonial of the feast and recalled it to new life. From
the account in Nehemiah (8 16) we learn further that in
Jerusalem the booths were set upon the house roofs, in
the house courts, in the courts of the temple (this last,
of course, only for priests and Levites) and în the broad
places of the city gates. Olive branches, branches of
wild olives, myrtle branches, palm >branches, and
branches of thick trees (niay pp, see above, $ 5, n. 2)
were employed for the purpose. The public reading of
the book of the law, as required by Dt. (see above, $ 4),
was also a feature of the festival. The Chronicler's
account of the feast of tabernacles at the dedication of
the temple {2 Ch. 7877) is evidence of the observance of
the festival in accordance with P in the Chronicier's own
time in so far as the seven days’ feast of 1K. 865 is
altered into a feast of eight days. Finally, we read
in the Maccabean period of the celebration of a feast
resembling the feast of tabernacles, immediately after the
purification of the temple (2 Mace. 1067). This
feast also lasts eight days; the participants carry in
their hands ‘wands wreathed with leaves, and fair
boughs, and palms also.’

The custom here referred to (perhaps already an old one ; see
above, $ 5) continued în use during the later period, The order
of the feast is prescribed down to the minutest details in the
Talmudic tractate entitled Su44e (cp My&TLE) There the
branches, etc., are not only used for making booths, but are also
carried in the hands as the celebrants go to join in the worship.
The ‘fruit of goodly trees” (TIM PP "B) was interpreted to mean
the etkrig (ME), apple of paradise, or Adam’s apple, the
‘80 'δδεῇ (τῆλ PV) the myrile. Accordingly, a palm bragch
still in its ‘sceptre-like’ condition, that is, not yet expanded (he
so-called 27/46, 2015) was fastened up along with a myrtle and
willow in such a manner that the myrtle was on the right and
the willow on the left of the palm. This festal thyrsus (also
called //35) was held in the night hand whilst the left carried
an e7r2g, and thus equipped the celebrants went in procession
with hosannas and waving of thyrsi round the altar of burnt-
offering, each day once, but on the seventh day seven times, to
commemorate the seven days' encompassing of the walls of

Jericho. Josephus calls the thyrsus (An ili. 104, 5 245)
sipeouivn—which means properly the harvest wreath of alive
er laurel wound round with wool and decorated with fruit

which the Athenian singing boys carried about at the autumn
feast of Pyanepsia. Another Greek designation employed
is θύρσοι (thyrsi; 2 Macc.107; Jos, An xiii. 185, $ 372),
properly the Bacchic wand wreathed in ivy and vine-leaves with
a fir-cone at the top which was carried by the worshippers at
the feast of Dionysus, It is doubtless this whole custom chat
Plutarch has in his mind when he represents the Jewish fenst of
tabernacles as being a Dionysiac festival (δ γε. 46 : τῆς μεγίστης
καὶ τελειοτάτης ἑορτῆς παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις ὁ καιρός ἔστι καὶ ὁ τρόπος
Διονυσίῳ προσήκων | . - ἔστι δὲ καὶ κρατηροφορία τις ἑορτὴ καὶ
θυρσοφορία παρ' αὐτοῖς, ἐν È θύρσους ἔχοντες εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν
εἰσίασιν».

Another peculiar custom, with regard to the meaning
and origin of which there is still great uncertainty (cp
NATURE-WORSHIP, $ 4), was in connection with the
daily drink-offering which was offered during the seven
days of the feast. For this the water was taken from
Siloam. A priest ἄγεν it in a golden pitcher of a
capacity of three logs, and brought it amid trumpet-
blasts through the Water Gate into the outer court
of the temple. ‘There other priests received it from
him with the words (Is. 123): 'Ye will draw water
with joy from the founts of salvation, in which words
priests and people alike joined. "The water was then
mixed with wine, and, while the priests blew on the
trumpets and the Levites chanted psalms, was poured
into a silver basin standing at the south-western corner

| of the altar, from which it fowed by a pipe into a

subterranean channel and thence to the Kidron. We
may, perhaps, bring this practice into connection with
the ancient custom of drawing water and pouring it out
{cp τ 8, 76) which may possibly have been used and
retained precisely at the feast. Tradition has it that

4880

TABITHA

abundant rain for the new seed-time and a fruitful year
are symbolised in the act. In all probability the words
of In. 737... are to Le read in this connection.! Yet
one other characteristie of the feast remains to be men-
tioned : the festal joy on the night between the first and
the second day. In the court of the women four-
branched golden candlesticks were erected and lighted
up. With music, psalms, and trumpets, a torch dance
was then performed by the most prominent priests and
laymen. The offering of the festal sacrifices was
accompanied, as in the case of the other great feasts,
by trumpet-blowing by the priests, as also by the singing
of the great hallel—z.e., Pss. 113-118 {see HALL!
when the Hosanna was reached in Ps. 11825 the lùlabs

were shaken.

Outside vf Palestine the Fews observed the festival in like
manner in booths. As the determination of the month’ com-
mencement and of the whole calendar connected with it depended
on actual observation of the new moon, and thus was uncertain
(see New Moon), it was customary for the Jews outside of
Palestine to observe the first and eighth days of the feast twice
over on consecutive days, so as to make sure of observing the
common national feast quite simultaneously with their brethren
in Palestine.

After the destruction of the second temple arose the custom of
adding yet a ninth day—the 23rd of Tishri—to the festiva),
celebrated as the feast of ‘the joy of the law” (ΠΡ: noDE).
On the Sabbath preceding this day the reading of the law as
divided into 52 parashiyyoth or lessons in the synagogue service
came to an énd; on the following sabbath the reading was re-
commenced, Cp Vitringa, De Sy. Vet., 1696, P. 1003.

See the literature cited under FeASTS; also the articles in
Riehm, Herzog-Plitt, Smith, etc. LB

TABITHA (rasleli0a [Ti. WH]),® Acts936 4of.
See DORCAS; cp GAZELLE.

TABLE. The words are :—

1. γιὸ, ἔμπα, τράπεζα, mensa. See MEALS,$ 345 ALTAR,
8 r0;'and cp SacrIFICE, $ 342.

2. πῦρ» 278548, ἀνάκλισις (mote [C]), accudilus, is taken by
EV in Cant. 1 τῷ in the sense of ‘table’; cp MEALS, $ 34, and
n. 2; also è 36, n. 2; but sce also ED, and Bu. ad ἦσο,
Haupt, /82 21 (2902) pr. 1, p. 54.

3. mb, ἐᾷ, πλάξ (31 times) πυξίον (thrice), tabula, burus,
Chiefiy of the ‘tables’ of the law Ex. 24 12, etc., but also of the
tables or tablets on which the prophets wrote their prophecies
(is.308 Hab. 22), and of tables for writing generally. Cp
Were.

4. τράπεξα, Mt. 1527 1 Cor. 1021 Heb. 92, etc. ; see above, 1.

5. πλάξ, 2 Cor.33 Heb.94; see above, 3. ᾿

6. κλίνη in ΜΙ, Τα [Ti. WH om.]is rendered ‘table’ in AV;
RVom. RVmg. ‘many ancient authorities add 44 couches.
See above, 2, and cp MeALS, $ 34 and n. 2. ῃ

7. πινακίδιον, Lk,163, AV ‘table RV ‘tablet’; dimin, from
πίναξ, and so a small tablet (for writing).

TABLE LAND (Mit) 2 Ch. 2610 RVm&, EV

*plain(s)." See JupaA, PLAIN.
TABLET. τι ΥἹΟΞ, 44105, Ex, 8522 Nu, 3150t.
RY Armrer. See NECKLACE, $ 4.

2. ha, ci/ayon, 15.81, ἘΝ see Derss, $ 1 [2], RoLL, 2.

3. U5In NI, dale 0) Aanonéphet, 15. 820,
Boxes

TABOR (NIN: Θαβωρ [BNARTL], rai8Bwp [B]
θάφωθ [A] Josh. 1222, τὸ ιτάβυριον [BA] Hos.5:
Jer. 46 [65 26] 18; ataBypion Polyb.

See PERFUME

ἘΚ Σ Ια v.706, cp Ιερον Àioc aTaBvypioy at
ietica Agrigentum and in the isle of Rhodes

ἐδ, ix. 277; TO ΙΤΑΒΥΡΙΟΝ opoc Jos. ;
iraBypion Euseb. OS 26890 and θάβωρ, ἐδ. 26127:
Itabyrium, Thabor, Jerome), the hill now called Jebel

1 The words are spoken on the “great* day of the feastt
ἡ ἐσχάτη ἡμέρα ἡ μεγάλη τῆς ἑορτῆς. ΒΥ this probably is meant
the Seventh day, on which procession was made seven times
round the altar, which on this day was decorated with branches
of willow. This day is in fact called by the rabbins the ‘“great*
Hosanna day_x31 ΜΙ ΜΠ dî, or also the ‘willow' day—
ny Εὖ", The eighth day, the ‘&sée24, is not strictly speaking
to be reckoned to the feast of tabernacles ; the special sacrifices
and festal observances terminate on the seventh day (see above).
This day, therefore, cannot be regarded as that intended in Jn,

Tx.
E Cp τοβιαθη (Wadd. 2155) and ταβιαθη, cited by Dussaud and
Macler, 7793. A>ch. 158 (Paris, 1901).

4881

TABOR

et-Tàr. Its dome-like shape as seen from the'$. or
SW. (mira rotunditate," Jer. OS 15623), and its
apparent isolation, make it a striking feature in the
landscape of SE. Galilee. Hence it ranks with Carmel
among conspicuous heights : e.g., in Jer. 4618, and the
Midrash, Ber. X., $ 99, ‘Tabor came from Beth-elim and
Carmel from Aspamya to attend the law-giving at
Sinai.’ A psalmist even implies that what Hermon is
on the E. of Jordan Tabor is on the W., Ps. 8913 (but
cp the commentators). It rises from the level of the
Great Plain to a height of 1843 ft. (1312 ft. from the
base); the summit is an extensive platform, g000 ft.
from E. to W., 1300 ft, at its greatest breadth, a
peculiarity which did much to determine the associations
which have gathered round the mountain! Though
from some aspects Tabor appears to stand alone, in
reality it is a spur of the Nazareth group of heights,
and is linked to them on its N. side. Its slopes, like
the W. slopes of Carmel, are covered with vegetation
and stunted trees, cak, ilex, terebinth, beech, carob,
olive, ete., which afford cover to an unusuai number of
‘animals. From the top opens out a superb panorama,
often, however, veiled with mists in the spring-time.
The situation of the mountain, its imposing and
prominent outline, explain at once the part which it has
played in history. In all ages Tabor has been famous
either for its sanetuary or for its stronghold. —Com-
manding the NE. quarter of the Great Plain and one of
the main outlets down to the Jordan, the W. esh-Sheràr,
it has considerable strategic value, whilst to the instinct
af early religion it would seem to have been designed by
nature for a holy place.
'The boundaries of Issachar, Zebulun, and Naphtali
meet upon Tabor; Josh.1922 (Issachar), 12 CHISLOTH-
TABORt—i.e. ‘flanks of Tabor' (Zebu-
pepe lun}, 34 AZNOTH-TAFOR—i.e. ‘peaks (?)
hola of Tabor' (Naphtali), 1 Ch. 662 [77]
si (Zebulun; 658. θαχχειᾳ). In the first
and the last of these passages Tabor is the name
of a town on or near the mountain. Long before
the Israelite occupation Tabor was a holy place;
it naturally became the common sanetuary of the three
tribes whose portions met there. So we may infer
from Dt. 3319, ‘they (i.e, Zebulun and Issachar) call
peoples to the mountain’ Though Tabor is not
expressly named, as it is the mountain in which both
these tribes had an interest the allusion would be clear
to early readers. The passage seems to refer to some
kind of religious fair or gathering at the sanctuary
of Tabor to which the neighbourhood was invited for
worship and barter (Stade, ΟΡ lizx; Driver, Ζεμέ,
409; see also Herder, Geist d. Hebr. Poésie, 150 ff.
ed. Suphan). In the days of Deborah and Barak these
tribes had suffered most from the hostility of the
Canaanites ; accordingly upon Tabor, as the common
rallying- point, Barak gathered his men for a descent
upon the enemy in the plain below (Judg. 461214).
Perhaps there was another reason for the muster on
Tabor besides the obvious advantages of the position ;
the holy war, as von Gall suggests, would probably
begin with a sacrifice at the tribal sanctuary (“4 ξεν.
Kulistitten, x24 f.; cp x8.18912 Mi. 35, etc.) From
one account it appears that the battle was fought at the
foot of the mountain (Judg. 414.) ; the Song, however,
does not mention Tabor, and places the battle farther
off, by ‘Taanach, along the left bank of the Kishon
(58-20). By this victory Tabor was secured to Israel;
and, as a stronghold commanding one of the main
caravan routes across the Plain, it must have proved an
invaluable possession during the times of conflict and
slow consolidation which followed (Judg.7r22 15.
2847. 29: 311). Of its fortunes in the days when

1 In Talm, B. the extent of Tabor is given as 4 parsa, Bal.
Bathr γιὸ (Zèbahrm 1138 reads 40 parsa); the figures of Jos.,
B7iv. 1 (height 30 stadia, the πεδίον on the summit 26 stadia);
Are of course abstird,

4882

TABOR

Assyrlan and Egyptian armies passed within sight of it
we know nothing (Is. 823 [91] 2 K. 2329 Zech. 121).
The sanctuary continued to serve the district. By
Hosea's time it had become associated with the idolatrous
form of Yahwè-worship which was characteristic of the
N. kingdom ; hence it incurred the prophet's denuncia-
tion; its priesthood, like that of Mizpah, the other
typical ‘high place," is ‘a net spread out’ to catch
deluded worshippers (Hos.51), Nevertheless the
sacred character of the mountain was not forfeited ; in
the course of time no doubt it influenced the Christian
tradition ($ 5); it never quite lost its hold upon Jewish
memory. In a late Midrash we find the opinion that
‘the Temple itself might well have been built în the
portion of Issachar,' had it not been otherwise ordered
(Yalkut on Dt. 3319 Ἴοσφν de pòna ma25 nin mona ma).
The Tabor of Judg. 818 can hardly be the mountain ;
it is too far from the seats of Gideon's clan ; the scene
of the murder was the neighbourhood of
A 7 βξ. διδ Shechem rather than the Piain of Jezreel
"Ἐν 3. (but cp GIDEON, $ 2). It is simplest to
suppose that there was another Tabor near Ophrah
(Budde, Ri. δα. 114; but see also Moore, /u4ges, 228).
The 'terebinth [RV ‘oak’] of Tabor' (1 5.103; @L
τῆς δρυὸς τῆς ἐκλεκτῆς) is probably to be placèd, as the
context seems to require, in Benjamin, between Rachel's
Grave, on the N. border of Benjamin, and Gibeah
(von Gall, Ze. 88}. Ewald's emendation muanjiby
{=mx2}ibx Gen. 86 8) is scarcely necessary ; there must
have been more than one such sacred tree in later
Jewish history. See, further, RACHEL'S SEPULCHRE.
In later Jewish history Tabor was the scene of three
memorable engagements.

The first occurred in the struggle between Antiochus III. the
Great (223-187 B.c.) and Prolemy IV. Philopator (222-208 B.C.)
“ΠΟ forthe possessionof Palestine (Polyb. v. 70). After
4. Jewish the surrender of Philoteria (S. of Lake of Galilee)
history. and Scythopolis, about 218 5.c., Antiochusmarched
to the hill-country and appeared before Ata-
byrium, ‘which issituated upon a rounded bill (ἐπὶ λόφου μαστοεε-
δοῦς), more than 15 stadia in ascent,' and captured the place by
a stratagem. Polybius calls Atabyrium a πόλος standing on
the top of the hill, and the account of its capture agrees with
such a position, ᾿

In 8.c. 53 the proconsul A. Gabinius, general of Pompey,
fought Alexander, son of Aristobulus, at the foot of the
mountain (περὶ τὰ ᾿Ιταβύριον ὄρος), and 10,000 Jews fell in
battle (Jos. 4x4. xiv, 63).

The third episode is recorded in fuller detail. As governor of
Galilee Josephus fortified Tabor against Vespasian in 67 AD.
Under pressure he built a wall round the summit in forty days,
and supplied the fort with water from below, for the inhabitants
(ἔποικοι) had been dependent upon rain. Vespasian sent
Placidus with 600 horsemen to attack the Jews by enticing them
down to the plain; they were unwise enough to leave their
strong position in the hope of overwhelming the cavalry; ἐξ
became impossible to retreat, and they were completely defeated.
Want of water compelled those who were left in the fort (oi
ἐπιχώριοι) τὸ surrender the mountain to Placidus (Jos. B/ ἵν. 1 8.
ji.206, Vita 37). Remains of Josephus' wall were discovered
in 1898.

Since the third century Tabor has been revered by
Christian tradition as the scene of the Transfiguration.
The Gospels themselves do not give a
δ. The Trans: ame to the ‘high mountain’ (ὄρος
figurabion. μηλόν): but it was more likely
Hermon than Tabor (see HERMON, $ 1, MOUNTAIN).
"The Transfiguration is dated six (Lk., eight) days after
the confession of Peter at Caesarea Philippi= Baniàs at
the foot of Hermon. Nothing is said of a journey in
the interval; the return to Galilee is placed after the
Transfiguration (Mk. 930). Moreover, in Jesus' time,
‘Tabor was hardly a place to which he could lead the
three apostles ‘apart by themselves' {κατ᾽ ἰδίαν μόνους τ
Mk. 92)—xar" ἐδίαν obviously refers to the apostles,
not to the isozzioz of Tabor. The passages from
Polybius and Josephus quoted above imply that the
summit was inhabited and partialiy fortified.
Père Barnabé, who has written lately in support of the
tradition, argues that there never was, and never could have

been, a town upon the summit because of the absence of water
and cultivable land sufficient to support a population (Ze Mont

4883

TABOR

Thabor, Paris, 1900). But the difficulty was overcome în other
situations of a similar character ; many remains of cisterns have
been discovered on the summit; and monasteries have managed
to live there. The passage in the Cosfe/ according fo the
Hebrews quoted by Origen (Comment. in Joan. t. 26; Migne,
PG 14 col. 132), where Jesus is made to say, ‘ Even now has my
mother, the Holy Spirit, seized me by one of my hairs and
borne me to the great mountain Tabor,' can hardly be said to
support the Christian tradition ; but it may have helped to give
rise to it. The context of the quotation is lost, so that we
cannot tell what event is alluded to; not improbably it was the
temptation. Cp ΤΕΜΡΨΑΤΙΟΝ, $ τῷ, ἀπά τοῦ Moultor, 8364 and
Sem. Studies, Vale Univ., rgor, p. τότ, with the references.
At any rate Origen himself aci tei the tradition (Comment, in
Ps. 8813 [89 12]; PG12 1542), ‘ l'abor is the mountain of Galilee
Where Christ was transfigured.’ In the fourth century ît is held
by Eusebius, who speaks of Hermon along with Tabor as
‘mountains upon which the wonderful transfigurations and
frequent sojourns of onr Saviour teok place'(Comeent. in Ps.
88 13 [8912]; PG 231092); by Cyril of Jerusalem, ‘Moses . . .
and Elias, were present with him when he was transfigured on
Mt. Tahor' (Cazecd. 1816; PG 33744); by Jerome, ‘Itabyrium
et tabernacula Salvatoris,' © . . . montem Thabor in quo trans»
figuratus est Dominus' (7799, 46 and 108; PL 22491; id. 889).
Before the end of the fourth century, the tradition was widely
current in the E., and pilgrims, such as Paula (Jerome, ΞΖ. 46)
and Sylvia of Aquitaine, began to venerate the spot. ‘It is
generally believed that the Empress Helena founded a basilica
on Tabor about 326 A.D. ; whether any remains of it can still be
traced may be doubted, "The church with three apses, excavated
in recent years (plan given by Barnabé Zc. 136), is considered
to show characteristics of fourth-, or fifth-century work (de Vogiié,
Eglises de T. Sainte, 1860, 3527); in 570 the three chapels
were seen hy Antoninusof Plaisance, and in 670 by Arculf, bishop
of Eichstidt, the earliest travellers who refer to them; their
narratives are published by the Socié?# de lOrient latin (194
and 185). The only dissentient voice în the early period is that
of the Bordeaux Pilgrim (333 A.D.), who places the Transfigura-
tion on the Mt. of Olives (/finerariuzi [rh cent.), Soc. de
l'Or, lat. 118); otherwise, down to the time of the Crusades the
Christian tradition is unanimous and constantly repeated. It
finds a place in the services of the Greek Church for Aug. 6th--
eg, ᾿φθασεν ἡ ἡμέρα τῆς ἐνθέου εὐφροσύνηξ' ἄνεισιν εἰς τὸ
ὄρος τὸ Θαβὼρ ὁ Δεσπότης τῆς θεότητος αὑτοῦ ἀπαστράψαι τὴν
ὡραιότητα (Ὡρολόγιον τὸ μέγα, Venice, 1876, 348); Dut in the
Western service-books it does not seem to occur.I

In the history of the Frank kingdom Tabor maintained
its associations with religious devotion and hard fight-

ing. In 1099 Tancred occupied the
6. The Β ih E d

Crusaders, mountain _witl juropean troops, ani
“when he withdrew he endowed the church
and entrusted it to the care of Benedictine monks, who
restored the ancient basilica and built a_monastery.
Not long after, in rrrg, the Turks under Malduk
fought a battle with Baldwin I. on the plain below;
the Crusaders were severely beaten, and the monks
massacred, But fresh monks soon took their place; the
abbey received new donations ; the dignity of archbishop
was conferred upon its Abbot Pons and his successors
by a bull of Eugenius ΠῚ. (1145). Then came the
advance of Saladin in 1183; his troops ravaged the
Greek convent; and in 1187, after the disaster at the
Horns of Hattin, the holy place of Tabor was reduced
to ruins and abandoned by its Benedictines,

Early in the thirteenth century, Melik el-‘Adil, în order to
attack the headquarters of the Franks at Acre, fortified Tabor,
using part of the ruined church for his towers. The fortifications
were completed in x213 by his son, Melik el-Mu'azzam; several
inscriptions commemorating the work have been found recently
among the débris (Barnabé, Ze. 15, 100). It was this fortifica-
tion of Tabor that occasioned the Fifth Crusade. In 1217
Andrew II., king of Hungary, and other Princes advanced
against Tabor with a great host, and besieged the fort seventeen
days; the first assault was boldly delivered and as boldiy re-
pulsed; delays and divisions în the Christian camp helped to
make the second attack fruitless, and the Crusaders were forced
to retreat. See the vivid narrative of Vincentius Bellovacensis,
Soc. de 1' Οἵ, lat, sér72 Zist., 398; Kugler, Cesch. d. Kyeuzziige,
31253 Michaud, Mist. οὗ Cicade, 22266 The fortress
was afterwards dismantled by Melik el-'Adil in the hope of
restoring peace; and, in the years which followed, the church

2 In the fourteenth century the dogma of the Uncreated
Light of Mt. Tabor was promoted by Gregory Palamas, Arch-
bishop of Thessalonica (about 1349). ‘He asserted that one light
of Tabor was visible and comprehensible, the other invisible
and incomprehensible; see Migne, 26150773 Gregory
became a patron of the curious sect of the ὀμφαλόψυχοι, drawn
from the monks nf Mt. Athos, who devoted themselves to the
contemplation of the uncreated light of Tabor; Migue, ἐδ, col.
899 / ille, Kalendarium manuale, Inasbruck, 1896, 5.0,

ug. 6.

4884

TABOR, PLAIN OF

was rebuilt and served by monks from Hungary (1229); for a
short time it passed into the possession of the Hospitallers of St.
John. But Tabor was not left in peace for long. In 1263
Bibars, the Mameluke Sultan of Eeypt in the course of his
campaign against Damascus, finally burnt and devastated the
church, and the holy-place of Tabor was left a heap of ruins for
600 years. Franciscans from Nazareth conducted pilgrims to
the summit from time to time, and celebrated, as well as they
could, the Feast of the Transfiguration on 6th Aug. and the
second Sunday in Lent. Not until 1858 did the Franciscans begin
to undertake the care and excavation of the ruins; Greek monks
followed soon after; and in 1873 was built the modest Latin
convent which, with the Greek monastery close La guards the
ancient sanctuary. Napoleon's Syrian campaign brings Tabor
into general history for the last time; in 1799 the French troops
under Kléber, afterwards reinforced by Napoleon himself,
encountered che vast army of Jezzàr, and the battle of Mt.
Tabor ended in the complete discomfiture of the Turks; see
Lanfrey, Hist. de Napoleon 1e7, 13997

The derivation of the name Tabor is unknown. In
spite of its triliteral form, Winckler considers that the

7. Name, Name has survived, like ‘Jordan,' from

᾿ * pre-Canaanite times, and therefore is not
Semitic in origin. For a Semitic derivation he suggests
the Eth. 428» ‘ mountain,” with αἵ for ἐ under influence
of the liquid (407 1423). This interchange of dentals
is perhaps to be found in the name of the village at the
NW. foot of Tabor, Dedzriyek=DABERATH (g.v.),
possibly a formation from mon; the Arab. form has
preserved the long vowel in the second syllable. One is
tempted to conjecture that the primitive form of man
was man (cp v37 Josh. 11 21 1326 Judg. 111).

Oider etymologies have a certain interest ; eg. Syr.-Hex. mg.
ad Θαβωρ Josh. 19 22 gives βηθωρ, and explains de24 "37 ‘house
of light': Jerome OS 812 496 ‘veniens fumen, veniat lux”
Cas san!)

Among the Arabs Tabor has long been known as
Jebel et-Tur—i.e., '#he mountain'—a name given also
to Gerizim, Olivet, and Sinai, Sometimes the Arabs
call it Jebel Nùr, ‘of the light," in allusion to the
Transfiguration, for the Christian tradition is accepted
by Moslems; Guérin, GaZiZee, 11437 We should
expect Tabor to be mentioned in Egyptian documents ;
but this is probably not the case. The ‘ Dapura'
in the country of ‘Azzazra,’ so called to distinguish it
from another Daszra, among the towns conquered by
Rameses II. (temple of Karnak), is to be looked for
on the Orontes in N. Syria; the Depwrx mentioned
next to Kadesh in the papyrus Anastasi I (224,
Chabas, Voy. d'un Egyptien en Syrie, pp. 197, 313),
if not the same place, belongs to the same region. The
situation of Yasrx in the Bulak Papyrus is not specified.
‘The equivalent of these names would probably be nau,

‘hill,’ rather than pan See WMM, 45. x. Eur. 220 Κ᾿
The name of the mountain has not been found in

Assyrian records.
In addition to the authorities referred to above may he men-
tioned the following: Survey e W. Pal. 13887.; Robinson,
BRE), 2351 2: : GASM., HG 3947; Buhl,
8. Literature. 72 $ 68. Père Barnabé gives ἃ full and
valuable collection of material (the point of
view is uneritical, and the references are not always to he
trusted). Fora recent Roman Catholic work which rejects the
traditional site of the transfiguration, see Abbé le Camus,
Notre 009. auz Pays Bibl. (Paris, 1895), 1827. = G.A.C.

TABOR, PLAIN OF, or rather (so ΕΝ), OAK oF

TABOR (217 ἦρι, THC Apyoc θάβωρ [BA], 7. ἃ.
της EKAEKTHC [L; see below]; guercuze Taador), a
locality between the city where Samuel and Saul met
and ‘Gibeah of God” (see GIBEAH, 8 2 [3]), 1 S. 10 9}.
It has been supposed by Ewald {7 δέ, 321) and Thenius
{without ancient anthority) to be identical with the
‘ palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in
mount Ephraim' (Judg. 4 5), This is certainly plausible.
On the other hand the descriptions of the sites of the
two trees cannot be said to agree. The city referred to
in 1S. 967 is not said to be Ramah, and 'Bethel in
mount of Ephraim’ and ‘Gibeah of God’ cannot be
identified. It is much more likely that the ‘ cak” (or
rather, ‘sacred tree ') referred to in τ 5. 103 was uncon-
nected with any biblical story except that of Saul, and

156 4885

TAHATH

that Tabor is a corruption of some other name, possibly

Bahurim {nmm): cp @&"s rendering (τῆς ἐκλεκτῆς),

which presupposes sona. See RACHEL'S SEPULCHRE,
τ΄ κι ο.

TABRET. 1. ἈΠ), #68, 19.105; AV hasa slight
preference for ‘timbrel’; RV has ‘tabret’ in Gen. 8127 Is,
δια 2483032 Jer.31 4 Ezel.2813, but ‘timbrel’ in Ex. 1520
Judg. 1134 ‘18.105 186 25.651 Ch.138 Job 2112 ΡΒ. 81 3[2]
1493 1504. See Music, 5.

2 NDR, $pheth, 1ΟὉ 116, See ToPHETA.

TABRIMON, ΕΝ Tab-rimmon (}î9920, $ 44, as if
" Rimmon is good,’ or ‘wise,’ but see Rimmon ii. $ 2),
father of BEN-HADAD (1 K. 15:18: taBepema [Β],
TaBenparma [A], taBepemman [L]). Cp TABEEL.

TACHE (8 51) Ex. 266, et. RV ‘clasp.' See
TABERNACLE, $ 4 (1).

TACHMONITE (")} 53) 2 5.288, ἘΝ TAKCHE-
MONITE.

TADMOR (DIR: beAmop [AL] 6oeAmop
[ΒΡ], GocidomHCEN τὴν Boedomop [B* cum signo
perversa lect.], Pa/miram [Vg.}) ‘in the wilderness,'
a name given (2 Ch. 84t) to a city built by Solomon
by the Chronicler. This late historian doubtless had in
view the great city in the Syrian desert between Damascus
and the Euphrates (min, ann of the Nabateean inscr.)
Known to the Greeks and Romans as Palmyra (see
WRS, sw. ‘Palmyra’ £24),1 the mod. Tadmur,
vulgarly 7xdwir.2 This appears from his bringing it
into connection with Hamath and the N. He is, how-
ever, simply misquoting 1 K.9:8, where the RV is
certainly right in following the Kt. (pn, d.e., TAmAr,
not as some have supposed Tammòr) in preference to
the harmonistic Kre ‘ Tadmor' (bn) adopted by AV
following the versions. For the context here clearly
shows that not Palmyra, but some place in the S. of
Judah is meant {see TAMAR), and we have no reason
to think that the boundaries of Israel ever extended so
far N. The name Tadmor occurs nowhere else in the
OT, nor even in the cuneiform inscriptions, nor can
Palmyra be traced in history till just before the Christian
era, 42-41 B.C. (Appian, 86 59) At that date,
however, Palmyra was a place of some importance (cp
ARABIA, $ 3), and it may very well have come into
existence some centuries earlier—long enough for the
real story of its founding to be quite unknown in Israel
in the time of the Chronicler. F. B.

TAHAN, TAHANITES (}NA, MN), Nu. 2635.
below, TAHATH.

TAHAPANES (DMIBNNM) Jer. 516, RV TAHPANHES,

TAHASH (Ὁ ΠΠῚ Gen. 2224, AV THAHASH,

TAHATE (NM

See

), an Ephraimite name originating in

the Negeb, see SHUTHELAH (1 Ch. 720 dis voone=bm? [B

only once], θααθ, νομεε [A], θααθ [L iwice)). The name occurs
again în 2, 25 under the form TAHAN (MA, θαεν [Β], -av [1]
xa. [Α- ἦι, καὶ 0.1), and similarly in Nu. 26.35 [P] (LXX 7. 39
ταναχ), cp the family of the Tahanites (4. "MRI, è raraxiol
[BAFL)), In the priestly genealogies in 1 Ch.6 which are
intended to supply the great singers with a Levitical ancestry,
Tahath is twice mentioned among the ancestors of Samuel and
Heman (1 Ch. 6.24 [9] 37 [22], κααθ [B, but 0. τ΄. 37], 0. [AL)),
and it îs only reasonable to identify; Tahath or Tahan (=
Nahath?) with Tony [9.2.1], which is also an Ephraimite name
(cp EruRAM, ὃ 12).

TAHATH (NNA, note the ‘ priestly” name TAHATH
above), a stage in the wandering in the wilderness;
Nu. 3326 (kataa@ [BAL] kar@aa@ [F]). The

1 For the earliest exact modern account of Palmyra (by
Halifax, 1691), see PE Oct. 1890, pp. 273/7 See also Post,
‘Second Journey to Palmyra,' PEZO, 1892-93; Bernoville, Dix
δος en Palmyrone (3868).

? On the connection between the names fadmur and παλμύυρα
see Lag. (ἔδενε. 125, note), who approves the conjecture of
Schultens(Vita Saladina ; see the Geog. Index under ‘Tadmora,'
where the form 24m» is cited), that the original was a/r»,
with the meaning ‘abounding in palms.'

4886

TAHCHEMONITE

name stands between Makheloth and Terah, both of
which are possibly corruptions of ‘Jerahmeel' (Che.).
See WANDERINGS, WILDERNESS OF.
TAHCHEMONITE, AV Tachmonite (")O5MA, o
yananatoc [BA], yioc dekemanei [L]), 25. 238.
Probably miswritten, owing to the repetition of n from
the preceding word, for 31 (note ὁ xar. in BA)—i.e.,
san, ‘the... -ite' (so Marq.). This is in accordance
with the other descriptions of David's other heroes. But
235 can hardly be correct. Besides, ‘nam is preceded
(according to the emendation suggested under JASHO-
BEAM) by ΠῚ ; tisana is analogous to onbmma. 5
and © being sometimes confounded, it is plausible to
correct into ‘n ΤΞ- ἢ 4., a man of Beth-cerem (see
BETH-HACCEREM}; > and Ὁ were transposed. Cp
Carmi, the name of a son of Zabdi, Josh. 71, and
note that in 1 Ch. 272 Jashobeam is called & son of
Zabdiel ; also that in x Ch. 41 Perez and Carmi are
brothers, and that in 1 Ch. 273 Jashobeam is said to
have belonged to the b'ne Perez, T.K.C.

TAHPANHES (DMBNA, Jer. 437, etc.) or Tehaph-
nehes (DMONA, Ezek 8018} Jer. 2:6 Kethib DIBMN
(EV Tahapanes), Judith 19 AV TAFHNES, ΕΝ TAH-
PANHES, a city of north-eastern Egypt. Ezek. 30 closes
the long enumeration of Egyptian cities threatened by
destruction, with Aven-Heliopolis and Pi-beseth-
Bubastus, ν᾿ 17, and Tahpanhes, 7. 18, all three belonging
to the Eastern Delta. The long verse, devoted to
Tahpanhes, where ‘the yokes (better, as 68, ‘sceptres' ;
see Cornill) of Egypt' shall be broken, and ‘the pride
οἵ her power shall cease in her' shows the wealth and
importance of the place, as does the allusion to ‘her
daughters'—i.e., surrounding towns (Jer. 437 £).
Jeremiah, with many fugitives, fleeing from Palestine to
Egypt, comes to Tahpanhes and settles there. This
points again to the place being near the entrance from
Palestine into Egypt—z.e., in the NE. In 7. 9 the
words ‘the entry of Pharaoh's house in Tahpanhes'
seem to indicate that the place had a royal palace which,
even if used only on occasional visits of the king, would
indicate an important city. In 44r46:4 Tahpanhes
(which, however, is wanting in the good MSS of @ in
4614), Migdol, and Noph are the three most important
settlements of Jewish fugitives in N. Egypt, as distin-
guished from Pathros in the S. In Jer.2:6, the Egyp-
tians are called ‘children of Noph (Memphis) and
Tahpanhes.' Judith 19, enumerating Taphnas and
Ramesse and the whole land of Goshen (Gesem), as
far as Tanis and Memphis, etc., seems to be following
those Jewish settlements,

6 transcribes the name as Tagras (indeclinable) in
Jer. and Judith; in Ezek. 658 has Ταῴναι; Vg. not
Taphne,3s is usually quoted, but Tapkris (indeclinable :
the same form occurs as accusative in Jer. 437). It has
always been concluded from these transcriptions that the
reference is to a place which Herodotus, assimilating its
name to the Greek word for ‘laurels,' calls Δαῴναι.
According to him (230) Psammetik I. established a
great camp of soldiers ‘in Daphne near Pelusium’ (ἐν
Δάφνῃσι τῇσι Πελουσίῃσι), which the Persians still
maintained. In 2154, he reports that Sesosiris, return-
ing from his conquests, rested there. The Zi. Ansor.
places Da/z0 16 R. m. inland from Pelusium ; Steph.
Byz. also mentions Acgyy.1 Already Wilkinson {Moderz:
Eg. and Thebes, 1447) identified this place with the
modern Tel(1) Defenneh {about 25 English miles in a
straight line SW. of the ruins of Pelusium), which was
excavated by Flinders Petrie in 1886 {see Petrie,
Tanîs, 2). Petrie found traces of earlier buildings of
the Ramesside period, a great camp, fortified, accord-
ing to the foundation records, by Psammetichus L,
maintained under Necho and Amasis, and evidently

1 The form Tagvas în the Coptic version, of course, proves
nothing, being taken mechanically from the Septuagint.

4887

TAHTIM-HODSHI, LAND OF

abandoned afterwards, the palace or citadel having been
destroyed by fire. Many finds of arms, pottery, etc.,
showed that the garrison had consisted chiefly of Greck
mercenaries. ‘The position of this fortress, on the right
bank of the Pelusiac branch of the Nile close to the old
caravan-road to Syria, explains its great importance and
agrees excellently with that of the biblical ‘l'ahpanhes as
key to Egypt (cp Jer. 437); the expression in' Jer. 216
would be explained by the strong garrison. Such a place
would also be best adapted for a Jewish colony which,
evidently, subsisted chiefly on trading. Wilkinson’s
identification may, therefore, be considered as very
probable! The Egyptian name of the city has, how-
ever, not yet been found, which is not surprising, if we
consider that the city received its importance only under
Psammetichus 1. Such Egyptian etymologies as have
been attempted so far are too improbable to be discussed
here.

(On the theory that the reference in all the passages which
mention ‘Tahpanhes' is to N. Arabia (cp PROPHET, δὲ 26. 40),
‘Tahpanhes, like the other traditional names, disappears from
the text. For the underlying words see Crif. Biò. on Jer. 2.16
Ezek. 30175] 2 W.M. Μ᾿

TARPENES (D*}BNA 3. in 1 K. 11205 defectively ;
dex [or yJem[elina [BAL]; Vg. Tasàres; 1 K.1119f
[twice]), the wife of Pharàoh, whose sister was given
to Hadad, the Edomite, to wife. The name has a very
Egyptian appearance, although no certain etymology
could be given, except that the initial # would be the
Egyptian article. The present vowel-points seem to
follow the analogy of the city TAHPANHES (g.w.). See,
however, HADAD, according to which article we should
not expect an Egyptian name for a queen of Musri in
N. Arabia which seems to be meant here instead of
Egypt. The possibility remains open, at any rate, that
at a later time, when the king of Musri in question had
become a Pharaoh în the text, and the whole narrative
was referred to Egypt, an Egyptian name was worked
into the story. It would be futile to try to reconstruct
the various short Egyptian words which could be found
in the name, especially as @ differs somewhat from the

Hebrew. [On the Heb. text cp Crif 2i2. on Jer.
4615] W. M. M.
TAHREA (ΡΠ ; gapalal [AL] θαρὰχ [BN]), a

descendant of Meribbaal; 1 Ch. 941.

TAHTIM-HODSHI, LAND OF ("240 D'ANA PAN,
THN 0ABACWN H comin nadacai [BI ran 000

ἀλᾶσδι [A] ΓῊΝ xeTTIEIM Κάλης [L]?
1. State of om. Nere terram inferiorem
the problem: ον; [Vg.]), a district mentioned be-
tween Gilead and Dan-jaan in the account of the
movements of Jonb in taking the census of the people
of Israel ‘from Dan even to Beersheba,' 2 5. 266.
That ‘Tahtim-hodshi'‘ is corrupt, is too obvious to be
questioned, Several remedies have been offered, but
not quite satisfactorily, owing to the want of a thorough
textntal criticism of the whole narrative of the census
(vv. 1-9) in the light of parallel passages of geographical
description.

1. Ewald (Zist. 3 162, n. 3) thought that for
‘Hodshi (2) we should read ' Hermon' (pon). Gritz
changed, in addition, ‘ Tahtim (?)” into ‘tahath' (nm);
cp Josh.113, where Wellhausen, Buhl, Bennett (5.80 7,

1 No significance, however, should he attached to the fact
that the Arabs called a part of the ruins ‘the castle of the
ds daughter’ (fas dint el- Vehidi), which has induced

etrie even to find the alleged ‘brick'kiln' of Jer.439 (see
Brick-KILN). It may be mentioned here that Erman da his
review, Berliner Philalogische Wochenschrift, 1890, Ὁ. 959)
has warned us against laying stress on the similarity of the
names Defenneh (?) and Daphne. The best Arabic form is
Tell) Defeineh or Defineh (others give the plural De/se)—ie.,

“treasure-hill,’ evidently from finds made here by Arabs, not
from an old name of the locality.

2 Ex, Lagarde once tried to find in Tahpenes the goddess
Sobmele), worshipped especially at Memphis. A #a-So&zeelà)

‘the one belonging to S. would, however, require quite a
number of violent emendations

4888

TALENT

*Joshua'), and Steuernagel {but not Di.), read "the
Hittites (‘n07) under Mt. Hermon.' But in this case
we require to prefix πῃ, thus producing ‘the land οἵ
the Hittites under Hermon.® H. P. Smith prefers ‘the
land of the Hittites to Hermon.' But are not Hermon
and Dan somewhat too near together?

2. Wellhausen (725 217), following Hitzig (for nn)
and partly Thenius (for ‘3n), reads agip Dans, ‘(to the
land of) the Hittites towards Kadesh.' This is con-
firmed by (5: {see above), and is adopted by Steuer-
nagel, Driver, Buhl (5807). But is not Kadesh
on the Orontes too far N.? Wellhausen has to suppose
that the boundary line is traced to Kadesh, and that
it then comes back (SW.) to Dan. And had David
really conquered the northern Kadesh, and even com-
pletely incorporated it into the territory of Israel?
Cp Buhl, Pa/. 69.

‘3. Klostermann (24 Zoc.} and Guthe (Gesc4. 94)
would read mgp ‘no, ‘(to the land of) Naphtali
towards Kedesh'; cp Dt. 34: f (where, in the descrip-
tion of the prospect from Mt. Nebo, Naphtali is intro-
duced after ‘the land of Gilead as far as Dan'), and
2K.1529, where Kedesh is mentioned with Ijon (the
name which, according to Klostermann, lurks in the
second part of DAN-JAAN [7..]) and Gilead, as repre-
senting together the far N. of the land of Israel. This
is plausible, but involves a somewhat bold emendation
of p'nmn.

A more secure solution of the problem can, as has
been said above, only be reached in the course of a
88 radical correction of the text. (On Dt.
6 841/., one of the passages referred to by
Klostermann, see ΝΈΒΟ, MOUNT.)

According to the present writers emended text of
25.81 {in a section which Budde, quite independ-
ently, places very near 25.241-9, which it precedes),
David had recently conquered the parts of N. Arabia
nearest to the land of Judah, viz., Missur and Jerah-
meel (the region from which the Israelites appear to
have come). That David treated his new subjects
with the cruelty asserted in the MT of 2 S. 82, may be
confidently denied (see Cri£. 2i6.).

A study of the ways of the scribes suggests that the true text Gf
that passage (omitting a number of corrupt dittograms of ban)
is, ‘10 xi nm ΒΡ ΠΡΊΝΤΤΙΝ 239) obxon #6 Ὧν, ‘and he
smote Missur and the Jerahmeelites, and subdued the Zarephath-
ites, and Missur became‘ etc.

What David did next is shown us in 25. 241-9.

The thought came to him, ‘Go, number Missur and Jerah-
meel' (v. 1), or, as David puts it in his commard to Joab, ‘Go
to and fro throughout alì Zarephath-missur, from Dan? Misran)
even to Beer-sheba,l and amber ye the people’ (v. 2). Verses
5-7 describe Joab's proceedings.

*And they passed through Judah, and began from Aroer-
jerahmeel, the city that îs in the midst of the valley of {Jerah-
mel} Jizreel, and they came to Srrntmest ἃ and ἐσ the land of
the Rehobothites to Kadesh, and they tumed rourd to the city

isran. And they came to Missur (or, to the fortress of
ur), and to all the cities of the Horites (Jerahmeelites) and
the Kenites; and they came cut to the Negeb of Judah, to
Beer-sheba.' According to Ψ. 9 (originally), Joab'gave the
number of the men of Missur as 8000, and of thè men of Jerah-
meel as 5000.

Thus ‘Tahtim-hodshi' becomes ‘the Rehobothites
to Kadesh." The Rehobothite warriors in David’s
bodyguard are known to us in the present text as
* Cherethites.' See REHOBOTH, T.K,C.

TALENT (059, Ex. 2539, εἰς. ; TAAANTON, Mt. 2524,
ete.). See SHEKEL, and WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

ΟῚ We now see the original signification of the literary expres:
sion ‘from Dan even to Beersheba,' There was a southern

Dan. Possibly, however, ‘from Dan' (112) may be an early
seribe's error (}shp), and the original coiner of the phrase wrote
‘from Misran 459). In either case the extent of the Negeb Ì

is thus defined. Tn the lapse of time this was forgotten.
2 Rabbah of the bne Jerahmeel, miscalled în the text of 2 S.
12 26, etc., ‘ Rabbah of the bne Ammon.”

4889

TAMAR

TALITHA CUMI (taAM0a [Ti., -εἰ. ΝΗῚ Kkoym)
two Aramaic words in Mk. 54: (see JAIRUS), correctly
interpreted by τὸ κοράσιον (σοὶ λέγω) ἔγειρε: "little
maid (I say unto thee) arise!' The most im-
portant varianis are (1) ταβιτα, etc. (with ὁ for 4), and
xova (see Ti.) Ταβιτα, if not purely an error,
suggests TABITHA [g.v.]; xouw is of purely gram-
matical interest; see Dalman’s useful note, Gram. 4.
Fiid.-Paldst, Aram. 266, n. τ. Talitha, properly
‘young one,’ used very frequently of lambs (in Aramaic
more especially of the gazelle), would be represented in
Aram, either by #2/y2*kd or {cp Dalm. of. cif. 118, n. 6)
felitha.

TALMAI (ὯΝ, cp Nab. MON, and the Libyén
Talmi [DHM Ep. Denb. 51, also GoAomaloc [see
BARTHOLOMEW]; cp Wi. G/ 240, n 1; 00AmI -Εἰ»
@aramei). But the correctness of the reading ‘’Talmai*
(with n) has been questioned! {see TALMON, TELEM).

1. One of the sons of ANAK {9.2} at Hebron (Nu, 13 22 [23],
deragew [BA], θα. [L], -εἰ [F]; Josh.1514: θοαλμει [B], τὸν
θαλμαι [AL]; Judg. 110, θολμεε [L], τὸν -v [B}, 7. θαμεε [A]).

2. A king of Geshur b. AmmiHur (£e., probably Jerahmeel
{Che.]) whose daughter (Maacah) was one of David's wives, and
mother of Absatom. (25.33: θομμει [B]; 1337: θολμαιλημ.
(B], θολομαι [A]; 1Ch.32: θοαμαι [8], θολμει [A], θολομι [L)).

TALMON (fibb, rermon [BA] c. [L)), a family
of doorkeepersor (reading D'W#&[Che.]) Asshurites in the temple.
Ezra 24: Neh.745 (reAapuv [ΒΝ], τολμῶν (AT), cp_1 Ch.917
(raupav or «n [B, see Swete], τελμαν [ΑἹ]. των [1)} Neb, 1119

{τελαμειν); and 1225 (om. BR*A, ταλμὼν [ΜΝ ME SUP], τελμὼν
ÎL)). In rEsd.528 ToLman (RV, not in B, τολμαν [A]. The

clan to which Talmon and another doorkeeper TELEM (0bb)
teion ed was an important one. See TrLeM, and cp SHALLUM
8, ταὶ

TALSAS (caA@ac [B]), 1 Esd, 922 AV= Ezra 1022
ELASAH, I.

TAMAH (MON), Neb. 755 AV= Ezra 253, TEMAN.

TAMAR (*9M, ‘date-palm '), a place on the SE.
border of Judah, mentioned by Fzekiel (4718 [6°
φοινίεθμικωνος BAQ] 19 [65 Galman κ, d., @ being
a dittograph both of MID'N and DON} 4828 [δ
Barman] gs0l [Pesh.], for MT 9950. ‘ye shall
measure’ [metiemizi, Vg.]), and, as is usually held,
one of the cities fortified by Solomon (τ Καὶ. 918 Kt.
and RV; AV, however, gives TADMOR [9.v7.] depma@
ΙΑ, om. BL], Iedepma@ [B at 1023, om. A], goA-
mop [L i8.]; Palmiram; $as0gh [Pesh.]). Knobel
among critics, and Robinson and Wetzstein among
geographers (cp TRADE, 8 50), have identified Tamar
(x) with the Thamara of Eusebius and Jerome (=the
military station Thamaro of Ptol. 416 and the Peutinger
Tables), a village which is a day's journey from Mapsis®
{0521086 853) between Hebron and Elath, and further
(2) with the ruin called Αγρρτενό, on an elevated site SE.
of ‘Ar'ara (AROER, 3).4 This, however, does not suit
the passages in Ezekiel. It appears that some point
near the SW. point of the Dead Sea must be meant.
ZOAR [g.v.] was called ‘villa palmarum' in the times

| of the Crusaders, and Zoar was probably not the only

place in the district which rejoiced in its stately palms.
Engedi, however, is too far N.
The TAMAR of 1K.918, which has generally been

1 Cp Tor, where ἦτ is inquired whether ‘pn, king of npn,' is
not miswritten for ‘bn, king of app’ (Talmai, king of Maacab),

2 Reading, ‘from Hazar-aENON lin the NE. + the
Jordan forms the boundary (5 Stopife:=bv270) as far as the
€nstern sea (going along) unto Tamar (an) So Smend,
Cormnill, Davidson, Toy, sic.

3 See Ruhl, Pe/. 184, n. 545. The origin of the form ‘Map-
sis’ is not clear. Hommel (£xg. 7.12 218 [1901}} has identified
with it the May of Ptolemy v.16 ro, and the obscure ng on
pottery stamps from the Shéphelah district (PZ Meme., 1902,

106,5).

PP; ESA: de Velde, Syria and Pal. ὃ το ff (more judicious
than Robinson [ΔΑ 2616), who did not actually visit Kurnub),
who sees that Kurnub cannot be the ‘Tamar' of Ezek., and cp
Buhl, Ze. and Del. Gex.(0) 581.

4890

TAMAR

identified with that of Ezekiel, requires separate treat-
ment. It is credible that Solomon's fortress was for the
protection of the commercial road from Ezion-geber to
Jerusalem ; but it is not less possible that it was to
guard the Negeb towards the land of Musri {see
SoLomon, $ 7). ‘Tamar,’ both here and elsewhere, is
therefore probably miswritten for not (Ramath), which
is a corruption of ‘Jerahmeel' (see TaMmAR ii.) ‘In
the wilderness, in the land’ (para 2502) should
probably be ‘in Arabia, in Missur* (“203 5505) (Che. ;
see Crit. Bib.).

TAMAR (0A, as if ‘date palm,’ $ 69; Θδλλὰρ
[BNADEL]). ‘The name, in the sense of ‘ date palm,’
is of course suitable enough for a woman (cp Cant. 77/2
[8/5]. But it also occurs as a place-name, and we have
to find an explanation which will fit both the personal
name and the place-name. Winckler {G/298f 104f 227)
offers such an explanation. ‘’Tamar, he thinks, is the
Canaanite Istar; the myth of Tammuz and Istar was
doubtless transplanted into Canaan (cp Stucken, AstraZ-
mythen, 14-16). BAAL-TAMAR was the place where
the men of Benjamin had their tribal sanctuary, and
dedicated to the [female} goddess Istar. Cp KIRJATH-
JEARIM, SAUL. ‘Baalath and Tamar,’ 1:K.918,
should rather be Baalath-tamar {a less original form of
Baal-tamar). ΑἹ this is set forth with great force and
learning; but there is a doubt whether the relics of
mythology can be so easily traced, and whether textual
criticism, methodically applied, does not here, as often
elsewhere, suggest a better explanation.

Proper names în the OT are even more frequently corrupt
than has been supposed, and need very careful emendation, and
it so happens that xp, both as an appellative and asa proper
name, is specially liable to corruption. The passage 1 K. 918 îs
treated separately (see TAmAR i.); we are here only considering
the passages in which ‘Tamar'occurs as the name of a woman.
A careful study of this group of passages suggests that ‘ Tamar”
has here most probably arisen out of one of the popular distor-
tions of ‘ Jerahme'elith'; another such corruption is MAACAH,
and a third is ManaLATH. We may add that png, ITHAMAR
{the name of a son of Aaron) very possibly came from ὈΝΙΌΓ
Jerahme?el (n from n); cp JEREMOTA.

1. The wife of Judah's son Er, who subsequently,
through her father-in-law, became the mother of PEREZ
and ZERAR (g9.0.] (Gen. 3867 [1] 1Ch.24 Mt.13
TAV here THAMAR]). The story is referred to in Ruth
(412) as furnishing a parallel to Ruth's marriage with
Boaz. According to Winckler it is a Canaanitish
development of the myth of [δία (see above). For
another and a preferable view of the significance of the
story, see JUDAR, col. 2617 f.

2. Sister of Absalom (25.13: rCh.39{B always
θημαρ and so A in 1 Ch.]), and probably daughter of
the same mother (cp Jos. 4x4. vii. 81); see MAACAH, 2.
According to Winckler (G/ 2227 £.), not only has this
Tamar's name mythological affinities, but the whole
story of her being outraged by her half-brother Amnon
is mythological. An old myth respecting Tamar, the
Canaanitish Istar, and her relation to her brother (to
whom TAMMUZ corresponds) has been transformed by
the people into a quasi-historical narrative. Note
especially Tamar's cake, which reminds Winekler of
the cakes of Ashtoreth {Jer 4419). See, however,
above, and cp ABSALOM, DAVID, col. 1033.

3. (θημαρ [B], 7&ezzar, but μααχα [1], a daughter
of Absalom, 2 5. 1427t {vv. 25-27 late; see Bu. SBOT,
‘Sam.'). Elsewhere we hear of a daughter of Absalom
and wife of king Rehoboam called Maacah,
€24 in 2S. 1427 identifies Absalom's daughter Tamar
with the wife of king Rehoboam; (ὅτ, indeed, goes
further and reads, not Tamar, but Maacah. If the
addition in (5, 25. 1427, relative to the marriage of
Absalom's daughter with Rehoboam is correct, one
would be inclined to follow 451 5. reading ‘Maacah.’
But perhaps the difficulty is not really existent. ‘Tamar’
and ‘ Maacah' may both be corruptions of Jerahme'elith
(‘a Jerahmeelite').

4891

and ;

TAMARISK TREE

two of the cases of the recurrence of a name in the
same family would disappear {see also MEPHIBOSHETH,
and cp Gray, HPN 6 f.). τ K.C.

TAMARISK TREE is the rendering in RV of ’#ie/,
BW, for which AV has in Gen. 2133 ‘grovey mg.
‘tree'; in 1 S.226 ‘tree,’ mg. ‘grove’; and in 1 S.
3113 ‘tree.’ The variety of rendering suggests that the
Heb, word has an interesting history, and though it has
become traditional to render ‘tamarisk,' the critical
tradition needs periodical revision at the hands of critics.?

1. Apart from (5, whose rendering ἄρουρα Wellhausen
(Sam. 124)pronouncesunintelligibie, theancients took the
word in a gerera/ sense, translating sometimes ‘ grove'
or ‘piantation’ (Ag. δενδρών and δένδρωμα 3 (?); Sym.
φυτεία, Vg. nemus, pen Tg. Jer. 1 and 2, and Zer.
rab. 54, end), sometimes ‘tree’ (Sym. φυτόν ; so Onk.
Pesh.) or ‘oak tree’ {Theod. [ràs] δρῦς ; 1 Ch. 1012
mix, instead of the Sgig of 1 S.3113). Such a view of
the meaning is supported by the Rabbis, and even by
Celsius (15357); but the rendering ‘tree’ would be
excusable only as a protest against the cultus of some
special sacred tree (cp OAK)—philologically it is of
course untenable,

2. The tendency to explain obscure Heb. words from
the Arabic has led to the identification of ’#fe7, Spia with

the Arab. ’af4/, which corresponds phonetically, and
means ‘tamarisk.' Of this tree perhaps as many as
half a dozen species are found in Pal. (Tristram, FFP,
250): our common tamarisk is not one of them. The
common riverside species is 7. Pa/lasti, Desc. The
tamarisk ‘is a very graceful tree, with long feathery
branches and tufts, closely clad with the minutest of
leaves, and surmounted in spring with spikes of beauti-
ful pink blossom.’ ‘Though it is often a mere bush,"
some of the Palestinian tamarisks ‘reach such a size as
to afford dense shade . , . Beersheba is well suited for
the growth of the tamarisk; and we observed large
numbers of the Eastero tamarisk on the banks below
the site of Jabesh Gilead’ (Tristram, Z6.). It is also
common in Egypt, where it was anciently consecrated
to Osiris, and bore the (Semitic Ὁ) name of asari.3

3. It may be doubted, however, whether this is really
the correct explanation. It will be noticed that
Tristram says nothing about tamarisks at Gibeah of
Saul. The tree referred to in x S. 226 was no doubt a
sacred tree (see HIGH PLACE, $ 3 and n. 6). InrS.
142 we read apparently of a pomegranate tree under
which Saul sat (see MIGRON). There is no probability
in the view that the tree on the high place at Gibeah was
a tamarisk. But if we give up '#e/in 1 S. 226, we can
hardly defend it in Gen. 2133 and 1 S.3113; the pre
sumption is that the same word is meant in all these
passages, and that in all three it is corrupt. Now let
us turn to &"s ἄρουρα (thrice). At first sight this looks
like an orthodox substitute for a word liable to be mis-
used (cp the Vss. on Gen. 126, and see OAK) But
how can € possibly have understood the phrase ἐφύ-
revoev ἄρουραν, if ἄρουρα means ‘ tilled land'? Cleary
ἄρουρα must cover some tree-name, and it has been
suggested that ἄρουρα may come from ay or php

which (5, like Tg. and Vg., understood to mean
*tamarisk.’ Thus the harder part of @°s riddle is
explained. It remains to account for ©'s reading yy
or πριν in lieu of bent—it is no mere interpretation but
a genuine reading that & gives us. There is only one
hypothesis which will do this; πρῚΨ or yy is a corrup-
tion of πη, 2542744 (Che. ). This, then, is the true read-

| ing in all three places :—Abralam Built an ashérah at

1 H. P. Smith sounds a note of warning. Though he renders
Swix ‘tamarisk,’ he remarks, “As the word only occurs three
times, the species is uncertain.'

2 δένδρωμα seems to be an error for δενδρῶνα (see Schleusner,
Lex. în VT, 5.0).

3 Pierret, Dici, d'archéol. ἐργῤέ. 534: Maspero, Dawn of

For the rest see MAACAH, 3. Thus È Cw, 28, n, 3.

4892

TAMMUZ

Beersheba; Saul sat under the asherah at Gibeah; the
bones of Saul and his sons were buried under the asherah
at Jabesh.}

nix was corrupted in one important MS. into ay9y or pipi
în another into Sgx. The idea of the latter hypothesis was
suggested by Klo., who supposes Ogit to be a deliberate dis.
tortion of mix? in order to discourage Asherah-worship. ®'s
dpoupa, acc, to him, is MR, ‘the cursed (tree)’—again a protest
against tree-worship.

2. ‘ar'ar, Ty Jer. 176 4861 RVm&, EV HraTH.

TAMMUZ (29M), whose worship is supposed, on
doubtful grounds, to be alluded to in Ezek. 814 (Bam
rig MOYZ [BA], λων: [OE] Adonis
1 Personality (Ve, derives his name from. the
“Bab. Dumuzi* (4 R, 28, sod)—ie.,
‘son of life," which, according to G. A. Barton, refers to
Tammuz as the child of the godidess of fertility, or perhaps
‘a true divine child' (=Ass. 24% #ér4; so Frd, Del.).
He is variously described as the youthful husband of the
goddess Istar, as her son, and as the first in the series
of her rejected husbands. Every year, in the fourth
month (Dizu, see below)—ie., July—he descended to
Hades, and remained there till the next spring. His
disappearance gave occasion to drink-offerings and a
great Si4îtz or ‘weeping.' The ‘motives’ of his
legend and the meaning of his cultus can be found in
the Babylonian myth of the Descent of IStar. There is
also an Îllustrative passage in the GilgameS-epic, Tab. 6,
where, among other lovers of the goddess who have
encountered a sad fate, Tammuz ( Dumuzi) is mentioned,
‘Tammuz, the spouse of thy youth, thou compellest to
weep year after year.'! The discovery of Friedrich
Delitzsch and Jensen (4os0/, 197) that 4 R. 30, no. 2
contains a song of lamentation for Tammuz is not less
suggestive. ‘This is how the song runs, as translated
by A. Jeremias.5

“He went down (?) to meet the nether world, he has sated
himself, the sun-god caused him to perish (passing) to the land
of the dead, with mourning was he filled on the day when he
fell into great sorrow.”

The word rendered sorrow’ (idirfum) occurs again
in 5 R. 48, col, 44, where, on the name of the month
Tammuz, stands the note—idirfzz, ‘sorrow.’ The
Tammuz festival was in fact the idealisation of human
sorrow—a kind of ‘All Souls' Day.’ Hence partly
the strong hold which it obtained upon the masses.
‘ Dirges were sung by the wailing women to the accom-
paniment of musical instruments ; offerings were made
to the dead, and it is plausible to assume that visits
were paid to the graves.' It is probable that, to
gratify the general sentiment, specially important
national mournings were placed in the month ‘Tammuz
(sce below). “The calendar of the Jewish Church still
marks the 17th day of Tammuz as a fast, and Houtsma
has shown that the association of the day with the
capture of Jerusalem by the Romans represents merely
the attempt to give an ancient festival ἃ worthier
interpretation. The day was originally connected
with the Tammuz cult.’ 7

The month devoted to Tammuz in the later Jewish Calendar
(fig. Ta'inîtà, 456) was the Babylonian month Du'uzu or

1 It is assumed here that the Asherah was originally a sacred
tree. . But cp ASHERAK,

2 Siegfr.-Sta. agree, so far as Gen, Zc. is concerned.

8 The form Tamdzu has also been found în the personal name
Ur@)}{ilu) Tamuzu (Jensen, in Kraetzschmar's note on Ezek.
814). See further Delitzsch, γε. and Assyrian, 16, and in
Baer's Ezekiel, pref. xvi; Zimmern, Busspsa/men, 26, 60,
and ZA 1x7-24 2155 22707; Lenormant, ‘Sur le nom de
Tammouz,' in Prec. af Paris Congressof Orientalists, 2149-1651
Baudissin, Stud. £. sem. Κλ ρει, 135 30041 G. A. Barton,
Semitic Origins (1902), p. 86; Zimmern, LAT, 3977:

4 For parallels to this view of Istar in mythology and folklore
Gncluding that in Tobit 8.) see Stucken, Astralmythen, 16.

5 Jeremias, /zdubar.Nîmrod, 24; cp Maspero, Dawn of
Civ. sto, 672; Jastrow, Rel, Bab. Ass. 485.

8 Οἱ. cit. 56} but cp an one part of the song Jensen, A'oswrel

6

226.
7 Jastrow, Rel. Bab. Ass. 682.
4893

TAMMUZ

Diizu, which was assigned to Ninib, the god of the hot mid-day
sun, as regent, See ΜΌΝΤΗ, 8 2.

Originally and properly Du'uzu or Dumuzu, is the
spirit or god of the spring vegetation ;! also, by a
natural sequence, he is the lord, and his sister Bilili
(see BELIAL, $ 2) is the lady, of the underworld, the
region of growth, though also the place of the dead.?
But it was not possible to keep this conception in its
purity ; it was natural to identify the vegetation spirit
with the sun, and to treat Du'uzu as a manifestation of
the solar deity {Ninib). For the drama of the sun is
similar to that of plant-life ; after the summer solstice
the sun seems gradually to lose its strength, and at
length to die, till at the winter solstice it is born again.
Originally too, the Du'uzu story was distinct from the
Adonis and the Osiris stories; but at an early date the
distinction was forgotten (ApONIS, ὃ 2}. The identity
of Tammuz and Adonis is asserted by Jerome? and
other fathers (see ASHTORETH, $ 2, with n. 3).

According to Robertson Smith the wailing for
‘Tammuz was not originally connected with the death of
vegetation, but was a ceremony of mourning for some
sacrificial victim, such as is performed among the Todas
of S. India to this day. Later, a different explanation
was sought for the wailing—one more in harmony with
advancing civilisationt—and the rite was projected into
the myth of the death of Tammuz. Robertson Smith
also thinks that the yearly mourning for Tammuz-Adonis
is the closest parallel in form to the humiliation of the
Hebrew Day of Atonement (Rel Sem. 411, cp 414).

To this view G. A. Barton (Sez. Or. 114) assents. The
story of Adapa, however (ΑΓΒ ὅσ, p. 97; cp Jero» Rel.
Bab. Ass. 549), discloses an earlier form of the Tammuz-myth
according to which Tammuz did not go into the death-world
on leaving the earth, but ascended to the gate of Anu, where
he was stationed (‘as door-keeper') with another solar god or
vegetation god called Giszrida. According to Jensen (7.12,
1866, col. 70) another ancient belief made Tammuz, the god of
vernal vegetation, the son of «45% (the primaval ocean)
Certainly Gudea” (about 3000 8.c.) mentions Tambzi-abzu
(zuaba), τ... Tammiz of thé ocean, beside Ningiszida (identical
with Geszida, mentioned above); compare, however, Jastrow
(A BA 96), who deprecates fusing the two Tammfiz-deities, and
Barton (Sexz. Or. 211), who makes this deity a goddess.

We now turn to the single express reference to
Tammuz in the MT. It occurs in the description of

heathen rites practised in the temple,

2. OT traces. \vhich Ezekiel in his captivity professes
to have seen when in the ecstatic state. First among
these rites—according to Toy's explanation of chap. 8—
comes (perhaps) an Asherah-image (v. 5). Next, the
secret worship of reptiles and beasts, probably forms of
old-Israelitish worship (υ. 10} Next, the women
weeping for Tammuz (v. 14), Next, twenty-five men
worshipping the sun in the east (v. 16). The last form
of heathenism (as most explain τ. 17) is not recognised
as such by Toy, but we have to mention ît here for
completeness ; it is ‘stretching out the branch to the
nose.'4 According to Toy, the sun-worship of the

1 See Jensen, XosmoZ. 197, 227, but especially Frazer, C8
21157 Barton thinks that the goddess IStar was originally
connected with some never-failing spring, and that some sacred
tree near it represented her son (Sem. Or. 86).

2 Jensen, Kosmol. 225; cp Jastrow, RZA 575. Bilili is the
world-principle of generation and growth.

3 There is a remarkable statement of Jerome (ed. Vallarsi,
1321), ‘Bethlehem nunc nostram . .΄. lucus inumbrabat
Thamus, id est Adonidis.' Just before, he tells us that this cult
of Adonis has lasted about 180 years, from the times of Hadrian
to the empire of Constantine. Evidently he regarded the
Adonis cult practised in the reputed grove of the Nativity as a
deliberate profanation. It îs not probable, however, that any
such profanation would have been committed in the time of
Hadrian ; it was the Jews, not the Christians, who were at that
time the objects of heathen persecution. And we may assume
that the predominant element in the cultus in the cave at
Bethlehem was not connected with Tammuz-Adonis, but rather
with Isis and Sarapis, jnst as at Byblus the legend of Astarte
and Adonis became fused with that of Isis and Osiris (cp Conradi,
Kindheitsgeschichte Jesus', 315 £ ; Usener, Rel-gesch, Unter
such. 1202).

4 Toy takes m-up) (Ὁ. 17) in the sense of ‘stench,' and renders,

‘they are sending a stench to my nostrils” ©5w°5x). Kraetz-

4894

TANACH

Jews was probably borrowed from Assyria, so that
Tammuz-worship and sun-wership would naturally be
mentioned together.

Plausible as this îs, a critical scepticism appears justifiable.
It is strange that nona should occur nowhere else in the OT.
In Ezek.85 miipa is certainly corrupt; this may reasonably
make us suspect ἤρῃπ. First of all, however, the whole context
should be critically examined. The most obvious corrections
(if we presuppose some very constant types of corruption) are
those in . τὸ, on which see ΒΉΛΡΗΛΝ, From the probably
true text of this verse we may divine that the whole description
of which it forms part relates to heathen rites of Jerahmeelite or
N. Arabian origin. Elsewhere (see Crif. 256.) the text of 2, 14
is corrected, and a reference to the cult of the N, Arabian
goddess is supposed. See, however, also HADAD-RIMMON,
where a reference to Tammuz-worship is suspected to exist both
ere and in Zech, 1211. For a generally supposed reference to
the parallel cult of Adonis, see GARDEN, $ 8; and cp NAAMAN,
According to Ewald, the “desire of women mentioned in Dan
11 37 is Tammuz-Adonis.

It is maintained by Stucken and Winkler that
features of the Tammuz, Adonis, and Osiris myths
have attached themselves to certain legendary Israelitish
heroes. ‘Thus Abram and Sarai, brother and sister, as
well as husband and wife, also Amnon and Tamar,
suggest comparison with Tammuz and Istar! (see
Stucken, Asfre/mythen, 11; Wi ΟἹ 2.3, 227 f. cp
108/., and TAMAR, 2). The story of Joseph devoured
by a wild beast, also the detail about Moses în the ark of
‘bulrushes (see, however, MoSES, $ 3), suggest respectively
the Adonis and the Osiris myth. David, the beautiful
young shepherd, also reminds one of Tammuz or
Adonis. Many critics may be inclined to admit that
the details here mentioned (Winckler has much more to
mention besides) are of mythic origin; but to connect
them directly with the Babylonian myth of Dfizu seems
to be at present a somewhat bold hypothesis. That the
mourning for Jephthah's daughter is arz/ggozs to the
Tammuz wailing is, however, beyond the possibility of
doubt (see col. 2362). T.K.G

TANACH (*?YN), Josh. 2125 AV, ἘΝ TAANACE.

TANHUMETH (NPAMMA; cp the Talm. pr. name
Tanhum), father of SERAIAH [g.v.]} (2 /K.2523:
Banema9 [B], -man [A]. Gancemma@ [L]; Jer.
408; Ganaema10 [B]. danaemeo [AQ], νδθ- [R]).

The name, though possibly (cp Nahum in 05) eariy explained
as ‘comfort’ (cp $ 62; pointed so as to exclude a woman's
name ἢ), may, according to analogies (e.g. Rehum, connected
with Jerahme'eì), come from an ethnic of the Negeb (cp
Nanamani), In 2 K. Seraiah b. Tanhumeth is called a
Netophathite; but the present writer takes Naphtuhite to he
meant (cp ΝΈΤΟΡΗ ΛΗ -ἢ e, he belonged, like (probably) his com-
panions, to the Negeb. In Jer. the designation is afsarenty
given to certain ‘sons of ErwAr' (g.v.). But ὑγρὴν via (as Kt.) is
a corrupt duplication of ‘nova Cp Crit. 858. on Jer. 401 5,
where it is argued that Gedaliah's Mizpah may have been
Zarephath in the Negeb. Τ. Κ΄ σ,

TANIS (tanewc [ΒΑ]] Judith lio. See Zoan.
TANNER, TANNING. See LEATHER.
TAPESTRY (DITO. mardaddim), ἘΝ *Carpets,'
AV *coverings,’ ΕΚ ΙΕ: ' cushions,’ of tapestry are men-
tioned in Pr. 716 3122}. See EMBROIDERY, WEAVING.
TAPHATH (ΠΕ, 8 78), ‘daughter of Solomon,'
wife of one of the king's prefects (see BEN-ABINADAB),
1 K.41: (TaBAHBE! [BI], “θλει [8558], raBaa@
{L], tadpara [A]). Probably, however, it was a
Salmeean (ἡ. 6., Arabian) woman who is meant; point
MP2. So inv. rs. Her name was perhaps Naphtu-
ἈΠῈ (cp $ 78): and her husband's prefecture may have

schmar agrees with this, and finds în 7. 17 a contemptuous
reference to the sacrifices of the ‘ high places,’ which gave forth
to Yahwè no ‘sweet savour.' Most see a reference to the
Baresma, or bundle of branches of flowering trees, held by
worshippers of the solar fire in the Parsee religion (see Vendidad
1964, Spiegel, ἄγαν. Alterth. 3571). Cp a Cyprian parallel in
Ohnefalsch - Richter, AyAros, 137 Clermont - Ganneau
(Études d'archéol. orientale, 28 [1880]) supposes some rite in the
mysteries of Adonis. This would require us to transfer the last
clause of τ. 17 ta the end οὔ τ΄. 14.
1 Though strictly the sister of Tammuz was Bilili.

4895

TARALAH

comprised all 35y mnpi, Naphtoah-aràb, See Crit
Bib.; also SALMAH. T.K. C.

'TAPHON [ΑΝ] or TepHon [ἘΝ] τεφων [AN]
Tedw IV] toyxoac [Jos. Ax xii, 13, $ 15], Cepfo
[Vet. Lat.], Syr. MISI One of the ‘ strong cities”
in Judaa fortified by Bacchides; 1 Macc. 950. The
name is a corraption either of ‘Tappuah (cp Josh. 168
485), in which case BETH-TAPPUAH (9.7. } may be meant,
r of NEYOPHAH (9.0), The latter view (γᾶ, Gesc4,14
18, n. 5) is geographically possible, but is phonetically
perhaps rather less natural.

TAPPUAH (MA; $ 103, cp APPLE and FRUIT,
8 τ).

1. A place grouped with Zanoah, En-gannim, and
Enam among the towns of the lowland of Judah
(Josh. 1534), and connected apparently with Hebron
(1 Ch. 243). {in Josh. ἰλουθωθ] [Β}}, adiadaez* [A],
θαφῴονα 1.1; în 1 Ch. θαποὺς [B], θαῴφφον [A],
φεθρουθ [IL]. Perhaps, however, ‘Tappuah and
Enam' should rather be ‘and Tappuah [of] Enam,'
and the same place may be referred to in Gen. 3814
(read ‘at Tappuah of Enaim”) and in Josh. 159 18rs
{read for ‘unto the fountain of the waters of NEPHTOAH,"
‘unto Nephtoah, or Tappuah, [of] Enam'). In all
these passages there is most probably a geographical
confusion due to the redactors—z.e. the place originally
intended was in the Negeb (cp SOCOH, ZANOAH, ZORAH}.
Very possibly, too, Tappliah is a popular distortion of
Nephtoah or Naphtoah, the name the present writer
supposes to underlie the difficult ‘ Naphtuhim' in Gen.
1013. See MizrAIM, $ 25, where Gen. 10137 is ex-
plained in the light of the theory that osp is very often
not Misraim, ‘ Egypt," but Misrim, the Musri on the N.
Arabian border οἱ Palestine,

2. A place which appears once (see below) at a
critical point of the history of Israel, situated on the
border between Ephraim and Manasseh (see KANAH),
Josh. 168 178. In 177it is called EN-TAPPUAH, and
in the next verse we are told that the land or district of
Tappuah belonged to Manasseh, but Tappuah itself to
the b'ne Ephraim. This is inserted to account for the
expression in 2. 7, ‘and (then} the border goes along
southward to the inhabitants {=the district) of En-
tappuah.'. Conder (4745£. 263) identifies En-Tappuah
or Tappuah with a spring near Y&s2/, at the head of a
branch of the Wdady Aanahk, S. of Shechem and of
Michmethath. Robinson, however, and formerly
Conder {PZFO, 1877. p. 48). connected it with
ΑΣΑ ΘΑ and Guérin (Sam, 1259) with Ain el-Farîah,
both NE. of Nablus. In each case the identification
depends on the situation assigned to the torrent KANAH.
Probably enough there was a northern Tappuah; but
the name (a distortion of Naphtoah) comes from the
Negeb. It is historically unsafe to suppose that the
northern Tappuah was the city so cruelly treated by
Menahem in his hour of victory, 2 K.15:6 {see
TIPHSAN).

(δ ται ὴ a, b, mg.], θαφεθ [Β] ; εφῴουε,
ΚΟΥ ici mer ΠΗ}
[LÎ. Dilimaan holds that the Ephraimite Tappuah was the
royal city of Josh.1217 (aragovr [BI], θαφφου [A], θαπφου [L]).
With the preceding name Bethel, the list of cities passes into
central Palestine. The present writer thinks, however, that
Josh.127,/ has been recast by the redactor, and that the royal

cities are reallyin the Jerahmeelite Negeb (cp SHIMRON-MERON,
TIKZAH). T.K.C.

TARAH, ΕΝ Terah (MM: rapa@ [BL], θ6- [A]
ekapa@, εκθ. [F, the preposition ek dittographed]), a
stage in the wandering in the wilderness; Nu. 3327

See WANDERING, WILDERNESS OF.
Probabiy a mutilation of Jerahmeel (cp Teran) [Che] Cp
MakuELorA, TAHATH, MOSERAH.

TARALAH lar. 9A; eapeHda [B], apaha TA),
ee. [L]; therela, therama [OS®31 215631; cp 26125]),
1 See ADITHAI.

4896

TAREA

apparently a Benjamite place-name (Josh. 1827), but
really, like 4a-e&2% in 7.28, a corruption of INDI,

IrpEEL (g.2.), or of SNMP, of which DD may be a
corruption (Che. ). See ELEPH.

TAREA (INN (Ba.], INNM [Gi] in 1 Ch.835;
but WMA [Ba.], IMA [Gi.], EV TAnREA in 9at;
@epee, Bapax [Β and R in 941], Gapee, @apa [A],
Gapaa [L]), a descendant of Saul mentioned in a
genealogy of BENJAMIN (g.v.,$9, ii. 8), 1 Ch. 835=941.

TARES (zizania. Mt. 13257). The Greek word,
which does not occur in @, is plainiy of Semitic origin. Its
Syriac form zizné is (as Lagarde says, Sem. 63) equivalent to
zinzan, and so derived from &]r, which în Ar. means ‘to be
dry. UA kindred word is Ar' (and Pers.?) sawn, which
denotes the seed of dawsar—i.e., darne!. Ceédvio» is, according
to Suidas, ἡ ἐν τῷ σέτῳ alpa; the medicina! effects of alpa are
described in Diose. 2 122.

From the statements in Mishna and Taimud (see
Léòw, 133 /.) we learn that n°, the post-biblical Hebrew
equivalent of ζιζάνια, denoted plants closely resembling
wheat, alongside of which they grew, and were indeed
sometimes regarded as a degenerate form of wheat
produced under unfavourable conditions from the same
seeds. In view of these and other statements, it is
generally agreed that the plant intended is Zo/ium
femulentum, ot darne! (Tristram, N42 487, where
there is a good account of the plant).

It is not improbable that ‘darnel’ has been associated with
‘white crops, especially wheat, from the carliest times. With
imperfect methods of cleaning the seed-grain, the seed would be
sown with that of the wheat. It grows to about the same height,
and would naturally be regarded as a degenerate form. Darnel
was long regarded as poisonous (cp Hooker, S/udenfs Flora,
454); this, however, is now attributed to the ergot with which
it is peculiarly prone to be affected. [118 rarity in England,
where ît is only a ‘weed of cultivation,' is due to greater care în

the sowing. A native of Europe and N. Asia, it occurs
throughout the Mediterranean basîn, Ν, M._—W. T. T.-D.
TARGET. (1) 3Y, sinnd4, 1R.1016; see SHIELD,

1. (2) |îTD, 67422, τ 5.116. See JaveLIN, 1, 53 Sworp.
TARGUMS. See ARAMAIC LANGUAGE, ὃ δ᾽ TEXT
AND VERSIONS, $ 65.

TARPELITES aubeno, Ezradgt; τἀρδῴδλλδιοι
[BI], repò. [AL]; Lo: according to most recent writers not

an ethnic name, but miswritten for &"DBO, ‘ tablet-writers' (from
Ass, dup-sarru); cp Schr. COT on' Jet. 51 27, but see ScRIBE.
Cp also APHARSITES.

TARSHISE (EIA; Gapclelic [BNA, etc. ]}—every
where except Is. 216 [see below] and 2361014 [Kkap-
χηλῶν (BNOT), yapk. (B* once, N* twice)] where
Que twice has gapceic as the reading of Aq. Symm.
Theod., and Ezek. 27 1225 [ΚΑΡΧΗΔΌΝΙΟΙ Or χᾶρκ.
(BAQ—A v. 25 adding @apcoc)] 3813 [KkapyHAoNIO!
{B); yaAxHuAonoc (A), Gapceic (Q98 vid)]; thrice
spelled Tharshish in AV [1 K. 102285, 2248]). A son
of Javan, Gen. 104 1 Ch. 17 (where puis ρίας nen,

FERIE] under the influence of ap:Sx). In a rela-

1. Biblical ,; ely carly passage (15. 916) we find the
phrase ‘Tarshish ships'! as a synonym
for large, sea-going vessels. We also find the phrase
in τ K.1022° (twice; (5 ναῦς ἐκ 0. the second time),
2249* Is. 609 Ps. 487 [8], and Ezek. 2725. The infor-
mation given us respecting Tarshish may be very briefly
summed up. According to Jer. 10g(laterthan Jeremiah),
silver was brought from it, and elsewhere, besides silver,

references.

1 ®, however, does not support the rendering ‘Tarshish ships';
θαλάσσης în πᾶν πλοῖον θαλάσσης [B8A, etc.] is an erroneous
transliteration: for another case of this see Dan. 10 6 (ϑαλασσης
{87]-ϑαρσεις [Theod.]; cp Vg.'s wra7is in Ezek. 116). In Talm,
Jer. Meg. 742, wwsn=MaAdeos0s (Levy), ᾿ ᾿

2 Regarded as ἃ redactional insertion (see Kittel, Benzinger).
The Hebrew has n ‘38 (collective).

8 Stade, Kittel, and Benzinger agree that (following ©) we
should read here mp and muxm (singular). Note m3g1 (Ki.),
‘was broken.” (58 omits ersn whilst 4 and @L have respec-
tively în their insertion after 1 K.1628 ναῦν cis 4. and vaòy . . .
εἰς θ.

4897

TARSHISH

iron, tin, and lead are specified among its riches (Ezek.
2712; cp 8813). It is mentioned with the iyyim (mer)
or ‘coast-lands’ (15. 236 6619 [wih other countries],
Ps. 7210). Jonah, when fieeing from the presence of
Yahwè, set sail for Tarshish from Joppa (Jon. 1342;
cp 2 Ch.92r dis [πλοῖα ἐκ 0. once], 20367 — where
‘T'arshish ships have become, through the author's mis-
understanding, ‘ships that go to Tarshish').

‘The identification of the locality is difficult. Most
scholars since Bochart have thought of ‘Tartessus

(Ταρτησσός; but Polyb. iii. 242, Ταρσήιον
ἢ mere? in S. Spain. This was the ancient 10)
as far as known to the OT writers, the
remotest goal of Phcenician commerce {sce GEOGRAPHY,
$ το). Herodotus (4155) indeed places Tartessus
beyond the Pillars of Hercules; cp Strabo3rst; Plin.
iii.38. Elsewhere (2148) Strabo, with whom Pausanias
(iv.193) agrees, makes Tartessus the name of the
River Beetis (Guadalquivir), and also of a city in the
delta of this river, the surrounding territory being called
Tattessis. Diodorus (5357) as well as Strabo speaks
of the silver, iron, tin, and lead of Tartessus. The
exact site seems not determinable, nor is it clear that
the Hebrews knew it. Cp SILVER.

[The name Tartessus was extended to the whole of S. Spain.
<As far as the ferminus Tartesiorum” is found in Avienus (62)
and in the second treaty between Carthage and Rome we rea
that she Romans are forbidden Maorias Ταρσηίου μὴ λήζεσθαι
ἐπέκεινα (Polyb. iti. 24 3}—z.e., they are not to go beyond the city
οἱ Mastia in the land called Tarseion= Tarshishk, Ssek. Meyer,
GA 2687 ($ 425).]

‘What is likely is, that Tarshish is a Semitised form
of the native name.

& in Ezek. and Is.23 renders ‘Tarshish’ by
*Carthage.' In its ordinary sense this name is of

course unsuitable. But when the

8. Carthage? Carthaginians brought the Phocnician
settiement of Mastia (see $ 1, end) in the land of
Tarseion {Tarshish?) under their rule, they made it a
Kart-hadast (=Carthage), so that @&'s rendering in a
new sense appears to be defensible (Wi. 40/1445).

Tarsus in Cilicia is the identification adopted by
Josephus and Jerome, and in modern times by Baron

Bunsen, Sayce,! and—for Gen. 104—by

& TArsuS? AH. Keane (who takes ‘a son of Javan:
to mean ‘an Asiatic Greek'; cp 736 Gold of Ophir.
92/7). The objections to this are (1) that the recorded
1 foundation of TARrsus [g.v.] does not go back far
enough, and (2) that its name, as given on coins and in
Assyrian inscriptions, has x instead of s.

Le Page Renouf (PSZA 16104-108 138-141) advocates
the claims of the Phcenician coast, so that the phrase

int «Tarshish ships’ would be equivalent

5. Pheenicî8? Lo “Phcenician ships” This is in
accordance with W. M. Miiller's explanation of the
Egyptian phrase ‘Kefto ships' as='ships built în the
Kefto style,’ As. w. Eur. 349, n. 2 (cp CAFHTOR).
But plausible as this interpretation of ‘ ships of Tarshish *
may be, the sense ' Phcenicia' for ‘Tarshish' has not
been made out. It would appear as if this learned
Egyptologist had read the text of Is. 2810 too un-
suspiciously. Of course, too, the sense ‘ Phoenicia”
for ‘ Tarshish' cannot easily be made to agree with the
biblical references (apart from the phrase mentioned)
to the city or district of Tarshish.

Knobel (Ger. θη and Franz Delitzsch (Ger. (5)) separate
the Tarshish of Gen. 104 from that of other passages,

1.4 And suppose it to mean the Tyrseni—i.e.,
6. Tyrseni? ine Eiruscans. This we may at once
venture to reject; if Tyrseni are meant, ît must be
those of the Aîgean (cp Trras). These famous sea-
rovers appear in the Egyptian inscriptions as Tur(u}ta,?

1 In Ξαῤ. ΤΊ, 1902, p. 179.

| 5 tIt ἴδ safe to recognise in the Turufa, expressly mentioned

| by Rameses III, as a maritime people, Tyrsenian pirates who
ippear ta the old Greek tradition by no means the Etruscans*

(È. Meyer, GA 1313, $ 260).

4898

TARSHISH

and if they are referred to at all in Gen. 104, it would
be best to read there, not ' Tarshish,' but ‘ Turus' or
«Turuè.' If we take this step, it becomes possible that
the phrase ‘ships of Tarshish ‘ may have been originally
* ships of Turué' (gin?) In this case the expression
‘vould be very old, and be a monument of the times
«hen ‘ships of the Turu$' were no unfrequent sights.
“ter, Turu$ might very possibly be confounded with
«he Tars implied in the Greek form Ταρσήεον Ξε Tartessus
«see ὃ 2).

It has hitherto been assumed in this article that the
IIebrew text of the passages referred to is on the whole
correct, though the doubtfulness of Gen.

The N. 104 and 15. 2810 has been alluded to,
‘Asshur? Now, however, we must proceed further,

and take into account the fact that there
is much corruption in the Hebrew text of the OT,
and specially in the readings of the proper names.
As a preliminary, we must separate the inquiry as
to the signification of dripyotà Tar (wenn ma:
EV ‘ships of Tarshish') from that as to the meaning
of gun, where it stands alone, partly because most
critics (e.g., Stade, G/Z1 533, note) agree that ‘ Tarshish-
ships’ means ‘ships of the largest dimensions,'! and
partiy because a close examination of the passages
where the phrase ‘n nta occurs appears to show that
the text is corrupt, “ships' being, according to the
text here adopted, nowhere referred to except in 1 K.
1022 2248 and 2 Ch.92r. Confining our attention
in the first instance to these three passages, and more
especially to those in Kings as primary, we are struck
by the improbability of the language employed {as the
text represents), ἴω x K.1022 we have ‘a navy of
Tarshish with the navy of Hiram'; in 2248, ‘ships
of T. to go to Ophir for gold.’ If we knew nothing
about a place. supposed to have been called ‘Tarshish,
should we not suppose that ergnn represented something
connected with naval architecture or management?
Should this consideration seem to warrant emendation,
no better one presents itself, perhaps, than οὐ (Ezek.
2729) —é.e., the phrase ‘ships of Tarshish" means, not
our ‘East-Indiamen,' but ‘galleys with cars.’ In Is. ὃ8 στ
we actually find almost the very phrase here taken as
theoriginal of Ἢ ‘8, viz., rg ‘3g (EV ‘ galley with cars’).

Turning to the remaining passages in which the phrase ‘ships
of T.' is supposed to occur, we are struck by finding that here
too there is frequently the appearance of corruption. In the
passage which, if correctly read, is the earliest authority for
this phrase (Is. 2 16), we cannot possibly avoid reading, at the
end of the list of‘objects ‘high and lifted up,'in lieu of ‘ships
of T.,' ‘palaces of Asshur”( || ‘dwellings of Jerahmeel'2); cp
Am. 80, where, as Winckler has already seen, ‘ Ashdod' should
be ‘Asshur.’ ’Similarly in Ezek. 2725 Is. 609 and Ps. 488,
‘ships of Tarshish' should probably be ‘tribes (Man) of Asshur',
In all the other passages where this word occurs (the har-
monising must be due to an early editor), wenn (Tarshish}
should probably be emended into “ingr (Ashhur) or ἭΝ

(Asshur); an interesting proof of this îs suggested by Ezek.
$813.4 “By ‘Asshur' is meant, of course, not the famous rival
of Babylonia, but a N. Arabian district of somewhat uncertain
extent, also known perhaps as Geshur (see GESHUR, 2). That
ihe Chronicler in the third century 8.6. read yw*emn, and sup-
posed it to be a comparatively distant maritime region, is no
ohstacle to the theory here maintained, whilst an cbjection
«lrawn from Gen. 104 (Tarshish, a son of Javan) would imply
that we possessed the Table of Nations in its original form (see
‘Tiras, $ 2) See Crit. ib.

F.B., 81 7 1 T.K.C., 88 3.7.

1 See, however, Benzinger's note on 1 K.1022.

2 The Jerahmeelites also appear to be referred to în 15. 320
(see MocE).

8 Alttest. Unt.185, where, however, Winckler supposes a refer-
ence to Assyria.

4 We there find εὐ

certainly represents NW, and at once suggests that the

) Jp παρ, where “Mb almost

following word ‘iN (which has no ὃ) is a corrupt dittogram of the
same N. Arabian name. Certainiy ‘Tartessus’ docs not surt
atall

4899

TARSHISH, STONE OF

TARSHISH (V*#3N). τ. One of the ‘seven (?)
princes’ at the court of Ahasuerus (Esth. 114 MT)
On the σαρσαθαῖος (σαρέσθεοΞ) of (BANALE, see SHETHAR.
If the underlying story of the Jewish deliverance is N.
Arabian (see PURIM, 3), ‘ Tarshish ‘ probably comes from
*Asshur’ or Ashhur, See 'ARSHISH {above}, and cp
SHETHAR-BOZNAI,

2. Ὁ. Bilhan, of ΒΕΝΙΑΜΙΝ ($ 9, ii [4]}, 1 Ch. 710
(ραμεσσαι [Β], θαρσεις [AL]). Here, at any rate,
‘ Asshur' or Ashhur is the underlying original

“JepiaEL, the branch of Benjamin to which‘ Bilhan' belongs,
ceriainiy comes from ‘Jerahmeel'; so also probably does
‘Bilban* itself ΟΥ̓ Bilhan's sons, Je'ush (son of Aholibamah=
Jerahmeel, Gen. 86 5) comes from ‘Ishmael,' ‘Benjamin’ from
Ὁ Ben-jerahmeel,' EWuD (probably) from nenz="ngx (Bahurim)
=bxbm, ‘Chena'anah' from ‘Cheniah' (cp_Coniah)=yp
“ Kenite"), ‘Zethan' from Sarephath and ‘Ahishahar' from

Ashhur' (see Suemarian)Î It will be understood that the
ethnics may early have become corrupted, and that the corrup-
tions may soon have attained an independent existence, and
have become further corrupted. T.K. GC.

TARSHISH, STONE OF (V*Y9N 138), Ezek 109,
RV®£. The text of EV has here ‘the appearance of
the wheels was as the colour (yy) of a
1. OccurTenCSs. ΓΕ] stone’; the mg. gives SASA
warning (cp ToPAz) against trusting this too implicitty.
More commonly, however, ‘stone’ (ex) is omitted,
and the stone referred to is simply called in MT ‘tar-
shish," in EV ‘beryl’ ’Thus in Ezek.1:6 (nearly=
1098) EV has 'like unto the colour of a beryl'
(una 793) and in Cant.514, ‘set with beryl'
(wma ut). ‘ Beryl," however, lacks justification
(see BeRYL), and in Cant, /.c, RV®E suggests ‘topaz’
{see Topaz, end), whilst in Ezek. 2813 AVME offers us
‘ chrysolite,' thus, as it were, connecting the Old and the
New Testaments (see Rev. 2120).

‘Chrysolite' rests on the authority of @, which, supported by
Jos. (Anz. iii. 75 87 ν. 57), Aq, Ezek. 116 109 Dan. 106, and Vg.
Texcept Ezek. 116 Cant. 5 14), thrice (Ex. 28 20 89 13 [36 20] Ezek,
2813) renders prgn by χρυσόλιθοτ(ν). It should be added,
however, that in Ezek. 109 (δ gives λίθος ἄνθρακος (‘n ax), and
that in Ezek. 116 Cant. 5 14 it is content to transliterate θαρσεις
(cp Symm., Theod. Dan. 106 and Theod. Ezek. 109); also that
Symm. in Ex. 28 20 Ezek. 116 109 Cant, 514 gives ὑάκινθος (cp
Ve. Cane. 5 14, and see JACINTH); and that @ in Dan. 106 gives
θάλασσα (cp Vg. Ezek.1 15, and see TARSHISH).

The modern chrysolite is, of course, excluded. There
remain the ‘hyacinthus'—à.e., the sapphire of the

τ moderns {see JACINTH)—and the topaz,
2 Identifica. which Pliny*s description of the chiysolite
" as ‘aureo fulgore tralucens' (27.787 42/5.)
has led some {47W2f}, 3346, Del., Kraetzschmar) to
identify with the chrysolite of the ancients (sce, however,
CHRYSOLITE}. For the hyacinthus no plausible case can
be made out. The chrysolite or topaz (?) has found
some favour because Pliny speaks of a large chrysolite
from Spain, and Tarshish is generally placed in southern
Spain. But Pliny also states that chrysolites were found
in.Arabia, and ît seems likely (1) that the Hebrews
would have obtained precious stones chiefly from Arabia,
and consequently {2) that if the name of the stone under
consideration were derived from a country, the country
would be some part of Arabia. Luther's identification
of ‘tarshish' with the turquoise would therefore be
plausibile if the nanie ‘tarshish' could be traced to some
ancient name of the Wady Maghàra in the Sinaitic
Peninsula, where thé turquoise-mines were worked. But
the mere similarity of names is of course valueless,
and the Sinaitic turquoises so quickly lose their colour?
that they can hardly have been much in requisition.
We must, therefore, look farther for a clue to the
meaning of ‘ tarshish.'
Let us then, as we have done already in the case of the

2 Cp 15.6 19, where the original of δ᾽ 5 text (note [oi] υἱοὶ
*Iexowlov) must have run, DB2 Pa wIRI ΡΠ δ ARTI,
‘and the Kenites were angry with the men of Beth-cusham,
Cp SHIMsHAI.

Ὁ Ebers, Durch Gosen, 137.

4900

TARSUS

mos, Zizdah (see ToPaz), turn to the Assyrian lexicon.

3. The It is well known that to the Assyrians the
ASI inn precious stone par excellence was that called
ASSYIIA è/265, (etymologically identical with Heb.
CIMESU? railimiz; see FLINT), which is hardly the
diamond {Del, Prol 85; Ass. HWB s.v.), but may
perhaps be the white sapphire.

Here are two Assyrian passages given by Delitzsch in which
the name occurs: ‘Like a ring of élmé%u may I be precious in
thine eyes, and *a carriage whose wheels were of gold and
élmétu” (cp Ezek.116). Ît is, at any rate, possible that the
‘tarshish-stone' should rather be the “halmi$.stone, 1 and that
the inferred Hebrew form #DbN (Ass. δηνεδῥμ) is equivalent to
the attested form Zatia/in Ezck. 142782 (cp AMBER, $ 1).

Probably enough the halmiù-stone is referred to again
in Job 28 182, where γάρεδεᾷ wé-g4bit (92 mpxn) should
perhaps be [Jos embn,? and in 2. 19, where wobn
should be read for my (see ToPAZ).

There is also, however, the possibility that wenn [135]
or ‘Tarshish {stone]' is a corruption of n'neg [πᾶ
*Asshurite stone' or vingit ‘® ‘stone of Ashhur' (cp
TARSHISH, 8 7). T.K.C.

TARSUS (rapcoc, Acts 930 1125 223; Ethnic,
Tapcevyc, 2 Mace. 430 Acts 911 21 39).

Ταρσός (Attic, rappés)='wing or ‘feather’ The town
was said to have derived its name from a feather which fell from
the wing of Pegasus (cp Juv. «διέ. 8118); but that was a legend
based upon an etymologica! fancy. It is the mn of late coins
{with Aramaic inscriptions), and is mentioned under the name
‘Tarzi by Shalmaneser (Black Obelisk Inscr. 4138; Scheil,
RP, 447; Wi. GBA, 196, 256) in the ninth century. For
Stories of its origin, see Ammianus, xiv. 83, and Strabo, 673, and
on the name cp Jensen, Z7iftifer τε. Armenier 1898, pp. θα Δ,
1607: [The Beracles οἵ Tarsus was the Cilician god Sandan,
Dio Chrys. calls him the ἀρχηγός of the Tarsians (223), and he
may be identified with the Baal of Tarsus named on coins. He
was worshipped by the periodical erection of ‘a very fair pyre'
(ἰδέαν), ἃ rite presumably analogous to that described in the De
Dea Syria, ch. 4g—WRS. See AS, 377, where 15. 3033 is
compared, On Sandan, WRS refers to È Ὁ. Muller in Aden
Mus. 1829, and E. Meyer in ZDAMG, 1877, pp. 736/ On the
identification, sometimes proposed, of Tarsus with Tarshish, see
TARSHISH.] ᾿

Tarsus the chief town of ΟἼΜΙΟΙΑ [g.7.] was situated
on the right bank of the ancient Cydnus in the wide

and fertile plain between Mt. Taurus and

1, te πὰ (he sea, thus commanding the passes
OTY- leading from Cilicia into Lycaonia or
Cappadocia, Almost necessarily also the route through

Mt. Amanus into Syria involved passage by Tarsus.
The city thus at an early date attained importance.
Xenophon (who uses the plural form, Ταρσοί) 8 speaks
of it, in 401 B.C., as a great and prosperous city (πόλιν
μεγάλην καὶ εὐδαίμονα), the residence of Syennesis the
king of Cilicia (4246. 1223). In the time of Alexander
the Great it was the residence of a Persian satrap, who
fled on his approach, so that the city surrendered with-
out resistance. Alexander nearly died here from a fever
aggravated by bathing in the icy waters of the Cydnus
(Arrian, Arab. 24; cp Paus. vili. 283). After Alex-
ander's death Tarsus usually belonged to the Syrian
empire, and under the Seleucid kings Antiochus VIL
to Antiochus IX. was one of the royal mints. For a
short time under Antiochus IV. (175-164 B.c.) it bore
the name ‘Antioch on the Cydnus' (Ἀντιόχεια πρὸς
τῷ Κύδνῳ; Antiochia ad Cydnum) as we find from the
coîns (see Head, ist Numm. 6127). Fora time it
was in the possession of the Ptolemies.

Coming down to Roman times, we find that in the
Civil War Tarsus took the side of Caesar, though it was
to Pompeius that she owed her liberation from the
sway of eastern rulers. Ceesar in consequence honoured
the city with a visit, and its name was changed to

2 Le, n and n, band ἡ, p and (cp old Hebrew script) have
been confounded,

2 So, at least, if n în mas represents 5 în ybn. Otherwise
ΠΊΩΝ may spring from mas, which became first \sxn and then
tt (with stroke of abbreviation). There is no inducement to
make mina come from ΠΟΙ (the ‘ Ra‘amathite stone).

4 Pausanias calls it Tapoeis. Other forms are Τερσός, or
Θαρσός.

4901

TARSUS

Juliopolis (Ces, Bell. A/ex. 66; cp Dio Cass. 4726).
For this attachment Cassius ordered it to be plundered ;
but, on the other hand, Antonius rewarded it with
municipal freedom and exemption from taxes (f.e., it
became a civitas libera et immunis). But none the
less it was the seat of a conveniusti.e., periodical
assizes (cp Acts 1938) were held within it by the Roman
governor (Cic. Zf. ad Art. v.164, etc.), though in
strict theory a ‘free city’ was outside the province and
the governor’s jurisdiction (see further, with reference
to Tarsus, Philostr. V. A2o//. 112, ἐν Tapooî dè ἄρα
ἀγορὰν ἦγεν ; and Momms.-Marq. Rém. Staatsverw.
180 n. 3)! Like Thessalonica, the legal position of
which was similar, Tarsus was the headquarters of the
Roman governor.

The freedom (Zibertas, aùrovopia) or self-government which
Tarsus enjoyed is expressly attributed to Antonius (App. 224.
Civ. 57). It wasat Tarsus that Antonius received Cleopatra in 38
8.C. when she sailed up the Cydnus in the character of Aphrodite
(Plut, Anz 25 £) But others attribute the status to the
bounty of Augustus (Lucian, Macred. στ᾿ cp Dio Chrysos.
236 R, κἀκεῖνος [i.e., Augustus] ὑμῖν παρέσχε χώραν νόμους
τιμήν ἐξουσίαν τοῦ ποταμοῦ τῆς θαλάσσης τῆς καθ᾽ αὑτούς, thus
summing up municipal independence, freedom from taxation
and control of interna] sources of revenue). Probably Augustus
confirmed in this respect the action of his rival Note
that it by no means followed that Paul's possession of Roman
citizenship (Acts2228) was a consequence of the autonomy
enjoyed by Tarsus. The citizenship of Tarsus possessed by
all ‘l'arsians who came within the prescribed conditions, could
never carry with it Roman citizenship (cp Ramsay, Sf Paul
the Traveller, 30f).

It is not easy to estimate the influence exerted upon
the intellectual life of Paul by the peculiar surroundings

2. NT and circumstances in which he was placed

at Tarsus. Tarsus was indeed renowned
references. ας ἃ place of education under the early
Empire. Strabo (673) even ranks Tarsus above the

other two great ‘ University cities’ of his time for love
of learning. It was the home of eminent Stoics, like
Athenodorus the tutor of Augustus, and Nestor, who
taught Tiberius (Strabo, 674). A remarkable feature
was that this zeal for learning was not an extraneous
characteristie, but was due to natives of the city itself
{Strabo, ἐς), so that Tarsus rather sent teachers to the
rest of the world, then received students therefrom. It
would doubtless be very satisfactory to have been able
to trace in Paul's writings (as, e.g., in the case of the
writer of Lk. and Acts) some tinge of Hellenic culture,
some echo from the lecture-rooms of Tarsus; but the
attempt must be abandoned. ‘The three references to
Hellenic literature (Acts1728 1 Cor.1532 Tit.lre) by
no means bear out this imagination, but are merely
floating sentiments of a popular character. Passages
like x Cor.120 or Col 28 would hardîy favour the
probability of finding a tinge of classical culture or
philosophy in Paul. Even the speech in Athens, if its
historicity is to be accepted as beyond dispute, cannot
on an unbiassed view be made to support the somewhat
extravagant claims made on Paul's behalf by some
modern commentators. Seeing that Paul's teacher
Gamaliel was inclined to encourage Greek studies, the
fact that so little trace of such can be found in Paul is
itself an argument against attaching undue weight to
the Hellenic influences which surrounded his early life?
{see ATHENS).

This verdiet, on the other hand, by no means implies the
denia! of the formative influences of Tarsian life upon Paul. Ina
city which was in contact, both în the philosophic schools and în
its harbour, with both the eastern and the western world ; which
entered intimately into the general life of the Roman provincial
organisation to which it belonged, but also retained the vestiges
of that vigorous municipal life which was so characteristically
Greek—in such a town Paul could not fail to gain that

2 On the constitution of Tarsus under the Romans, see the
details given in Dio Chrysos. 2 43 R.

ἢ [WRS, £214), 23 67 ὃ, presumes that Paul ‘formed no higher
opinion of the culture of Tarsus than did his contemporary
Apollonius of Tyana, whose testimony as to the character of
the citizens (Vit. A/.17) is confirmed by Dio Chiysostom.
He thinks that ‘sensuous Eastern religion had more attraction
for the inhabitants than the grave philosophy of the Porch.”}

4902

TARTAK

familiarity with cosmopolitan ideas, that knowledge of the
working of complex organisations, and that grasp of Roman
ideas and methods, which runs through bis life and work. In
Shore, it is the Roman, rather than the Greek, that we find in

ΣῊΝ

After his conversion, Tarsus became once more Paul's
home when he was obliged to quit Jerusalem (Acts9 30).
Here he remained until brought by Barnabas to Antioch
{Acts1125). This period of residence and preaching in
Tarsus and other Cilician towns {cp Gal. 121} extended
over several years. Doubtless Tarsus was again visited
on the second missionary tour {Acts154:); for the
Roman road ran from Tarsus through the ‘Cilician
Gates," in Mt. Taurus, giving access to Lycaonia {cp
Acts16:). Similarly, on the third missionary tour,
Acts1823 conceals a visit to Tarsus, on which occasion,
so far as the record goes, Paul looked for the last time
upon the busy quays and market-squares of his native
town.

Tarsus is now 7ersus. The ruins of the old town are con-
cealed 15 or 20 feet deep in the silt of the river and no systematic
excavation has yet been made. See Murray's H7454. fo AM
184/ The chief coin-type resembles that of Antioch, being
the Tyche of ‘'arsus seated, with the river Cydnus swimming
at her feet, The imperial coinage shows great variety of subject.
Amongthe titles are Μητρόπολις, Ελενθέρα, Νεώκορος, and Πρώτη
μεγίστῃ καλλίστη γράμματι βουλῆς. Www.

TARTARE (PAIN; 0Ap@ak [BAL]), the god of the
people of Avvah (imported into Samaria), 2 K. 1731.
Perhaps Tartahu, the ‘lance-star’ of the Babylonians
(cp nn, “lance, Job4l2x; MT nmn), identified by
Jensen! with Antares, and by Hommel® with Procyon,
and regarded by the Babylonians as the star of the god
Ninib. By a textual error? pnin became ing, or
{perhaps better, see N1BHAZ) jna), and by another error,
similar to that which has duplicated the deity of Sephar-
vaim. made its way into the text, and was even in one
form of the text {see 651) 4 assigned to the people of the
imaginary city of HENA [g.v.] in order to leave Nibhaz
for the Avvites.

If, however (cp Succor®-BENOTH), the colonists of ning,
Shimron, came from the non-Israelite Negeb, both Nibhaz
{Nibharu?) may be a corruption of Jerahmeel and Tartak of
Terah (a distorted form of Jerah= Jerahmeel (see Cral. Bi6.).

TR. σ᾿

TARTAN (}IMM:; in 2 K. dangan [BI Gap. [Α],
TANO, [L]; in Is. tanagan [BN®43210*], NAGaN
{N*A], Gap@à [OM]; Ζλαγέλαν) is an exact reading
of the familiar Assyrian title, far/dnx, turtdnu, tartan,
which occurs in 2 K. 1817, and Is. 201.

In Assyrian historical times, the Tartan was the
commander-in-chief of the army, and ranked next to the
king. The office seems to have been duplicated, and
there was a fartànu imni or ‘tartan of the right," as
well as a /artinu Suméli or 'tartan of the left." In
later times the title became territorial; we read of a
tartan of Kummub, or Commagene. The title is also
applied to' the commanders of foreign armies; thus
Sargon speaks of the Tartan Musurai, or Egyptian
Tartan. The Tartan of 720 Β.6. was probably called
ASur-iska-danin ; in 694 B.C., Abda', and in 686 8,6.
Bél-émurani, held the title. It does not seem to have
been in use among the Babylonians. δ, Η. W.L

TARTARUS, a term for ‘hell’ {so EV text} in
RVmg of 2 Pet. 24. The Greek, however, has rap-
tapbras=els Τάρταρον ῥίψας. Sextus Empiricus (about
200 a.D.), speaking of the expulsion of Kronos by Zeus,
has κατεταρτάρωσε.

Téprapos occurs twice in Job, viz. (4) in 40 το [20], where,
however, τετράποσιν ἐν τῷ ταρτάρῳ must de an error for ter. ἐν
τῷ ἀγρῷ (so Grabe, ap. Schleusnet), the initial rap being ditto.
graphic, and 7 (T) miswritten for γ (Ὁ), and (2), in 4123 [24],
where τὸν δὲ τάρταρον τῆς ἀβύσσον may represent Dimm ΨΡῚΡ
*the bottom of the abyss’ (see ΟἸΝΤΜΕΝΤ, 3, with n. τ).

1 Kosmol. 49$.; cp 15053.

2 Exp. Τ 9331; GRA 666. ον

3 The error may have been partly due to a reminiscence of
Nergal (band; in springs out of imp. Lo

4 καὶ ἄνδρες αἰωνειμ ἐποίησαν τὴν θαρθακ καὶ οἱ εὐαῖοι
ἐποίησαν τὴν εβλαιεζερ.

4903

TATNAI

Upon Job4123 [24], among other passages, is based
the theory that BEHEMOTH AND LEVIATHAN [g.v.]
belong primarily to mythological zoology. Leviathan
is in fact a reflection of Tiamat, the chaos-dragon (cp
Dragon, $ 7), and, according to one form of the
ereation-myth, was cast into the abyss under ward.
But Tartaros was not properly a watery abyss ; it had,
according to the Greek myth, ‘a gate of brass and a
threshold of bronze.’ The essential parts of the con-
ception are depth of situation and (of course) darkness.
Tartaros was ‘as far beneath Hades as heaven is high
above the earth' (71 8137; cp Hes. 7àeog, 807), and
the Titans are even described as ‘below Tartaros'
(σοὺς vrorapraplovs), 14. 14279. Analogous to the fate
of Kronos and the Titans was the fate of the fallen
angels, who, according to 2 Pet. 24, were ‘committed
to pits of darkness’ (σιροῖς ξόφον 1), having been ‘ hurled
into Tartaros.' The allusion may be to the passage
on the punishment of AZAZEL [g.v.] in Enoch 10, where
the vigorous Greek version (Syncellus) gives, ἔμβαλε
αὐτὸν cis τὸ σκότος. . . καὶ ἐπικάλυψον αὐτῷ σκότος.
For a more remote parallel see Rev. 202. See ΑΒΥ͂ΒΒ;
EscHATOLOGY, $ 89. T.K.C., ὶ 5.

TASK, TASKMASTER, TASKWORK. See TAXA-
TION, 5.

TASSELS (NY*Y), Nu. 1538 RV®&, EV FRINGES.

TATAM (raram [BL], -mi [A]), Josh. 1559, &
Between KuLON and SORES.

TATNAI or rather (RV) TATTENAI ΟΠ; TAN
Ganaioc [L]; Ezra53 θανάνδι [B], 0400, [A], 50

@anganac [B]. Gagganac [A], 66 Awcete [BA]

v. 13, TAaNGanal [B]. θαθθᾶνδι [A]), the 'governor
of the region beyond the river’ (see GOVERNMENT, $ 25,
Ezra 53 66), called in 1 Esd. SISINNES (g.v.), We
shall assume here that the present form of the text is
original (see, however, Cri&. Bié., where this and other
names are disputed). According to Meissner (Z471W,
1897, p. 191), this Persian official is mentioned in
neo- Babylonian contracts. Here, in texts of the first
and third years of the reign of Darius, is mentioned
a certain US-ta-an-ni or US-ta-nu, satrap of Babylon
and Syria, The dates agree, and also the titles
(sun3 Sap nno, ῥέψα! edir nari). ‘The name corre-
sponds to old Pers. Viftana, and appears in a Greek
form as Βισθάνης (Arr. ili. 194}, ‘Iordwns (Arr. vii. 84),
and Ὕστάνης {Herod.777). On the other hand,
it is a much easier transition to »nn from old Pers.
Thithina (a form assutned by Marg. Zurd. 52, and
E, Meyer, Ensst des. Jud. 32) than from old Pers.
Vidtana, for we have, on Meissner's hypothesis, 10
suppose that nn was corrupted from vini. According
to Arrian, however (vii. 64), there were two con-
temporary persons named respectively Sisines and
Histanes. May not the document from which the
name of the Syrian satrap in Ezra and Nehemiah is
derived have confounded the two names? As to the
historicity of what is told us of Tattenai and Shethar-
bozenai, we must draw a distinction between the
narrative and the inserted documents on which the
narrative is supposed to be based. According τὸ Well-
hausen (GGA4 1897, no, 2), the official correspondence is
but an invention for dramatic effect. Sisines (Tatnai),
for instance, attempted to get the building of the temple
interrupted, and failed. But the Jewish writers had no
access to official archives. The same view is taken by
Kosters (Zerstel, 29). Marquart, however (Zurd.
49), thinks that the ‘kernel’ of the decree of Darius
may be genuine, whilst Meyer (Es des Jud. 41-53}
maintains that the documents are almost entirely
genuine, and the narrative therefore in the highest

1 Cp Jude@, ὑπὸ ξόφον, ‘under darkness’ (cp Enoch105,
abovel. The reading σειραῖς (chains) i not accepied. by
editors (see Var. 25/2), though both Jude 6 and the foundation
| passage in Enoch speak of bonds.

4904

TAXATION AND TRIBUTE

degree trustworthy. The only passage in the docu-
ments to which this scholar takes exception is Ezra 6 124,
which is certainly not the language appropriate to an
imperial decree. This criticism seems hardly keen
enough. Even the name Sisines, on which Meyer
relies so much, is very doubtful, and Kosters' and
Wellhausen's criticisms are not altogether baseless. ΟΡ
EzrRA-NEHEMIAH, $ 6. T.K.C.

TAXATION! AND TRIBUTE

The modern sheikh ($ 1) —Tithe (89/0).
Religious dues ($ 2). Firstlings (88 11-13).
Monarchical idea ($ 3). Levitical cities (8 14).
Political taxation (88 4-7). —Expenses of worship (8 15).
Sanctuary dues ($ 8). Priests' revenue (8$ 16-18).

The nomads of the Arabian desert know nothing of
tax or tribute, either to their sheikhs or to Allah ; so far
indeed from finding a source of revenue in
their people, the sheikhs are under obligation
to spend their own private fortune for the
- public good. It is expected of a sheikh that
he entertain strangers and visitors better and more
sumpiuously than an ordinary member of the tribe
possibly can; his duty is to support the poor and to
share what he has with his friends {Burckhardt, Notes
on the Bedouins, 1830). Often enough it happens that,
even with a rich sheikh, this ends in poverty; but a
reckiess hospitality always brings high repute. The
means for such hospitality have to be found in war and
pillage. The Syrian towns and villages on the borders
of the settled land have to pay their regular ‘brother-
hood’ (Z2uw0%we) to the Bedonins, By ancient custom a
special share of the booty taken in war falls to the
commander; he has the first choice, and in old
Arabia was entitled to a fourth of the whole, In ancient
Israel the practice was similar. ‘The only due, if we
may so call it, falling to the chief is a larger share of
the spoil; Gideon, for example, receives the golden
‘crescents’ of the Midianites (Judg. 824; cp 530).
David sends his share in the spoil (37/47 δῷ, τῶν
σκύλων") from the Amalekite raid in presents to his
friends in Judah (τ 8. 3026 /).

The offerings also which were presented to the god
did not originally come under the category of dues
which were demanded and had to be
paid. ‘When a beast from the flock or
herd was slaughtered, there was no
question of a definite tax or tribute; it was a case
Οἵ voluntary giving. Indeed in the most ancient
Semitic ritual the notion of giving to a deity at all has
no place, or at best only a very subordinate one; the
root-idea being that the blood poured out and the
sacrificial meal are fitted to renew and strengthen
sacramentally the mystic bond in which the deity and his
worshippers are united (on this subject cp SACRIFICE).

A solitary exception would seem to be found in the
paschal offering. Following Wellhausen (270/.(9)) and
Robertson Smith (Rel Sezz.!, 463 4}, most recent
scholars explain it as an offering of the firstborn of the
flock. If this be right, its character as a due payable
to the deity can hardly be denied ; and it is certain that
the paschal offering was, in the later period at least, so
regarded, Robertson Smith, indeed (σε. ci£.), seeks the
original explanation of this sacrifice of firstlings in another
region of thought ; the exact parallel to the sacrifice of

2. Religious
dues.

1 The verb 4e'èr3k ("YI is rendered ‘tax’ in a K.2335 EV;
in Lev. 27812 ‘value,’ and 2714 ‘estimate.’ The subst. ‘ére£
ΟΡ is ‘taxation’ in 2 K.2335; it occurs frequently in P
(Lev. 273 Nu. 18 18, eto.), where RV regularly has ‘estimation.’
For the ‘raiser of taxes,’ Dan. 11 20, n4g#4 (15), cp ExacTOR.

On the "taxing, ΕΥ̓͂ ‘enrolment' (ἀπογραφή), of Lk. 22 Acts
837: cp QuIRIItS, JuDAS, 10. The verb ἀπογράφεσθαι occurs
in tica 35 ον 1223; ἀπογράφειν in 1 Esd. 430 (GL, in GRA
ἀπὸ γραφή, sec Swete).

2 ἐπί! îs also προνομή, e.g., in Nu. 8132, and ἁρπαγή [BRA]
in 1s.102. For other terms used see Spoil.

4905

TAXATION AND TRIBUTE

the firstlings of cattle he finds, not in the ycarly offering
of the first-fruits of the field generaliy, but in the law of
Lev. 19237, according to which the fruits of a newly
planted field for the first three years may not be eaten,
* The characteristic feature of this ordinance, from which
its original meaning must be deduced, is the taboo on
the produce of the first three ycars, not the offering at
the temple paid in the fourth year. This same con-
ception of a taboo is what he finds underlying the
sacrifice of the firstlings of the flock. That which is
taboo has supernatural attributes which forbid its being
appropriated to common uses, This character of taboo
attached, he thinks, in the oldest times, in a certain
measure to all domestic animals, and naturally there-
fore in an intensified degree to the firstborn. It
is, however, hardly necessary to have recourse to this
line of explanation. Certainly no other instance of an
offering of firstlings besides the passover can be adduced
for the earliest Hebrew period before the settlement in
Canaan. And the passover itself, as is shown in more
detail elsewhere (FkASTS, ὃ 2, PASSOVER, $$ 9-11Ὲ was
not originally, or before the settlement, a sacrifice of the
firstborn. ‘The passover ritual points clearly to the
contrary, and shows that under this sacrifice lay the
same fundamental ideas as under all the other sacrifices,
namely, that the blood of the victim was to renew the
communion with the deity, and thereby, in this
particular instance, be a powerful protective against
pestilence and the like. It was only in the course of
the subsequent development that the passover was
brought into connection with the sacrifice of the first-
born, or sought to be explained as such.

As already said, the sacrifice of the firstborn cannot
be proved, in the Hebrew domain, for the oldest
period; all the probabilities point rather to the other
conclusion—that it was a secondary development ; out
of the custom of offering the first-fruits of the field arose
the other of offering those of the flock and of the herd,
and here accordingly we have only the extension to
animals and men of the deity's original claim to be
presented annually with the first-fruits of the field.

The entire conception of sacrifice as being a tribute
due to God is in Hebrew religion subsequent to the
settlement in Palestine, and on internal evidence must
be regarded as impossible in the earlier time, for it had
its origin in the complete revolution in the idea of God
which followed upon the settlement. The tribal and
national god became thereby a territorial god, and thus
came into the position which the Canaanites had as-
signed to their Baal; he himself became the ‘baal,’
that is, ‘lord’ of the land,—in the sense, especially,
that he was lord of the soil, and that the produce of the
soîl was regarded as his gift (see BAAL). This whole
view of the deity as the bestower of all the gifts of
nature is, it is obvious, possible only for an agricultural
people. As soon as this view had become the prevailing
one, however, the next step was exceedingly simple,
nay, it was inevitable ; thanks were offered to the deity
for the gifts of the soil, and he was acknowledged as the
giver by having the firstlings and the best of the fruits
of the earth returned to him in sacrifice. The Canaan-
ites had already come to this view of their offerings,
and the Israelites took it over from them, as we see
very specially in their adoption of the originally
Canaanite yearly festivals. AIl these festivals are agri-
cultural in character: they are intimately associated
with harvest, and the idea they express is that the
harvest is sanctified by the festal offering.

In the further development in Israel a new thought
came to be added. Once the monarchy had become

; established, the monarchical idea was

8 Monarchical applied to Yahwè also, and he was
idea. thought of as the supreme king of his
people (cp MessiAH, MoLECR). But among the rights
of kings one of the first was that of levying tax and
tribute; and, as we shall sce later, it was éxercised very

4906

TAXATION AND TRIBUTE

early (David, Solomon}; cp GOVERNMENT, $ 19. A
main duty of subjects was and is the payment of the
king's dues ; this principle was applied to the deity and
to his worship in sacrifice, as soon as he came to be
regarded as the king of his people. How nearly related
are the two things—secular taxation and sacred tribute
—is instructively shown by the instance quoted by
Robertson Smith (Rel. Serz.(®, 246); at Tyre tithes
were paid to Melkarth as ‘king of the city.' The same
thing is seen in the motives assigned for sacrifice by the
later Hebrews. The offerings brought voluntarily to
the altar are regarded as a tribute to the deity on quite
the same footing as the presents voluntarily brought to
an earthly king. To the sacrifices offered during the
Hebrew monarchy equally apply the words of Homer:

δῶρα θεοὺς πείθει, δῶρ᾽ αἰδοίους βασιλῆας.

One does not come into the king's presence empty-
handed (Judg. 817 1S. 1027), but, if one has aught to
ask, brings a gift of homage ; so, în like manner, when
one ‘seeks the face' of God (Mal. 18). Precisely
similar is the ancient Greek conception of sacrifice as
being the tribute and homage due to the divinity on
whom a man is dependent (Nigelsbach, Morerische
Theologie, 186). In the last resort, the offering comes
to be expressly called ‘a gift' to the deity; minzaz
(Gen. 43} 1S. 217, and often) or forsdr.
Such in general is the course of the development.
As to the development in detail of taxation and tribute
sai, as political institutions the deficiency of
£ Political our sources leaves us very much in the
Saul * dark. Under Saul we hear nothing of
* special dues levied by him; he had no
capital and no special court, but lived on his ancestral
holding at Gibeah. Nor had he any state officials to
govern the land under his orders and receive their pay
from him. We may take it for granted as self-evident
that, in accordance with ancient custom, he claimed and
received his special share of the spoils of war, as we are
expressly told that David at a later time did (25.811
1230). We hear of gifts of homage, as, for example,
when he was elected τὸ be king (τ 5. 1027), or when his
favour was specially sought (τ. 1620). It is easily
conceivable that this source of income, added to the
revenue derived from his property at Gibeah, may have
been amply sufficient for the modest requirements of
his throne. At any rate, it is not safe to draw from
what is said in 1 S. 1725 strict inferences as to the exist.
ence of certain specified exactions in Saul's day. The
passage promises freedom from taxation to the slayer of
the giant and to his house, thus presupposing the exist-
ence of fixed taxes. But this îs evidence only for the
much later period of the author, or editor, to whom it
appeared selfeevident that such must have arisen as soon
as ἃ monarchy had come into being. The same obser-
vation applies to the so-called ‘manner’ or constitution
of the monarchy as set forth to the people by Samuel
(18.810/, esp. v. 15), where also taxes, and, in
particular, tithes of the field and the vineyard are
mentioned.
Under David, and still more under Solomon, we see
the system growing. Under David, in addition to
δ. Davia, [45 King's share of booty (25. 110 1230},
Solomon, P'ominence is given to the tribute received
" from subjugated peoples (1 K.51[421] 2K.
34), and the voluntary gifts of subjects still continued to
come in (τ K. 1025). We may, nevertheless, conjecture
with some degree of probability that David's numbering
of the people (2 5, 241 Δ} was connected with the levy-
ing of taxes, and was intended to be used in regulating
their incidence and the exaction of military service.
The duties of the ‘governors’ (os, mésidiz, EV
ὁ garrisons,' 2 S. 814) also, whom be set over conquered
territory, must essentially have consisted in the collection
of tribute. We are expressly told, at all events, that
this was the object of Solomon's division of the kingdom

4907

TAXATION AND TRIBUTE

into districts. If the text (1K.47-19) is correct, it
would seem that the king's own tribe (Judah} was
exempt from dues and imposts {but see GOVERNMENT,
$ 19). However this may be, the purpose of the
division is given with substantial correctness in the text
as it stands (see special articles on the names of the
‘officers’). ‘The statement that each ‘officer’ {or
‘ prefect *) had to provide victuals for the king and his
household for a month in the year may owe its form to
a desire to show the glory of Solomon's court; but in
substance the narrative is undoubtedly correct: the
chief object of the division into districts had reference
to taxation, and in connection with this to the ‘task
work” or personal service which was exacted (τ K. 525).
We also hear that Solomon levied toll on the caravans
travelling by the trade-routes through the kingdom
(1 K. 1015) The complaint made by the people after
his death leaves the impression that his system of taxes,
besides being grievous in itsell, was objected to as some-
thing new and unaccustomed.
We find hardly any other references to regular taxes
in pre-exilic times; but the ‘king's mowings' are men-
6. Later tioned in Am. 71 {see GOVERNMENT, $ 19;
pia Mowins; and, on the text, LOCUSTS).
"From the fact that in post-exilic times tithe
appears from the first as an established institution,
we may perhaps infer that it was of pre-exilic origin.
The narrator of 1S,8147 regards it as an ancient
institution. ‘With this would harmonise the fact that
Am. 44 knows of a tithe paid to the sanctuary. For
the rest, in the ideal state as constructed by Ezekiel
we find no such thing as taxes; the prince maintains
his court and officers out of the revenue of the princely
domains. He gives the princely domain to his officers
in fief, This also is an arrangement which we may
unhesitatingly presume to have existed in the earlier
times (15.812). A property-tax was imposed only for
extraordinary emergencies, not regularly (2 K. 2335).
See GOVERNMENT, $ zo.
In post-exilic times a heavy tribute was exacted, of
course, by all the overlords of the country. Unfortu-
sii, Nately we are without information as to
7. Posb-erilie. (he nature of the taxes or how they
were levied. On the latter point, however, it is practi-
cally self-evident that the Persian rulers, like the Syrian
and Roman after them, availed themselves of the local
Jewish administrations for assessment and collection.
The land as such paid, doubtless, a definite composition
as tribute. Moreover, when it had a governor of its
own, the community had also to pay for his support,
as well as make a contribution towards that of the resident
Persian official in Samaria under whom it was placed.
That these burdens were not trifling can be seen from
such a passage as Neh.514: the governor drew 40
shekels a day besides what the ‘rulers’ and their sub-
ordinates extorted from the people. If we find a
Nehemiah in public discourse to the people characteris-
ing this as severely oppressive and taking merit and
credit to himself for having drawn nothing from the
people, but on the contrary, having met all charges out
of his own private means, we may safely conclude that
the pressure of these dues was not regarded as light.
Besides these direct taxes were the indirect ones
levied by the Persian court: rents, customs, tolls, etc.
(Ezra 41320 724); unfortunately, we are very in-
sufficiently informed as to the meaning of the various
technical expressions here,?
Over and above these were the requirements of the
internal administration, and even if these may on the
1 [Of the three terms în Ezra41320 724 (Bibl. Aram.),
mindak (AME, AV ‘toll' RV ‘tribute’ is quite general, a tax
for every one (Ass, mandaftu), ὁδίς (02, AV ‘tribute,’ so RV
‘custom’), lit. what is brought (Ass. diltu=x/535), and 44/46
(an, AV ‘custom’), a ‘toll‘(so RV) exacted of travellers,

From the Ass., also, comes Aram. maksa, ‘toll,' and »εξξδε,
‘toll.gatherer” (publican).]

4908

TAXATION AND TRIBUTE

TAXATION AND TRIBUTE

whole have been relatively light, nevertheless the | say, it must be added, how great a relief, if any, this

maintenance of the temple, of the sacrificial system, and
of the priests and Levites, must have cost considerable
sums, The voluntary gifis of worshippers were not
enough, and soon {under Ezra; cp Neh.1033/)a
fixed poll-tax, besides other payments in kind, had to
be established (see below, $15) On other accounts,
also, heavy demands were from time to time made on
the community, as, for example. for temple restoration
and wall-building; in the latter connection also in
the form of corude, even if in both cases, as it would
seem, the voluntary character of the service was formally
retained,

The priests and Levites, and the whole personnel of the
temple, were declared wholly exempt from taxation by decree
οἵ the king of Persia to Ezia (EzIA7 24), On the rest of the
people the burden of taxation pressed all the more heavily as
the community, broadly speaking, was a poor one. Thus, in
Nehemiah's time, the complaint was raised by many that in
order to pay their taxes they had been compelled to borrow
money and mortgage their property, thus coming into great
straits (Neh, 547).

Nor did matters improve after Alexander, in the
days of the Seleucids and Ptolemies. The principal
burden was the poll tax (Jos. Ax. xii. 41) of which we
learn more particularly from (Ps.-) Aristotle (Oeconore.
ii. 14) that în the Syrian kingdom, as distinguished
from the Egyptian-Roman, it was, strictly speaking, a
kind of trade-tax, a percentage that varied according to
the nature of the work and the means of the individual,
not a personal tax, uniform and unchanging.!

In addition to this there were now also other taxes,
presumably indirect, which Josephus (Ax/. xii, 33) refers
fo but does not name. A characteristic example of
the manner in which new dues arose out of voluntary
gifts is seen in the crown tax which grew out of the
voluntary gift to the sovereign of a golden crown of
honour. The priesthood of Jerusalem were exempted
from all such dues and tribute from the time of Anti-
ochus the Great (Jos, Ar. xii. 33).

The method of collecting was by farming to the
highest bidder (Jos. Ant xii. 41 s 1 Macc. 1128 1315)
and, indeed, according to the same authority (/oc. cil.),
the taxes of each individual city were let from year to
year. Elsewhere it appears that there were also farmers-
general of taxes for the whole land (see below). This
system was widely spread throughout the whole of
antiquity, and was adopted also under the Roman
Empire. Even at present it is in the Turkish Empire
the usual method of raising certain dues. The advan-
tages and disadvantages of the system can easily be
seen in actual operation there, ‘That it is the least
favourable of all for the taxed needs no showing ; at all
times the farmers have known how to enrich themselves
at the expense of the taxed, since any surplus naturally
falls to them.

A classical instance, in fact, is one that comes to us from
Judza. A certain Joseph Ὁ. Tobia, who, it ought to be men-
lioned, had the reputation of being very lenient with his own
countrymen, had acquired the taxing rights under Euergetes
and Philopator by bidding twice as much as any other com-
petitor, and paid the (for those times) enormous yearly sum of
16,000 talents, nevertheless accumulating vast wealth during his
twenty-two years’ tenure,

The question of immunity from taxes played a great
part, naturally, from the Maccabaean period onwards, în
all the dealings between the Jewish leaders and their
Syrian overlords; it was more or less identical with
the entire question of dependence or independence.
Jonathan was able to secure immunity from Demetrius
II, (τ Mace, 11 34-27; see ISRAFI., $ 26), but this privi-
lege does not seem to have been long maintained, for
at a later date Simon had to demand it anew for all
time to come (cp ISRAEL, $ 78). We are unable to

1 It has been recently maintained by Willrich (742/02, 1900,
pp. 52-58) that under the Seleucids the poll-tax was still a thing
unknown, that it was not introduced until the time of Augustus.

As against this, sce the evidence marshalled in Schirer, ΟΡ),
12295

4909

meant for the subjects concerned. Fundamentally, it
meant nothing more than a change in the taxing
authority ; the continued wars in any case were
enormously costly.

When the country became tributary to the Romans
{Jos. Ané. xiv.44 871.76) they at once took in hand
the system of taxation. Gabinius divided the country
into five districts—probably taxation areas after their
usual practice in subject provinces (Schiirer, G/L),
1340; cp ISRAEL, $ 85)—in which the local authorities
were at the same time the leviers of taxes. Here also
Caesar showed his friendly disposition towards the Jews
by respecting the sabbatical year as regarded taxation.
The Roman census and the Roman system of taxation
asa whole do not seem, however, to have been intro.
duced for some considerable time, the raising of the
taxes being left in the hands of the native authorities.
Herod the Great, at leatt, paid sometimes (whether
always is doubtful} a definite tribute to the Romans, but
as regarded the raising of this sum he could exercise
independent authority as rex socézs. Thus, he could
remit taxes wholly or in part (Jos. “πὸ xv.104 xvi. 25
xvii. 21). We nowhere hear of a Roman tax during
bis reign (cp IsRAEL, $ 87, end). The situation changed
when, after the time of Herod and Archelaus, the land
was administered by procurators; the Roman taxes,
including the personal tax of the census, were now
introduced. ‘The new division of the land into eleven
toparchies, like that formerly made by Gabinius (see
above) doubtless had reference primarily to taxation.
The procurators levied these taxes through native com-
missions. The indirect taxes were now also farmed to
the publicans {see PUBLICAN}. From the NT(Lk.19r
and elsewhere ; cp Jos. 2/ ii. 144) we learn that these
were mostly Jews; intelligibly enough, they were not
popular : in the NT ‘publican' and ‘sinner’ are
virtually synonymous (cp ISRAEL, $ 90).

On the whole subject of Roman taxation see Schiirer, (7) 8),
1 508 7 and the copious literature there referred to; cp Que

RINIÙS, #24
Sanctuary dues fall under two categories: (1) the

regular offerings at the sanctuary prescribed by custom

or by law; (2) the occasional gifts

8, Sanctuary which the priests received for their ser-
i vices on each sacrificial occasion.

As for the first of these two classes, it has been
already observed that in the old times no other dues
were known beyond the offerings themselves, as also
that it was only in a secondary way that the offerings
assumed the character of dues. ΤῸ this class of dues,
in the strict sense of the word—that is to say, regular
offerings definitely fixed by custom or law, as distin-
guished from free gifts presented on all or any of the
various occasions of public or private life—belong the
offerings of the first-fruits of the ground and of the
firstlings of cattle. To both these Yahwè from an
early date set up, so to say, a legal claim.

Even in the oldest decalogue (Ex. 8426 J} it is made
a legal injunction that the Israelites are to bring to
Yahwè ‘the best, the first-fruits of thy ground’ (πὰ
AnD “pap, πρωτογενήματα). The Book of the
Covenant (Ex. 2229[28]) bas the ordinance : ‘ thou shalt
not delay {to offer) thine abundance and the best of thy
winepress'; the exact meaning of the expression is
doubtful,? but the idea of first-fruits is not directly con-

1 Bikkarim being always a relative idea, it makes litrle
material difference whether we translate ‘the best, that is to
say, the first-fruits of the ground,’ or ‘the best of the first-fruits
of the ground,’ Still, as in 7. 22 (cp 23 16) the harvest festival
is designated as the feast of first fruits, the expression Si&&mriz
ought, doubtless, to be taken as referring to the first-fruits that
are offered and not to the first-fruits generally, and thus equiva-
lent to 785144.

2 On the meaning of br see the commentaries. 6

has ἀπαρχὰς ἄλωνος καὶ ληνοῦ, thus taking it to mean the first.
fruits. Doubtless it was led to this rendering by, the paraliel
clause : ‘thy firstborn son shalt thou give unto me,’ eto.

4910

TAXATION AND TRIBUTE

tained in the words themselves at any rate, and neither
is the injunction in substance quite the same as that of
the old decalogue. There only the first-fruits of the
field are spoken of, whilst here, in all probability, oil
and wine also are intended ; there an offering to God
at the harvest festival is intended, here no such fixed
date is given. Most probably the two laws were in-
tended to run concurrently ; alongside of the precept to
offer the first-fruits of the harvest at the harvest festival
stood the other injunction not to be niggardly towards
Yahwè with the fulness wherewith he had blessed floor
and press.

Nothing is said as to the amounts of such offerings.
Apart from the offerings definitely provided for in the
ritual of the old feasts, it is clear that the amount of
first-fruits to be offered was left to the free will of the
individual offerer. n particular, JE has no hint that
at that early date it was already the custom to give to
God the tenth part of the produce. Not until D is this
expressly laid down by law. As the taxes and tributes
payable to the king were, throughout, of older date than
those payable to the temple, so also the tithe was first
of all exacted by the state, and not till afterwards took
its place among the dues of the sanctuary.

Indeed, in the time of the old decalogue and of the
‘book of the covenant there is as yet no word of dues at,
all in the strictest sense of the word, but only of definite
offerings fixed by custom. Men offered the first-fruits
to Yahwè in sacrifice, and in the sacrificial meal became
Yahwè's guests. ‘This custom is presupposed in D as
still maintaining its ancient standing (see below).
Accordingly we have not in D, as in later times, to do
with a tax designed to fill the temple treasury, to defray
the cost of the temple worship, and the like. The
maintenance of the temple in Jerusalem, and of the
regular worship there, was the king's affair; the priests
derived their income from the offerings that were brought
(see below, $ 16), and thus there was no occasion for levy-
ing on behalf of the temple any regular dues over and
above such voluntary offerings as might be made at the
sanctuary (cp 2 K.1257). Further, in bringing his
first-fruits the idea in the mind of the pious Israelite in
early times was not at all that Yahwè had a claim to
the fruits as being the giver of them; his action was
dictated by the consideration that his whole harvest,
and all the bread which he enjoyed from year to year,
was pure and hallowed only if some part of it had been
received by Yahwè. It is one of the heavy punishments
with which the nation is threatened by Hosea, that in
its exile Israel shall have only ‘bread of mourners’ to
eat, bread that is unclean, inasmuch as no portion of it
can be brought into the house of Yahwè (Hos. 94).

The sanctuary tithe is first met with in Am. 44, which
passage shows that in the northern kingdom it was

9. Tithe, Sustomary, in the yearly pilgrimages to the
ti " sanctuary, in addition to the daily offering
to bring tithes on the third day. The narrative of E,
dating from somewhere about the same period, tells of
Jacob's vow to pay the tithe at the sanctuary at Bethel
(Gen. 2822).

D makes it quite evident that the tithe intended
simply means the first-fruits, of which the proportion,
roughly speaking, of a tenth had been gradually fixed
by custom. For in Deuteronomy (1422 7) it 15 enjoined
that the produce of the field (corn, wine, oil) is to be
tithed; but, exactiy as in the earlier time (see above, 8 8},
in such a manner that this tithe is not to be paid, so to
say, into the sanetuary, but simply to be laid out in a
sacrificial meal at the sanetuary. Should the distance
from Jerusalem, however, be so great as to make it
impossible to carry thither the tithe in kind, then (v. 95}
‘thou shalt turn the tithe into money and carry the
money with thee and go to the place which Yahwè will
choose, and there thou shalt bestow the money for
whatever thou desirest, oxen or sheep, or wine or
strong drink, or whatsoever thy soul asketh of thee, and

agri

{see above, $ 8)

TAXATION ANI) TRIBUTE

thou shalt eat it there before Yahwè thy God, and
rejoice, thou and thy household and the Levite that îs
within thy gates.' ΝΟΥ͂Ν, this tenth is actually called the
first-fruit (rZ54%, myx) in Dt. 262, and is accompanied
by a further regulation as regards ritual, which may
very well have been in accordance with ancient custom,
although the text itself appears to be a later addition
{see Stenernagel, ed /oc.): the regulation, namely, that
the Israelite who makes the offering is to put a small
portion of the tithe into a basket, and set it down before
the altar of Yahwè, and in doing so to make use of a pre-
scribed form of prayer.

Along with these general regulations regarding the
tithe D gives also a special one for the tithe of every

A third year (1428); every third year
10. Tplrd year the entire tithe Îs to be expended at
" home on the poor and indigent, in
which category the Levite also is included in D, no part
of it being applied to a sacrificial meal in the sanctuary.
In devoting the tithe to this purpose, also, a special
prayer is to be used, which is given in Dt.26127
This tithe constitutes one of the main sources of income
of the rural priesthood (see below, $ 17). This shows
that by ' the third year’ we are to understand not a fixed
date holding good for the whole country, but a relative
one, falling differently in different places or with different
families, yet always in such a way that every year some
portion of the Israelite nation was paying its 'tithe of
the third year ' for the poor and similar objects. It isa
debatable question whether by this tenth of the third
year we are to understand a second tithe every third
year over and above the yearly tithe that has already
been spoken of. The precept was interpreted in this
sense by 65, which gives ‘the second {πῃ π᾿ (τὸ δεύτερον.
ἐπιδέκατον) for spyon mu, ‘in the year of tithing,' in
Dt. 2612, and the same view is taken by some modern
scholars (e.g., Steuernagel). For various reasons,
however, it seems highly improbable. In the first
place, we should have expected in the text of the law
some kind of explicit indication that quite another tithe
than the preceding—a second tithe, in fact—is being
spoken of; but of this there is no hint. Moreover, the
imposition of a due of two-tenths of the whole produce
of the field over and above the various payments exigible
by the state would be something quite unusual and
unheard of, and not at all in harmony with the general
spirit of Deuteronomy. It is not permissible to evade
this argument by answering that the yearly tithe paid in
Jerusalem was not a tenth reckoned with any precision.
The exact opposite would seem to be the fact, if it is
remembered that the ‘renewal’ in D, as contrasted with
the old law, consisted precisely în this, that for a sacri.
ficial offering to be made at discretion was substituted
an offering of which the amount was precisely deter-
mined by law, and that amount fixed at one-tenth of the
total produce.

A later decision in Dt. 184 further enacts that the
priest has a claim to the best of the corn, the wine, and
the oîl, as well as of the sheep-shearing ; over and above
the tithe the 2% also. This again is not in the spirit
of D, which regards the rè%# and the tithe as identical
We have here again an expression
if the growing claims of the priests, who in other direc-
tions also were dissatisfied with the revenues assigned
to them by D (see below, $ 13).

Thi course of the development of the offering of the
firstlings ran parallel with that of the offering of first-

Ν 4 fruits. For its origin, see above, $ 2.
11. Firstlinge. The law of the older decalogo în Ex.
3419 £ runs, ‘every firstborn is mine, and all the cattle
that îs male, the firstlings of ox and sheep. But the
firstling of an ass thou shalt redeemn with a sheep, or,
if thou wilt not redeem it, then thou shalt break its neck.
All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem.' The
expression #éfer réhem (um) 8) means the first offspring

4912

TAXATION AND TRIBUTE

of the mother, not the earliest of the animals born year
after year (cp WRS Rel Sent. 462 f.). Here, accord-
ingly, even at this early date the demand is extended to
human beings and to animals that cannot be offered in
sacrifice. ‘l'his is, in point of fact, however, quite
secondary ; the original precept had reference only to
sacrificial animals. For it may be taken as certain that
genuine Yahwism was always opposed to human sacri-
fices, and therefore that in the law of the redemption of

the human firstborn we are to see not a toning down of *

an ancient custom which had demanded human sacrifice,
but only an expedient for extending the precept relating
to firstlings so as to include men and non-sacrificial
animals. We should also take note of the parallelism
with the first-fruits of the ground, and consider how
opposed to such sacrifices is the entire character of the
sacrificial system in ancient Israel so far as we know it,
Literary analysis also shows that the words in question
are secondary. In the original ten short words (see
DECALOGUE, col. 1050) the precept probably ran, ‘every
first birth is mine'—a law which, as matter of course,
applied only to animals capable of being offered. See
further, FIRSTBRORN; SACRIFICE, $ 3; also Isaac,

$4
In the Book of the Covenant also, Ex. 2225 [28], the
claim to the human firstborn is made; but here, too,
the originality of the clause is highly questionable. To
begin with, the position of the firstborn of men—between
the fruits of the field and offerings from the herdt—is
remarkable. Moreover, it would be unnatural to under-
stand the requirement literally ; it must be supplemented
by the precept of redemption; but this highly important
point is not mentioned, although in view of the inclina-
tion occasionally shown by the people to offer human
sacrifices, it could hardly be omitted as too self-evident.
‘With reference to offerings of the firstborn there is added
the further detail that the animals are to be sacrificed
on the eighth day after birth.
We know not at what date it was that the law relating
to human firstborn first became general. ‘The deutero-
12. In Ὁ. Nomistic passage in ἔχ. 18: Δ presupposes
" “ it as a settled custom. D itself {Dt 1423
1519) has nothing to say on the subject; D plainly has
no intention of laying down a complete law about offer-
ings of firstborn, but only of settling points where
traditional custom had necessarily to be departed from
in consequence of the centralisation of worship. The
chief stress accordingly is laid upon the injunetion that
this offering is to be made year by year at the place
which Yahwè will choose. This, but still more the
further command not to do any work with the firstling
of catile or to shear the firstling ofthe fiock (Dt. 1520[19]),
shows that, according to the intention of D, the animal
was not to be offered exactly on the eighth day after
birth. That the offering of the firstborn was to be made
precisely at the Passover feast is nowhere expressly laid
down; but the connection into which the two are brought
in the narrative of the exodus (Ex, 1311 7) shows that
their union had already been accomplished at the time
when that account was written {cp PASSovER). Since
blemished animals could not be offered in sacrifice it is
enjoined that they are to be consumed as ordinary food
under the same conditions as those applied to ordinary
slaughtering in D (Dt.1521 7). Substitution, or re-
demption of such animals, is not required ; but this does
not exclude the possibility that the custom nevertheless
existed, since D, as already remarked, does not start
with the intention of giving a complete law on this
subject. From all these considerations it is plain that
here also there is no question of a ‘due’ in the strict
sense of that word, but only of an offering. Like the
first-fruits so also ought the firstlings to be set apart for
a sacrificial meal in which of course the priest has his
usual share (sce below, $ 16).
It is on this last point that P makes a characteristic
change affecting principle ; all offerings of firstlings are

4913

TAXATION AND TRIBUTE

* now, for the first time, converted into simple dues pay-

13. InP. able to the priests, the fixed offerings become

᾿ * mere taxes. Even Ezekiel (4430) had de-
manded for the priests the first of all firstlings of every
thing (55 anta nam). But the Priestly Code claims
not merely a portion but the whole of the firstlings for
the priests ; all the first-fruits of corn, wine, and oil are
handed over by Yahwè to the priests (Nu. 1812 7). The
entire tithe belongs to the Levites, who, in turn, have
to make over their tenth part of this to the priests (Nu.
18207). The firstlings of clean beasts are offered in
kind ; after their blood has been sprinkled on the altar
and the fat burnt, the flesh [8115 to the priests. ‘The
firsiborn of unclean beasts, and of man, must be re-
deemed. The redemption money belongs to the priest
(Nu.1815 7, cp Neh. 1037). The amount of the re-
demption money is in the case of human firstborn fixed
at five shekels (Nu.18:6; cp Dillmann, ἐπ doc.) In
the case of unclean beasts the estimated value is to be
paid with addition of a fifth (Lev.2726/; certainly
secondary).

Apart from this change in the scope of the law, P
shows a quite extraordinary advance in the amount of
such payments. The firstborn is given to the priests ;
but the Passover remains unaffected by this. In the
case of fruits of the earth the payment of the r@55/% is
retained as well as that of the tithes already enjoined in Ὁ
{see above, $9; Nu, 18 το 207), and, besides the ‘ best”
of the winepress and the thireshing floor, there is de-
manded payment of the first-fruits {2i44zrim, Ὁ 325) of
all that grows in the field. What we are to understend
by this expression is not quite certain. The most
probable interpretation still is that which takes it as
referring to the fruits that have come earliest to maturity
(Nu. 1813, EV‘ first-ripe'; cp the commentaries). Over
and above alì this we find in Nu. 1517 7. the further de-
mand that the first of the πρὸ, ‘ris44 (‘dough' [EV]?
‘ coarse meal’ [RV!"£:]? ‘kheading trough'? see Foo,
8 ra), a cake, must also be given. In accordance with
this the post-exilic community drew a distinetion between
retithand bikkarim, and paid on both. In Neh. 1036-38
the entire community comes under a solemn obligation
to bring the #i4#457%: of all fruits of the tilled land and
of all trees to the tempie, and moreover to pay to the
priests the r25Z/4 of the wine and oil and tree fruits, and
also of the ‘&rissh—all this to be, along with the tithe,
the portion of the Levites (cp Neh.1244 135 2 Ch.
81512). Finally, Lev.1923 enjoins that the fruit of
newly-planted trees must not be eaten within the first
three years, and that în the fourth year the entire yield
must be given to Yahwè—that is, to the priests,

Nor is even this enough; the decision preserved in
Lev. 27 32 f. includes cattle also in the tithe ; the offerer
in rendering this tithe must not select the animals:
each tenth head at the counting belongs to Yahwé. If,
however, it should so chance that one animal has been
changed for another, both shall belong to the sanctuary.
Even în Neh.1037-39 (cp 1244-47 13512) there is no
allusion to any such law. It must, therefore, have
come into existence at a later date.

In real life such a tithing of cattle is impracticable.
But the legal theorist did not concern himself about any

sting) SUCh consideration as that; he was able,

14. Levitical therefore, to put the copestone on his
CIHES. system by that extraordinary enactment
which assigns to the tribe of Levi forty-eight cities, each
having a territory of 2000 cubits square (cp LEVITES,
8 6). The impossibility of carrying out such a theory is
demonstrated by any map of Palestine, But nothing can
better reveal the spirit underlying such legislation than
the fact that the lawgiver in the same breath in which
he assigns these forty-eight cities to the Levites alleges,
as a reason for the dues he is imposing, that the Levites
had received no inheritance in land like the other tribes.

Another poînt deserves notice: in Ezekiel the people

4914

TAXATION AND TRIBUTE

already pay their dues as a tax to the prince, who, how-
ever, has laid upon him in return the
1. Expenses responsibility for the expenses of the
P- public worship (Ezek. 45:37). In P
it is the priests who receive these taxes; but they keep
them to themselves : the support of the regular cultus
is not their concern. On the contrary, a further tax
has to be levied for that purpose; a poll tax of half a
shekel has to be exacted (Ex. 3011 7). With the spread
of the Persian monetary system the third of a shekel
found its way into Palestine, and accordingly in Neh.
1052 [33] we find the temple tax fixed at that amount.
The coinage of the Maccabees reverted to the older type,
and thus in the time of Jesus we find the temple tax
again fixed at half a shekel (Mt. 172427; cp Benzinger,
HA 193).
As to the manner in which priestly service was paid
in the early period we know very little. At first the
A , priest was not so much a sacrificer as a
16. Priesta” ciardian of the image and giver of oracles
whose business it was to impart Yahwè's
torah or oracle to those who consulted him (see PRIESTS).
It may with safety be assumed that the priest received
payment for communicating the oracle, precisely as did
seers such as Samuel, Ahijah, and the like (15.97
1 K.142f). When a sacrificer came to the sanctuary
and arranged a sacrificial meal, he naturally invited the
priest to it, or gave him some portion of the flesh for
such service as he had rendered, But these gifis were
voluntary, and regulated not by law but by custom.!
The priests' right to a definite share is not recognised ;
this is proved by the story of the sons of Eli (τ S.2137),
who demand a tribute of flesh, and even take it by force
instead of accepting what is voluntarily given, but in
doing so show themselves to be ‘ sons of Belial,' heedless
of law and priestly duty, thus bringing the offering of
Yahwè into contempt.

It is clear that at the greater sanctuaries, and particu-
larly at Jerusalem, a.fixed practice gradually established
itself in regard to this, with the result that a definite
share of the offering and certain other perquisites fell to
the lot of the priests, As early as in David's time, we
learn that the shewbread loaves in the sanctuary were the
priests' perquisite, although they could also be eaten by
ceremonially pure laymen (15.213). With regard
to a considerably later period we find that the fines paid
to the sanctuary for various {presumably ceremonial)
offences also fell to the priests (2 K. 12:6[17]). On the
other hand, the income from voluntary gifts and votive
offerings was to be applied τὸ the maintenance of the
temple ; the control of this money was taken from the
priests because they applied the whole of it to their own
uses (2 K.124[s] 7). This was by royal ordinance ;
possibly tradition had previously sanctioned such an
application of the revenues. Finally, we gather from
2 K.239 that the unleavened bread, or meal offering,
with which no sacrificial meal was associated, fell to the
priests.

The priestly revenues are legally regulated for the
first time in D. [τ is not impossible that the practice

17.InD in Jerusalem liesat the basis of its provisions.

” In any case the legislation had a very special
motive for thus disposing of the questions involved.
For by the centrelisation ‘of the worship the priests of
the high places and rural altars were made penniless. To
remedy this, D gives the Levites the right to discharge
priestly functions in the sanctuary at Jerusalem, and to
share în the temple revenues (Dt. 186 £). But if all
priests were thus relegated to the sanctuary at Jerusalem
it is easy to see that the dues for offerings there required
to be strictiy regulated and perhaps also raised. The
right of the priests as towards the people who sacrificed
in the temple now became definite (Dt. 183); the shoulder,
118.228, where ‘ali the offerings of the children of Israel

made by fire are assigned to the priests, is of post-deuteronomic
origin; cp Dt. 181

Tevenue.

4915

TEACHER

the two cheeks, and the maw of every animal sacrificed
belonged to the priests. That such a provision was
wholly inadequate in view of the increased number of
clergy and the diminished number of offerings in conse
quence of the centralisation, was seen by the Deutero-
nomist himself. The rural priests, accordingly, are
bidden to look specially to the sacrificial meals set on
foot by the offerers; but at the same time details as to
this are left to the charitable disposition of the worshippers
(Dt. 121218). For the tithe of the third year (Dt.
1428 £ 26:27) and for the 25/4 assigned in a subse-
quent decision ta the priests (Dt, 184), see above, $ 9 £

These dues to the priests increased in amount also,
like the other dues, in process of time. In Ezekiel

4428 # ), besides the minhah, the sin-offer-
18, Later. si the meri and ‘every devoted
thing’ are handed over to thé priesthood. According
to P the priests receive, in addition to the dues men-
tioned above (first-fruits, etc.), ‘the most holy things'—
î.e., the minhah, the sin-offering, and the guilt-offering
in so far as these are not burnt ; they may be eaten only
by males of the family of Aaron, and that only *in the
holy place'; what is left over must be burnt {Nu. 188&f
Lev. 10x25, cp Ex. 293: 7). So also with the shew-
bread (Lev. 249). Of the burnt-offering, the skin of the
animal sacrificed belongs to the priest (Lev. 78; this may
perhaps have been an ancient custom), of the peace.
offerings the right thigh and the breast (Lev. 734 Ex.
2927}, and, besides, one cake of each meal-offering, of
whatever kind, offered along with these (Lev. 713). With
the breast of the peace-offering which belongs to the
priest is performed the peculiar ceremony of waving;
that is to say, the priest swings it upon his hands towards
the altar and back again, a symbolical representation of
the idea that this portion is presefited to Vahwé as a
gift, but by him delivered over to his servant (Lev. 7
30-34 921 1014 Nu. 620). The thigh pertaining to the
priests is always designated as ‘the heave thigh' (Lev.
734). This expression presumably does not refer to
any special ceremony analogous to that of waving, but
is intended to denote that the part in question is ‘ lifted
up' from the offering as the priests’ perquisite (cp
SACRIFICE, $$ 14, 212, 294). The last-named portions
of the burnt-offerings and peace-offerings may be con-
sumed by the male and female members of the priests’
families alike, and in any-clean place—and thus, with-
out the sanctuary (Lev:1014 7 Nu. 189). The slaves
also of the priest may eat of it; but not {for example}
daughters married to ‘ strangers'—i.e., to men who are
not priests. And if a ‘stranger'—say, for example, a
hired servant of the priest—‘unwittingly' cat of it, he
shall pay to the priest the value of the holy thing with
an added fifth (Lev. 22107).

With further detail as regards the rights of priests it
is laid down that the guilt-offering and the sin-offering,
as well as the skin of the burnt-offering, shall belong to
the officiating priest (Lev. 57); of the meal-offering
he is entitled to all that is ‘ baked in the oven or dressed
in the frying-pan and in the baking-pan'; the rest shall
belong to the priesthood as a whole (Lev. 79}: ofpeace-
offerings the wave breast seems to have pertained to the
priesthood in general, whilst the acting priest received
the shoulder and the cakes (Lev. 731; cp 733 τα),

The more detailed regulations of post-biblical times will be
found collected in a series of tractates în the Mishna : Tèra@motk,
Ma'iserotk, Ma'dser sheni, Challa,‘Ovla, Bikkiam, SAèkalint,
Békorstk. "See, further, Wellh. Pyol.{4), 149 91 and Ziassim;
the archeeological text-books of De Wette, Ewald, Keil, Schegg,

Benzinger, Nowack, and the articles “Erstgeburt* and ‘ Erstlings-
opfer' in PRA, Winer, Schenkel, and Richm. 1. Β.

TEACHER. In the earliest stage of the Christian
Church the two most striking figures are those of the
apostle and the prophet, In several important passages
a third figure is found in their company, that of the
teacher (διδάσκαλος).

1 In the OT Hab. 3 18, eto., the word îs jb; for later terms
see EDUCATION, $$ 15-17.

4916

TEBAH

Thus în 1 Cor.1228, Paul declares that ‘God hath set in the
Church first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers. . .°
fn his enumeration of gifts in Rom. 1268 we have the order
‘prophecy,' ‘ministry’ Grarowiav), ‘he that teacheth, ‘he that
exhorteth,' and so forth. And in Eph.4r1, ‘apostles,’ ‘pro-
phets) ‘evangelists,' ‘pastors (ποιμένας) and teachers’ are
Among the giîts of Christ to his Church. In Acts131 we read
of ‘prophets and teachers’ as belonging to the church in
Antioch.

These notices taken together suggest a class of men
endowed with a spiritual gift for the insiruction of the
Church, and taking rank next after the apostles and
the prophets. Their function probably consisted in a
Christian exposition of the OT scriptures and an
application of the Gospel to the needs of common life,
and stood in contrast with the enthusiastic utterances of
the prophets. The vagueness of the term ‘teachers’
might suggest that it included any who gave instruction,
and that the word denoted a function rather than a
permanent office. It is quite likely that this was so at
first The use of the word as a title, however, is
assured by the evidence of the Didac46, where, although
teachers are far less prominent than prophets, they are
joined with them as a cognate class, and honour is
claimed for ‘the bishops and deacons’ on the ground
that ‘they too minister the ministry of the prophets
and teachers.”

In the African church the title remains to the beginning of
the third century, and is found in conjunction with that of
‘presbyter.’ Thus we have in the Passion ef St. Perdetua
(ch. 18) a mention of ‘Aspasius the presbyter-doctor’ (cp Cypr.
<p. 29). About the same time Origen as a layman at. the head
of the Christian school in Alexandria affords the most illustrious
example of the exercise of the gift of teaching apart from the
regular orders of the ministry.

Of these three grades of what was pre-eminently ‘the
ministry of the word,' in contradistinction to official
administration, each in its turn ceased to exist as a
separate order, The apostles are the first to disappear.
The Twelve and Paul passed away by death, and
in the next generation the title was already becoming
sacred to them; the apostles of the Didaché are a
survival, destined immediately to disappear. The
prophets on the contrary are still in full power, at any
rate În certain localities. Yet even they show pre-
monitory symptoms of decay; and the failure of the
Montanistic movement to re-establish them as a
permanent order in the Church led to the final dis-
appearance of prophecy as an institution. ὙΠῸ teachers
fulfilled a ministry which would naturally grow in im-
portance as the authoritative voices of apostles and
prophets were ceasing to be heard, and as the inroad
of heresy increased the demand for the grace of true
teaching. That they too ceased to be a distinct class
in the Church was due to the fact that their duties were
taken over more and more by the administrative order,
which gathered round its chief representatives many of
the functions and much of the prestige of apostles,
prophets and teachers alike. Cp MINISTRY, $ 39.

1.4.8.

TEBAH (N28: τλβεκ [AD], -y [L]), a son of
NaHoR by Reumah (a corruption of Jerahmeel), Gen.
2224. The names in the Nahorite genealogy {vv 20-24)
make a southern (Ze, N. Arabian) connection very
plausible. Against this we must not quote ‘Aram,’
for ‘Aram’ (s.e., Jerahmeel) is primari/y a N. Arabian
name. ‘The brethren of ‘Tebab’ are Gaham (rather,
Naham, 3 and 3 being confounded), Tahash (i.e,
Hushah=Cushah ἢ), and Maacah. Nor can we safely
urge that BETAR in 2 8. 88 (which, if & may be trusted,
is miswritten for Tebah} or Tibhath in 1 Ch. 188 (for
which Pesh, has nam) was a city of Hadad-ezer, king
of Zobah; for it is maintained elsewhere (Zo8aH)
that the wars of David referred to were in the S.,
not in the N., and that for ‘Hadad-ezer, ben
Rehob, king of Zobah,' the original narrative had
'Hadad, ben Rehob[oth], king of Missur.' We can
now for the first time, as it seems, give an altogether
satisfactory explanation of 2 $.88 and the ἡ 1 Ch. 188,

157 4917

TEHINNAH

as well as of 1 K.745f (with || in Ch). Betah
turns out to be nearer the truth than Tebah. The
Sam. passage should run thus, ‘And from Rehoboth,
the city of Hadad, king David took brass in great
abundance,' while in the }atter the name of the city
should be ‘ Rehoboth-jerahmeel.'® It would seem that
there was more than one Jerahmeelite city called
‘Jerahmeel,' at least if we are right in supposing that
the city, whose capture by David is described in 2 8,
12:67, was not ‘Rabbath‘ but 'Rehoboth (of the
Jerahmeclites).'

Had the redactor who is responsible for the present
form of the narrative in 2 S. 83,7. a conception such as
is geographically possible of the geography of David's
'Aramzan’ campaign? In order to answer in the
affirmative we should have to emend ‘from Betah and
from Berothai' (ΠΥ ΊΞΟῚ nezp) into ‘from Tebah and
from Tabbur' (ag Maso) Tebab might be the
Tubihi of the «Am. Tablets (127, 5, 14, etc.), the
Dibbu of the List of Thotmes III. (XP), 543; Sayce,
Acad., Feb. 21, ‘i/gr; WMM ds w Zur. 173 396).
In the ‘Travels. gf“/an Egyptian’ (29, 109 111;
Brugsch, Gesck. ig. 340) Kadesh on the Orontes,
Tubibi, Tihis (see THAHASH), and Dapuru appear as
neighbouring places.

We now turn to 1 K. 7 454-47, the difficulties of which neither
Benzinger nor Kittel appear to have altogether removed; the
help which the former scholar derives from (5ι, is illusory. It
should be noticed that the current rendering, ‘of burnished
brass, for ΟἼΘΔΌ nem, puts an undue strain on the root-meaning
of my. We cannot patise to investigate Is. 18:27 Ezek. 21 14-16
(9-11), but may suggest that even the RV must not be followed
blindiy. The key to τ K. Ze. (and the fl 2 Ch.416/) is
furnished by 1 Ch, 1885, which shows that the original narrative
of Hiram the artificer stated that the brass came from a city of
Hadad, king of Missur. In short, the mp of K. and the pis
of Ch. come respectively from NOD and ni3îMp, and the
second of these readings is the better. 525 and pata which
follow are corrupt forms of a dittographed bypmn (see Jorvan,

202).

The result is that 1 K. 746 2 Ch. 417 should run thus,

ΟΥ̓ brass from Rehoboth-jerahmeel did Jerahmecl
[z.e., ‘Hiram'; see HAMMELECH}] cast them, in
Maacath-aram, between Maacath and Zarephath’ (cp
SUCcoTH, ZARETHAN). An imaginary place ‘ Tebah*
has în fact usurped a part of the honour which rightly
belongs to REHOBOTH [g.v.]. ΟΡ the commentaries,
τ, Κι C.
TEBALIAR ὈΠΡΘΌ, perhaps for Tobliyyabm,
* Yahwé is gracious to me,’ $ 38; TaBAai[B]. taBeAiac
[A], τάβεηλ [L]), a Merarite doorkeeper (1 Ch. 2611).
But (in spite οἵ 65) the name should possibly be read
amaîie (perhaps. from ima misread ban); cp
TORIJAH, 1, also TABEEL.® 8. A.C

TEBETH (N30), Esth. 216. See MONTH, $ 2.

TEHAPHNEHES (DMBNN), Ezek. 30 18.
TAHPANHES.

TEBINNAH (MMM, as if ‘supplication,’ $ 74; cp
051666 Gana yapic), father of IR-NAHASH, 1 Ch.

412t (Galman [B], dana [A], θεεννὰ [L.]).

If Recan (g.0.) is rightly corrected to Recab, Tehinnah
should almost certainly be ΠΣ}, Kiwan3 (Josh. 1522), se,
a settlement of the Kenites. 865 IR-NAHASH.

1 [πα 8. Ze. mus and "ΠἼΔ2 are both fragmentary representa-
tions of mam (Rehoboth), and in 1 Ch. Ze. 35 nn3b represents
Sep nani (Reboboth-jerahmeel), For the latter emendation,
cp probably piop miswritten in Judg. 105 for Bummv. Note,
however, that GBRAL'5 ἐκλεκτῶν implies mon9, which is virtually
mam, a correction of man; 715} 18. not represented, Cp

Merom.
2 According to Cheyne, the name is probably either from

*53in, ‘a man of TusaL.' (9.01), or, if 1° is correct, from 53n

Sun, Tubal-jerah[meel] (cp pp bun, ‘Tubal-kain') Cp
ZEDEKIAH, & 1
3 When p had become n, it was natural for a pious scribe to

prefix n, and so get the meaning ‘supplication.’

4918

See

TEIL: TREE

Pesh. has, ‘be begat Ja'azer,' for which reading there is no
obvious reason. T.K.C

TEIL TREE be), Is. 613 AV, ἘΝ TEREBINTH
(gr).

TEKOA or TEKOAH (DîpA, nYPn! hardiy=
‘settlement,’ from x/DPN, to strike [tent-pegs into the
ground]; exe”) gentilic. Tekoite ((D*VPA,
θεκωίε)ιτης 5), ‘woman of Tekoa' (ΓΙ, θεκω-
ertic [BA] -Koyi. [1.]}, a city S. of Bethlehem, on the
borders of the wilderness to which it gave name (92970
DPR, 2 Ch. 2020, YHN EPHMON 8., 1 Mace, 933).
Assuming that the same place is always meant, we find
it mentioned as the residence of a ‘wise woman’ who
interceded for Absalom ; as one of the towns fortified
by Rehoboam; and as the birthplace of the prophet
Amos (2 5, 145 1 Ch.224 2 Ch. 2020 Jer. 61 Am.li).
It is also mentioned in Josh. 15.59 (*4L (dexw) where it
heads the list of eleven towns wanting in MT (Tekoa,
Ephrathah which is Bethlehem, Peor [see under ETAM,
1], Etam, Kulon [g..], Tatam, Sores {see SeIR, 2],
Karem [g.v.], Galem [g.v.], Bether [g..] and Manocho
[see MANAHATH, 3]}. It comes also into an obscure
genealogy in 1 Ch.45-8 where Tekoa {cp 1 Ch. 224)
figures as son of AssHUR and {if for Coz we ought to
read Tekoa) as father of Anub and Zobebah. and the
families of Aharhel4 (ἀδελφοῦ Ῥηχαβ) son of Harum
(ne, Jearim ; see @P4), Still assuming that there is
only one Tekoa, we may identify it with the modern
Tekd'a, which lies six miles S. of Bethlehem, on an
elevated hill, not steep, but broad at the top, and
tovered with ruins to the extent of four or five acres.
‘These consist chiefty of the foundations of houses built
of squared stones, some of which are bevelled. The
middle of the space is occupied by the ruins of a Greek
church. The site commands extensive prospects (cp
Amos, $ 3), and towards the E. is bounded only by
the level mountains of Moab. Before and during the
Crusades Tekoa was well inhabited by Christians; but
in 1138 A.D. it was sacked by a party of Turks from
beyond the Jordan, and nothing further is known of it
till the seventeenth century, when it lay desolate, as it
has ever since done,

It is, however, by no means certain that all the references to
‘Tekoa' mean the same place. In Jer. 61, for instance, a more
southerly place is meant (see TEL:HARSHA). It is contended
elsewhere (sce PROPHET, $$ 26, 40; ZAPHON) that it is a Jerah-
meelite invasion that is most probably apprehended ; the places
mentioned shouid be sought ini the Negeb. Amos too was hardly
a native of the Tekoa, 8. of Bethlehem (see PROPHET, 85 τὸ, 35).
And in 1 Ch. 44 1, just as ‘ Beth-lehem' is not the place in
Judah so called but Beth-jerahmeel in the Negeb, so ‘Tekoa”
is more southerly than the best known place of that name.

T.K.C.
TEL-ABIB (DIN DAI; Mmerewpoc, see below;
[ed] acervum novarum frugum), the seat of a colony of
Jewish exiles (Ezek. Sist). "To a Hebrew ear the
name meant ‘ Mound (hill) of ears of corn' (cp ABIB).
As, however, Friedrich Delitzsch has pointed out,$ if it

1 The ending is hardly locative ; ΠΡΎΡῊ ἴῃ 2 5. 142 is probably
a corruption of 1279 n'2 ‘Beth-maacah' (=Beth.jerahmeel,
see SauL, $ 4), a ‘wise woman of which place is mentioned în
connection with Joab in 2 S.2015/ Very possibly too, we may
explain yipn itself as a primitive popular corruption of n'3
n he variants are: 2 5,142 θεκονε [L], 1 Ch. 2 24 θεκως [A],
45 θεκωμ᾽ [A], Jer. δὲ Am.11 θέκονε,

3 The variants are τ 2 8, 23 26 θεκεῖ [L], 1 Ch. 11 28 50exw [BN],
ὁ θεκωι [A], 279, θεκωνειτης [R], Neh 8527 θεκωειμ [NALI],
ταῖν [B and καὶ in 7. 27], θεκωῖται [L Ὁ. 27].

4 Surely ὉΠῚΠΝ is one of the numerous distortions of Sanna».
Grineisen's pointing ma (A4mencultus, 257), leads to no
satisfactory explanation. Cp @L, τῆς τοῦ apaimà ἀδελφοῦ .

ST VARE RT inten ἀν τα SETA dente prod;
the first part ofthe name of many Babylonian places situated near

a mound of ruins of a previous settlement (cp 5p, θὲ. 18 17 [16]

Josh. 824), Cp TeL-HARSHA, TEL-MELAH, and TELASSAR
{TelAsshur).
6 Cabwer Bib.-Lezikont),gor a.

4919

TELASSAR

is a Babylonian place-name, the right form ought to be
Tel-abub (72280). Abubu(‘flood-storm' or ‘storm-
fiood'?) is the proper Assyrian word for the Deluge
(see DELUGE, $ 13, n. 1); Tilabubi, as a Babylonian
name, might mean either a mound of ruins so ancient
(cp by mann) that it was called a Deluge-mound, or
one that had been produced by the rushing in (possible
at any time) of a cyclone from the Persian Gulf. There
is a common phrase in the Assyrian inscriptions, ‘I
made (or, destroyed) the city like a #/-adubi."!

If, however, the view advocated in PROPHET, 8 27, Îs correct,
and Ezekiel together with Jehoiachin and his fellow-exiles
resided in N. Arabia, we must look out for another explanation.
And it so happens that this view (the ‘Jerahmeclite theory")
supplies the only key to the manifold corruptions of the single

assage in which Tel-abib occurs (see Crit. 872.) The text of
2ek. 3 τά. Δ which results from the application of this key runs
thus :2—

(4) ‘And (the) spirit lifted me up and took me to Maacath of

Jetahmeel, and the hand of Yahwè upon me was strong. (15

)
And I came to the company of exiles, to Tel-arab [1shmael, by
the river of Jerahmeel} and

to Tel.asshur [Jerahmee!, Ishmael],
and there for seven days I dwelt among them astonished.'
The text which underlies @ is only slightly different ; μετέωρος
=DI= Samir; καὶ περιῆλθον -- 3ioxi=ne8 nh. Probably we
may restore it thus în 2. 151

“And I came to the company of exiles, to Tel-jerahmeel and
Tel-asshur [Ishmael, by the river of Jerahmeel, Ishmaei].*

Thus, combining MT and (5, we are led to suspect that
Tel-arab and Tel-jerahmeel were two names for the same place.
We know of a ‘valley (x) of Jerabmeel” (see SALT, VALLEY
or) and also, probably, of a ‘wady' (Cm) of ‘Arab.'3 Wealso
find a Tel-melah or Tel-jerahmeel în Ezra-Neh. (sce Tet-
MELAH), and, as a probable equivalent of Tel-asshur, Tel-harsha
or Tel-ashhur (see TeL-HARSHA). Very possibly, however, a
further result awaits us. Sn, wherever it occurs in compound
names, is simply a short way of writing bn, TupaL (g.0.), See
Crit. Bib. T.K. C.

TELAH bn, @aAeec [BI]. Gare TAI: Gara [L]),
mentioned in the list of the b'ne Ephraim (1 Ch. 725).

There are, however, several corrupt repetitions in this section
( Ch. 7207), and it is probable that mon is a corruption of
nom; cp Wellhausen, Pr0/.(4) 214, See ErnramM, $ τῷ,
SAVTHELAH,

TELAIM (D'XDb), 1 5.154, and Telam (Feb.
ἘΦ), 1 5.278 RVM£. See TELEM.

TELASSAR Nba; Baecoen [Β], GaAaccap
[AL] in Ki., ἐν χώρᾳ, θεεμὰ [x* (sup ras e 2° fort 0)], -θ [B],
θεμαν (N°), θαιμαδ [A], θαι [ua]é [Ovid], θαιμαν [0]; #he/assar).

Telassar is named in 2 K. 1912 (15. 3713) as the loca-
tion of the ‘children of Eden.’ ‘The places Gozan,
Haran, and Rezeph named before Telassar follow an
order from E. to W. This suggests that ‘the children
of Eden’ once dwelt nearer to Palestine (Judah?) than
Rezeph, which was W. of the Euphrates. “The conquest
of these cities is ascribed to the kings, ‘ my fathers,”
who had preceded Sennacherib,

"The identification of ‘ the children of Eden' with the
Bit Adini of the Assyrian Inscriptions already made
by Schrader (Λ΄... ΤΏ, 327) has more or less difficulty
(cp BETR-EDEN) according to the situation in which
this widely scattered Aramaic folk are supposed to be
located. The Bît Adini of the earlier times formed a
powerful race inhabiting the district S. of Edessa,
over Haran between the Balikh (on the E. of which lay
Gozan) and the Euphrates. But it also included a wide
strip on the W. bank of the Euphrates, în which lay
many large cities. ‘This country made strong resist-
ance to Asur-ndsîr-pal (ΑΓΒ 164, 102, τοῦ, 116), but
was finally conquered by Shalmaneser 11, (858 B.c.).
Shalmaneser changed many of the city names, among
others giving to Nappigi (Mabbîig, Bambyke) the name
of Lita-ASur (AB1132 156 162). There was also

1 Del. Ass. #W78, 5.0. ‘abubu'; Schr. AA ΤΩ͂Ι 234 (20), 308 (1),

2 It will be understood that the words in []are presumed to be
glosses. Arabia, Ishmael, Jerahmecl, and Asshur were in fact,
as, in the present writers view, the phenomena of the Psalms
abundantly show, practically synonymous to the later writers.

3 In Am.614 non is probably a corruption of Maacath (a
Jerahmeelite name) and MaIyI Dm of 239 1". ΠΡ 5. Go
read) in Is.157. Sce Crit. δέδι

4950

TELEM

a branch of the Aramaic Bit Dakkùri who lay E. of the
Tigris in Babylonia. A third settlement of the Bit
Adini is associated by Tiglath-pileser III with Hauran,
‘Azaz, and Aribua, in Syria, which may possibly be the
‘house of Eden’ referred to in Amos 15 (Winckler,
A0F 1:04). Whether the children of Eden had their
home in ‘Telassar and were now deported elsewhere, or
whether they had been deported to ‘Telassar will depend
on the identifications adopted.

It is tempting to recognise in Telassar the Til-A3kuri
of Tiglath-pileser ΠῚ. (Tiele, 2.46 231); and of Esar-
haddon {AB 128 144). But these passages show that
there were two different places of that name. The
first was certainly in Babylonia ; but there is no indica-
tion that the Bit Adini were settled there. The second
was inhabited by an Aramaic people, the Bit Parnaki,
and Esarhaddon says that the place had native names
Mihrànu and Pitànu. Mihrànu suggests Tell Machrè,
which would place ît NE. of the Tigris (?). But unless
the Bit Parnaki were a branch of the Bit Adini, there is
nothing to connect this Til-. ri with ‘the children of
Eden.*

On the one hand, Til ASfuri may have been one of
the names conferred by Shalmaneser on one of the
conquered cities of Bit Adini, or Tel-Assar may be a cor-
ruption of Lita-ASur, or of Til-baferè a city in Shal-
maneser's Bit Adini; or, on the other hand, the name
Telassar may be derived from a totally different name,
not yet recognised.

[The closing sentence of the preceding article opens the door
for a renewed examination of the question from the point of
view of SennACHERIS, $ 5. ‘Rezeph' and ‘the b'ne Eden in
Telassar'are easily explicable if it is a king of the N. Arabian
Ashhur whose victories are referred to in 2 Ki.1912 (Is. 3712).
*Eden' was a district of the Jerahmeelite Negeb (see PARADISE;
$ 7), and Tel-ashhur is a very probable name, if we should not
rather read Tubal-ashhur. See TELHARSHA.—T. K.C.]

CH. W.J.

TELEM (DÎt), a city in the Negeb, mentioned be-
tween ΖΙΡΗ and BEALOTH (Josh. 1524; teAem [AL],
Malnam [B?]). This may be the TRLAIM (tab), or
perhaps rather ped» (Telam), where Saul mustered his
warriors before fighting withthe Amalekites. 1$.154(MT
assumes the article, ‘ma ; cp Vg. guasi agnos). Appar-
ently there was an ancient clan called Telem, with
which name the real or assumed personal names
TELEM (π᾿), TALMON (jinòn), and even TALMAI
(905) should undoubtedly be grouped, and the import-
ance of which may be estimated from the fact that
* Talmai” stands beside ‘Sheshai 'and ‘Ahiman’
(corruptions probably of ‘Cushi' and ‘ ferahmeel ἢ as
representing the primitive population of Kirjath-arba
(rather K.-&ràb), otherwise called Hebron (rather
Rehoboth), Observe too that ‘Talmon’ occurs in
1 Ch. 917 beside ‘ Ahiman’ (Jerahmeel) as the name of
a family of ἔδ' ἄγη (EV * porters'), or rather ’asfzriz!
(Asshurites), and that m5y13 (Bealoth), beside which pi»
(Telem) occurs in Josh. 1524, is probably miswritten for
the ancient clan-name Tubal (see TURAL-CAIN).

The place called ‘felam must have been situated not
very far from the mor wady which separated the
Judahite from the Amalekite territory. For the first
movement of Saul was towards the cities (2. s: @BL
ἕως τῶν πόλεων) of Amalek on the other side (read
sape) of the wady (Ὁ. 5). Possibly there was near ita
place called Gilgal (a popular corraption of Jerahmeel), for
@3FAL in 1 S. 154 gives ‘in Gilgal' (ἐν VaXyAAors) instead
of ‘in Telam.'? We can hardly venture to go further,
and suppose that Telam was regarded as itself the
boundary between Judahite and Amalekite land. This
supposition has indeed actually been made, ‘and the
text of 1 S.157 (MT nbnnp) and 278 (MT pbyp) been

1 See Amer, Jour. af Treol., July rgot, p. 439.

2 ΤῈ is also possible, however, that ΤῬαλαλοις is a very carly
alteration of Τέχεμ, the better known place being substituted for
the more obscure.

4921

TEL-MELAH

emended accordingly.! ‘This, however, implies inade-
quate criticism of the proper name ποτ (Havilah), and
the same objection may be made to Winckler, when he
emends nbsno in 157 into vbipp, in accordance with
278.2

A place called ‘Olîm is highly problematical, and a better
way out of the critical difficulty ought to be found. As îs
pointed outelsewhere (see SHUR), mbmp, like pisani in 15.23 19,8
js miswritten for ‘ Jerahmeel.*

In 1 5. 278 γελαμ in γελαμψίσ)ονρ of BA has been thought to
represent ‘l'elam, which indeed a number of cursives attest. But
T may be a corruption of |. Klostermann ingeniously extracts
Sinn bri, ‘the wady of Besor' (g.v.). Cp £2.7 10239 [1899].

T.K.C.

TELEM mo; TEAHM [Β], TeMMHm [NAL]), a
door-keeper, Ezra 1024. In 1 Esd.925 TOLBANES (τολβανὴς
[BA]. See FELEM, 1} and cp TALMON.

TEL-HARSHA, ἘΝ for Tel-haresha [Neh.] and
Tel-harsa [Ezra] (ΚΠ Β: Ezra θααρησα [B], θελαρ. [A],

θελααρησσα [L]; Neh, aproa [ΒΜ], θελαρσα [A], θελλαρης [T.];
τ Esd., THeLERSAS [EVÌ, θελερσας [B], θελσας [A], θαλαα [και
ρῆσα] [L)).

A place from which, according to the great post-
exilic list, came certain families of doubiful origin
{Ezra2s9 = Neh. 76: = x Esd.536t). The name ia
Hebrew might mean ‘mound of the forest’; but furix
(or &ursu) in Assyrian means ' mountain - range,"
whence Friedrich Delitzsch4 proposes to explain as if
til furti, ‘ hill in the mountains."

ΤΙ; however, we adopt the theory (cp PROPHET, & 27) that the
Israelites who returned from exile came chiefly from the
Jeralmeelite region in N. Arabia (including the Negeb) we
shall have to seek for some other explanation. In this case,
item wilî almost certainly be miswritten for ἽΠΨΙΝ. - ὦ. 6.) Ashhur.
In 1Ch,2 24 Ashhur is called the father of Tekoa, where
* Tekoa "is probably not the modern Teki'a, 2 hrs. S. of Ben-
jamin, but some place farther south ; cp Jer.6x, where Tekoa”
is mentioned with ‘Beth-haccerem,”or rather ‘Beth-jerahmeel,*
and both places are near the land of Zaphon (5), which

apparently included Kadesh and the sacred mountain of Yahwè
(see ZarHon), On the possible identity of Tel-ashbur with the
so called Telassar, see TEL-MELAH. τι K, C.

TEL-MELAH (mb 5A ; cepmerco [B]. θελ-
MEAEX [L], meyxeA [A]}. a place from which, according
to the great post-exilic list, came certain families which
could not prove their Israelitish origin, Ezra 259= Neh.
T61(BepmeAea [N], GeAm. [B], 0eAmeAey [AL]
Esd. 536 (THERMELETH [EV]; GepmeAeo [A]. BeA-
meAer [L]. The name is generally supposed to be
Babylonian, and since, in this case, the explanation " hill
of salt’ is impossible, Friedrich Delitzsch (Calwer δὲῤ.-

. Lex.) go1) would give the name as Tilmalubi,
' sailors’ hill,' on the analogy of TEL-ABIE (9.0).

If, however, we follow the analogy of the names nbp sv or
ΠΡΌΣ it, and nbpn vY (see Sar, VaLLEY oF, and SALT,
City or), Tel-melah will mean ‘ hill of Jerahmeel,' and will
become part of the evidence for the theory (cp PROPHET, $ 27)
that the Israelitish exiles who returned came mainly from
the region called Jerahmeelite in N. Arabia (including the
Negeb). The names with which Tel-melah is grouped are Tel.
harsha and Cherub-addan-immer or ‘Cherub, Addan (Ezra) or
Addon (Neh.), and Immer' (BR, Neh.), Two of these—viz.,
Cheruband Immer—at once become intelligible, ifwemay venture
10 set aside the prejudice of a Babylonian connection ; both are of
the same type as numerous corruptions of ‘ Jerahmeel." Addan
or Addon, too, is very possibly N. Arabian; and in spite of the
initial κα in Ezra-Neh,, may be another form of {y—i.c., the N.
Arabian ‘ Eden,” which is very possibly referred to (1) in the
story of Paradise (see PARADISE, $ 7), and (2) in the otherwise
enigmatica! phrases ‘ Beth-eden ' (Amos1 5) and ‘the b'ne Eden
who were in Telassar' (a K.1912=Is. 8712). Probabily we
should read, for ‘Cherub-addan-immer,’ ‘Eden of Jerahmeel *
Chamm 7πΏ}, ‘cherub’ and ‘immer’ being variants for the
fuller and' truer form Jerahmeel. Tet-HARSHA (9.2) probably

1 H. P. Smith accepts CO in 276, but not in 167; Driver

holds himself in suspense. We., Bu., and Ki, read τύ, cr
n5un, in both places. Léhr resists the temptation to change ;
EKlost, retains M'1' în 157, but strikes cut a new path in 278,

2 Musri, 2 (MVG, 1898, 4), 6.

3 Glaser needlessly emends nb» în 1 5. into mboan.

4 Heb. Lang. 16/.; Calwer Bib.-Lex.() gox (È Waldhigel*
can hardly be right; cp Assi ΑἹ ΗΖ 8 293 δ).

4922

TEMA

=Tel-ashhur, and notice again the significant phrase “the b'n&
Eden whé were in Telaset where Telassar, the meaning of
which is otherwise scarcely a soluble problem, is probably a
corruption of Tel. or Tubal-ashhur. See TeLASSAR (end).
T. K. C.

TEMA (NÎ9*, and once NOA [Job 619]; Galman
[BNAQPL]), son of Ishmael (Gen. 2515 @H. [DE]; 1
Ch. 130). The name appears as early as Jeremiah (2523;
de. [N°4] θωμεαν [N*]), also in a prophetic fragment on
Arabia (‘landof Tema,’ 15, 2114). In boththese passages
it is associated with DEDAN (g.v.).! In Job 619 the
‘caravans of Tema’ (θαιμανων) are parallel to the
‘companies of Sheba.” For its geographical position
see ISHMAEL, $ 4 [6] In the cuneiform inscriptions of
Tiglath-pileser III. its people are spoken of as {2/%)
Te-maî — i,e., belonging to the city Tema'u (cp
Schrader, AGF 2617; Del. Par. 3017). Its modern
name is Zaizzà. The explorations of Euting have
brought to light some important Aramaic inscriptions,
dating from before the Persian period, which testify to
the existence of a highly developed culture among the
ancient Arabs of Tema (see ARAMAIC LANGUAGE, $ 2).

Special mention is made in one of them of the gbvn *mba, ‘the
gods of Tema,’ one of the most important of whom bore the
name τὸς (CZS, 2113 114), cp n? D5y the name of one of his
priests (‘054 saves, a name perhaps ἢ to the biblical DRarwo);
sce Baeth. Beit. 80, and cp ZALMUNNA, i

TEMAH (MON), the family name of a company of
(post-exilic) Nethinim : Ezra 2.53 (4«pa[a)] [BAL], AV THAMAH)

=Neh.T 55 (qua8 [BN], θημα [A], θεμαα [L], AV TAmA=)=1 Esd,
532 THomor, RV THomeI (θομθει [B], θομει [A], θεμαα [L]).

TEMAN (Ὁ, ἡ fî9*, ‘what is on the right hand”?
nie. ‘south'; θαιμαν [ΒΑ Ὁ], occasionally deu. in RADEQ τ
Vg. Theman, except Ezek. 25 13 Hab. 8 3, Auster and Ob. 9
Meridiesi gentilic Wp, EV Temanite, in Job 221, Dn;
θαιμαν(ελίτης, or θεμ. ; occasionally θαιμανῆς, θεμανης, deuaviris
(A Job 15; cp 42174]; Themanites),

'Teman was originally the name of a clan and district
(cp NAMES, $ 55) of Edom, no doubt one of the oldest
and most important, and is genealogically described as
the eldest son of Esaw's first-born son Eliphaz (Gen. 86
11 15 [θαμναν E] x Ch.1 36), In Gen. 3642 (1 Ch.153)
Teman is counted among the ‘ dukes' (’//4), or clans
('&eph), of EDOM (9.7. $ 4), not, however, heading the

TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE

list. Inthelist of ancient Edomite kings we find a king
called ‘ Husham, of theland of the'T'emanites{Gen, 36 34).'
In Ezek. 2513 the prophet threatens destruction to Edom
‘from Teman even to Dedan.” Laterwriters use ‘ Teman*
as a poetical synonym for ‘ Edom’ (Amos 112 [on date,
see AMOS, $ 9], Ob. 9[cp. Jer. 4922], Jer. 4920 Hab. 33
Bar. 322); but in Jer. 497 we seem to find Teman
recognised as the name of a distriet. ‘Is wisdom no
more in Teman?' must be taken in connection with the
description of the oldest of Job's friends as ‘the
Temanite' {Job 3 χὰ etc.) ‘Eliphaz the Edomite'
would have been an insufficient description ; ‘ Temanite”
must refer to the district best known for proverbial
wisdom, As to the locality intended by ‘ Teman,' Ezek.
25 13 (already quoted) entitles us to assume that Teman

was in the N. (ΝΕ), for the land of Dedan was
certainly to the S. (SE.) of the lind of Edom. (This
suggests a comparison of the name with Jamin= Jerah-

meel.) See Amos 112, where Bozrah is mentioned as
the capital of Teman. Bozrah being situated in the
district of Gebal {Ps. 838}, northward from Petra, we
may perhaps venture to regard the district of Teman as
having much the same limits as the later district of
Gebal! in spite of the fact that Teman and Bozrah in
Amos] τῷ are the names, not merely of a district and
its chief town, but of the land of Edom and its capital.

Cp Kautzsch. in Riehm, 77722, 1648; Buhl, Edomiter, 30/0;
Lury, Edomifer, 26. Trumbull (Kedesk-barnea, 17/7) takes
adifferent view: Teman ‘was probably the portion of Edoni which
lay directly S. or Teman-ward, of Canaan” Trumbull even
finds a trace of the old name in the Nakb (‘pass’) eZyemer,
which goes northward from Wady Fikreh ‘over against ancient
Teman?; and in Josh. 151 he would render the closing words
Tan περ (ΕΝ ‘at the uttermost part of the south") ‘from the
extremity of Teman” (s0, too, the pioneer British critic Geddes),
Greene too (Ze. Migration, 145) regards Teman as the
southern part of Edom, now known as e&$er2, as distinguished
from the northern (Gebalene), and including the Idumaean range
as far N. as Mt, Hor. According to Eus, and Jer. (OS 260 96;
155 32), Thaiman wasthe name of a village distant 15 (Jer. says;
5) R. m. from Petra, and the seat of a garrison. τι Κι C.

TEMENI (ΣῈ [Baer], "ΟΝ Ἱ [Gi.], and "ΘΛ Ὁ cp
TeMAN), son of ASHUR, of the tribe of Judah; 1 Ch. 46 (θαιμαν
[BA], «ver [L]). Probably miswritten for PR Timni, the gen.
tilic of Timnah. See ΤΊΜΝΑΗ i. τ. κι σ᾿

TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE
CONTENTS

1. THE

Ornamentation and decora-
tion($ 9).

Roof ($ 10).

Side-buildings (δ 11).

The pillars of bronze (8 12).

Forecourt and gates (è 13).

Equipment : the ark (8 14).

The brazen serpent ($ 15).

Table of shewbread (8 16).

Meaning (8 1).

Oldest Israelite temples (8 2).

Solomen's tempie Ἷ David's
preparations (è 3)

Solomon's motives ($ 4).

Site of temple (8 5).

The main buildings (δ 6).

Internal arrangements (8 7)

The holy place ($ 8).

TEMPLE

The candlesticks ($ 17). Internal arrangements (8 25).
The altar of bronze (8 18). A priestly temple (ἢ 26).
The brazen seaand lavers ($ 19), History of second temple (δ 27).
Meaning and origin of temple plan The temple of Herod (ἢ 28).

(8 20). Herod's motives (8 29).
History of Solomon's temple ($ 22). Plan of temple ($ 30).
Ezekiel's temple (ἢ 22). The courts and gates ($ 31).
Zerubbabel’s temple (ἢ 23). The chambers (ὃ 32).
Messurements, εἴς, (β 24). Internal arrangements (ἢ 33).

II TEMPLE-SERVICE

Introduetory ($ 34).
Officers, εἰς, ($ 35).
Functions of priests and Levites ($ 36).

The temple services : the daily offering (β 37).
The preliminaries (8 38).
The prayers and blessings (8 39).

The offering ofincense ($ 40).
The musical service ($ 41).
The Sabbath and festivals (8 42).

Bibliography ($ 43).

I. THE TEMPLE

For the ancient Israelites, as for the ancient Semites
in general, a ‘temple’ was the abode of a deity—-a
1. Me ᾿ δξία-᾽ δ] (Sx ma)—in the strictest meaning
of the word, and not solely in the sense in

which we also speak of Christian places of worship as
houses of God. A temple in antiquity was not, in the

first instance, a place of meeting for the worshippers of I

the deity; many ancient temples were accessible to
none but the priests, and the altar—the place of worship
in the fullest sense of the expression—was usualiy

1 Cp Gen. 253 (δ (θαιμαν [Α Ὁ], eu. (E; om. L], brother of
Dedan),

4923

situated, not within, but without the building known
as the temple, The temple, rightly considered, is the
dwelling-house of the deity to whom it is consecrated,
and whose presence is denoted by a statue, it may be,
or some other sacred symbol. ‘The erection of temples,
accordingly, can always be regarded as already indi
cating advanced development of the religion concerned.
For the temple is never the original dwelling-place of
| the deity. In the most primitive phase of religion, and
i particularly in the case of the oldest forms of Semitic

religion, the deity was found, in the first instance, in

certain natural objects and features which impressed

1 Gest (9.2.) is a late name of Arabic origin.

4924

TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE

the primitive worshipper (see NATURE-WoRSHIP); high
mountains, rocks of peculiar formation, wide-spreading
trees, shady groves, springs of water and the like were
regarded as seats of deity and places where his servants
could meet with him, and bring him their gifts, though
temple building of any sort there was none. Such
natural objects, where human intervention and labour
were unnecessary, are everywhere older than images
and suchlike accessories. In the primitive Hebrew
worship, in particular, temples played but a subordinate
part. Ordinarily they were wholly superfiuous. Sacri-
fice was offered under the open sky. The natural
objects which were regarded as seats of deity required
no protecting covering.! Often they had no need of an
altar even; the sacred rock was itself an altar; cp
Gen. 28, where Jacob anoints— that is, presents his
offering of ΟἿ upon—the stone which sheltered the
deity. At the sacred springs, wells, and caves the
gifts of the worshippers are simply dropped in, as, e.g.,
the well of Zemzem at Mecca (cp ALTAR, NATURE-
WORSHIP).

The situation changed 55 soon as men began to make
images of the deity. Wherever such an image had
come into existence, there naturally arose

pi Oldest also the need for a house to shelter it. In
temple the case of a costly image, too, theft had

to be guarded against (cp Judg. 17 7):
someone was required to watch and tend it; but here
again we observe that, in principle and to begin with,
nothing more is required than some simple housing,
such as the worshipper is ordinarily in the way of
constructing for himself. A modest apartment in the
family dwelling-house sufficed, as the story of Micah's
graven image shows (Judg. 17). Here again ît is nota
place of worship—a meeting-house for worshippers—
that has to be provided, but simply a dwelling-place
for the image, or, if you will, for the deity. Still less
was any spacious apartment or stately palace required,
because according to the ancient Hebrew conception
the deity chose rather to have his dwelling in [thick]
darkness. Even in Solomon's temple the apartment
occupied by the deity, the so-called Holy of Holies,
was quite small, plain and dark (see below, $ 7 end).

In accordance with this is the fact that in the OT we read of
temples only where there is an ephod. Micah had a house for
his ephod (Judg. 17 5); at Dan this same ephod afterwards had
a temple, as doubtless also had Gideon's ephod at Ophrah (Judg.
188247). Similarly, at Nob there was a great temple with a
numerous priesthood in connection with de famous oracular
image there (1 5.31} The sacred ark, the most sacred object
in Israel, stands în this respect în the same category with the
image as representing the deity. It, too, naturally requires to
be housed ; it cannot be left simply in the open. The house
assigned to ît was the same in kind as those its worshippers
lived in. As long as these lived in tents, the ark also remained
ina tent. After the settlement in Canaan, it received a house
of stone at Shiloh. But even then it was not absolutely
necessary that it should have a house of its own, entirely to
itself. After the temple at Shiloh had been destroyed, no one
for a long time thought of getting a new house built for the ark.
After it had been brought back from Philistia it wandered about
from place to place, finding a temporary resting-place now in the
house of a prominent citizen, now in that of a royal official,
until at last within the precints of David's palace it found
shelter merely in a simple tent (see ARK OF THE COVENANT),

We know nothing in detail as to the arrangement of
the oldest Israelite temples. We can only conjecture
that they were built on the same model as those of the
Canaanites, for here also the conquered were doubtless
the teachers of the conquerors. The Canaanites at
that period already had large temples of their own.
The temple of El-Berith at Shechem was, we know,
the place of refuge of the Shechemites in times of
danger, and must therefore have been large and
strongly built {Judg. 9467). At Gaza there was a
great temple with a hall, the roof of which was

1 The ζαδα of Mecca, even, is no Ze44-#/ (house of God),
‘household god, no covering for the black stone worshipped
there. The stone în question is, in fact, visible from without,
let into the wall, and the entire ἀα' δα is merely an expansion of
the stone ; cp Wellh. Z/eid.(1 3, 69, (2) 73.

4925

TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE

supported by two pillars (Judg. 1629). Here, too, it
need hardly be pointed out, the fundamental idea was
the same; the principal thing was the sanctuary, the
apartment for the image or other sacred object; in
connection with this there ultimately arose also another
apartment or hall to which the worshippers of the god
had access, and in which they had audience of him.

In what sense Solomon's temple can be spoken of as
something new, may easily be judged from what has
already been said. In their general

8, Solemon'8 -rrangement and details temple and

De anie i | palace were alike wonders to Solomon's
paratione subjects, such as had never bcen seen

before ; but the conception of a temple
of Yahwè was not in itself any novelty. Tradition
assigns the original idea to David; according to our
present books of Samuel, it was David who first
thought of building a temple for the ark, inasmuch as
it seemed unbefitting that he himself should be dwelling
in a palace whilst the ark of Yahwè remained in a mere
tent. Vahwè, however, the narrative goes on to say,
would not suffer this. Not David was to build a house
for Yahwè, but Yahwè was to build a house for David,
by assuring the permanence of David's dynasty (2 S. 7).
The Chronicler develops the idea further: David
himself indeed cannot build the temple, but he can
make everything ready for it; and this he does în such
a manner that little is left for Solomon to do. The latter
receives from David plans and models for this temple
and all its furniture ; the stone and timber are all hewn
and prepared, the workmen engaged and trained, the
gold and silver collected, the whole temple service
organised (τ Ch, 227). All this, however, belongs to
the latest strata of the narrative. There is no historical
probability that David had thoughts of building a
temple. Had it been otherwise, it is not easy to see
what should have prevented him from carrying out the
idea. But the conditions under which such a purpose
might be formed were absent. When David was
building his palace he had no need for a splendid
sanctuary also in his citadel, The ark, of course, he
wanted to have there; but the genuine old Israelite
idea was that in view of its origin and significance the
appropriate lodging for the ark was in a tent. This
comes out quite clearly still in the words of Nathan
when he asks (2 S.75/; cp 1 Ch.176):

Has Yahwè ever spoken a word to any of the judges of Israel

saying, Why have ye not built me a house of cedar?

I have not dwelt in an house since the day that I brought up
the children of Israel out of Egypt, even to this day.

Such was the normal order of things. It is easy to
understand, however, how after the temple of Jerusalem
had acquired its importance, the people of a later time
found it difficult to understand wherefore the pious
David had not built the temple. The cause cannot
have lain, for him, in religious indifference; and it
was necessary to find another explanation. Hence the
whole theory now before us.

In Solomon's case again we need not scek too
exclusively for purcly religious motives. It was by

+, No means his intention, as tradition
Lil Solomon's represents it to have been, to provide
"the Israelites with one solitary sanctuary,
legitimate and central, and so to bring to an end the
worship of the high places, and such-like practices,
His motives were more political than religious. He
was a splendour-loving prince to whom the old palace
of David no longer seemed good enough, and who
wished to have a new and magnificent residence similar
to those of neighbouring sovereigns. In his complex
of new buildings a fine house of cedar for the venerable
and sacred ark was also included, since a simple tent
seemed no longer to suffice for a royal sanctuary. It
was a citadel-sanctuary for himself, not a temple for
Israel that he built.
Only thus can we understand the mistrust and even

4926

TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE

antipathy with which large masses of the people
regarded the work of Solomon. ‘The citizens of the
northern kingdom still adhered to the ancient sanciu-
aries and went on making pilgrimages to Beersheba and
Gilgal, to Dan and Bethel, the places where their
fathers of οἷά had paid their devotions. In the
southern kingdom, too, the ‘innovation’ was far from
finding unanimous approval. Ultimately, indeed (in
Deuteronomy), the prophets came to recognise the
temple as the lesser evil when compared with the
worship of the high places. Yet, at the bottom of
their hearts they put it on a level with the other
sanctuaries of Samaria or Shiloh (Jer. 712 Mic. 15). In
fact, in religious circles the luxury of the temple of
Solomon came under very severe censure as out of
keeping with the true Israelite character (cp the law
concerning the altar in the Book of the Covenant). To
lift a tool upon an altar stone is to pollute it; so also
to go up to it by steps is a desecration (Ex. 2024 f).
A more pointed condemnation of the altar of Solomon,
which was raised high after the fashion of heathen
altars and covered with brass, can hardly be conceived
(cp 2 K.16107).

On the site of Solomon’s
ITERUSALEM, 8 19. We may regard it as settled that

δ. Site of it stood on the eastern hill The archi

the tesiple, tectural history of the piace shows that a
PI» Sanctuary always stood there, within the
limits of the present Haram, The temple of Jupiter
built there by Hadrian stood, as we have reason to
believe, upon the site of the temple of Herod, which in
its turn was only a reconstruction of the second (post-
exilic) temple, and this again, of course, can only have
been raised on the site of that of Solomon. It is only
as regards the particular spot within the Haram area
that any dispute is at all possible. For example,
Fergusson, Trupp, Lewin, W. R. Smith and others,
have placed it in the south-western angle of the modern
Haram. This is, however, in view of the lie of the
ground, quite impossible. ‘The south-western angle
of the Haram, when strictly considered, lies not upon
the eastern but upon the edge of the western hill. The
temple, in that case, must be held to have stood on the:
steep slope of the hill towards the Tyropceon valley,
entirely on artificial substructions. In fact, the southern
half of the place cannot be thought of in this connection
at all, for the site did not receive its great extension
southwards until the time of Herod (see below, $ 30).

W. R, Smith (E20), sin ‘Temple') also starts from the
assumption that the whole Merodian temple-complex lay in
the SW. of the present Haram. Now it is indisputable that
the S. wall and the southern portion of the western wall of the
Haram are precisely those parts of the wall the external
features of which betray a Herodian origin. Smith's contention,
further, that the dimensions of the Herodian temple as given by
Josephus, entirely exclude the sacred rock from the temple
limits can hardly be maintained, as will presently be shown.
Moreover, apart from any other consideration, his argument
fails in view of the lie of the ground, as can very well be seen
from his own map: between the SW. corner and the NW.
corner of his temple area there is a difference of level of 50 ft.;
between the SW. and NE. corner of his temple court, a similar
difference pf go ft. In other words: his temple stands entirely
on the steep southi-western slope of the hill, and numerous sub-
structions would have been necessary în order to secure even
the smail area that was necessary ; no less improbable is it that
the temple should have stood on ἃ level so considerabiy below
the summit of the hill with the sacred rock where there was a
fine level plateau,

On the other hand, considerations suggested by the
history of religion speak very strongly in favour of the
site of the present dome of the rock, Τὴ ἐπε East, from
the remotest antiquity down even to the present day,
sacred sites have always maintained themselves with
‘unyielding tenacity through all religious changes. Thus
there is a high degree of probability that what is to-day
regarded as the centre of the whole, the sacred rock in
the mosque of “Omar, the second holiest site in all
Islam, should from the first have been a particularly
sucred point. The rock is doubtless to be regarded

4927

temple cp PALACE,

TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE

as the scene of the angelic appearance în 2 S. 24, which
marked the place as a site of a sanctuary of Yahwè (cp
Judg. 61: Κ 1319). The statement of the Chronicler that
Solomon built his temple here at the threshing-floor of
Onan, has every probability în its favour. That the
sanctity of the place goes back to a still earlier time

| is not unlikely.

Tn this case there arises only the question as to the place
more precisely where the temple stood with reference to this
sacred rock. Several scholars (Rosen, Schick, and others)"
have supposed that the rock was in the Holy of Holies and
that the ark stood upon it, This is also an old Christian
and Mohammedan tradition ; that such a tradition was current
among the Jews in NT times is evident from the Yalmudic
legend that in the Holy of Holies the place of the lost
ark was taken by a stone called the ‘foundation stone' (ja
any, Vama 52). Further, this stone was identified with
Jacob's stone at Bethel (cp Rashi on Gen. 28 and Breithaupt's
notes). Both Mohammedans and Christians transferred these
legends to the Sabra, which the former accordingly venerated
as “a gate of heaven”(Ibn ‘Abd Rabbih, ‘/#4, 3 360). Moham-
medan sources enable us to trace back this identification to the
Moslem Jew Wahb ibn Monabbib, who enriched Islam with so
many Jewish fables and died a century after Jerusalem was
taken ‘by the Arabs (Tabari 1571. /; Iba al-Fakih 97 ΔᾺ
Eutychius, on the other hand, who is the first Christian writer
to apply the Jewish legend to the Moslem Sahra, avers that the
tradition was communicated to ‘Omar by the Christian patriarch
Sophronius on the taking of Jerusalem, and guided the caliph
in the choice of a site for his mosque. ‘This identification, how-
ever, îs impossible, were it only by reason of the dimensions
of the rock which is about 59 ft. (17.7 metres] long, sr ft. [15.
metres) broad, with a height above ground of 4 ît. 14 in, to 6)
ft. [1.25-2 metresì The Holy of Holies, which was a cube of
20 cubits? was too small to contain it.2 In other respects also
the suggestion is attended with great difficulties on account
of the conditions of space; the altar of burt-offering
would have to be moved considerabiy to the E. of the rock,
thus leaving very little room for the court which was to accom:
modate the worshippers— unless great substructions on the E. be
assumed, which is inadmissible (see PALACE, $ 4)

In a word, there is everything in favour of, and
nothing against, the theory that this rock was the site
of Solomon's altar of burnt-offering ($ 18). This would
fit in with the view that it was here the angel stood at
the theophany. Further, on the rock there has been
discovered a channel which may perhaps have served
to carry off the blood {cp also Ebers and Guthe,
Paléstina, 166). ‘This channel was connected with a
hollow under the stone. Further examination has not
been hitherto permitted ; but it is extremely probable
that this hollow is really a cistern connected with the
general system of conduits (cp CoxDUITS, $ 3). If in
accordance with what has been said we may regard
this rock as being the site of Solomon's altar of burnt-
offering, then the temple, properly so called, lay to the
westward of this, and its site is determined with tolerable
accuracy.

Qu the text of the description of Solomon's temple,
cp what is said elsewhere with reference to the descrip-
tion of his PALACE, $ 2. In the present
case, also, after the many later additions
have been separated out, we arrive at no
clear account. Much that would be of importance is
wanting; perhaps its disappearance is in some measure
due to the frequent redactions. How manifold these
were can be seen in the Commentaries (e.g., Benzinger,
Kénige, 16 5). For a reconstruction of the buildings
some help can be obtained from the description of
Ezekiel's temple (40 25). True, his temple is primarily
a work of the imagination; but, on the other hand,
his description, broadly speaking, agrees with 1 K. 6.
That, as a former priest, he was familiar with the first
temple may be taken for granted; there is also an ἃ
priori probability that in' his description he would follow
the lines of the old temple. Such changes as he does
introduce are on the one hand occasioned by his desire
for a scrapulous symmetry in the plan of his temple,
and partly by his determination to remove the dwelling

6. The main
buildings.

1 [It îs assumed throughout thîs article that the longer cubit
of 20.67 in. is meant; see WEIGHTS AND MEASURES, $ τὶ

2 The threshing-floor of Ornan cannot have been on the rock,
which has an irregular, not level, surface.

4928

TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE

of the prince from the temple hill. The features that
may be traced to the working of his free fantasy are in
particular the specifications regarding the courts and
the buildings contained in them. In matters where
these points do not come into question we shall for the
most part be safe in transferring his data without hesita-
tion t0 the earlier temple,
The temple-complex fell into two divisionst—the main
, building, the ‘house of God' properly so called, and
the subsidiary buildings by which it was surrounded.

TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE

mentions 120 cubits, which is a sheer impossibility. The
text is hopelessly corrupt; the 20 cubits of 654, Pesh., and
Arab. are incorrect as appears from the data as to the
height of the pillars (see below, $ 12) ; these can hardly
have been taller than the porch. Our most natural course
will be to suppose for the porch a height equal to that
of the temple itself, viz. 30 cubits. Perrot and Chipiez,
and others with them, have sought to justify the 120
cubits in Chronicles by suggesting that the porch was
similar to the pylons of the Egyptian temples; but
neither the word '2/472 (nh) nor

yet the other measurements would
be appropriate to a gateway of
this sort. In Ezekiel’s temple

ene ascended to the porch by ten
steps. This, we may take it, will

have been in agreement with the

actual facts.

The internal space was divided,
as already said, into two apart-
ments, the larger
7, Internal ;n front and the

arrangements. smaller ‘behind.
The wall which separated them

SCALE OF FEET.
30

fo 20 40 τὸ 60 70 80
Aa Pal

has, in Ezekiel's temple, a thick-
ness of two cubits. From the
description of the door it is clear
that in Solomon's temple also
the partition consisted of a solid
wall, not of a curtain merely.?

Fis. 1,--Ground-plan of the Temple.

The main building was a rectangular structure 60 cubits
in length, zo cubits in breadth, and 30 cubits in height,
corresponding, on the basis of the cubit of 20.7 inches,
in round numbers to 104, 35, and 52 feet respectively,
It lay E. and W., with entrance from the E. The
measurements given above are, as appears from the
description of the 42677 (1 K. 6162, cp τ, 20), and as is
confirmed by Ezekiel's account, the internal dimensions.

On this assumption, indeed, we must suppose that either the
total length (60 cubits) or one or other of the detailed figures
for the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies is incorrectly given,
as the dividing wall between the two must of course have taken
up some space, The thickness of the walls is given by Ezekiel
(41 15) as 6 cubits, a measure that may also be taken as apply-
ing to the old walls. At all events the walls, to begin with,
were of considerable thickness as appears from the circumstance
that for the second and third stories successively they were
made thinner by rebatements of half a cubit, or it may be of a
whole cubit (but see below, $ 11).

Before the 4644/ (5312), the Holy Place, eastward,

stood a porch. Its length was the same as the breadth

‘The door was made of olive wood
and was pentagonal—z.2., the
lintel was not horizontal but formed an angle as Thenius
rightly explains, 1 K. 631 (cp St. Z4A7W 3148)® In
Ezekiel’s temple a breadth of 6 cubits is given to this
door (Ezek. 412); whether this figure is applicable to
Solomon's temple also we have no materials for de-
termining. ΑἹ] that we learn further about ît from our
present texts îs that it was a folding door, was decorated
with carvings of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers,
and overlaid with gold. Thisnotice, however {1 K. 632),
does not belong to the old architectural description. ΙΓ
the walls of the 4é24/ and of the déir were unprovided
with carvings, we can hardly suppose that the doors were
otherwise treated ; and as for the overlaying, we learn
from 2 K. 1816 that it was Hezekiah who first overlaid
the temple doors with gold.

The inner apartment (δὲν) was lower than the
main building—being only 20 cubits in height. It thus
formed a perfect cube, zo cubits in the side. As we
can hardly picture to ourselves the Holy of Holies as
being merely a sort of low annex to the temple,
we must suppose that above it there was an upper
chamber of ro cubits in height, and that thus the
temple roof had a uniform height of 30 cubits
from the ground. From 1 K.812 fi (see Benz. ad
loc.) we may venture to infer that the inner room
was perfectly dark, ‘This adytum, called fater the

Holy of Holies, was the most essential part of the
temple. It was the dwelling-place proper of the

1 According to 2 Ch.814 there was a curtain before
the entrance to the 4647». This would not be improbable

Fis. 2.— Section of the Temple.

of the house {20 cubits) and it was ro cubits in depth;
but its height is nowhere given either în Kings or in
Ezekiel, ‘The parallel place in Chronicles (2 Ch. 34)

4929

in itself; but there is no mention of it in the old description
of the temple in Kings. Thenius, Riehm, and others indeed
have found a curtaîn în 1 K.621: ‘he drew [the curtain]
across with chains of gold,’ etc.; but if these words belong
to the original text they must relate to the altar; cp Benz.
ad loc,

2 The other interpretation (Ges,, BAhr, Keil, and others)
explains the non of x K. 631 65 meaning that the area
of the door was a fifth of the entire superficial area of the
wall. So also Klostermann with emendation: the lintel
was fifth—i.e., of the transverse wall, which is equivalent
to saying that the breadth of the doorway was a fifth of
that of the house,—in other words 4 cubits, Both explanations
are very forced. Π' ΘΠ stands in contrast with Dîyar “square,”
în :K.62375.

4930

TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE

deity, whose presence here was represented by the sacred
ark.

The walls of the 4237 were panelled with cedar; the fior
was of cypress wood. . According to the present text the walls
were also overlaid with gold (1K.620); this, however, is a
later addition to the text (see below).

The anterior apartment, the 4247, afterwards known
as the Holy Place, was, as already mentioned, 40 cubits
long, zo broad, and 30 high. It also

8 The Holy was βοοτοά with cypress and panelled with
ti cedar, so that of the mason work nothing

was visible, Here again the statements as to the walls
having been overlaid with gold (τ K.62122 ἃ 30) are
quite late additions to the text (see below, $ g). This
apartment also was not particularly well lighted. Since
the building that surrounded the house was 15 cubits în
height and the 42577 had probably no window at all, we
must suppose that such windows as the apartment had
were situated above the 20 cubit level of the δὲν. We
must further take into account the thickness of the walls
which was such that even if the windows were made so
as to widen inwards after the manner of embrasures (cp
1 K.64 RVE}, they could not have admitted much
light. Add to this that they were provided with wooden
lattices like the windows of dwelling-houses generally ;
so at least we are to interpret the expression ‘dfzmza:
(our cp Benz. on 1 Κ. 64). We learn further that

the windows were casement windows—-furnished, that is
to say, with wooden frames and not mere openings in
the stone wall, a refinement which was unknown in
ordinary dwelling-houses. Also the doorway leading to
the anterior room was provided with posts of olive-wood,
and, in contrast to that leading to the Holy of Holies
(see above), was rectangular in shape. The door was
of cypress and either half consisted of two folding leaves
which were so connected in some way with each other,
by means of double hinges or charniéres, that in enter-
ing one did not requre to open the whole door, but only
the two inner leaves.!1 The width of the doorway is not
stated ; in Ezekiel's temple it was τὸ cubits (Ezek. 412}.
Here also are repeated the statements as to overlaying
with gold (τ K.635). More particularly it is here
stated that the covering of gold was fitted exactly on to
the engraved design (npnor>p agito). Thus the decora-
tive work in question did not consist of figures carved
in relief {Reliefschnitzereien), but of figures outlined on
the fiat (Konturenzeichnungen).

Stade ([Z47°W 31407) has shown that the various
statements as to the overlaying of the walls of the 4257»

{x K. 620), of the walls of the 42447

3. Ornamenta= (vo. 21 224 30), of the doors (27. 3235),

decor and of the cherubim (2. 28), and of the altar

"in the 4244/ (. 226) with gold are all

very late additions to the text. From the point of view

of literary criticism they can be shown to be such by the

circumstance that they come in at the wrong place and

moreover that, in part at least, they are absent from (8,

Besides, their incorrectness in point of fact appears from
certain other data of the OT.

On the occasions when the temple is despoiled, the foreign
foes and King Ahaz when in financial straits take everything of
value, but the covering of gold is not mentioned, though this
certainly would not have been left untouched had it existed
(1 K14262 K.1414 1617). On the other hand we are told of
Hezekiah that he overlaid the doors and doorposts of the A#44/
but it was not with gold (2 K. 18 16), Moreover, strictly speaking
a covering of gold must be regarded as incompatible with the
carving on the walls. The whole is taken from the description
of the Tabernacle with its wealth of gold and transferred to the
temple of the wealthy king, which, it was thought, was certainly
not less costly (see Benz. on 1 K. 820)

That the temple walls were adorned with carvings îs
more credible. In Ezekiel's temple (4117) we read
that the whole wall was in like manner decorated with
carved cherubim and palms, a palm between two

1 Ewald, Keil, and others think of the doors as horizontally
divided each into an er and a lower half, of which only the
tower had to be opened on entering. » Against this cp Thenius
on K.634

4931

TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE

cherubs, Here, however, great suspicion cannot but
be aroused by the fact that the relative notice (1 K. 618)
is wanting in (5, that the verse disturbs the connection in
the most violent way, and that with its statement that
‘all was of cedar' it is inconsistent with what has been
said in 1 K. 615. Nevertheless, there is nothing im-
probable in the supposition that the temple walls were
at a later date decorated with carvings (as we are led to
infer from Ezekiel), Elsewhere, also, we read of later
adornments of the temple (2 K.128 7 29 16107
284117). Thus we may safely regard the carvings as
having been the work of a later king.

We are not told anything as to the construction of
the roof of the building. Many scholars, such as Lund
10. Roog, (890 Dit αὐ jiid. Heiligthiimer), Hirt (see

Der Tempel Salomos), Schnaase (Gesch. d.
bildenden Kiinste, 1; 1843), take it to have been gabled;
but according to 2 K.2312 2 Ch. 39 this cannot have
been the case; the roof was flat. Itis highly probable
that, as in the case of the house of the forest of Lebanon
{see PALACE), it was made of beams and planks of
cedar. Upon this we may suppose to have been laid,
for protection against the weather, a coating of clay,
according to ancieni custom, or perhaps even slabs of
stone. ‘The usual railing or battlement ran round it
{cp Dt. 228), We must assume some sort of subsidiary
arrangement for the support of the beams, since cedar
beams of the length specified must have bent if un-
propped. The text says nothing of this; but in the case
of the house of the forest of Lebanon, where the span
was much less (only 12} cubits, about 214 ft.}, we hear
of struts (lit. shoulder-pieces 1 K.72f @, see Benz,
ad loc. and PALACE, $ 5, with illust. ) on the pillars which
served as supports for the beams of the roof, We must
think of similar supports projecting from the walls in the
case of the temple building.

‘The main building was surrounded on three sides
(N., W., and 5.) by a side building, or ydszd' (ny

3. AV ‘chamber,’ RV ‘story ") in three stories
dh fido: containing ‘side chambers,' συλ ἐᾷ (nipby
mildings. Av ‘chambers’; cp Ezek. 415 fi). ‘The
‘under story was 5 cubits broad, the middle one 6 cubits,
and the upper 7. The increasing width seems t0
have been obtained by narrowing the temple wall, which
diminished in thickness by successive steps or rebate-
ments on the outside (1 K.66 ΕΝ). Thus the cedar
beams which formed the floors (and the roofs} of the
side chambers were not built into the temple wall but
rested upon the rebatement (cp fig. 2).

Stade has conjectured—what is not at all improbable—that
this was also the case with the exterior wall of the side-building.
In that case the differential breadch of 1 cubit falls to be divided
between the two walls; the thickness of the temple wall there-
fore diminished with each story by only half a cubit, which is
much the more probable view. On this basis we shall have to
suppose that the temple wall at the base of the middle story was
still 53 cubits thick, at the base of the upper story 5 cubits, and
above the upper story 4 cubits thick (see he The thickness
of the external walls of this subsidiary building is not given in
1 K. Ezekiel gives it as 5 cubits, and this wii doubtless have
been the old measurement (Ezek. 61 9).

The height of each story from floor to ceiling was s
cubits (τ K.6r0), and thus the height of the whole
structure over xs cubits (3 x 5 cubits, plus the thickness
of floors and roof). The number of the side chambers
is not stated in Kings, but in Ezekiel it is given as 30
(or 33) for each story (cp Cornili and Bertholet on
Ezek. 416). Thus they were very small; but this need
not cause us any difficulty, as they were not used as
living-rooms but only for storage of temple furniture
and the like. We are left entirely without information
as to the windows of the side building. On the other
hand, with regard to the only door we learn that it was
on the S. side {1 K. 68). The passage from one story
to another was by means of steps, or more probably
tadders, through openings în the roof (1 K. 68)! That

1 Lalim, 05: is usually rendered as meaning a winding
staircase. For this rendering reliance is chiefiy placed on (δ

4932

TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE

the several chambers of a story communicated with each
other ὃν means of docrs may be taken for granted,
In front of the perch of the temple stood at the
entrance two bronze pillars cast by Huram-Abi, a
; "Tyrian artificer (see HirAM 2); for
12 he pillare further details see below, also JACHIN
ot bronze. AND Boaz. We are told that Jakin
was the one on the right—z.e. S.—Bo‘az that to the left
or N.; but what the names mean we do not know.
Their precise position is a much disputed point. Many
scholurs, including Nowack (4/4 233 }.}, hold that they
were engaged in the portal of the porch itself and that
the lintel rested upon them, For this view reliance is
placed mainly on Ezek. 4049, where two columns to
right and left of the entrance are mentioned over and
above the pillars of the porch. ‘This evidence, however,
is not conclusive. ‘l'o begin with, the very circumstance
that Ezckiel does not give the columns the names
handed down by tradition is in itself noticeable. It is
very questionable, too, whether Ezekiel has these
columns in his mind at all, and whether he has not
rather dropped them altogether as he has done in the
case of the brazen sea. and the lavers. [ἢ @ {1 K.745)
is preserved the information that there were yet other
pillars in the temple ; these cannot well have stood any-
where else than in the porch where those of Ezekiel also
are found ; or, if we are to identify the latter with Jachin
and Boaz, it still remains very possible that he deliber-
ately not only suppresses their names but also assigns to
them a quite differen: place which deprives them of alì
special significance. Some special significance they
must certainly have had originally; the mere fact of
their having special names would be enough to prove
this: there would be no point in it if they were
architectural ornaments merely, Nor is it possible to
assign to them a structural value as supporting the
roof, for it is certain that they did not stand in the
inside. There is to be con-
sidered also the further cir-
cumstance that there were
quite analogous pillars în
other Semitic temples as
well. In temples of Baal
they are quite usual; the
sanctuary of Melkarth at
Tyre for example had two
costly pillars in which
Melkarth was worshipped
(Herod. 2,44). The an-
nexed figure, representing
the temple at Paphos ona
coin, exhibits. the two
pillars standing wholly de-
tached to the right and left of the entrance. In
front of the teniple at Heirapolis, also, were similar
pillars (\WRS, e/ Sem. 208, 488). Since the
temple of Solomon was assuredly affected by Syro-
pheenician influences it is natural to conjecture that
in it Jachin and loaz had a significance analogous
to that of the other pillars just alluded to; namely,
that they were symbols of the deity. In that case
their origin will have to be sought in the ancient
massebéfh vhich used to be customary obiects in all
Semitic sanctuaries, including those of ancient Israel
KEBAH ; also Benz. Z/4 370. ; WRS, Mel
a I).

O =

Fig. 3.—Coin representing
tempie ut Paphos

(uri ἀνάβασις). This, however, is not a translation of ΟΕ
but proceeds upon anotaer reading (Benz. αὐ loc.) In buildings
of tbe ancient E. no trace of winding staircases has anywhere
been found, and it is therefore very improbable that they are
mentioned here. Levy (77/115) points out that the openings
in the roofs of the Holy of Holies by which the workmen were
Jet down (see helow, $ 33) are called 7.10 (cp Middo/4, 4 5).
Thus, as Stade has rendered probable, we shall most likely have
to think of openings provided with trap-doors and reached by
ladders or trap.stairs,

4933

|

TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICH

This is not equivalent to saying that as late as Solomon's time
these pillars were still regarded as symbols of Yahwè ; we can
equally well suppose that they were set up in accordance with
an ancient custom no longer understood, or simply in imitation
οἵ Pheenician models. Ìf the view just taken he correct, it
becomes easy to understand why Ezekiel should have ignored
them, or have sought to disguise their original meaning by
reducing them to mere supports of the roof. And if so it also
becomes highly probable that the Chronicler is right in assigning
them a position in front of the temple (0993 Sy). It would

not be easy to guess how he conld have come to place them so
unless he had some old source to go upon, for the meaning of
the pillars offered above was certainly unknown to him.

Fic. 4.—Class bowl with representation of Temple.

The view that they occupied detached positions in
front of the temple is confirmed by the interesting repre-
sentation of the Jewish temple found upon a glass bowl

i of the third or fourth century Δ... which shows two

CO

50

48

40

35

30

: |)

SCALE OF FEET

25

SCALE OF FEET

233 86100
£ h

Fio, s-Brazen pillars.

quite detached pillars near the entrance. The detailed
description of the pillars has been preserved in a three-
fold form {1 K.7is-2o 4rf. 2 Ch.8xs-17 Jer. 5221-23

4934

TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE

2 K. 2517), in accordance with which Thenius was able
to restore the text of the account with considerable
accuracy. Eachof the pillars was 18 cubits (about 30 ft.}
in height, and 12 cubits {& wrongly 14 cubits) in circum-
ference. ‘They were hollow, the brass being 4 finger
breadths in thickness. Each was surmounted by a
molten chapiter, or capital, 5 cubits in height. The
capitals were covered with bronze net-work which was
surrounded hy two rows of pomegranates. The one
questionable datum is that of 1 K. 7 19 where the mean-
ing can be either that the capitals were curved outwards
at the top after the fashion of lilies (as is also said, for
example, of the brazen sea), or that above the capitals
there were lily-shaped additions (cp Benz. on 1 K.715).
‘The temple was surrounded by a court, called the
‘inner’ court, as distinguished from the great court
13, Court enclosing the entire citadel. This inner,
and gates, Curt was surrounded by a wall o
three courses of hewn stone surmounted

by a course of cedar beams (1 K. 636) As to the
dimensions of the court, its entrances, or any other
architectural details the description in 1 K. says nothing.
The measurements in Ezekiel (100x100 cubits) are
not to be transferred to the old temple, since with
that prophet the court had quite a different function.
He makes it accessible to the priests alone; whence
the Chronicler actually describes it simply as the ‘Court
of the Priests' (pian ssn; 2 Ch. 49). In ancient times
and down to Ezekiel's day everyone had free access to
it; it was a place of public assembly as we can see
from such passages as Jer. 351 3610 2 K. 1212. For
the position it occupied in the complex of buildings, see
PaLACE, $ 3. In Jer. 8610 it is quite rightly designated
as the ‘upper forecourt' as it was higher up than the
great palace court. By the ‘new gate’ one went down
from it to the king's house (Jer. 2610 3610). This
designation ‘new gate’ tells us that it must have been
restored by some later king ; for of course there can be no
question of an entirely new gate, such as had never stood
there before; there must always have been some way
by which the king could pass northwards from his palace
to the sanctuary. ‘The same wili hold good also of the
‘upper’ gate which according to 2 K.1535 was built
by Jotham; here also we have to do merely with a
restoration of an ancient gate. We may with consider-
able confidence seck for this gate on the upper, that
is on the northern, side of the court, and thus
identify it with Ezekiel's ‘ north gate’ (83 92} and with
Jeremiah's ‘upper gate of Benjamin' (202), since the
road to' Benjamin lay northward. If this N. gate is
called the gate of the altar in Fzek. 815 we shall best
explain the designation as referring to the fact that it
was the pcople's usual way of access to the altar,
Other expositors (such as Graf) think of e K.1614
where we are told that Ahaz set up the old altar on the
N. side of the forecourt. This N. gate appears also in
Ezekiel's temple as the chief entrance (469 4038 7).
Whether Solomon's temple had a third gate—to the E.
—is not certain; but it is probable. Ezekiel's temple
has one such gate which is opened only on Sabbath and
feast days and reserved for the prince {Ezck. 46 75].
But in the old temple, where the royal palace siood
immediately to the 8. of the court, the king of course
approached the sanctuary direct from his house. If,
accordingly, the Chronicler {x Ch. 918) speaks of a
‘king’s gate,' there are only two possibilities ; either he
means the S. gate and is to this extent aware of what
the ancient conditions were, or he means the E. gate,
in which case he is simply transferring without criticism
to the older period the circumstances which existed in
his own time. On the other hand, in Jer. 3814 we read
of a third entrance, and such a third gate can best be
looked for on the F. side, ‘The mention also of three
‘keepers of the threshold' (2 K. 2518 Jer. 5224) points
to the existence of three gates, We further learn of
the temple court that it was already paved in the pre-

4935

TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE

exilic time (2 K.1617). 80 also that in the same period
there were ‘chambers’ in it. Jer. 354 mentions a
‘chamber of the princes’ (ἠέ βῥαίᾳ Zas-sdrza, prim now5)
which was above a ‘chamber of Maaseiah, the keeper
of the threshold," and adjoined that of the ‘sons of
Hanan.' According to Jer. 3610 Baruch read the book
of the words of Jeremiah in the chamber of Gemariah,
which was situated at the entry of the New Gate. Here
we are doubiless to understand partly chambers which
served as lodging for various officials, partly store-
rooms for temple equipments. In the temple of
Ezckiel a series of cells are provided for the priests on
the N. and S. side of the court (Ezek. 4044 7 4217).

The sacred object per exce/lence in this royal scat of
worship was the ark of Yahwé (see ARK) which had its
place in the Adytum (ua débiz), the
dark inner chamber, and in the.
ancient view represented the presence
of the deity, It is remarkable to find in the temple of
Solomon this special significance of the ark weakened
by the addition to it of two cherubim. ‘These stand τὸ
cubits high, their wings each measure 5 cubits ; the wings
stretching inwards touch one another in the middle of
the house, those stretching outwards touch respectively
the N. and S. walls of the dé. Their faces are
turned towards the E, Beneath the wings that touched
one another was the ark. On the fofm, origin, and mean-
ing of these figures see CHERUB (cp also Benz. or 1 K.
630), What is of special interest to note here is that
the cherubs are the bearers of Yahwè, the signs and
witnesses of his presence (Ezek.181019/.); it is on
this account that we read of Yahwè as throned above
the cherubim (Ps.1810[11]), and the name Yahwé, the
Lord of hosts, now receives the addition ‘who sitteth
upon the cherubim' (1 S.44 2 5.62). In accordance
with this the déf» is regarded as an extension of the
ark just as the A'%e at Mecca is an extension of the
sacred stone (see above, $ 1 end, n.).

Another quite peculiar symbol of deity which had
not its like at the other sanctuaries was the brazen

serpent, Nehustan. It stood in the
15. The Lao temple—whether in the Holy of Holies
SErDenÉ. or in the outer chamber we are not
told, Down to Hezekiah's reformation incense was
offered to it. On its origin and meaning, cp
NEHUSHTAN, The absence from the accounts of the
temple which have reached us of any reference to
this, which a later age had learned to regard as an
idolatrous object, is easily intelligible ; and, besides, it is
not to be assumed off-hand that this serpent had its
place in the temple from the first,

In the outer chamber of the 44447 stood, in front of
the entrance to the déîr, the table of shewbread (1 K

620), This was an altar of cedar wood
16 Table οὗ na Tute desenbed in τῆς
shewbread. count of the temple in 1K,, but
Fzekiel's description of the corresponding object will
doubtless apply here.

According to this, ît was 2 cubits in length and
breadth and 3 in height ; doubtless, therefore, there were
steps up to it Further, it had, as was usual with
altars, ‘homs'—i.e., corner-pieces resembling homs
{Ezek.4121), According to 1 K.620/ it was overlaid
with gold; but to this statement ΜΠ] apply what has
already been said of the corresponding statements
elsewhere (8. 9); it îs a later addition The table
of Ezekiel is plain cedar. The use of the table is for
offering the so-called shewbread (sce SACRIFICE, $$ 14,
34 a). In order to be able to make cut from Solomon's
temple the existence of an altar of incense not otherwise
mentioned, Keil and others will have it that this is the
altar in question A table of cedar, however, even if
thinly plated with gold, would be useless for the
purpose of burning incense. Moreover, the offering
of shewbread indeed is attested from an early date (cp
1 S.2r), but there is no evidence of any regular offering

4936

14. Equipment:
the ark.

TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE

‘of incense such as would have demanded a special
altar. “In 1 K.743 an altar of incense is mentioned
along with the table for the shewbread ; but both this
and that immediately following it are later
adlitions to the account of the temple {sue Benz. αὐ
Toe). In ch. 6 there is nothing of any such altar, which
indeed makes its appearance only in later strata of P.

similarly, it is only in a late appendix (1 K. 749)

that the golden car.dlesticks said to have been made by
Solomon are mentioned. When this
17. The a sia f h
lesticks, 55 StiA it is not of course meant that
cand there were no candiesticks at all in
the temple. It is an ancient custom to keep a light or
lamp constantly burning in dwellings ; if at the present
day in conversing with fellahin or bedouin of Palestine
one says ‘He sleeps în the dark," what is meant is that
he is s poor that he cannot buy hiniself a drop of oil.
The Hebrew expression that speaks of a man's lamp
as having gone out, meaning that he and his family
have disappeared, is analogous {cp Jer. 2510); see
Lamp. This custom makes it probable that a light
was also burnt in the sanctuary, the dwelling-place of
Valwè; according to 1 S. 33 this was the case during
the night at all events. From what has been said above
{$7/.) as to the lighting of the 4é4d/ it will also be
apparent that the use of artificial light în the temple
cannot have been out of place; we shall not err
therefore if we suppose that Solomon caused lampstands
to be made by Huram-Abi—of bronze, however, not
of gold. The number 10, too, can hardly be right;
as the tabernacle had only one candlestick it would
probably be nearer the truth to assume but one for
the temple also. That there is no mention of the
candlesticks in 2 K. 2514 f. may be due to accident
merely (cp Ter, 52 το, which verse, however, is regarded
by Stade, in view of Ex. 2529, as an interpolation; see
ZATW 3 [1883] 1737). Cp CANDLESTICK,

In 2 Ch. 48 mentior. is also made of ten tables, five on the
S. and five on the N, side of the sanctuary. Tliese are often
explained (as for example by Keil) as having been intended for
the shewbread, but certainly not correctly (see above, cp 2 Ch.
1311 2913); they are rather to be placed în the same category
as the ten candIesticks (see Bertheau on 2 Ch. 4

To the temple service also pertained of course a variety of
minor furnishings, such as knives, forks, dishes, and the like.
In 1 K.748// these are introduced by a later hand and
represented as having been of gold. In the original description
they were either passed over without mention, or they have
been removed from it to make room for this Inter notice.

In the forccourt, due E. from the temple entrance,
stood the great altar of burnt offering. In our present

text this is left wholly undescribed.
18. The bronze But that a description of it once stood
i in this place, and that Solomon caused
an altar of bronze to be made by the same Tyrian
artificer who cast the other pieces, are facts attested by
1 K. 864, cp 2 K.16107 A later redactor stumbled
at this, for in his view there already existed in connec-
tion with the tabernacle an altar which was now trans-
ferred to the temple. Here also we may, generally
speaking, suppose Pheenician influences to have been
at work. The mere fact that the altar was of bronze
shows this, for in old Israelite practice altars werc made
οὗ carth or unhewn stone: cp the law of the altar as
laid down in Ex. 20247 In 2 Ch. dr some additional
data are given as to the size of this altar; it is repre-
sented as having been 10 cubits in height and 20 in length
and breadth. ‘These are the measurements of Ezekicl's
altar, and may safely be presumed to have been taken
from the ancient altar, which in other respects also must
have been the prototvpe of that of Ezekiel. The
dimensions given (20x20 cubits) will therefore appiy
to the area of the base, from which the altar rose in
three successive stages each diminishing by 2 chbits;
the lowest was 2 cubits and each of the other two was
4 in height. The actual hearth was 12 cubits square,
and it was reached by means of steps. Cp further
ALTAR.

4937

TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE

To the service of the altar belonged a variety of utensils
which were also cast by Huram-Abi. See Benzinger on 1 K.
7 40 455 Aurax, 89.

Between the altar and the porch, to the SE. of the

temple building, stood the great brazen scr (1 K.

723-26), as 10. probable shape and

19. The brazen .;srificance of which sce SFA (BRAZEN),
sea and lavers. ..: ἢ

To this brazen sen belong the ten

wagons (AV bases, nin, #24d20/4) with lavers, which

were arranged, five on the S. side and five on the N.,
of the temple {τ K. 7 27-39).

The text of the description of these Javers is extraordinarily
corrupt, and inasmuch as the parallel description of the
Chronicler is no longer extant, whilst the LXX offers but few
data on which a restoration could proceed, it is by no means
easy to amend it satisfactorily, and many details in the descrip-
tion, after every effort, still remain obscure.1 The following
description rests on the reconstruction of the text. upon which
Stade proceeded in 1883 (so also Benz. a Zec.); în many details
Stade has since (1901) preferred a different interpretation The
Various particulars cannot be discussed here.

ScaLe or FEET
ti ἢ a

Fic. 6.—The brazen laver.

The wagons which support the lavers are 4 cubits în
length and breadth and 3 in height. Their sides arc
not of massive plates but consist of a brazen framework
ornamented with ties or cross-pieces of brass (m2259274/%,
EV ‘borders’). ‘The ties were subsequently removed
thy Ahaz for the sake of the metal, so that the frames
alone were left (2 Κα. 1617), Frames and ties were
decorated with lions, oxen, and cherubim. The whole
structure was carried on brazen axles and wheels,
Upon each stand rested a brazen laver, of 4o baths
capacity (sce WEIGHTS AND MEASURES, $ 3 [ii.]}, having
a diameter of 4 cubits (equal to the length and breadth
of the stand). ‘The statement as to the cubic capacity
accords with the diameter given (sce Ska [BRAZEN]},
but the lavers were certainiv shallower, and we must
also allow for the thickness of the metal. As for the
manner in which the lavers were mounted in the stands

1 Cp Ewald, Gort. Gel. Nach. , Jakrbb. Κα
bibi Wissensch, 10.273, and € de, ZATH,

1883, and igor, 145/48: Benz in AZIO); Ritiei fa 2/8
(òn.), and ar. LAvER.

1 3%, pr, 131

4938

TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE

the most probable conjecture seems to be that a sort
of hollow cylinder rested upon the stand and was firmiy
fixed to it by means of ties and struts; the upper end
of this cylinder supported the laver. Αἱ a later date
these lavers proved stumbling blocks as well as the
brazen sca. They are absent alike from the temple
of Ezekiel and from the tabernacle of P, In lavers
and sea alike we may therefore safely conjecture the
original meaning to have been a symbolical one. ‘The
cherubims and animals with which they were adorned
had at first assuredly a mythological significance.
Nowack and others with some probability bring the
lavers into connection with the chariot of the cherubim
in Ezek.1; there the cherubs are the bearers of the
eloud-throne, here of the collected waters. Kosters
(ΤᾺ Τί, 1879, ρ. 455) explained them as symbolising
the clouds. This is possible (see Sea, BRAZEN), but
cannot be made out with certainty. "The Chronicler
disposes of any difficulty of this kind connected with
these vessels by assigning to lavers and sea alike a
highly prosaic function, that of supplying the water
required in connection with the sacrifices. It can
hardly be said that they were conspicuously well adapted
for any such purpose.

If we proceed next to a consideration of the meaning
and origin of the whole temple plan, it is plain at the very
outset that it reproduces the funda-
here mental type of the Semitic sanctuary,

and origin of viewed ag the abode cf the ἀπῆν in the

temple plan. sense already set forth (see $ 1), The
essential feature is the little cella, the dè67r, where the
deity himself is conceived of as present in mysterious
gloom. In front of this is a greater hall, comparabile
to the audience-chamber of human kings, where the
deity receives the adoration of his worshippers. Finally,
in front of the building is an open space with its altar,
where the people can gather together around the
sacrifice in reverential stillness.

‘This ground plan—the tripartite—is common to the
temples of various peoples. It is seen particularly
clearly in Egyptian temples, which has led many
scholars (Benz. #4, 385) to think of a preponderant
Egyptian influence here.
tions, however, which serve to render this less probable.
In the case of the other Solomonic buildings Syro-
phoeenician influence is quite unmistakable {cp PALACE).
Pheenician architects built temple as well as palace, and
can hardly fail to have embodied their ideas in both,
In point of fact all the noteworthy features of a distinc-
tive kind in the temple buildings of Solomon have been
discovered also în the temples of the northern Scmites.
Puchstein (/a&rd. d. Aaiserl. - deutschen archio!. Inst.
713), on the basis of a comparative survey of the extant
architectural remains, thus characterises the Syrian
temple : * To judge by the (as yet not very numerous}
certain examples of Syrian temple-architecture, a com-
plete old Syrian temple consisted of portico, cella, Holy
of Holies, and side-buildings. Portico and side-buildings
are to be regarded as capable of being dispensed with
according to circumstances. The Holy of Holies can be
open or closed, on a level with the cella or above it, semi-
circular or angular, and the side-buildings can be either
divided or undivided.' Robertson Smith (art. ‘ Temple"
in £ncy, Brit.) points especially to the temple at
Hierapolis {./44zg), which, as described by Lucian,
offers an exact parallel. It faced the E, and had two
cella and a prozeos. In front of the door stood a brazen
altar in a walled court. This walled court is also one
of the characteristic peculiarities of the Syrian temple
(cp T. L. Donaldson, Archifecizra Numismatica,
London, 1859; Renan, Mission de Phénicie; Perrot and
Chipiez, Arf in Jud.), On details of decoration, cp
CHERUB. The palm tree, likewise so prominent a
motif in the temple, is also one of the commonest
symbols in Pheenician art.

When Solomon built his temple, it was as a royal

4939

20. Meaning

There are other considera- ἡ

TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE

private chapel, one sanctuary among many, and not
21. History of even the most famous of these; the

ancient sanctuaries of Bethel, Beer-
Solomon's sheba, Dan, etc., long continued to
Ple. rank far above it în the popular esti-
mation The development in the standing of the

temple and its importance în the history of Israel need
not be dwelt on here (see DEUTERONOMY, $ 13; ISRAFL,
$33/; LAW LITERATURE, $ 13); but it falls within
the scope of the present sketch to trace the external
history of the temple building itself. Unfortunately,
here also our sources are far from copious, and some-
times what has reached us is far from clear. Of
Jehoshaphat the Chronicler relates (2 Ch, 20 5) that he
built an outer court. The form of the notice—that it
is with an ‘ outer* court that we are now concerned (see
above ὃ 13)—-is due to the Chronicler; but the fact
itself need not on that account be questioned. — Under
Joram, Ahaziah, and Athaliah the sanctuary must have
been greatly neglected and allowed to fall into disrepair;
under Joash at least extensive repairs had become
necessary (2 K.124/). Jotham built a new gate, the
‘upper gate’ of the minor forecourt (2 K.1535) already
referred to. The ‘godless’ Ahaz also beautified the
sanctuary, although, indeed, this is set down by the
narrator to his discredit ; he caused a new and more
magnificent altar after the pattern he had seen at
Damascus to be set up in place of the old. Afterwards
indeed he found himself in such monetary straits that to
meet the demand of the king of Assyria he found him-
self compelled to strip off the ties (EV ‘borders,’
misgéGth) of the lavers, and to melt the oxen of brass
which supported the brazen sea (2 Κα. 1614 f:}--an
incidental illustration of the freedom with which the
kings acted within their own private sanctuary. [Ιἢ the
spoiling of the temple it was no other than the pious
Hezekiah who followed the example Ahaz had set;
after having in prosperous days overlaid the door-posts
and doors of the temple with gold, he found it necessary
to strip them again t0 meet the demand of the Assyrian
king (2 K. 1816). The structural changes made in the
temple by Manasseh were connected with his introduc-
tion of foreign eastern cults; on the temple roof and in
the court he set up altars to the ‘host of heaven
(2 K.2312); the houses for the hieroduli and the
accommodation for the horses of the sum (2 K. 23711)
are doubtless also to be assigned to Manasseh's reign.
Josiah removed all this, and took in hand extensive
restorations of the temple fabric (2 K.235/).

According to our present accounts the temple was
plundered by foreign foes four times before its final
destruction by the Babylonians.

First by Shishak in Rehoboam's time (1 K. 1426); again, under
Joram's reign, by the Philistinesin conjunction with Àrab tribes
(Joel 8, cp 2 Ch, 21167 22 τὴς 2 third time under Amaziah by
Joash, king of Israel (2 K. 1414); and a fowrth time under
Jehoiachim by Nebuchadrezzar (2 K. 24 13). These all contented
themselves with robbing the temple of its treasures, withont
carrying the work of destruction farther so far as we know.

It was not till eleven years after the first appearance
of Nebuchadrezzar that the building itself was burnt to
the ground, after it had been stripped of everything
valuable, —whether of gold, silver, or bronze, —the pillars
also being broken up and carried away (2 K. 2587
Jer. 5212 7 2 Ch. 8618). ‘This was according to the
MT of 2 K. on the seventh of the fifth month, according
to Jer. on the tenth day of the fifth month, and accord-
ing to @&* of 2 K. 25 8 on the ninth day of the month.
The Talmud harmonises :—on the seventh day the
Chaldaeans forced the temple, on the evening of the ninth
they set fire to it, and on the tenth it was destroyed.

Ezekiel’s temple (Ezek. 40-43)? never got beyond the

1 The text of Ezekiel's description of his temple is very
corrupt. [τ is impossible therefore to reconstruct it with
exactitude, Consult especially Coraill's edition of the text; as
also the commentaries of Smend and Bertholet, and ‘the
Archzologies of Benzinger and Nowack. On Ezekiel's altar cp
ZKEWL, 1883, pp. 677° 458/7, 1884, pp. 496,47

4940

TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE

theoretical stage, and remained always ‘an imaginative
opa construction merely. [τ demands some
23, Ezelcel'8 fotico here, however, a5 giving expression
temple. +0 a new conception of the sanctuary and
its significance—new or at least differing from that
which finds expression in the temple of Solomon.
©On the other hand, as already remarked, the later
representation is, as has been pointed out above, in
many respects fitted to be of use to us in our recon-
struction of the earlier temple. The fundamental con-
ception of the entire structure is the strict separation of
sacred from profane. The whole temple area is
sacrosanct, and no secular building of any description,
whether royal or official, is allowed a place within its
precincts. The whole eastern hill is set apart for its
exclusive occupaney. A protective area, the land of
the Zadokites, encloses it and shuts out the rest of
Jerusalem. At no point are the city walls allowed to
be in immediate contact with this land of priests. A
similar determination to separate sacred from profane
dominates the internal arrangements. It is with this
purpose in view that the temple has two courts (whereas
the pre-exilic temple had but one); the inner court is
accessible only to the officiating priesis and their
servants the Levites. The laity are restricted to the
‘Outer court.

Another characteristic feature of the whole arrange-
ment is the strict symmetry observed throughout. The
fundamental unit of measurement is the length of go
cubits; the buildings exhibit by preference the proportion
of 1:2; the gateways are 25 cubits in width and so
in length, the temple proper 50 cubits (from end to end
100), the open space surrounding the altar is 1oo
cubits square, and so forth. The entire temple area is
500 cubits square, enclosed by a wall 6 cubits in height
and thickness. Outside this wall a further strip, 50
cubits in breadth, is still reckoned to the holy territory,
and must not be cultivated even by the priests. The
northern, eastern, and southem sides are pierced at the
middle by great gateways (25 x so cubits), each with
siderooms and a gateway. These lead into the outer
court which surrounds the inner to a breadth of 150
cubits on the northern, eastern, and southern sides.
On each of these three sides are ro cells—making a
total of 30——intended to be used by the people for
miscellaneous purposes such as refreshment and the like
{cp Ezra 106 Neh.134/). In the four corners are
lesser courts separated off by partitions; here are the
kitchens where the Levites cook the offering of the
people. Gateways corrresponding exactly to the
three gates just mentioned lead on the three sides
from the outer to the inner court. Within and in
close proximity to the eastern gate stand the tables
for slaughtering the sin- and trespass-offerings (or
burnt offerings and peace-offerings). Αἱ the N. and S.
gates are chambera for the officiating priests. Fxactly
in the middle of the square in front of the temple stands
the altar of burnt offering. ‘The temple building itself,
which stood on a higher level reached by ten steps,
consisted of a porch (20 cubits in width and 12 in depth},
the Holy Place (40x20 cubits, inside measurement),
the Holy of Holies (20 x 20 cubits) and the three-storied
side-building. The thickness of the walls was, in the
main building, 6 cubits, and in the side building 5 ; the
width of the chambers was 4 cubits, the total breadth
thus amounting to 5o cubits. The total length,
including the porch, was roo cubits, outside measure-
ment.

As the Chronicler relates, the first care of the exiles
on their return was the restoration of divine worship.

In the first instance, however, they con-
ΠΕΣ ΩΝ tented themselves with setting up a
‘ new altar of burnt offering on the site
of the old (Ezra 33; cp Hag. 214}. So much indeed
was evidently indispensable; without an altar there
could be no sacrifice, without sacrifice no worship,

4941

}

TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE

without worship no Jewish community. A considerable
time elapsed before the returned exiles proceeded to the
building of a temple proper. In our present book of
Ezra indeed it is made out as if the work was begun
with great zeal immediately after the return, 11 has
long been recognised, however, that the representation in
Ezra in its essential features is unhistorical (see EzRA-
NEHEMIAH, $£6 f., 10, 16[1], 17; HagGal, 8 3 (δ);
ISRAEL, $$ 53 7).
As regards the build ng itself the OT supplies us with
onìy a few fragmentary notes, which are but sparingly
supplemented by Josephus and Pseudo-
" Hecatreus (ap. Jos). The dimensions
of the whole temple area are given by
Hecatacus (ap. Jos. c. 47. 122), in so far as he tells us
that the court was s plethra (z.e., 500 Gk. ft. =485%
Eng. ft.) in length, and 100 Οἷς, cubits (=1453 ft.) în
breadth. ‘The gates had double doors. Within the
court stood the altar which now was in exact accordance
with the precepts of the law, being constructed of
unhewn stones (1 Mace. 444). Doubtless also it was
reached by a sloping ascent instead of steps. According
to Hecataeus it was as large as that of Solomon. In
like manner, in accordance with the description of the
tabernacle arrangements, there was but one laver in the
court (4/i44.36; Ecclus. 503: the latter passage is
certainly very corrupt). Of the gates mention is made
in Neh.33r of the Miphkad Gate, and in Neh.
1230 of the Prison Gate, which last doubtless was on
the southern side. Whether the cells and store-rooms
(&iSkoth ; παστοφόρια) of which we incidentally hear,
were în the court or in the side-building of the temple
itself we do not know.! Over the Tyropoeon valley was
a bridge from the temple area which was broken down
by the Jews during the siege of Jerusalem by Pompey ;
its position is indicated by the so-called Wilson-
arch. When it was erected we do not know
(Josephus, Anz. xiv.42; B/i 72 ii. 163 vi. 62) Like
Ezekiel's temple this also had two courts (adàai,
1 Mace. 434 48): only—the point of chief importance
—the laity had in this case access to the inner as
well as the outer court and to the altar. ‘When on one
occasion Alexander Jannaeus did something that was
contrary to to the sacrificial ritual, the multitude pelted
him with palm branches and citrons. [1 was only in
consequence of this incident that he afterwards caused
a wooden enclosure to be set np round the altar, the
space within which was thenceforth accessible to the
priests alone (Jos. “πὰ xii. 135). The whole account
of Josephus presupposes that until that time the laity
had unhindered access to the inner court and altar.
Im this most essential matter of the strict exclusion
of the laity from the sanctuary proper, accordingly,
we see that the demands of Ezekiel and P were not
carried out immediately but only gradually made way.
The temple building itself, according to Ezra ὃ 3, had a breadth
and height of 60 cubits. But this statement has no satisfactory
sense. It is all the less credible because we are expressiy
informed that this second temple came so far short of that of
Solomon that in the eyes of those who had seen the first it
appeared as nothing (Hag. 2 3). Certainly, therefore, it cannot
have been so very considerably larger than the other.’ The text
gf the passage is hopelessly cormupt (cp also Ryssel and Rertholet
fra loc.
As regards the internal arrangements, we know that
the Holy of Holies was empty; the ark no longer
25. Internal sristedì A stone three fingers ἴῃ
igemente. eight was laid in the place of the
arran ark, so that the high priest on the
Day of Atonement could set down his censer upon it.
It was the foundation stone (dex &f%ivy4k) already
referred to in $ 5; cp Jos. 87ν 55, Yowd 52) The
Holy of Holies were separated from the Holy Place by
a curtain (x Mace, 122 dsx).
The Holy Place, in like manner, was closed by a
curtain (1 Mace. 451); within it stood, as in the former

1 Cp τ Macc.438; Jos. Anz xi. 47 xiv.162; Ezra$ 29 106
Neh. 3 30 10377. 12437. 1357

4942

TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICH

temple, a table of shewbread, ‘The place of the ten
candlesticks {see $ 17) was taken by one with seven
branches which was removed by Antiochus (1 Mace.
123). It was restored by Judas the Maccabee. The
Holy Place also contained the golden altar of incense.
As already mentioned, this was ἃ quite recent
arrangement, resulting from a duplication of the
golden table. it is interesting to notice that the
accounts continue to vacillate down to a quite late date ;
Hecateeus and the author of 2 Mace. 25, each naming
two pieces of furniture în the sanctuary: the former
(Jos. c. Ap.122) the βωμός and the candlestick, the
latter the incense altar and the candlestick. On the
Arch of Titus, also, only two pieces are shown.

‘The first temple resembled other temples of antiquity

in being built to contain a visible symbol of the presence
A of the deity, namely, the ark, which
26. Pet stood in the inner chamber. "In the
" second temple the adytum was empty;
but the idea that the Godhead was locally present in it,
still found expression in the continuance of the altar
service, in the table of shewbread {a sort of continual
lectisternium} that stood in the outer chamber, and
above all in the annual ritual of the Day of Atonement,
when the high priest entered the Holy of Holies to
sprinkle the blood of the expiatory sacrifice on behalf of
the people.

Not only in this point but in all others the ritual of the
second temple was dominated by the idea of priestly media»
tion, and the stated sacrifices of the priests on behalf of the

‘ople, which took the place of the old stated oblations of the

ings, became the main feature of the altar service. The first
temple was primarily the royal chapel, and the kings did as
they pleased in it; the second temple was the sanctuary of the
priests, whose chief now became the temporal as well as the
Spiritual head of the people, In the time of Ezekiel, not only
laymen but uncircumcised foreigners entered the sanctuary
and acted as servants in the sacred offices (Ezek. 447); in the
second temple the laity were anxiously kept at a distance from
the holy things, and even part of the court around the altar was
fenced off, as we have just seen, by a barrier, which only the
priests were allowed to cross (Jos. 4x2. xii. 13 5).

As regards the later history of Zerubbabel's temple,
the subsequent works upon it and the strengthening of

5 the wall surrounding the outer court are
27. Eistory associated with the name of the high
tomple priest Simon II. {Ecclus. 501). Antiochus
“. Epiphanes not only plundered it, but
desecrated it by setting up on the altar of burnt offering
a small altar to Jupiter Olympius {τ Mace. 12377
44 7. 54 438 2 Macc, 62 7). Three years later, after the
reconquest of the city, Judas the Maccabee restored the
temple, set up a new altar with new furniture, and
consecrated the building anew (cp 1 Macc. 1237 4437
safi 2 Macc. 105 Jos. “πὲ xii. 76), At the same time
he fortified the temple with high towers and walls
(x Mace. 460 67), so that the tempie thenceforward
could be regarded as the citadel proper of Jerusalem.
These fortifications were demolished by Antiochus II.
Eupator (1 Mace. 6 22); but they were again restored by
Jonathan (1 Mace, 1236 Jos. 4x4 xii. δ 51), and at a
later period further strengthened by Simon (1 Macc.
1352). At the time of Pompey's siege (63 B.c.) the
temple was an exceptionally strong fortress, defended
on the northern and more accessible side by towers and
deep ditches (4x4 xiv. 42). Pompey took it by storm,
but left the sacred vessels untouched (Ant. xiv. 47).
Crassus, on the other hand, plundered it without mercy
(Ant.xiv.7x, 871. 88). The temple was again besieged
and stormed by Herod ; like Pompey he concentrated
his attack on the north side. In this siege some of the
temple cloisters were burnt and seme persons killed ;
but the desecration stopped at this (A4r4. xiv. 162 Δ).

In the twentieth year of his reign (20-19 B.C.)

Herod the Great began to build the temple anew.
Besides the descriptions in Josephus,

28. The temple we have for Herod's temple a mass of
* detailsand measurements in the Mishnic

trealise Middoth. Josephus was himself a priest, whilst

4943

| with architectural precision,

TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE

the Mishnah was not written till a century after the
destruction of the temple, though it uses traditions that
go back to Levites who had servéd in the temple. The
two sources differ in many measurements, and the
Middéth appears to be possessed of detailed traditions
only for the inner temple. The state of the evidence is
not such as to allow a plan of the temple ta be formed
The following account
rests almost entirely on Josephus, who, apart from
certain exaggerations in detail, gives a salisfactory
general account, such as could be written from memory
without notes and drawings (for literature, sce $ 43).

Herod's motives in this undertaking were not so

much religious as political. On the one hand it afforded

n, him an opportunity of giving some satis-
39. Herod's faction to the religions feelings of his

"Jewish subjects, which he had so often
outraged, and of gaining some favour in pious circles
throughout the country. ©n the other hand, he had
his full share of the passion for building, which char-
acterised ihat age. After raising so many splendid
temples in the various Greek cities of his kingdom, it
seemed hardly fitting that the temple of his capital
should fall behind the others in magnificence. His
preparations for the work, we are told, were made on a.
very comprehensive and elaborate scale, so as to spare
the Jews any apprehension lest in the event of his.
death the scheme should remain uncompleted. In
other directions, also, he showed all possible respect
for the religious susceptibilities of his compatriots. As
it was not lawful for any laymen to enter the inner
precincts of the temple, he found it necessary to have a
thousand priests trained as masons and carpenters, 50.
that the building might be duly completed.

The rebuilding meant, in the first place, a consider-
able enlargement of the temple area. According to

Josephus' account (Anz xv, 113, 87 151}
pri the former area was exactly doubled, and
"the perimeter raised from four, stadia
(Ant,xv.113) to six (2/v.52). In other words, the
breadth (from E. to W.) remained as before —a
stadium ({Ar4xv.113)—but the length (N. to S.}
was increased from one stadium to two. The available
level ground on the temple hill was insufficient for a
plan so extended, and vast substructions on the
southern side became necessary. The whole S.
wall was new from the foundation. Even to-day the
southern portion of the temple area is seen to rest on
immense arches, known in Arab tradition as Solomon's
stables, but really dating from the time of Herod.

The whole area was surrounded by a battlemented
wall {B7iv.912). On the N. was the gate Tadi of the
Mishnah, which Josephus mentions only incidentally.
This, like the gate Shushan on the E., which he does
mot mention at all, must have been of minor import-
ance; the chief accesses were necessarily from the
lower city to the S., and the upper city to the W.

beyond the Tyropoeon valley, The S. wall, says
Josephus, had gates in the middle (4x4 xv. 115). ‘The
Mishnah names them the two gates of Huldah. There

is a double gate in the substructure of the S. wall,
350 ft. from the SW. angle, and from it a double
tunnel leads up to the platform. This double gate
exactly fits Josephus's description. There is also a triple
gate, 600 ft. from the SW, angle, which is probably
to be regarded as the second Huldah gate. In the W.
side the Mishnah places one gate (Kiponus), while
Josephus recognises four. The most southerly is
necessarily the one which opened on a flight of steps
descending, and then reascending across the Tyropoeon
to the upper city opposite. Now, at the SW. corner
of the platform, there are still remains of the great
arch (Robinson’s arch), which must have belonged to a
bridge connecting the upper city with the S. portico of
the temple. Many scholars (as, for example, W. R.
Smith, in Erey. Brit.8), συ. ‘Temple') look for this

4944

TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE

southern gate here. lt is more probabie, however, that
it lay somewhat farther to the N., at the point where,
tolerably low down in the temple wall, the colossal
lintel of a gate was found, consisting of a single stone.
‘The steps of which Josephus speaks, must, in that case,
have been inside the gate, as the gate itself was not far
above the level of the bottom of the valley. Comparing
BI ii. 163 vi, 62 v. 42, we see that the embankment also
carried the city wall {the so-called first wall). Of this
approach there are remains at Wilson's arch, 600 ft.
N. of Robinson's arch. Here also as în the case of
Robinson's arch, under the so-called Wilson's arch,
have been found remains of the arch of an older bridge
in the Roman style, which presumably dates from the
Herodian period (as to this cp JERUSALEM, $ 8).
Round the entire temple area on all four sides ran
porticoes built against the enclosing wall. The finest
was that on the S. sile—the Stoa Basilica—which was
formed by four rows of Corinthian columns of dazziing
white marble (162 columns in all). Of the three aisles
that in the middle was twice as high (some 28 metres)
as those flanking it, and broader by one half (some
72 metres). On the three other sides of the area were
double porticoes, some 15 metres in breadth with
monolith pillars of some 12 metres in height. ΑἹ]
hese bnildings were roofed with cedar beams, richly
carved (Jos. An χν. 115, 87 ν᾿ δε), The eastern
portico was known as Solomon's porch (Jn. 1023, Acts
311/ Biz); there must therefore have previously stood
on this side a structure which was considered as resting
on Solomon's foundations, The court itself immediately
within these buildings was paved in mosaic fashion with
stone.

Connected with the cemple was the citadel of Antonia (see
JerusatEM, $ 28). It lay on the NW. and dominated. the
temple area (Jos. An. xv.114). Stairs descended from it to

the NW. corner of the area, to the northern and western
porticoes.

In the temple of Herod the separation of sacred from
profane was rigorous. "The Antonia, the porches, and
the space immediately within these were not holy
ground, in the strict sense of the word. ‘They were
acccssible to Gentiles even, on which

81. The courts account the ‘outer’ court is actually
and gates. che: called the ‘court of the Gentiles,"
although this description is nowhere met with, either in
Josephus or in the Mishna. In the centre of this
enclosed space rose a platform at a height of 15 cubits
above the court of the Gentiles—the inner court with
the sanctuary proper. ‘This platform itself was in turn
surrounded by a narrow terrace, τὸ cubits in breadth
(del: B/v.52; Middith, 23). From the court of the
Gentiles fourteen steps led up to this terrace, and from
this again five steps to the gate of the inner court (see
Jos. B/v. 62; A/iddoth gives the number of the steps
differently). ‘There was no entrance upon the ὟΝ.
side. A° breastwork (i3ìp, s9r4g) of stone ran round

the whole of the inner court beneath the level of the
steps. Onit were placed at intervals inscribed tablets
forbidding every one who was not a Jew from crossing
the limit or treading the holy place, on pain of death.!
At the top of the steps was the inner court properly so
called, surrounded by a wall rising 25 cubits above
the level of the outer court. The inner court was
divided into two unequal portions by a cross wall running
N. and S. ‘The eastern and smaller space, which lay
at a somewhat lower level, formed the so-called court
of the women (‘dsiraz@. ndfim, vw) msp. A/idd. 25),
and was accessible to Jewish women. The western
space, containing the temple buildings properly so
called, was for men only. The wall enclosing the
inner court was pierced by nine gates; the N. and S.
sides had each four gates, the easternmost of which in
each case led directly into the court of the women, whilst

1 One such inscription (Greek and Latin) is still extant
(PEFOSE., 1871, p. 132; Benz. HA 404; Nowack, MA
377).

4945

TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE

the others opened into that of the men. The gates
had double doors which were covered with silver and
, the gift of the Jewish alabarch, Alexander of
5 To the W. there was no gate and the
E. side had but one,! which, however, was specially
magnificent and costly. Its doors were of Corinthian
brass. [τ led, according to what has just been said,
directly into the court of the women, In a straight
line with it, finally, în the wall between the courts of
the men and women, the most magnificent of all the
gates closed the eastern approach to the temple (Jos.
54 v.53). It was the ‘Great’ gate, 40. cubits broad
and so cubits high; 15 semicircular steps here ascended
from the court of the women to that of the men.
‘Which of these two doors on the E. is intended by the
‘ Beautiful ' gate of Acts 8 2, it is impossible to determine.
According to the Mishna (A/i#4.14), the last-named
inner gate between the court of the men and that of the
women corresponded to the gate of Nicanor; ac-
cording to the description of these gates by Josephus,
however, there would seem to be some mistake in this.
The gates were probably? all of them porch-like in
plan, with side recesses (exedra) which made the con-
nection with the chambers skirting the length of the
walls. In like manner there was an upper chamber
above the gateway properly so called (cp .3/#44. 15;
Tamid, 11, where mention is made of an upper chamber
of the gate of Sparks [pis'in »py] on the N. side). This
gave the gates the tower-like appearance of which
Josephus speaks.
Along the enclosing wall ran a series of chambers
(423Gk5th) which served for storage of the various utensils,
39. Th skins of sacrificial animals, sacrificial salt,
chambens, Y00d, vestments, and the like, or for various
“operations, such as the preparation of the
meal-offering, and so forth.

The supreme council also held its sittings in one of these
chambers, Their precise number îs unknown. Ναί. 63£
mentions three on the N. and three on the S.; elsewhere
yet others are alluded to. According to A/i44.25 there were
four chambers in the women's court also—a piece of information,
however, the accuracy of which is with reason called in question
(Schorer in Riehm, #72, conjectures that the statement is
an inference from Ezek. 4621), Some of these. chambers
(whether all of them is uncertain) had upper stories (ὅλη 1 5,
and 7&mid}1; allusion is made to an upper chamber of the
Bet.Abtinas), In front of the chambers were, as in the first
inner court, porticoes, though much smaller in size. Finally,
we hear of thisteen offertory chests for free-will offerings of all
sorts.

From this court of the Israelites the portion immedi-
ately surrounding the sanctuary was separated by a
breastwork of stone—on ali sides, according to the ex-
press statement of Josephus (8/v. 56 An2. xii. 185);
but the Mishna (4/94. 26) speaks only of a wall running
from N, to S. The area thus shut off was the court
of the priests. Laymen had access to this court only
when the ritual connected with certain offerings de-
manded the presence of the persons presenting them.

Within the court of the priests stood on a still higher
level the temple building proper. The ascent to it was

33. The DY twelve steps (./id4. 86). The ground

n n le plan and dimensions of the building were

vidi the same as in the temple of Solomon—

Ming: Liz. 60 cubits in length zo in breadth and
40 in height. Two costly curtains shut off the Holy of

1 According to Midd. 26 (cp M. Sk2tdlîm,62) the gates on
the S. side were these: (1) ΡΠ Ἔν (wanting in 4/44.
145); ὦ pin δ᾽ @ ninizan Ὁ (Ὁ one τ; and those on
the N. side were: (1) mai (2) pa “δ; 6) απ δ»
(4) VET W. Add AL gives three quite different names;
those at the eastern end leading into the court of the women are
not taken account of at all.

2 Jos. 87 ν᾿ 53 seems to presuppose this for all the gates.
Elsewhere in Josephus mention is made of the northern or
western exedra; so that it might seem as if not all the gates were
so constructed. The last seems to be the view of the Mishna
also. Moreover, a hall or exedra of the same kind existed also
upon the W. side, where there was no gate.

4946

TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICH

Holies (20 x 20 cubits), which was quite empty.
outer curtain was folded back upon the S. side, whilst
the inner was similarly folded back on the N. side, so
that in this way the high priest entered the intermediate
space from the S. and passing along it entered the Holy
of Holies on the N. side.

The anterior apartment of the sanctuary (5»*mmyn
Midd.47) was 40 cubits in length. It was entered from
the E. through the porch by a great double door (μοῦ
Divin ΜῈ, 42, cp Tamid 87) of 40 cubits in height and
16 cubits in width (so Jos. 8/v.54; according to
Aida. 4: only zo cubits high and 10 broad). Like the
gates of the court it was richly covered with gold. In
front of the great door hung a magnificent curtain of
Babylonian workmanship; its colour according to
Josephus symbolised the universe: byssus the earth,
purple the sea, scarlet the element of fire, and hyacinth
the air (87ν. 54). Above the gate were golden vines
and grape clusters as big as aman{2/v.54; Axt.xv.113
cp Tacit. Hist. 55). ‘The sanctuary was accessible only
to the officiating priests. The altar of incense stood
near the entrance to the Holy of Holies, the table of
shewbread to the N., the seven-branched candlestick
to the S. (cp the figures on the arch of Titus; also
CANDLESTICK).

Fastward from the temple was, as in the temple of
Solomon, a porch ('2472) 100 cubits in breadth, roo
cubits in height and 2ὸ cubits deep (according τὸ
Midd.47 only 11 cubits). Its gateway, which had no
doors, was 70 cubits high and 20 cubits broad (Jos.
8/55; according to Afidd.37 it was only 40 cubits high
and 20 cubits broad). Above this gate Herod caused
the name of Agrippa his patron (871. 213) and a golden
eagle to be pinced. The eagle was, as may well be
believed, an abomination in the eyes of pious Jews ; and
Josephus tells how, shortly before the death of Herod,
two zealous rabbins incited some youths to tear it down
(Ant. xvii. 62-4).

‘The temple building had an upper story of the same
dimensions with the lower (28/ ν. ὅ 5). The Holy of
Holies could be entered directly from above by means of
a trap-door ; by this means workmen could be let down
in boxes whenever repairs were needed, The access to
the upper room was from the S. from the roof of the
side-building, As în Solomon's temple, the side-build-
ing surrounded the house on the S., W., and N. It
was three-storied and 4o cubits in height, ‘The
individual chambers were not only connected with those
on the same floor by means of doors, but there was
communication between those above and those below
by means of trap-doors. The principal entrance was
on the NE. where it was possible to pass from the
portico direct into these chambers. “The whole breadth
of the temple buildings inclusive of the side-building
was 70 cubits (4/#44. 47, where the separate figures are
given from which this total results), ‘Thus the porch
on each side exceeded by 15 cubits the breadth of the
temple building.

Eastwards of the temple at a distance of 22 cubits
from the porch, in the court of the priests, stood the
great altar of burnt offering of unhewn stones (see
ALTAR). At the SW. corner was a channel which
drained into the Kidron valley. Twenty-four rings
fixed in the ground to the N. of the altar served for
tying up the sacrificial animals, there were eight pillars
connected by cedar beams for hanging up the carcases,
and eight marble tables on which to prepare the sacri-
ficial flesh {Midd. 35 52 Tamid 35 Skékalimb4). On
the S. side was the bronze laver at which the priests
washed hands and feet before entering the sanctuary
(Midd.86; cp Yimd Bro); also a silver table for the
vessels and a marble table for the sacrificial flesh
{Skèkalim 64; Tamidi43). Herod's gigantie and costly
structures were still in building forty-six years after
their commencement, when Jesus began his ministry
(Jn. 220), and the works were not completed till the

4947

The 1 procuratorship of Albinus {62-64 A.D.).

TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICH

In 66 the
great revolt against Rome broke cut, and in August 70
Jerusalem was taken by Titus and the temple perished
ἴῃ a great conflagration. LB

Il, THE TEMPLE-SERVICE.

‘The system of worship of which the Jerusalem

sanctuary was the centre assumed

84 Introduetory. [ἐς most elaborate and highly de-
veloped form in the temple of Herod.

‘The immense and manifold religious activities that

concentrated themselves in the temple worship, can

only be adequately realised when it is remembered how

‘ unique was the position occupied by Judaism's central

shrine, It was absolutely the one and only sanctuary
where the highest expressions of the religious life of a
whole people could be offered, Judaism possessed but
one sanctuary, and that was in Jerusalem,

At the time when the Christian movement was born,
Palestine—though its population was by no means ex-
clusively or (except in such districts as Judzea and
possibly Galilee) even predominantly Jewish—had once
again become the centre of Jewish national life. And
it was in the Holy City, and pre-eminently în the
temple worship, that this life found its most intense
and Jewish expression. Jerusalem was constantiy
thronged with pilgrims from the Jewish communities
scattered over the E. and W. worlds (see DISIPERSION)
laden with gifts for the temple, And here, in the
elaborate sacrificial worship, they rendered the highest
tribute of homage within their power to the God of their
fathers. How immense the influence of the temple
worship was is evidenced by the large space devoted to
its detailsthe minutize of its ritual and organisation—
in the later Jewish literature (the Mishna and Gemara),
which was compiled long after the destruction of the
sanctuary, Such pious ejaculations as, for instance, the
following constantiy recur. ‘Towards the end of the
Mishna tractate 7md, which sets forth in detail the
course of the daily offering, we read: ‘Such is the
order of the daily offering for the service of the house of
our God. May it be his will to build it speedily in our
days. Amen’ (73). ‘The same sentiment finds fre-
quent expression in the liturgy of the synagogue, which
also reflects the influence of the sacrificial worship in its
essential structure. Cp SYNAGOGUE.

Of the more important features of this worship, so
far as known, a brief sketch may here be appended,
As a preliminary to this it will be necessary to give some
account of the officers by whom it was carried on.

(a) The Priests —According to Josephus (c. 49.28)
the priesthood in his day numbered no less than 20,000

men. It was only on rare occasions
35. Officers, ee αν certain of the high festivals1—that
the whole, or anything like the whole, of this number
officiated at one time within the temple precincts. For
the purposes of regular worship this body was, as is
well known, divided into twenty-four ‘ courses’ (mifmdar,
“mod. ‘watch τε πατρία or ἐφημερία, cp Lk.158, or
ἐφημερί5)}; and the ‘courses’ again into subdivisions or
* families’ (niag ‘na = φυλή).

Itis interesting to note that Josephus (Ρ ἐδ, 1 1) claims to belong
by birth to che first of the twenty-four ‘courses'—thatof Joiarib

—from which also the Hasmoneans sprang (1 Macc. 21). Both
the main- and the sub-divisions were presided over by “heads”

(ΟὟ τ), each of whom was termed respectively “head of the
course’ Mew RI) or “head of the family” (28 MI WAI).

Fach ‘course’ in succession was responsible for the
regular temple services for the week (from sabbath to
sabbath), and divided up the week's services among its
* families‘ according to their number {which varied),

At the head of the whole priesthood stood the high
priest (Ad4zn καρ φασὶ, Vian 155, dpyiepeds), at this
time the greatest native personage, both in church and

4948

TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE

state, to whom was reserved the performance of the
highest religious acts, such as the supreme sacrificial
act enacted on the Day of Atonement. On ordinary
occasions, however, it was rare for him to participate
officially in the tempie worship, and as a rule he did so,
according t0 Josephus, only on sabbaths, new moons,
and the great annual festivals (2/v. 57). During the
time of the Roman predominance the office was held
almost exclusively by members of two or three families
(those of Phabi, Boethus, Ananus, and Kamith) who
formed the priestly aristocracy, and were divided by a
deep social gulf from the great mass of the priesthood,

(δὴ Zevites.—Another class of temple officials, occupy-
ing a position subordinate to that of the priests, was
the Levites, who, however, like the priests, formed at
this time a strictly exclusive and hereditary order,
though, strange to say, they had now absorbed the
musicians and door-xeepers, who (even in the post-
exilic period) had formerly been carefully distinguished
from the Levites proper. Later still {just before the
destruction of the temple) the musicians advanced a
step further in securing from King Agrippa II, with the
assent of the Sanhedrin, the privilege of wearing the
white linen garments of the regular priesthood (Ax£
xx. 96).

The Levites, like the priests, were divided into twenty-four
‘courses,’ and each performed duty in a corresponding manner.
Similarly these were also presided over by ‘heads’ (pene).

(c) 7%e official " Israelites" —Corresponding to the
divisions of the priests and the Levites there was also
a division of the people into twenty-four courses of
service (menuin) ‘each of which had to take its turn in
coming before God, every day for a whole week, by way
of representing the whole body of people while the daily
sacrifice was being offered to Yahwè' (Schirer) ‘The
division on duty for the time being was technically
termed ‘a station’ (ma'dmd4, πΌ} Ὁ). [1 seems, how-
ever, that not the whole division, but only a deputation
of it, was actually required to be present at the offering
of the sacrifice in the temple. At the time when this
was being performed the absent members of the
*station’ met together in the local synagogues for
prayer and the reading of certain passages of Scripture.
The leading passage on the subject in the Mishna
(Ta'dnith42) runs as follows :—

‘The earliest prophets established twenty-four courses of
service (nunpn). Τὸ each belonged a staff (xy) in Jerusalem,
composed of priests, Levites, and Israclites.” As soon as its
turn to serve came round to a course, the priests and the Levites
belonging to it proceeded to Jerusalem, but the Israelites as-
sembled in the synagogues of their different towns and there
read the account of the creation.’ {St should be noted that the
suole of the course, of priests and Levites, whea its turn came,
had to be present in Jerusalem.)

‘The part taken by the high priest in the temple
worship has already been referred to, and need not
here be further enlarged on. lt may
A be pointed out, however, that the daily

of prieste and meal-offering of the high priest, which

evites. ns offered în conjunetion with the
daily burnt-offering of the people (Lev. 612-16), was (in
practice) not so much offered 2y him as ox 4is deka/f
and αὐ his expense. According to Schiirer (/7ist, iî. 1288
n. 243) it is this offering which is referred to in the
difficult passage Heb. 727, though it was in no sense a
sin-offering.

The functions of the ordinary priests, when they were
engaged in the service, mainly consisted in ministrations
at the altar. These will be described în greater detail
below (8 38), To the priests the Levites were in all
respects subordinate —the strictly priestly function of
officiating at the altar was forbidden to the Levites, nor
were they permitted to enter the inner sanctuary ; their
duties mainly consisted in such offices as the guarding
of the temple fabric, and acting as choristers and door.
keepers (see further below, ὁ). ‘There were, how
ever, other high officials of whom mention must be

158 4949

36. Functions

TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE

made. The most important of these was the ségaz
(Aram. pp. the vocalisation of the Heb. form pp is
unceriain), who ranked next to the high priest. The
widely-held view that the φόρων was the high priest's
deputy or substitute has been controverted on cogent
grounds by Schurer (4/54 ii. 1257) who points out that
a substitute for the high priest was appointed annually,
seven days before the Day of Atonement, to act in case
of necessity {εξ 1:)—a superfiuons provision if an
official substitute already existed. Schiirer gives good
reasons for identifying this official with the ‘captain of
the temple (στρατηγὸς τοῦ ἱεροῦ} frequently mentioned
in both Josephus and the NT, who controlled all
arrangements for maintaining order within the temple
area. Subordinate to him, but exercising functions
essentially similar, were a number of other ségdnim or
captains of the temple police, who are probably to be
identified with the ‘ captains' (στρατηγοί) of Lk. 224 52.

Next in dignity to the high priest and the segar
ranked the heads of the twenty-four courses (mena wi)
and (below them) those of the constituent ‘families'
(ae mie). Besides the above there were various
other functionaries connected with the temple among
the priests and Levites. These (following Schiirer) we
may group into three divisions :

{a) Those entrusted with the administration of the
temple stores, furniture, and treasures. ‘The officials
who controlled this vast department—which included
not merely the custody of the sacrificial plate and vest-
ments, and supplies of corn, wine, and oil for ritual
purposes, but also the care of vast sums of money
belonging to the temple, as well as of large amounts
deposited there by private individuals for safety—were
known as ‘treasurers’ (gisbdrim, Dual; γαζοφύλακε5).
They also gathered in the half-shekel tax (SA%4. 9}.
The full complement of officials in this department must
have been very large, and may have included Levites ;
but, in any case, the more important offices connected

the pprSinp (καθολικοῦ, about whom, however, the Mishna is
silent.
(4) Officials connected with the police department.

Here Levites were mostly employed. According to the
Mishna {7@4mid11), of twenty-four points at which
guards were stationed at night no less than twenty-one
were occupied by Levites, whilst the other three were
watched by priests. In point of fact the whole space
within the low barrier beyond which Gentiles were
forbidden to pass on pain of death ($ 31). the
inner court, or court proper—was guarded by priests.
Outside of this inner court, at the gates and the corners,
the Levite posts were stationed, and also {but on the
inside} at the gates and the corners of the outer court
(i.e., the ‘court of the gentiles’; $ 31). AIl these
gates were also occupied during the day time, and.
amongst other things, it was the duty of the Levitical
guards to see that the prohibition of Gentiles from
entering the sacred enclosure was strictly carried out.
Patrols also moved round by night and day. At night
it was usual for a captain of the temple, known as wr
nin “n, to make a round of inspection to see that the
guards were not sleeping at their posts (A/#440#£ 12).
Another officer (στρατηγός) is also mentioned under the title
of ssh hab-birdk (man τρομ)ττή, δι, ‘man of the citadel'—the
citadel în this case doubtless being the temple proper, and the
officer in question the head of the priestly guard (of ihe inner
court), All the gates of the courts were shut at night by the
guards, and a special officer was appointed to superintend the
operation (ς ἀέξ. 5 1). The keys of the gates of the inner court
were kept by the elders of the particular division of priests on
duty for the watch, and, when the divisions were changed, were
handed over to the elders of the incoming division.” As the
morning sacrifice was offered at daybreak it was necessary that

4950

TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE

the gates should be opened somewhat earlier. At the great
festivals (when large preparations for additional sacrifices, etc.,
had to be made) the gates were opened much earlìer—as early
as midnight during Passover (ἀπέ, xvili. 2.2).

(e) Special functionaries connected with public
worship. Whilst the general conduct of the sacrificial
worship was exercised by the priesthood as a whole (in
their courses), certain special duties were performed by
permanent officials, who, in many cases, belonged to
families which had acquired a bereditary right to fulfil
a particular office. A number of these (who were in
office during the ciosing years of the temple) are
enumerated in the Mishna (.S46Z4/2 51). From this
passage we learn that there was an officer ‘over the
lots’ (#.6., the lots cast daily for the allocation of par-
ticular offices to the officiating priests), another ‘ over the
scals' (tokens issued to the people, which corresponded
to the various kinds of drink-offerings). These ‘seals’
were handed by the purchasers to another official who
was ‘over the drink-offerings' and who ‘in return
would give to the person tendering one the amount of
drink-offering requisite for the particular occasion for
which it was wanted (Schiirer).

The hereditary offices, confined to certain families, were
connected with matters involving speciai technical skill and
knowledge, such as the preparation of the shewbread (family of
Garmu), and of the frankincense (family οἵ Abtinas). Other
officials mentioned are: a master of the psalmody, a cymbal-
player (who gave the signal for the Levites to τοῖο the music),
a temple physician, a master of the wells, a herakd, a keeper of
the veils, and a keeper of the priests’ garments.

A comparatively large class of officials was the guild
of sacred musicians (wéSorérim, ovmun ψαλτῳδοΐ,
ἱεροψάλται, ὑμνωδοί, κιθαρισταί τε καὶ ὑμνωδοί), who
formed a hereditary and exclusive order (now Levitical).
They were divided into three families (those of Heman,
Asaph, and Ethan er Jeduthun ; cp e.g., x Ch. 25), and
these again into twenty-four courses of service. Greatest
importance was attached to the singing, to which the
musical accompaniment was regarded as subordinate.
For the instruments employed see Music.

It may be noted that reed-pipes (Δ ΠΡ were introduced
into the choir at the high-festivals (Passover, Pentecost, and
Tahernacles), and chat the only instruments not assigned to the
Levites were the metal trumpets (£Asds2r32%), which were
regularly blown hy priests (esp. to accompany the offering of
the daily sacrifice) The place of the Néthinim in Herod's

temple seems to have been taken by the ᾳασσενενε (OHM
“servants,’ ‘sextons’ τ see eg, Tx:£25 3), Menial offices were
also performed by boys ofthe priestly families (303 "ΠῚΒν ‘scions
of the priesthood,’ 722211, etc.).

We may pass over the details connected with such
subjects as admission to the ranks of the officiating
priesthood (Schilrer, ist. ii. 12107), the residence of
the priests and Levites (#5. 220). and the sources of the
temple revenue {#8, 230 77}, the consideration of which
hardly falls within the scope of this sketch; but some
description must be given of the public worship of the
sanctuary, in, at least, its typical features.

The regular worship of the temple centred in the
daily public offering (von ny or simply venni) of the

rescribed sacrifices, morning and
87. The temple Crening. On sabbaths and festivals
ἄδην eferino, the xumber of the sacrifices was in-
Ὑ OMATINE: creased, and (in particular cases) other
ritualistic elements were added; but essentially the
course and sequence of the worship was the same.
There were also, of course, multitudes of private
sacrifices offered. But here we are mainly concerned
with the public worship, which embodies the typical
features of the rest. Fortunately a detailed account of
the course of the daily offering has been preserved in
the Mishna, which devotes a whole tractate to the
subject (774), based evidently on sound tradition.
The substance of this may here be given,

The service naturally divides itself into three
moments: (1) the preliminaries, mainly affecting the
priests, and including the slaughter and preparation of
the sacrifice ($ 38 ΧΑ}; (2) the offering of incense and of

4951

TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE

the sacrifice, accompanied by prayer ($ 40); and (3)
the service of praise and thanksgiving ($ 41).
1. The priests on duty slept within a chamber of the

inner court. Very early those who were desirous of
38, The tAking part in the sacrificial worship
preliminaries. arose and took the baptismal bath so

as to be ready for the official summons,
which might come at any moment. When the summons
came the priests who were ready followed the super-
intendent through a wicket into the court. They then
divided themselves into two parties, one going castward
and theother westward, with lighted torches in their hands
(except on sabbaths when the temple was lit up) and
met in ‘the place of the pancake makers’ ., the
apartment where the high-priest's daily meal-offering
was prepared), and greeted each other with the words
‘It is well; all is well’ They then passed to the
Hall Gazith (πη. nov, lit. ‘hall of polished stones,’
where the Sanhedrin also met) and proceeded to cast
lots. Altogether four lots—not immediately, but at
intervals—were cast during the service, the first to
determine who was to cleanse the altar and prepare it.
as mode of casting the lots is thus described by Edersheim
‘medle, 122): ‘The priests stood in a circle around the
Cer lent, who for a moment removed the head-gear of one of
their number, to show that he would begin counting at him.
‘Then ail held up one, two, or more fingers—since it was not
lawful in Israel to count persons—when the president named
some number, say seventy, and began counting the fingers till
he reached the number named, which marked that the lot had
fallen on that priest ‘(so Lightfoot, Tesmple Serzice, chap. 91,
following Maimonides),

The person selected first of all bathed his hands and
feet at the brazen laver, which stood betwcen the temple
and the great altar, and mounting the altar carried
away the ashes in a silver pan. While he descended,
the other priests washed their hands and feet at the
brazen laver, removed the unburnt sacrifices and debris
from the altar, laid on fresh wood, and replaced the
unconsumed pieces of the sacrifice They then all
adjourned to the ‘ Hall of Polished Stones,' where the
second lot was cast,

During the proceedings above described, which took place în
darkness, the only light being the glow of the altar fire, those
priests τὸ whom the duty had been assigned, were preparin, the
baked mealoffering of the high priest in the ‘place of the
pancake makers,"

The second lot designated the priest on whom it fell,
together with twelve others standing next him, to dis-
charge the following duties :--- [1] the siaughter of the
victim ; {2) the sprinkling of the blood upon the altar;
(3) the removing of the ashes from the altar of incense ;
(4) the trimming of the lamps on the candiestick;
further, the lot determined who were to carry the
various portions of the victim to the foot of the ascent
of the altar, viz., who was to carry (5) the head and
one of the hind legs; (6) the two forelegs; (7) the tail
and the other hind leg ; (8) the breast and the neck;
(9) the two sides; (το) the entrails ; (11) the offering
of fine fiour ; (12) the baked meal-offering {of the high
priest) ; and (13) the wine for the drink-offering.

Immediately after this the president directed inquiries
to be made as to whether the time for slaughter had
arrived (determined by the approach of dawn when it
was visible in the sky up to Hebron), On the
signal being given the lamb was brought from the
lamb-chamber (t’nbun nowb), given some water to drink
from a golden bowl, and led to the place of slaughter
on the N. side of the altar. At the same time the
ninety-three sacred vessels were brought from the
utensil-chamber. Meanvhile the two priests to whom
the duty had been assigned of cleansing the altar of
incense, and trimming the lamps on the candlestick
{3 and 4 above) proceeded to the sanctuary, the one
with a golden pail (55), the other with a golden bottle
(na) At this point orders were given (by the elders
who had charge of the keys} to open the temple gates,
the noise of which {according to the Mishna) was heard
at Jericho. The accomplishment of this was heralded

4952

TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE

by three blasts on the silver trumpets, which gave the
signal for the Levites and ‘men of the station’ (repre-
sentative Israelites) to sssemble, and also announced to
the city that the morning sacrifice was about to be
offered (for these details see the Gemdrd on Témid),
At this point also, the great gates leading into the holy
place were opened to admit the priests whose duty it
was to cleanse the incense-altar and trim the candle-
sticks, into the sanctuary {see above). The opening of
the sanctuary gates was the signal for the actual
slaughter of the sacrifice. See Edersheim, 724%, 133,
SACRIFICE, $ 32.

Meanwhile the two priests above referred to had
entered the holy place. While the slaughter of the
lamb was taking place the first of the priests cleansed the
golden altar of incense, putting the burnt coals and
ashes into the golden pail (+30), and then withdrew,
leaving the utensil behind. The second priest, while
the blood of the lamb was being sprinkled, praceeded
to trim and re-light the lamps of the candlestick.

The procedure was as follows :—-Only five of the seven lamps
were at this time trimmed—the other two being reserved fora
later period of the service, If the two farthest E. were still
buming they were left undisturbed, and the trimming and re-
lighting of the five others was proceeded with. But the central
lamp, called the ‘western’ (because it inclined westward τὸ the
most holy place), could only be relighted by fire brought from
the altar, "If it happened that the two farthest E. were out,
they were first of all trimmed and relighted, before the others
were attended to. The candiestick was approached by three
stone steps, and on the second of these the priest, when this part
of his duty was done, deposited the golden bottle (335) and
withdrew.

Meanwhile the siaughtering of the sacrifice and the
sprinkling of the blood upon the altar had been followed
by the flaying of the victim, which was cut up into
pieces, and the entrails washed upon the marble tables.
‘The pieces were carried by the six allotted priests (each
taking one piece) to the altar, while a seventh carried
the offering of flour, an eighth the baked meal-offering
{of the bigh priest), and a ninth the wine of the drink-
offering. These were all laid at the foot of the altar-
ascent, and salted; and then all the priests assembled
once more in the Hall of Polished Stones.

Here a service of prayer was celebrated, the details
of which are, however, not free from ambiguity. The
20, te prayera Misna pascage {Fani ν. being

and blessing8. ne president said: ‘Give one blessing';
and the priests blessed and read the ten commandments (and),
the Shèéma' (in its three sections). They blessed the people
with the three blessings—viz. (the blessing) ‘True and ἧττα"
(an now), (the blessing) ‘Service ' (mp), and ‘the blessing
of rhe priests’ (uns nono). And on the sabbath they added
one blessing for the outgoing temple course,

The points undetermined here are the following :—(a)
how far we are to understand that these prayers were
said in the hall by the priests alone, and how far in the
temple itself by priests and people; and (3) what is
meant by ‘one blessing' and by ‘three blessings 21

Regarding (@) it has been usual to suppose that the
Shéma' (£.e., the three sections of the Law, Dt. 649
1113-21; and Nu. 1537-41 which had to be repeated by
each Israelite every day, morning and evening), pre-
ceded by a benediction and the ten commandments,
was repeated by the priests in the hall, whilst the other
prayers mentioned form part of the pwblic service, and
come later (so Edersheim, and apparently Schiîrer).
The difficulty about this view is that the benediction
‘true and firm’ belongs to the Shéma', which it ought
immediately to follow. In any case, if the benediction
was said by priests and people publicly, must we not
suppose that the Sh&ma' itself was recited pwublic/y as
well? It is not, perhaps, altogether impossible to
regard the priest's service în the hali—i.e., the recita-
tion of the Shéma' preceded and followed by the bene-
dictions mentioned, including ‘ service' and ‘the priestly
blessing’—as a sort of rehearsal, de/ore the solemn

1 (See L. Blau, ‘Origine et Histoîre de la lecture du Schema,
RE) 31 [1895] pp. 179-201.)

4953

I

TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE

part of the sacrifici! worship, of what was publicly
recited later when the incense ascended from the altar.
We may suppose also that the people, during the
interval of silent prayer, mentally repeated the same
prayers,

The analogous case of the Shémanzh ‘Esreh (‘ The Fightecn
Benedictions ) in the modern synagogue, may be cited. This
is first of all said by the congregation inaudibly, and then re-
‘peated aloud by the reader.

The recital of the ten commandments, which is else-
where attested as a daily practice, was afterwards
discontinued, probably for anti-Christian reasons (cp
C. Taylor, Sayings ‘of 7. Fathers.!) Excurs. d119).
(5) As to what benediction was recited defore the
Shèma', the Mishna gives no indication, and it was
early a matter of dispute (2. er. 113) whether it was
that over the creation of light (six sy; the modern

form can be seen in Singer's Ed. of 4e8.-Zng. Prayer
Book, 37 25}, or that in praise of God's love, known as
Ahabah Rabbah (= ‘with abounding love’). Accord-
ing to the generally received opinion, it was the latter
that was recited in the temple. In its early form this
ran somewhat as follows :—

With abounding (or, according to another version, everlasting)
love hast thou loved us, O Lord our God (Jer. 313. With
great and exceeding compassion hast thow taken compassion
on us (cp Is. 689). Our Father, our King, for the sake of our
fathers who trusted in thee and whom thou taughtest the statutes
of life, be gracious unto us, and be thou also our teacher. En-
lighten our eyes în thy law, and make our hearts cleave to thy
commandments ; render our hearts one that we may love and
fear thy name, and not be ashamed. For in thy holy name we
trust; we rejoice and exult in thy salvation. For thou art the
God who works salvation, and thou hast chosen us from all

eoples and tongues, and brought us nigh unto thy great name
ESCL) in για, that ere give praise unto thee and proclaim thy
unity in love. Blessed art thou, O Lord, who hast chosen thy
people Israel in love. (Cp Jewisk Aneyci 1281, and reff.)

The benediction that followed the Shéma', beginning
with the words ‘true and firm’ (xy nix), is a thanks-
giving to God for various acts of redemption (hence its
technical name σέ), and has been much amplified
in the later Jewish liturgy. In îts earliest form it may
not have contained more than the following :—

True and firm (established) it is that thou art Yahwè our God,
and the God of our fathers; our King and the King of cur
fathers; our Saviour and the Saviour of our fathers ; our Maker
and the Rock of our Salvation ; our Help and our Deliverer.
‘Thy name is from everlasting, and there is no God hesides thee.
A new song did they that were delivered sing to thy name by
the sea-shore ; together did all praise and own thee as King,
and say, Yahwè shall reign who has redeemed Israel, (Sce
further Zunz, Gottesd. Vortr. d. Juden,(1) 370, (2) 383.)

Of the other two ‘ blessings,’ the first, that known as
‘ service’ (15p), was doubtless a thanksgiving for the
splendid temple worship, which may have been an
earlier form of the present ‘Aboda prayer {(=the 17th
of the Shémoneh ‘Esreh; cp Singer, so), and in its
earlier form may have run thus :—

Accept, O Lord our God, thy people Israel and their prayer;
receive in love and favour both the fire offerings of Israel and
their prayer; and may the service of thy people Israel be ever
acceptable unto thee. Blessed art thou, O Lord, who receivest
the service of thy people Israel with favour [for the last clause,
see Rashi on B2r444. 118].

The ‘blessing of the priests’ was, doubtless, some
form (ποῦ, however, the precative form now used în the
synagogue =the last of the Sh&moneh 'Esreh) of the well-
known priestly blessing (Nu. 624-26), in using which
within the Temple the priests pronounced the ineffable
name (mn) as written. After the priests had recited
the Shéma' and the accompanying prayers in the Hall,
the third and the fourth lot were taken—the third to
determine who should offer the incense in the sanctuary,
and the fourth to determine who should lay the various
parts of the victim npon the altar. The most im-
portant duty of the service that could fall to a priest
was that of offering the incense, and only those who
had not performed the office before were eligible (except
in the rare case when all present had so officiated).
Those on whom no lot had fallen were now free to go
away, after divesting themselves of the priestly dress.

2. The ofering of incense and of the sacrifice accom-

4954

TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE

TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE

panied by prayer —The incensing priest now took a ! was offered a/fer the burnt oftering instead of before it,

golden saucer (73) covered with a lid,
of incenne, ©OPtAInINg a smaller saucer (39) with
- the incense. An assistant priest then
brought some live coal from the great altar in a silver
pan (nano) which he emptied into a golden pan. This
done, both proceeded with another assistant, and with
the two who had already dressed the altar and candle-
stick, into the sanctuary, striking as they passed the
instrument called magrZphak (see col. 3229), at the sound
of which priests hastened to the worship, the Levites to
occupy their places in the choir, while the delegates
{*stationary men’) ranged at the eastern gate of the
Temple (=the gate of Nicanor} such of the people as
were to be purified that day (‘the defiled men').

The two priests who had dressed the altar and the
candlestick entered first, the former merely to bring
away his utensil, which, after prostrating himself, he did ;
while the latter completed the trimming of the lamps,
and then, prostrating himself, withdrew with his utensil.

The assistant priest who had the pan of coals emptied
them on to the altar of incense, prostrated himself, and
withdrew. The other assistant then arranged the in-
cense, and withdrew in like manner. The chief offici-
ating priest was now left alone within the sanctuary,
awaiting the signal of the president before burning the
incense. When this was given (with the words ‘offer
the incense ’), he emptied out the saucer on to the coals,
and the incense ascended in clouds of smoke. At thîs
solemn moment, the people withdrew from the inner
court and prostrated themselves, spreading out their
hands în silent prayer (cp Rev. 813 quoted by Eders-
heim). The incensing priest, also, after prostrating
himself for worship, withdrew from the sanctuary. ‘The
period of silent prayer was followed (if the conjecture
given above is correct) by the recitation of the Shéma',
with the ten commandments and benedictions set forth
above. Others think that only the three 'blessings
{mentioned in Tamid 51) were here recited. In any
case, the priestly blessing was given in the following
manner, The five priests who had been engaged
within the Holy Place now proceeded to the steps in
front of the Temple, and with uplifted hands, pro-
nounced the priestly benediction. ‘This was pronounced
by the leader (probably the incensing priest), the others
following audibly after him. As already mentioned,
the divine name was on these occasions pronounced,
The people also responded : ‘ Blessed be the Lord God,
the God of Israel, from everlasting to cverlasting.’
The offering of the burnt offering was now proceeded
with. The chosen priests brought up the various
pieces of the victim from the foot of the ascent, and,
after placing their hands upon them, threw them on to
the altar-fire. When the high priest officiated, he
received the pieces from the priests, placed his hands
upon them, and threw them on to the altar. The
appropriate meal offerings (that of the people, and
that of the high priest) were now brought, ciled, salted,
and laid on the fire; and the drink offering was poured
out at the foot of the altar.

40. Offering

3. The Service of praise and thanbsgiving.—Here-
upon the music of the temple began. The choir of
A Levites, to the accompaniment of instru-

#1. Musical rental music, sang the psalm of the day,

Bervice. which was divided into three sections.
At the close of each section, a body of priests. blew
three blasts on the silver trumpets, and the people
prostrated themselves in worship. The singing of the
psalm closed the morning service, and the private
sacrifices were proceeded with.

The evening sacrifice (which, according to the law,
was to be offered ' between the two evenings ‘—i.e., in
the evening twilight) was at this period offered early in
the afternoon, about 3 o'clock. It was in all respects
exactly similar to that of the morning, save that incense

4955

and the lamps in the sanctuary were not trinimed, but
simply lighted. The priests on whom the lots had
fallen again officiated în the evening, except the in-
censing priests. For this office another lot was taken.
The daily psalms were the following : first day, 24;
second, 48; third, 82; fourth, 94; fifth, 81; sixth,
93; on the sabbath, 92.
Οη the sabbath and festivals the same daily sacrifices
were offered, only increased. ‘Thus on the sabbath
the sacrifice was doubled, and so on.
42 The aabbath “The essential features, however, were
much the same. [For details, see
FEASTS, SABBATH, and the works cited below.]
G. H. B.

The literature of the subject îs immense. The older books are
given in Bahr (Der Salomonische Temfel) and other writers;
“ἫΝ only the more important modern works
43. Bibliography. can be mentioned here.

(a) General: The Archeeologies of
{em Saalschitz, Scholz, Schegg, Haneberg, de-Wette-Rabiger,
eil, de Visser, Benzinger, Nowack; the articles s.y.‘ Temple!
in PRE (Merx), BL (Diestel), Riehm's AW8, Ency. Brit. 0)
(by W. R. Smith ; it has been freely used in the preparation of
the present article), Hastings' D8 (T. W. Davies): the com-
mentaries on Kings by Keil, Thenius, Klostermann, Benzinger,

Kittel; Fergusson, 7%e Tewsple of the Jews, London, 1878

(ὦ) Text and Literary Criticism: The commentaries on
Kings (above); Wellhausen in Bleek, £7xZ(4; Stade ‘Der
Text des Berichts ùber Salomos Bauten' in Z47, 1883, pp.
129-177.

(© Fopograghicat: The results of modem survey and excava-
tion are given in the PE vol, ‘ Jerusalem ' (London, 1884) and
in the accompanying atlas. See also Robinson, ΒΚ Θ) ; Tohler,
Topographie Jerusalems, 1853-54; Fergusson, Tofografhy of
Jerusalem, 1847; Thrupp, Ancient Jerusalem, 1855;
Vogùé, Le Temple de Jerusalem, 1864; Rosen, Das Haram
von Jerusalem u. der Tempeltiatz des Moria, 1866; Schick,
Beit el Makdas; oder, der alte Tempelblatz, 1887: id., Die
Stifishiitte, der Tempel in Jerusalem τε, der Tempelblatz der
Jetziseit; Adler, Der Felsendom u, d, heutige Grabeskirche zu
Jerusalem, 1873; Socin-Benzinger in Baedeker®s 22/15)

(d) Solomon's Temple: Of older works may be mentioned
those of Bh. Lamy, De Tabernacwlo Federis, de sancta civitate
Jerusalem et de Templo eius, Paris, 1720; A. Hirt, Der
Tempel Salomos, Berlin, 1809; Fr, v, Meyer, i4., Stuttgart,
1839. A more modern phase of discussion may be said to begin
with Bahr, Der Solomonische Tempel mit Berticksichtigung
seines Verbaltnisses e. ἃ. Architebtur ueberhauft, 1848.
See further B. Stade, G/1311/% : H. Pailloux, Moragrafhie
du temple de Salomon, Paris, 1885; F. O. Paine, Solomon's
temple and Capital, 1886; Th. Friedrich, Temapel u. Palast
Salomos, 1887; O. Wolff, Der Tempel von Jerusalem w. seine
Maase, 1887; E. C. Robins, 7%e Temple of Solomon, 1887;
Guinand, Monogradhie du Temple” ἀξ Salomon, 1588:
Perrot-Chipiez, Le Temple de Jerusalem et la Maison di
Bois-Liban restitués apròs Ezechiel et le livre des Rois, 18891
L. Feuchtwang in ΖΕ %. dildende Kunst, new ser. 2, 1891, pi
1417; H. Becker in Wiener allgem. Bauzeitung, 1893, HA
1-4; Perrot-Chipiez, /udaea.

(e) Ezekiel's Temple: Cornill's edition of text; the commen-
taries of Smend, Comnill, Bertholet; also Toy in S807;
Bottcher, Proben ATlicher Schrifterklarung (1833), id. Neue
Achrenlese; Balmer-Rinck, Des Propheten Ezehie! Gesicht
vom Tempel, 1858; Kiihn in Sf Ax., 18825 H. Sulley, 7%e
Temple of Ezekiels Prophecy, 1889: Stade, G/ 2477

Zerubbabels Temple: De Moor and Imbert, in Ze
Muston, 7 and 8; the commentaries of Ryssel and Bertholet on
Ezra and Nehemiah.

(£) Herod's Temple: A tolerably complete catalogue of the
older literature on Herod's temple will be found in Haneberg,
Die religiose Altertamer der Bibel, 26077; for the modern
literature see Schiirer G//191 323/ We mention here: Mishna
tractate Middoth, with the commentary of Obadja Bartenora in
Surenhusius, 5; ET în Barclay, Ze 7almud, 255 7 Moses
Maimonides in npin 1" (discussion of the Talmudic details as to
the temple and its furniture, in Ugolini's 7'#es. 8); J. Lightfoot,
Descriftio templi Hierosolymitani (also in Ugolin. Tes.9);
Hirt, ‘Ueber die Banten Herodes des Grossen' in 484. BerZ
Akad, : Bhilol-hist. classe, 1816-17, pp. 1-24 ; Haneberg, Alter-
tilmer, 266-336; Spiess, Das Jerusalem des Josephus, 1881, pp.
460; id, Der Tempel des Jerusalem wdhrend des Ietsten
Jahrkunderts seines Bestandes nach Josedhus, 3887; Schirer,
Riehm, 7472, 1663,/7.; Block, Enwurf eines Grundrisses
vom Herodianischet Tempel nach Talmudischen Quellen
bearbeitet : Hildesheimer, ‘D. Beschreibung d. Herod. Tempels
im Tractate Middoth u. b. ΕἾ, Josephus' in /a4rester. d. Radb.
Seminars f. d. orthodoxe Judentum, 18763; Lewin, The
Siege of Jerusalem by Titus, 1863.

(©) Temple worskip. In addition to the works cited above,
see esp. Schiirer, G/ZG), $ 24 (bibliography) ; SYnAGOGUE, $ 11.

1 B. (88 1-33, 43); G.H. B. ($$ 34-42).
4956

TEMPLE-KEEPER

TEMPLE-KEEPER (NewKOPpon), Acts 19 35 AVmE
ΕΝ. See NEOCcOROS,

TEMPTATION. The word NIDI, massal (& rre1ip-
acmoc always), occurs in the OT not only as a place-
name [see MAssaH), in Ex.177 etc. Ps. 958 {AV
‘temptation,’ RV ‘ Massah,' RV®E- ‘temptation '), but
also as a common noun in Dt. 434 7 19 292 [3] where EV
has ‘temptations’ and RVm£- ‘ trials’ or ‘evidences,’ in
Job923[see @]where EV has <trial’and RVME ‘calamity.’
‘The verb is np. AV renders inconsistently ; in Ex, 1727
Dt. 616 ete., it gives up the best rendering—ie., ‘t0
prove'—and substitutes what to modern readers is
certainly misleading--‘to tempt.' As Driver (on Dt.
616) weil observes, ‘npi is a neutral word, and means
τὸ fest or prove a person, to see q04e/4er he will act in'a
particular way (ἔχ. 164 Judg. 222 34), or welter the
character he has is well established (1 K. 101}. : God
thus Aroves a person, or fu/s him #0 Ze dest, to see if
his fidelity or affection is sincere, Gen. 221 Ex. 2020 Dt.
82 (g.0.] 134 [3]; cp Ps. 262; and men dest, or prove
Jehovah when they act as if doubting whether his promise
be true, or whether he is faithful to his revealed char-
acter, Ex.1727 Nu, 1422 Ps. 7818 (see 7. 19) 4156 959
10624; cp Is. 712. So massità Dt. 434 7 19 29. [3], are
not ‘temptations,’ but fria/s, froviags (see note on
434)" With regard to the NT, it is satisfactory that
πειράω is rendered ‘try' in Heb. 1117 Rev. 2210, and
πεῖρα ‘trial’ in Heb. 1136. On the use of πειρασμός
{‘temptation,' but RV£: sometimes ‘trial'},1 Holtzmann
{HCl 45.) remarks that this is one of the expressions
to which the NT has given a pregnant and almost new
meaning, indicating the external conflicts and distresses
which become the means of inward temptation; see
Lk. 2228 Acts 2019 Jas. 12 1 Pet.16. Such a conflict,
such a distress is reported to have been the lot of Jesus,
at the beginning of his ministry. See below.

TEMPTATION OF JESUS

Three stories (88 1-4). Discussion ($$ 9-11).

Contents ofthe tradition (8 5). Possible light from myths($ 12).

Nucleus ($ 7). Specially parallel stories (8 13).

Possible liglit from Persia (ἢ 8). Alyehic elements, etc. ($ 14).
Bibliography ($ 15).

[There are three chief modes of procedure in dealing
with the traditional story of the Temptations, or rather
Trials, of Jesus. (1) The narrative may be regarded as
having arisen in consequence of a kind of natural law or
tendency which, in the case of one who has won the
crown of moral perfection for himself and for his
disciples, places a symbolic event summing up the trials
and achievement of his life at the very outset of his
career, just as the final victory of good aver evil needs,
through the operation of the same law, to be effectually
guaranteed by a reported initial victory of the Light-god
over the Dragon of Chaos. This may lead us to begin
our consideration of the story of the Trials of Jesus by
putting the story side by side with similar stories of other
spiritual heroes known to tradition, and to put our
literary criticism of the narratives under the control of
results already obtained by such a comparison. Thus
the literary criticism of the narrative will become
subordinate to the historical (religions-geschichtlich)
criticism of the narrative. The neglect of this procedure
has, according to Gunkel and others, led to much mis-
understanding of some of the narratives in the OT
{notably those of Paradise, of the Deluge, and of Jonah),
and it would perhaps be too much to suppose that no
loss would be sustained by the neglect of it in the study
of the NT. (2) It is also possible to begin our con-
sideration of the narratives of the Trials by applying a
purely literary criticism—.e., by determining. so far as
may be possible, from what literary sources they pro-
ceed, and explaining their details by reference to the OT
or to passages in the traditional life of Jesus. We may

1 In Acts 2019 Rev.8 10, etc., RV gives ‘trial’ în the text.
4957

TEMPTATION OF JESUS

then consider whether, endeavouring to realise in some
slight degree the mental state of Jesus, and applying the
ordinary canons of probability, we can venture to point
out a historical nucleus of the traditional story of the
Trials, and we may then compare, or contrast, the
Christian tradition with apparent parallels elsewhere.
(3) We may, without disparaging either of the preced-
ing methods, consider whether light cannot be thrown
on the Christian tradition by inquiring whether the
peculiarities of the narrative may not be accounted for
by the discovery of some custom or observance the
details of which are similar in essentials to those of the
story of the Trials, and yet are beyond the suspicion of
having been derived from it, The difference between
the first and the second of these methods and between
both and the third is striking. It may, however, be
minimised, when the student of literary criticism is not
opposed t0 the comparative study of myths, and when
the student of strange customs does not at all deny
the importance of illustrating, and to some extent at
least explaining, the narrative from biblical and extra-
biblical literary sources, The essential truth of the
significant and instructive narrative of the Temptation
is of course not a matter of controversy. Cp Cheyne,
Hallowing of Criticism.)

It is usual to explain the origin of the three synoptic!
reports of the temptation by one or ather of twe critical

1, ‘Three hypotheses: (a) that Mk.'s represents a

sborien bare and brief allusion to the larger story,

8. substantially reproduced in Mt. and Lk.,
which was already current when he wrote (cp 433, allu-
sion to parables omitted), or (ὁ} that Mt. and Lk.
represent a common and somewhat mythical expansion
{in Ὁ, the Logia-source) of the original nucleus pre-
served by Mk.” Neither of these hypotheses is without
its difficulties, however, and it seems preferabie upon
the whole to conjecture that Mk.'s report constitutes an
allied though independent? account of the incident {in
the Ur-Marcus or Petrine narrative), which has been
depicted with fuller ethical detail and for other ends in
Ὁ and thence transferred with editorial modifications to
Mt. and Lk. The standpoint for criticising the con-
tents of both stories is furnished by the principle that in
its higher forms temptation becomes more than ever a
mystery — hard to understand as an experience and
harder to communicate, especially to less sensitive souls
with a tendeney to materialise the subtler elements of
moral conflict.

Upon this view Mk. 127 portrays the inaugura-
tion of Jesus as Messiah by a contest with deemonic

powers whom he encountered in bestial
2. Mk.1:2% form. The allusion to ‘wild beasts” 15
not a realistic touch (see $$ 9 /) or a reference to the
loneliness and danger of the experience, much less a
subtle parallel to the first Adam (Gen. 128 219), but
symbolict—and symbolic not of passions and hostile
powers? but of devils who appeared in such guise to

1 The author of the Fourth Gospel, with his higher Christ-
ology, naturally omits the temptation as one of several features
(€-g-, the agony in Gethsemane) in the human experience of
Jesus which would not have lain in line with his specific con
ception of Christ's person. He prefers to dwell on the resultant
sinlessness (7 18 846), and the incidental allusions to a strife
(12 27-32 14 30) breathe security of triuneph rather than intensity
of struggle,

2 Mk.1r-13, though not an excerpt from earlier and filler
writings, is a γόσερρνδ of facts already familiar in the evangelic
tradition (cp ‘the gospel,' e, 1). That does not imply, however,
that 7. 12,£ is the conscious abbreviation of a tale corresponding
to that preserved in Mt. and Lk., even although the Logia
underlying those gospels was composed nf didactic pieces which
circulated' earlier than the Ur-Marcus. See Soltau's_ Unsere
Evangelîen, 35-50 and A. Menzies' Zarliest Gospel, 62-63.

8 As Réville /ésus de Nazareth, 214) supgests—'les bétes
sauvages sont les passions dévorantes que déchainent les révolu-
tions violentes ; les anges conseillent et donnent les armes pures
de la persuasion et de l’appel aux consciences.’ This is too
modern an idea. In Jewish apocalyptic angels are often violent
and punitive, by no means to be identified with gracious and

entle influences. The wilderness might also be symbolic
Herm, Vis. 1.1.3}, or part of the scenic accompaniment of a

4958

TEMPTATION OF JESUS

the vision of devotees in the desert. To the fervour
and imagination of Jesus the divine spirit is like a
fiuttering dove (2. 10), the satanic spirits like wild beasts.
Here, as afterwards in human form (123, etc., especially
12227 with the different application in Mt. 728), the
satanic spirits comprise for Mk, a prominent sphere in
which Jesus lived and worked as Messiah, the foe of
deemons. This interpretation of Mk.'s language,! there-
fore, is not simply in line with the naive psychology of
the age,? which peopled the desert with haunting deities,
visible especially to rapt devotees, but entirely consonant
with the leading idea of Jesus' career developed in ΜΚ. 5
gospel (cp the mutual recognition of Jesus and deemons
în 123 £ 34 3r1/. 56/ 920; and Wrede's Das Messias-
geheimniss in den Evangelien, 23 f.).
Common to all three gospels is the symbolic term
of ‘forty days’ (cp the forty years of Israel în the
wilderness, Dt. 82, and the forty days'
a Common fast in the experience of Moses [Ex, 3428]
* and Elijah [1 K.198], and see NUMBER,
$ 8) to delineate, as în Acts 13, a considerable period
of time. In Mk., at any rate, whatever be thought of
Mit. 411 {cp 815 25 44 27 55), the angelic ὃ service has no
reference to food (Ps.7825 Wisd.1620). It is simply
the counterpart of satanic opposition,4 and represents
an experience of continuous aid during the vigil, not
{as in Mt.) a reward and refreshment vouchsafed after
the strain. All three accounts, however, imply that
Jesus passed through the prolonged crisis without fall
or wound. Whatever he thought or sought in the desert,
his character suffered no deflection or compromise, much
less defeat. This is developed in Mt. and Lk,, who
draw independently upon a didactic passage in the Logia
which evidentiy contained a naive, piciorial descrip-
tion of what Jesus experienced in a far less matter-
of-fact and obvious fashion at this period. The form
of it îs vivid and severely simple upon the whole, but
dramatic rather than mysterious, and naturally less
impressive, because less inward and direct, than the
later record of Jesus' strenious temptation in Geth-
semane or even of his sharp encounter with an insidious
enticement near Caesarea Philippi (ΜΕ. 8 31-33). It now
remains for us to consider the temptation-vision in this
semi-parabolic presentment which Mt. and Lk. have
realistically preserved. {Cp Z/C [1901] 1. 45-48.)
Both in Mt. and in Lk. the original report of Q has
been worked over, and traces of editorial handling are
obvious if {as a rule) comparatively
4 Mt, and Lk. unimportant. i

Favourite or characteristic Matthzean terms in 41-11 are:
‘then’ (τότε, quater), ‘coming forward' (προσελθών), ‘the

vision (Rev. 17 3) translated into circumstantia! prose. But the
literal sense is quite suitable and natural.

1 It is one bit of evidence in favour of the verdict that whilst
Mk.'s gospel rests upon facts, not upon ideas, at a relatively
small number of points ‘legendary features have come to attach
themselves to the facts’ (O. Holtzmann in ΖΛ ΤῊΣ, 1901, p. 273).

For demons in bestial shape see, e.g., Mk.51211 Rev. 1231811
1613 £, and—for the current belief in their connection with
waste and lonely places—Mt. 1243 (Demons, $ 3; MAGIC, $ 2,
δ. τ, and Cheyne on Is. 1321), with Charles' note on Apoc. Bar.

δε. These and other traces of Semitic folklore (see Doughty,
“Ar. Des. 2 189-194) form the atmosphere for much in the synoptic
tales of evil spirits and their malign influence upon men (cp
also 2 Cor.113; Everling, Die fawl. Angelologie, etc., 51-57)-
In the Arabic ‘gospel of the infancy' demons emerge from a
lad's mouth in the shape of crows and serpents (Ap0cr9442/
Gospels, ed. B. H, Cowper, 179).

3 Evidently part of the primitive tradition, for Mk. never
mentions angels elsewhere în narrative, Α Johannine equivalent
in [π|1 513

tI Justas the ‘rulers of this world (ἄρχοντες τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου,
1Cor. 26:8} are evil spirits who attempt to thwart the Lord of
glory, so here the Messiali encounters supernatural foce, after

s. 22/ where the rulers (οἱ ἄρχοντες) gather against the Lord
‘And his anointed (καὶ κατὰ τοῦ χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ), the later being
God's son far excellence (v. 7=Mk. 1 αν Lk. 322 [D], etc... Cp
Clem. Hom. 822 of Satan setting himself to catch him (ϑηρεύεεν
αὐτὸν ἐπιχειρῶν) at this period. In Herm. Vis.iv. 2.4 Segri is the
angel with authority over beasts such as are seen in the vision.
The conception of Messiah as inevitably assailed by demons is
preserved in Rev. 124 / (cp ΜΚ. 827 and specially Mr. 829).

4959

TEMPTATION OF JESUS

tempter* (è πειράζων), ‘and’ (δέ, 4), ‘the holy city’ (τὴν ἁγίαν
πόλιν}.} ‘takes’ (παραλαμβάνει, ἀρῶ, che asyndeton ἴῃ 7, ‘again'
(πάλιν, bis), ‘the world" (τοῦ κόσμου, 8), ‘and behold ‘(kai ἰδου),
besides the additions of 4c, 8 (high hill), and ‘depart, Satan'
(ὕπαγς σατανᾶ, το). Lucan peculiarities in 41-13 are: ‘fullof
holy Spirit' (πλήρης mv. dyiov;? 18), ‘in those days’ (ἐν ταῖς
ἡμέραις ἐκείναις), ‘and he said' (εἶπεν dé: GosreLs, $ 38, n. 2),
answer! (ἀποκρίνεσθαι πρόξ), ‘lead’ (ἄγω, 875), ‘ departed” (té
etpewer,8 dis), τοῦ with infin. (ro), ‘world’ ζοϊκουμένη, cp 21),
‘complete’ (συντελέω, 615), ‘before’ (ἐνώπιον), ‘departed’
(ἀπέστη), besides the addition of αὖ, 5 (in an instant), ὅς, 9
(ἀντεῦθεν), 10(to safeguard thee), 13 (for a season), and the omis-
sion of the angelic ministry at the close (made up for by the later
vision of 22 43°).

It is evident that the original tale in Q was little altered
in subsequent recensions and that the final editors have
reproduced it accurately though not slavishly, preserving
the essential features of the story. ‘The main exception
to this rule is the altered order of the second and third
temptations by a process of transposition which is fairly
common throughout the synoptics (see SERMON ON THE
MOUNT, $ 9). There are no data which would enable
us to decide with any confidence which, if either,
represents the original series in the Logia, much
less the actual sequence. Fortunately the order is not
a matter of moment. Each of the two canonical
sequences has plausible features and is ethically effective,
especially in view of the gospel in which it occurs.

In Mt., where Jesus is pictured as the real if unex-
pected (113) Messiah of Judaism, the newly realised
consciousness of his positiori (8 17) suggests thé final and
supreme temptation of adopting compromise with ex-
ternal methods in order to gain the universal dominion
which formed his goal (48-11). The true Messiah, as
had been already seen in part {Ps. Sol. 1737-45), was to
be no second Solomon but one whose reliance was solely
upon God for strength and wisdom. In Lk., again,
the climax is not merely that the OT scriptures them-
selves might suggest unworthy ideas, but that pre-
sumptuous claims upon God are a danger subtler than
seductions appealing to the flesh or to the external and
sensuous inclinations (49-12). Besides, ‘thou shalt not
tempt the Lord thy God” formed a dramatic and appro-
priate ending to the initial series of temptations in a life
which Lk. emphasises (413 2228) as a tempted existence
throughout. Further, an apologetic tendency is to be
traced in his anxiety to give a more natural geographical
order, to show that the retirement was due to a
spontaneous and spiritual® impulse or rather habit
(Δι, πλήρης πνεύματος dylov . . . ἤγετο ἐν τῷ πνεύ-
part, cp Βοπι. 814), and to explain® for the benefit ot
non-Jewish readers (46, ὅτε. . . αὐτήν) how Satan
could reasonably make such an offer.” The awkward

1 The Gospel of the Hebrews apparently agreed here with
Lk. (ὃ ἰουδαϊκὸν οὐκ ἔχει " “ εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν πόλιν" ἀλλ᾽ “ἐν ἑλήμ"
[ἱερουσαλήμ], Handmann, T'U [1888] ν, 870). The telic note,
characteristic of Mt. (41), is added to Lk. harmonistically by
Ss, as Lk.'s ‘for a season’ to Mt. 4112 (so Cur.),

È Here, as at 822 (= Mt.8 16 Mk, 1 ro), the most correct form
(Dalman, Worte Jesu, τόδ.

3 In 2. 1, whither? Hardly to Galilee (@. 14). There is a
good deal to be said for Hahn's idea that the retirement and
conflict of Jesus in Lk. forms an aside—a change of purpose (cp
v.1 and τὶ 14). Certainly that is the impression left by the
narrative, But this may be due simply to the illarranged order
of Lk, at this point (see, e.g:, the unchronologica! position of
$ 19/5) and not to the author's real concepiion.

* The thoughts crossed and recrossed each another, occurred
and recurred, and the record is simply a classified summary of
forty days' reflections and examinations’ (Peyton), or rather of
proionged agitation in mind and soul. Some historica! signifi
cance, however, is attached by HGnig to the order (desert, hill
=Galilee, temple= Jerusalem) ; see also O. Holtzmann's Ledern
Jesu 35/1085

5 Bruce (ἔρος. GE. Test. 1 486) prefers to regard this as the
first instance of Lk.'s editorial solicitude: no evil thoughts
possible in the mind of such a holy man.

8 Mt naturally takes ît for granted that his readers understand
the Jewish notion, shared by most early Christians, that the
present age and world lay under the control (2 Cor. 44 Eph. ὃ τὰ,
etc; Everling, op. cit. 49 £, 107 Δ) of Satan as king of the
present time (ὁ πρόσκαιρος βασιλεύς) or king of the” present
things (B. τῶν παρόντων) (λένε. How. 8.22).

7 The transport to a hill-top, characteristie of Jewish apoca-
Iyptic (Rev. 21 το, cp Herm. Sir2. ix. 11, etc., also Ezek. 402,
Apoc. Bar. 768), is also softened down ζἀναγαγών), and stress

4960

TEMPTATION OF JESUS

insertion of the genealogy (323-38) between the baptism
and the temptation may have been intended to suggest
that Jesus was mature, as well as equipped by descent,
at his entrance upon ministry and at the moment of his
conflict with Satan (so, evidently, Justin, Dia/ 125, 354:
ὅτε γὰρ ἄνθρωπος γέγονεν, προσῆλθεν αὐτῷ è διάβολος).
It certainly makes the connection, rightly emphasised in
Mk. 112 (καὶ εὐθύς) and even Mt. (41, τότε), somewhat

loose.
Treating the subject of their relation to similar narratives
elsewhere (see 8 13), we may remark that the figurative! stories
in Mt. and Lk, were written în an atmosphere
δ. Contents of of belief in Satan as the arch-opponent of
the tradition. God's authority (Mt.1227 /=Lk.1119//,
.} and the personal agent in seduction—
2 belief (Jewish and early Christian; Spitta, Vas ζνελν δέ, 134
38) which there is no reason to doubt was shared, in however
minimised and moralised a form, by Jesus himself. In two
other visions of spiritual conflict recorded by Lk.2(10 18 22 31,4),
Satan appears as the defeated protagonist of Jesus; and these,
Tike the original nucleus of the baptism-story (Zistorica/ New
Testament 1901, p. 18) and possibly aiso îhe transiguration,
certainly represent (ὑφηγήσατο ἡμῖν, Cles. Πῆονρε, 11 35) auto-
biographical communications of one who, like Paul, though far
from being a visionary, had visions and moments of rapture,

blended together.
| With regard to the order of the three Trials, it is worth men-
tioning (after O. Holtzmann, Leben /ess, $ 72) that according
to the fragments of the Gospel of the Hebrews (referred to again
in $ 14} the narrative was originally so arranged that the
temptation on the mouniain came first, that in the city second,
and that în the wilderness third, whereas in Mt. the order is?
wilderness, city, mountain, and in Lk. wilderness, mountain,
city. He gives psychological reasons for preferring che order of
the Gospel of the Hebrews, pointing out that it coincides more-
over with that in which the texts quoted from Deuteronomy
occur (613 16 82/). It was în Deuteronomy, he supposes,
that Jesus, in the prolonged period of meditation after his
baptism in which his vocation had been revealed to him, sought
for the guidance of which he felt in need.]
i. Loneliness and fasting,4 the normal conditions of
an ecstasy or trance, naturally introduce the first
‘noptic temptation, the ethical point of
, The three STORIE temi
8 The three which lies în the refusal of Jesus to
i seek exemption from the limitations of
common needs ané bodily privations. The later
counsel Mt. 6235-33 :s thus grounded in his own ex-
perience (cp Ju.43:-34 and Mt. 108-10 Lk.93 104).
Divine sonship, even în its highest degree, is thereby
shown to confer no title to exceptional treatment; it
merely enforces the duty of loyalty to God's interests
and demands as the supreme thing in the moral life
{see the application of this in Jn. 6267), and the com-
panion duty of faith, that such devotion shall not be left
ultimately destitute by God.
ii. With admirable penetration the very intensity of
such faith is represented in the temple-temptation as an
insidious occasion for presumption. The inclination

laid on the time (ἐν στιγμῇ χρόνου, 45). The appositeness of
Mt. 43 and the more vivid Lic: 4 3 lies in the resemblance between
the rounded shingle or the locality and loaves of bread (c
Mt.79). There i no subtle allusien to the Baptist remarie
(Mt. 8911), which indeed is amply illustrated otherwise (cp
Klein in ZIVTIV, 1901, pp. 343-344).

1 They appear to ἧς between a chronicle and a poetica! parable.
As early as the seventeenth century, the Temptation was viewed
as ‘an Interchange of dangerous thoughts,’ by Balthasar Bekker :
Die besauberte Welte (chap. 21).

2 It is noticeable thal the tempted nature of Christ is brought
forward in Hebrews, a book linguistically allied to Lk.-Acts,

3 For the imparting of the substance of ecstasies and trances
see Acts 114 /. 169/189, 226,/, etc., and dsc. /saie, 6 10-15,
‘Ocali cins erant aperti, 0s vero clausum, sed inspiratio spiritus
erat cum îllo. Visio quam videbat, non erat de seculo hoc, sed
de abscondito omni carni. Et cum cessavit a visione, reversus
notificavit visionem Ezechix et filio eius Nasoni.

4 See Gunkel's Die Wirkungen des heiligen Geistes (x899), 22,
and Fastina, $ 2 (with Proemerio LITERATURE, 8 19) A
notable exception occurs in Rev.19 7 Intense prayer may
have preceded the Temptation (see von der Goltz, das Gedet,
3-4), but it is not specifically mentioned.

4961

TEMPTATION OF JESUS

now is to abuse not one's feeling of independence but
one's consciousness of dependence—i.e., the current
pious conviction, shared by Jesus, that God could and
would miracuiously interpose on behalf of his servants
in peril Jesus repels this suggestion.*? Genuine faith
in man, he is convinced, will be content to believe in
God's care without nervously insisting upon arbitrary
proofs of it.

ili. The mountain-temptation depicts Jesus' rejection
of another attractive and plausible idea which occurred
to him (no doubt suggested in part by popular expecta-
tion), viz., that his Messianic goal might be swifily and
smoothly reached along paths bordering upon com-
promise. Renan's motto for the scene—' Christ or
Mahomet '—hits off one aspect of the dilemma precisely.
Yet the bearing of the temptation need not be exclusively
messianic, as Mk. 836 shows ; the latter passage ὃ (with
8 33) indicating also that here at any rate the larger
temptation-narrative, relegated not without psychological
aptness to the opening of Jesus' life, forms really a
miniature of the fundamental temptations which recurred
as constant factors in his career, just as the Sermon on
the Mount is placed by Mt. unchronologically in the
forefront of the ministry as a summary of his general
teaching. No doubt the moral insight of Jesus carried
with it foresight of coming perils. At Nazareth he had
not been cut of touch with currents surging from the
outside pagan world and its glories (see GASm. #/G
35-37, 433-435, for the consciousness of ethnic splendour
possible to a Galilean). But the ful! force of such a
temptation could not be felt until he had entered defi-
nitely upon his public mission (cp Jn. 614 4); and the
same may be said of the temple-temptation (Mt. 28 53},
for hitherto Jesus, though acquainted of course with the
dizzy pinnacle of the temple (Jos. Axfxv. 11 5), had
run no risk to his person {see further the didactic side
of this developed in Mt.1017-31 Lk.122-12). The
difficulty of Jesus at the outset naturally was to see and
choose the true method : his subsequent tria], recurring
at frequent stages, was to adhere to the choice made in
this initial hour of insight.

The Logia passage on the temptation thus represented
the disciples' memory of Jesus memory. It was the

3 ; Jiterary embodiment, coloured by OT

7. Historical rerninisoences,? of ἃ crisis in the life of
mueleus. Jesus which (cp Mt.1229 Mk.327) he
imparted in an ideal and concentrate form, looking
back on it through the later, deeper experience of his

1 The ethical triumph of the crisis, as Keim points out (/esx
von Nazara, ἘΠῚ, 2 328), is not simply that Jesus conquered but
that ‘the inexorable godlike loftiness of his judgment discovered
the devil in scruples which even the noblest would have fondled
as spiritual pearls.’ .Further, with the possible and partial
exception of the hunger-experience, the allurements in this
initial crisis of Jesus' life are depicted as attractive rather than
threatening or painful. All trial (in the modern sense of the
word) is temptation; but all temptations are not trials. As
Gethsemane indicates, Jesus felt the harsh as well as the soft
touch, and emerged from the ordeal unspoiled: cp πέπονθεν
αὐτὸς πειρασϑείς . ._. χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας (Heb. 2 18 4 15).

2 The allusion to Peter as an embodiment of Satan corresponds
with the early Christian belief that seductions through human
infiuence were the devil's work (Weinel, Wir&ungen des Geistes
u. der Geister, 14-17 [1899)); but the synoptic stories, in their
present form at any rate, expressly exclude the idea that Jesus
had to grapple in the temptation with anything but spiritual
hosts of wickedness (Eph.6 11:13) Even the notion of the
temple-temptation as a miracle of display before a crowd is rather
irrelevant and theatrical. For the unpolitical character of
Christis propaganda, see Barth's Z/amgisrobleme des Lebens
765%, PP. 41-44. n

3 The OT citations are all from (5, and present little or no
difficulty. Mt. 446 omits τῷ before éxmop. with AF (Dt.83);
the other variants ἐν ἄρτῳ (Zahn, Zin/ 2316; Nestle, Ziufiikr.
211) and ἐν ῥήματι are insignificant and uncertain. Ps. θ᾽ τὰ /
is quoted « ith some freedom in Mr. 46. But in citing Dt. 613
both Mt, and Lk. agree with @4 în substituting προσκυνήσεις for
φοβηθήσῃ and in adding μόνῳ to αὐτῷ The sequel in Ps. 28,7
to τ. 7 may have suggested the mountain-temptation, just as
perhaps the beasts of Ps. 9113 may have suggested Mk. 113.
Rut such conformations or infusìons are at most subordinate to the
dominant factor in the composition of the story—viz., the en-
deavour to summarise the cardinal temptations of Jesus.

4962

TEMPTATION OF JESUS

actual ministry, when the initials eductions had become
more grave and subtle than before, The historical
mucleus of the tradition is the natural and overpowering
impulse which drove Jesus into the gaunt, wild solitudes
W. or rather E. of the Jordan to reflect upon the
strange consciousness ({Baldensperger, Das Se/bse-
bewussisein Jesu, 229 f.) which had recently dawned
upon him at his baptism,? to forecast its issues and
determine his course of action (cp Gal.lis-17). It is
noticeable that he does not seem to have doubted the
reality of his Messianic consciousness; for the words
*if thou art a son of God” (el νἱὸς el τοῦ θεοῦ) do not
bear this full hypothetical meaning. What he had to
win clearness and conviction upon was the real nature
and consequences of his position; if any hesitation or
uncertainty upon the genuineness of this occurred to
him, it was during the period of conflict 3 (implied by
Mk. and Lk., not Mt.) and self-questioning preceding
that in which Mt. and Lk. place the triple and typical
conflict of what is rather inappropriately termed ἐδ
Temptation of Jesus. I. Mo,

It has been remarked above (introd.) that light might
be expected to be thrown upon the singular and sug-
gestive story of the Trials of Jesus by comparing it
with more or iess striking parallels in the literature of
other religions, but that it is also possible that the
insertion of such a narrative (which .is plainly not
literally true) may conceivably be accounted for by the
existence of some custom or observance which may have
led the narrator to postulate such an event as the threefold
trial at the opening of the ministry of Jesus. In an essay
read before the Oxford Society of Historical Theology in
Nov. 1901 (an abstract of which is given in the Society's
Proceedings [privately printed], 1901-2, pp. 27-31) the
view has been expressed by Prof. A. A. Bevan that the
so-called Temptation-story in its original form (i.e., a
form resembling the narrative in Mk.) was a description
of a traditional practice or ceremony, by which, ît was
supposed, a man could obtain control over demons.

ν᾿ The practice referred to must have

Li aEgible | been of ancient origin, and ît has con-
16: om the Πυθα in the East down to the present

modern East. day. Rather than attempt to describe

it anew, Prof, Bevan cites the testimony of an Oriental,

as reported by Prof. E. G. Browne in his work, A Vear

amongst the Persians (1893), 148 f. About fifteen
years ago Prof. Browne heard this story from a
philosopher of Isfahàn, entitled Aminu-sh-Sharî'at.

‘At one time of my life i devoted myself to the occult
sciences, and made an attempt to obtain control over the 721125,
with what results I will tell you. You must know, in the first
place, that the w20d%s oferandi is as follows :—The seeker after
this power chooses some solitary and dismal spot. . . . There
he must remain for forty days. . . . He spends the greater part
of this time in incantations in the Arabic language, which he
recites within the area of the 4427, or geometrical figure,
which he must describe in a certain way on the ground, Besides
this, he must eat very little food, and diminish the amount
daily. If he has faithfully observed all these details, on the
twenty.first day a lion will appear, and will enter the magic
circle. The operator must not allow himself to be terrified by
this apparition, and, above all, must on no account quit the
mandal εἶδα he wilì lose the results of all his pains. lf he
resists the lion, other terrible forms will come to him on subse-
quent days—tigers, dragons, and the like— which he must
similarly withstand. If he holds his ground till the fortieth

1 In the vicinity of BerHaRaRA? Cp Joun rue Baptist,
ξ 1. On the haggard, austere Judasan desert with its vipers
(Mi.87), see GA SHE, IC 312317.

2 Justin (Dial 103, 331) loosely brings the two into close
confiection—dna τῷ ἀναβῆναι αὐτὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἰορδάνου the voice
from heaven is followed by the temptation to worship the devil.

3 In Clew. Hom. (1135192) these forty days are occupied
by discussinns (διαλέγεσθαι with the devil (προτρέπων καὶ ἀνα-
πείθων, 821). See the striking passage cited from Victor Hugo”
Quatre-vingi-treize (in John Morley's Studies in Literature,
335.) on the moral incitements and haunting effects of Nature
upon the human conscience, and especially of Nature în her
more savage and gloomy scenes. Where the strong conscience
resists, and develops hy resisting, ‘the puny conscience soon
τατος reptile ον, it undergoes the mysterious infiltration of ill
suggestions and superstitiori.’

4963

TEMPTATION OF JESUS

day, he has attained his object, and the 7ixxis, having been
unable to get the mastery over him, will have to become his
servants and obey all his behests, Well, I faithfully observed
all the necessary conditions, and on the twenty-first day, sure
enough, a lion appeared and entered the circle. Next day a
tiger came, and still I succeeded in resisting the impulse which
urged me to flee. But when, on the following day, a most
hideous and frightful dragon appeared, 1 could no longer
control my terror, and rushed from the circle, renouncing all
further attempts at obtaining the mastery over the yimnzs.
When some time had elapsed after this, and 1 had pursied my
studies in philosophy further, I came to the conclusion that I
had been the victim of hallucinations excited by expectation,
solitude, hunger, and long vigils; and, with a view to testing
the truth of this hypothesis, I again repeated the process which
I had before practised, this time in a spirit of philosophica!
incredulity. My expectations were justified; I saw absolutely
nothing. And there is another fact which proves to my mind
that the phantoms I saw on the first occasion had no existence
outside my own brain. I had never seen a real lion then, and
my ideas about the appearance of that animal were entirely
derived from the pictures which may be seen over the doors
of baths in this country. Now, the lion which 1 saw in the
magic circle was exactly like the later in form and colouring,
and, therefore, as 1 need hardly say, differed considerably in
aspect from a real lion.’

‘This custom, it will be noticed, belongs to the large
class of observances now often called ‘ceremonies of
τατοας, initiation,’ that is to say, ceremonies
9. puitiatioR by which a man is introduced into
*. some new line of life, such as that of
a warrior, a priest, a king, and so forth. Among
savages, as is well known, these ceremonies are
often very elaborate and very repulsive, involving, for
example, mutilations of the body and other torments;
among civilised peoples there is naturally a tendency to
soften them down, or suppress them altogether; but
traces of them have survived in almost every country of
the world.
In the particular case under consideration the purpose
, of the ceremony is perfectly clear,
10 SubjuS8- namely, to obtain power over those
don Of JIN: beings whom modern Orientals call
Jinn—a term which in meaning corresponds to the
Jewish shzdkim and to the Greek δαίμονες, δαιμόνια,
Later Jewish writers told that King Solomon possessed such
a power (τὴν κατὰ τῶν δαιμόνων τέχνην, as Josephus calls it).
Josephus also states that Solomon composed incantations
Whereby diseases are relieved, and left behind him forms of
exorcism, whereby men control and drive out demons, so that
they can never return. He ddds, "even to the present day this

mode Ss cure prevails among us to a very great extent'(A4nf.
vii. 5 5).

In this connection it is to be observed that both in
ancient and in modern times a distinction is made
between sudjzgaling demons, as Solomon is supposed to
have done, and en/ering into league with them, în order
to gain some advantage for oneself or to injure one's
enemies, ‘The former is called lawful, the latter unlawful
magie. Now the ceremony which we are discussing
evidently belongs to the former category, and that 11
bears a striking resemblance to the ‘accounts of the
temptation in the Gospels, as Prof. Bevan points out,

cannot be denied, In both cases we
11. Mustrates nd the forty days spent in the desert,
gospel SÉ0FY. (he fisting, and the presence of the
wild beasts. It is also plain that in the Synoptic
narrative of Jesus' ministry the casting out of demons
is a continually recurring feature. It appears natural,
therefore, that the narrative should begin with an
account of the process by which Jesus' power over
the demons was acquired. Nor must we overlook the
important fact that the Fourth Gospel, which omits the
‘Temptation,’ 2/50 omits all reference to the casting out
of demons, Does not this give plausibility to the view
that the early Christians believed that their Master had
obtained control over the demons by performing this
rite at the outset of his ministry? Further corro-
borations of this view are given in the abstract of this
essay în the Proceedings referred to.
An earlier explanation must, however, be mentioned.
‘The more we familiarise ourselves with the utterances

4964

TEMPTATION OF JESUS

of primitive antiquity, the more we are relieved from the
12. Possible difficulties incident to a literalistic and
ti; ht fron rationalistic reading of ancient religious
Echo records. Primitive antiquity delights
myth. :n myths, and details derived from
myths were not held to be misplaced in narratives the
nucleus of which was historical. Indeed, even whole
episodes might be borrowed from myths and adapted
to their own needs by the writers of popular narratives,
without any sense of incongruity. How largely this is
the case in the earlier portion of Israelite history, is
becoming known, and there is no sufficient reason for
denying the existence of a more or less modified mythic
embroidery in early Christian narratives.. The narrative
of the Temptation of Jesus is one of the most precious
of these narratives. We cannot call it ‘an allegory any
more than we can call the Hebrew paradise-story an
allegory, for it is put forth as history—such history as
to early Christians of a primitive habit of mind appeared
to need no proof, because it was ideally and undeniably
true. Had these been called upon to prove the facts
of the history, they would not have understood the
summons, unless, indeed, it came to them from one
who was equally sceptical as to all that the truly ancient
mind held most dear, and in this case they would have
scorned to answer it. We need not then indulge the
pleasant fancy that Jesus himself may have given the
impetus to the production of the temptation narrative,
by giving some of his nearest disciples glimpses of his
early soul-history. "The fancy is not only unnecessary
but also unwise—at least, if it entices us to suppose that
our purely subjective imaginings are of equal value with
eritical or traditiona. facts, and so to lose that sobriety
which in a student of religion is the crowning moral
quality.
‘There are two stories! parallel to that now before us
which deserve the attention of the student, One is the
è Temptation of Zarathustra (Zoroaster)
18. Speciali Y by the evil spirit Angra Mainyu; the
Loves ΜΝ other is the Temptation of Gautama
8 (the Buddha} by the demon Mara. In
both these stories the tempter seeks first of all to over-
come the Holy One by violence, and only when this
effort fails has recourse to spiritual temptations.
Ahriman, ‘the guileful one, he the evil-doer,' bids a demon
rush down upon Zarathustra. But the holy Zarathustra steps
forward to meet him, wielding ‘stones as big as a house,"
obtained from Ahura' Mazda (£.e., thunderbolts), Then the
guilefol one, fearing the overthrow of his own empire, promises
‘arathustra that if he will ‘renounce the good law of the wor-
shippers of Mazda,’ he shall ‘gain such a boon as Zohak gained,
the ruler ofthe nations? Zarathustra answers, ‘ No! never will
I renounce the good law . . . though my body, my life, my
soul, should burst.’ And when Ahriman howls out, ‘By whose
word wilt thou strike and repel,' Zarathustra answers, ‘The
words taught by Mazda, these are my weapons, my best
weapons.’ Once more he chants the sacred formula, the Abuna
Vairya, and prays, ‘This I ask thee : teach me the truth, O Lord !"3
With this, Darmesteter4 well compares the Tempta-
tion of Gautama by the demon Mara.
The legend is that when the young Indian prince made the
+ great renunciation' to devote himself to the discovery of truth
for the sake of his fellowmen, Mara became visible in the air,
promising that in seven days from now the wheel of empire
would appear, and would make Gautama sovereign over the four
continents and the two adjacent isles._Baffled, the demon Mara
sends his three daughters, Craving, Discontent, and Lust ; but
their wiles are fruitless; on the forty-ninth day the king of the

gods brings water for his face, and the four guardian angels
minister to him.9

It is plain that both these stories are of mythie origin;

1 Already referred to by J. E. Carpenter, Te Fist Three
Gospels, 1655; J. M. Roberison, C4ristianity and Mythology,
34 353 255: 5 n

À king in ancient Ivanian mythology who ruled the world
for a thousand years.

3 L'endidid (Zendavesta), 191-11 (the Revelation chapter),
SBE4204-206; cp Introd. p. Ixxvii. There is also a briefer
account of the episode in the Dimkart, besides allusions to it
elsewhere (A. V. Willinms Jackson, Zoroaster, te Prophet of
Ancient Iran, 53).

+ Ormazd et Ahriman, 201.

8 birth Stories (Rhys Davids), 184 96 106,77

4965

TEMPTATION OF JESUS

plain too that psychological refiection has done more
for the Buddhist story than for the Zoroastrian.! The
more archaic of the two stories is the Temptation of
Zarathustra, the more appealing the Temptation of
Gautama. Darmesteter traces both to the nature-myth
embodied in the dialogue of the Panis and SaramA in
the Rig Veda. This, at least, seems highly probable ;
το the Temptation-stories in general origin-
1 ἀρ νὴ ated in the mythica] conflict between the
elements. Jicht-god and the Storm-spirit, and
while we fully grant that the story of the Temptation
of Jesus has been, like that of the Temptation of
Gautama, enriched by psychological reflection, and
(we may add in the case of the Gospel-story) by remini-
scences of the Temptation of Adam and of ancient Israel,
we cannot consistently deny that its ultimate germs are
mythical. Not that the mythic element in this story
can be traced to imitation of either of the two parallel
stories mentioned above ($ 15); so far as we know as
yet, it is only in the apocryphal Gospels (150-700
A.D.) that Buddhistic influence can safely be admitted.
Indeed, the ‘exceeding high mountain, from the top
of which the tempter shows Jesus ‘all the kingdoms of
the world and the glory of them,' would seem to be
suggested by the Babylonian mountain of the gods
which passed into the folklore of the Israelites? (cp
Is. 1413 Ezek. 28:16), and is ultimately the great mythic
earth-mountain. ‘We know not where to look for the
*‘ high mountain,"'remarks Keim. The Gospel accord-
ing to the Hebrews, however, did know. According to
a fragment in Origen,? ‘the Saviour said, Even now my
mother the Holy Spirit hath seized me by one of my
hairs, and hath brought me to the great mountain
Tabor (Θαβωρ, Ταβωρ) Why Tabor? Probably by
a misunderstanding. It was the mountain of the
Navel (5) that was originally meant—the mountain
in the earth's centre. Earlier generations knew where
this mountain was—it was in the old Hebrew Paradise,
but certainly no one in the first Christian century could
have localised that Paradise. It was also on this
mountain that we should have expected to find Jesus
spending the forty days ; the analogies of Ex. 2418 3428
1 K. 198 f. point distinctly to this. But here again the
lapse of centuries since the period of a still fourishing
folklore must be borne în mind. Since these passages
were written transcendentalism had placed its seal on
Jewish theology, and even the most venerated earthiy
mountain was no more than the footstool of God {cp
Ps. 995 1327). Jewish ascetics naturally resorted to
the desert, as the region where communings with another
world would be most attainable (cp JOHN THE BAPTIST,
$ 1). It was possible there to reduce the claims of
fleshly nature to the utmost; there, t00, mysterious
oracular voices might be heard (see col. 3882, with n. 2);
there, too, the moral athlete might prove his spiritual
weapons in conflict with the Evil One, Whether the
‘ forty days’ were, according to the earliest form of the
narrative, really forty days of temptation may be doubted.
The Lenten fast of forty days might naturally exert a
modifying influence on the original tradition, which
surely must have said that Jesus, as the second Moses
and the second Elijah, communed with God for forty
days before he underwent the sorest attack of the Evir
1 According to Rhys Davids (ZwadQism, 36, SPCK), ‘the
very thoughts passing through the mind of Gautama appear în
gorgeous descriptions as angels of darkness or of light. Unable
to express the struggles of his soul in any other way, they repre-
sent him as sitting sublime, calm, and serene during violent
attacks made upon him by a wicked visible tempter and his
wicked angels, armed by all kinds of weapons.” We must not,
however, imagine that the Temptation of Gautama is of purely
psychological origin. Even here the first germs are evidently
mythological (sce Darmesteter). sa ᾿
3 The fondness for references to mountains in Jewish eschato-
logical literature also has its roots in mythology.
See Nestle, NT Gr. Supplementum, 77, and cp TABOR, $ 5.
4 There is evidence suggesting that the early tradition placed
it in the Jerahmeelite Negeb (see PARADISE, $ 11, with n. 6).

5 On the genesìs of the ‘forty days’ in the Moses and Elijah
story, cp Moses, $ 11.

4966

TEMPTATION OF JESUS

One,! Just so, Zarathustra is said to have beheld seven
visions of Ormazd and the archangels before meeting
the combined attack of the powers of evil. It may
well be that in the original Temptation of Jesus, as in
that of Zarathustra, the efforts of the tempter were made
to centre in the'one object of drawing the Saviour away
to a false ideal of success. Analogy favours the view
that this, like other stories of the same class, grew, and
by the belief that it grew our appreciation of the final
perfected form is increased rather than diminished.

One serious difficulty, however, remains, ‘The short
account in Mk. runs

‘And he was în the wilderness forty days tempted of Satan;
and he was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered
unto him' (Mk. 113),
To suppose that this account merely sums up a fuller
narrative, such as Mt.'s, is scarcely admissible. lt
consists of three clauses, and it is only the first and
the third which can be represented as the skeleton
οἵ the vivid narrative known to Mt. and Lk. ‘He
was with the wild beasts' (ἣν μετὰ τῶν θηρίων)- --
clearly there îs something more than picturesque realism
here, and the duty of the critic is not performed by
referring to 15,806, 2 Mace. 527. We seem to have
here a fragment of another separate narrative, attached
to the beginning of Jesus' career, the trials described
in which were those incident to initiation into mysteries,
or (in Egypt) to the passage of the soul to the Islands
of the Blest.* 1. M. Robertson 4 is inclined to account
in this way for the tempter's invitation to Jesus to grasp
at food before the appointed time. ‘We know that
among the trials of the later Mithraie initiations were
those of hunger and thirst; and as the adversary, the
tempter, is a capital figure in all stages of the Mazdean
system, it would be almost a matter of course that the
initiate should figure as being tempted by him to break
down in the probation.’ It would certainly not be
extraordinary that some echo of these mysteries should
have made its way into the Christian community, con-
sidering how close was the struggle between Christianity
and Mithraism (the successor and supplanter of Mazda-
worship) at a later period. Nor have we even thus
exhausted critical possibilities, Considering that ability
to vanquish demons was regarded as one of the most
essential gifts of the Messiah (cp ΜΚ. 3), it is not sur-
prising if an attempt was made by early Christians to
connect the temptation-story with this widely-spread
view of the messianic office. ‘The discussion in $$ 8-11
will not, indeed, supersede the mythological theory,
but it may help us to realise the popular theories which
may possibly have been based at an early time on the
narrative of the temptation. T.K.C.
On the literary criticism of the synoptic narratives, besides the
relevant sections in critical editions of the synoptic gospels'and
. in che various biographies of Jesus, see von
15. Literature, Engelhardt, De tentazione Jesu (1858),
" Hiinefeld, δὲς Versuchunesceschichte
(1880); N. Schmidt, S4 Ar, 1839, p. 443.5; Wendts Lehre
Fesu(ET, 11017 395); W. Hénig, ‘ Die Versuchungsgeschichte '
(Protest. Monatshefte, 1900, 331 £ 382 £); and È. W. Bacon,
Bibl. World, Jan. 1900, pp. 18-25; also Ulimann's Stndlosigheit
Jesu (ET, 125-144 265-291 [1870Î); Trench's Studies în Gosfels,
1-65 (1867); Ecce Hosmo (ch. 2); Campbell’ Crit. Studies în
Luke, 16-28 (1891); A. E. Garvie, Ξαῇ. 710 301//. 356/4195
453/ 509); W. W. Peyton, Exos., third ser. 9 369-397, fourth
Ser. 2 360-378 439:454 423-236 340-360; and W, B. Hill, 252.
World, εἴ 28-36; further, on the metaphysical problem, Bruce,
Humiliation of Christ [ὦ (1889), 236-288 ; and Fairbaien, CArist
in Mod. Theology, 348-353 (1893). A crude literalism dominates
essays like Nebe's Der Versuck des Herrn cine Gussere That-
sache (1857), and F. Nerling's ‘ Die Versuchung Jesu Christi,
des Schnes Gottes, durch Satanas in der Wuste' (A7it#heil. und
Nachrichten filr die evang. Kivche in Russland, 88 49-104) ; cp

1 Keim unites the two views of the forty days. ‘He stands
like Moses on Sinai in still converse with God, by whose word
he lives, but he is, at the same time, put to the test by Satan;
and it is this side of his sojourn which has been most industri»
ously portrayed'(/esus af Nazara, ET 2305). The synoptics,
however, only speak of his being tempted of the devil.

2 Williams Jackson, Zorvaster, 507

3 Masp. Daw of Cig. 184 £

4 Christianity and Mythology, 354.

4967

TENT

A. D. Kurrikoff (454. 1895, pp. 289-307 395-417), [Add—
ublished since the above article was written=-Garvie, Ex/0s.
une 1902; Hilgenfeld, Z#77, 1902, pp. 289-302; Denney,
Death of Christ (1902), 16-18; and ]. Halévy, λεῖα Sémitigue
(Jan., 1902), p. 13 Κ᾽; also, for rabbinic parallels on Satan
fempting Abram, Moses, and Israel, Gfròrer's /akrkunderi d.
Heils, 23791)
3. Mo. (88 1-7, 15); T.K. C. (8$ 12-14).
'TENT. The tent, as a place of abode or shelter,
appears to stand midway between the tree and the
circular hut. The tree, with its
1. Introduction. c.nopy of branch and brushwood,
would suggest to nomad tribes the use of the tree-trunk
or pole, around which would be hung the skins of
animals caught in the chase, whilst settled races would
prepare a more lasting shelter by the erection, on a
similar plan, of round {or nearly round) dome-shaped
buildings of straw and clay. A later development of
this would be the construction of round buildings with
perpendicular walls, and sloping, not conical roof.

For these stages cp Montelius, cited by O. Schrader, /ado.
german, Alterium 339 f, and J. H, Middleton, art, ‘Templum'
în Smith's Dick. Class. Ant. 27736 (' τὰς round shape was the
earlier form for a god's house, just as the circular hut, buile
round a central pole, is che early architecture for a human
habitation') It is not denied, however, that oval or oblong
buildings are very old, and although there are indications that
the Indo-Germanic races, for example, passed through the
‘round-hut’ stage (Schrader, 981/), it cannot be proved,
although it may plausibly be inferred, that they were originaliy
tent-dwellers. To proceed farther along this line, and to sug-
gest that from the cave has arisen first the rock-hewn chamber
‘and then the rectangular abode, isa hypothesis not yet sufficiently
warranted by the evidence.ì At all events, there is reason to
suppose that the portico or gateway in front of the Egyptian
house, for example, has evolved from a previous practice of
building some kind of structure before the mouth of a cavern.
Cp Oracte, 3.

It is unfortunate that the exact age of the circular, dome-
shaped bee-hive buildings in the Sinaitic peninsula which are
described by Palmer (Desert of the Exodus, 139 771, τόρ, 317,
ete.), is unknown.3 Αἱ all events there is no solid ground for
the old theory (based on Lev. 23 43) that they were once occupied
by the children of Israel during their wanderings in the wilder-
ness, Some of them (at least) appear to have been used as tombs
by monks, a use to which they are occasionally put at the present
day, and this supports Mr. F.C, Burkitt's suggestion that the term
applied to them, ματυάνηῖς, is not from n4185, ' mosquito,” but
is ‘an evident oral corruption of σεφτυάεσῖς, plural of #2'#s, which
is ultimately derived from ναός (Syr. γα), “temple,” but is
used for ““cemetery,” and apparently for the Parsee towers of
silence—in fact for any non-Mobammedan kind of burial-place’
(private communication).

The characteristio Hebrew term for the tent is dhe/
(Sag, σκηνή [BAL]), occasionally rendered “TABER-
NACLE (g.%., 8 1). It has been connected? with the
Ass. dlu, ‘settlement, city‘ (in contrast with magdzz,
‘fortified place’); but the relationship is doubted by
Néldeke (Z21/G 40720 [1886]), who also questions the
identity of the Hebrew word with the S. Sem. 442 (09.
cit. 154, n. 1).£ On the other hand, del, like δάνέῥᾳ
{see House, $ 1), may refer not only to the dwelling,
but also to its occupants; cp Ps. 8876] ‘tents of
Edom” (il Ishmaclites), 1205 “tents of Kedar' (cp
2. 66 ‘those who hate peace'},5 and for this reason it
has been considered probable that the last two letters of
combi in x Ch. 441, and that mpo of 2 Ch. 1414 [15], are
corruptions of tribal names.®

‘Tent’ is also the rendering of γεῤῥξάνε, ᾿Ξ, Cant. 18 and
() 910) Nu, 245 Jer. 8018; of sekfat, neo (‘booth) in 28.
Ilri, see Pavilion (1), TABERNACLE, $ 1; and of #uébah,
N22, Nu, 258, see PaviLion (2), and $ 4 below. B4yi4, too, is
used οἵα tent? in Gen. 2715 83 17 (J), and is thus rendered also

1 For cave- or underground dwellings among Semitic peoples,
cp Now. HA 1135/ (E. of Jordan, Petra), and Landberg,
L'Arabie Méridionale, \x59 (8. Arabia).

È See KisROTH-HATTAAVAH, NEGFB, $ δ. .

8 E.g., by Fr. Delitzsch (Pr02 105), Sayce (7544 i. 2305).

4 Nòldeke compares Syr. ya4/2, ‘troop, tribe. From the 5.
Semitic comes also the cognate Nab. bg, found in two inscrip-
tions from Hauran (C/S 2164/.).

5 Not to be corrected into mbw saw, ‘haters of the Salmu
(i.e., Salamzzans)' as the emendation in Cant. 15 (see We.
Pro.) 218, n. 1) might suggest.

6 Cp Wi. ‘Musri, etc. 277/G, 898, 1487, and see ZERAW.

© Cp, perhaps, the glossin Hesychius τ Batra=tent of skin.

4968

TENT -

ty RV in 2 K. 287 (but see Dress, $ 8, col. 1140). Conversely,
ὅλοι seems to refer to the palacss of Israet's neighbours in Ps.
84 10 (1r)1 Job 21 28, ."

On the use of 44e/ in Sabzean and Pheenician proper names,
see AHOLIBAMAH, OROLAH, OHOLIBAH,

Originally the Hebrews, like the Arabs,? were essenti-
ally a tent-living people, and in one of their legendary

ie Benealogies they enumerate among their
2 Tent.lifo ancestors Jabal, the father of tent-dwellers
in israel and herdsmen, thus recognising their
nomadic origin (Gen. 420, cp Heb. 119, and see CAIN-
1TES, CATTLE, $ 1}. ὙΠῸ tent-dweller, if he follows an
honest calling, is essentially a herdsman, and it is not
until he has become at least an agriculturistthe two
types are represented in Abel and Cain respoctively—
that he will begin to think of replacing the tent by a
shelter of a more substantial character.*

The Canaanites among whom the Hebrews settled
were house-dwellers (cp Nu, 1319 28 Dt. 128 35, and see
City, ἃ 1), and that the immigrants in time followed
their example, is only to be expected, and is presup-
posed in the (later) law Dt.228 (cp House, $ τὴ.
Still, it is noteworthy that outside help was desirable,
if not actually necessary, and for the building of his
temple Solomon was obliged to invoke the aid of the
more expert Phoenicians (sce Hiram, 1), just as Arabian
tradition relates that for the erection of the Ka ba
Coptie, Persian, or Roman workmen were called in
(Fraenkel, op. cit. 4). .

In this connection it is interesting to note that the Arabic
word for ‘roof' (7277) is of Aramaic, and ultimately, perhaps,
of Assyrian origin (Fraenkel, 5, Muss-Arnolt, Ass. Dick. 160),
and that the Hebrew synonym gag is of unknown etymology,
and does not appear to be Semitic. Similarly, the derivation
of the Heb. ‘ir, £ir, dlelà, basar (in meibsar, etc.), and fel, all
of which presuppose town-life, are quite obscure. ΝΜ

Long after the settlement, the Hebrews retained in

their language traces of their earlier mode of living.
Wealth and cattle (mpn) are identical
terms.4 Naia' (po), ‘to journey,”
comes from the idea of pulling up the
tent-pegs before journeying. Removal
is compared to the carrying away of the
shepherd's tent (cp 1s, 88 12); desolation
is as the breaking of the tent-cords, and
as the fall of the tent, when there is
none to set up or spread the curtains
(Job 421 RV, fer. 1020). A tent firmly
staked with stout cords s a figure of
security (Is. 33 20), and a tent-peg, like
our ‘pegging out a claim,’ is synony-
mous with the right of possession
(Ezra 98) ‘To your tents, O Israel*
remains the formula of dismissal, and
even in the time of Amaziah, Judah is
deemed to dwell among tents (2K. 1412).

In spite of this, however, it is im-
portant to remember that there were
certain clans in Israel which apparently
‘continued to remain semi-nomads (e.g.,
Kenites and doubtless other clans living
S. of the Negeb, and to the E. of the
Jordan} Again, although modern
analogy supports the inference that the agriculturists were
almost wholly house-dwellers (however mean their abode
may have been; see HOUSE), yet to a certain extent
these still retained the earlier custom of dwelling in
tents, whether it was during the ingathering of the
vintage (see TABERNACLES, FEAST OF) or for comfort

1 [Che. /s.(2) contends that in a number of passages (Ps. 151
19 3 27 5.3 615 6926 7860 84 11) bag is miswritten for Sovm.]

È Cp Gen. 37 25 Judg. 811 (where Tg. actually has ἈΠ for
obmea maw) Ps. 886 (7) 1 Ch.5 10. As an examination of the
terms appears to show, the Arabs learned the art of building from
the Aramzans (Fraenkel, Aram. Fremduw. 17). The older
civilisation of the Minaans and Sabaans of the S. of Arabia
does not come under consideration here.

3 On the gradual settling of the Hebrews, cp_Buhl, Die
socialen Verkiltnisse d. /sraeliten, 13 Κ΄. (Berlin, 1899).

4 Cp also perhaps, Syr. 724744/2, and see CATTLE, ὃ 8 (end).

4969

TENT

during the summer, or from religious principle {see
RECHABITES),1 See below, $ 4. .

On the ease with which the people will pass from
house to tent-life see Per.-Chip. Art ix Chald. 1199.
To understand this we must realise the deeply-rooted
preference which all Bedouins have for their tent.? It is
stili the practice to the E. of the Jordan for the popnla-
tion of such towns even as es-Sall, and Kerak, to pitch
their tents in the country during the summer. The same
holds good of the peasantry of S. Palestine, and was no
doubt usual in ancient times (Thomson, Land axd Book,
296). Another practice, Schumacher remarks, is for
the fellabin of the Jaulan to build a hut of branches or
reeds® upon the roofs of their houses (/az/ar, 43). Cp
also BED, $1; House, $ 3; HUT.

As an instance of the modification of the tent by a more sett]ed
folk, the usage of the ‘Turcomans, NW. of Aleppo, is of interest.
According to Burckhardt (7ravels in Syria, 636; London,
1822), the dwellings consist of oblong walls of about 4 ft. in
height. These are made of foose stones, and the whole is
covered over with a black eloth of goat's hair, elevated by
twelve or more posts, about 8 ft. high, in the middie of the
enclosure. A stone partition near the entrance bars off the
women's apartment from that of the men. Many of the people,
however, live in large huts 15 ft. high, which look like tents
but have roofs of rushes. As a further adaptation may be
noticed the/ow7f or tent of the Kirghiz in Centra Asia, ‘con-
sisting of a wooden frame for sides, radiating ribs for roof, and a
wooden door. . . . Over this framework a heavy covering of
felt is throwg, which is either weighed down with stones or,
when necessary, stitched together.'# From this it is possible τὸ
gain some idea of the construction of the Israelite tabernacle as
it existed in the mind of the priestly writers. See further
TABERNACLE, $ 10,

The well-known retention of ancient customs in the
East being admitted, our conception of the tent of the
Hebrews must be based upon our know-
ledge of its construction among the
Bedouins of the present day, supplemented by the un-

3. Description.

=
A
di >

Fic, r.—Sennacherib's camp at Lachish, Brit. Mus. Assyrian Saloon.

fortunately small number of representations of tents
upon the Assyrian sculptures, and illustrated by the
scanty details in the OT. The sculptures furnish us
with ‘illustrations of the royal pavilion which accom-
panied Sennacherib at the siege of Lachish,6 and from

1 cp Bu. “The Nomadic Ideal in the OT’ (New World,
1805).

2°Cp vw. Oppenheim, Mittelweer -. Pers. Golf; 2.50.

3 Called ‘aziski; cp below, col. 4973, n. 2.

4 πον, Brit. "Tent,' 23 1832. The tent of Shiloh, accord-
ing to Rabbinical writers, was also supposed to be a walled en-
closure, covered over with curtains.

5 Among the descriptions of the various travellers in the East,
Burckhardt, and more especially Doughty, bave been drawn
upon most frequently in this section.

6 Cp also the pavilion portrayed upon the bronze gate of
Balawat (expedition against Carchemish). For other royal
tents, cp Per.-Chip. Art ἐπ Chald. 1175193.

4970

TENT

the same source there is preserved, fortunately, a plan
of the Assyrian camp, în which are depicted both the
royal pavilion and tents of a less luxurious description
{fig. 1). In addition to this, upon the sculptures
representing Aur-bfini-pal's expedition against the
Arabians (Α 2217 / 122), there are interesting
portrayals of the tents of the enemy (fig. 2). In
the uppermost panel, the tent-dwellers are seen peace-
fully working ; below, is depicted the hand-to-hand
conflict with the Assyrians ; and, finally, the Arabians
are overpowered and killed, and the burning tents are on
the point of collapse. The representation is extremely
vivid. The framework of the tents appears to consist of

anupright branchfrom the middle of whichother branches

Fis. 2.—Arabian tents. Brit. Mus. Assyrian saloon.

project, and the general appearance, it will be seen,
is markedly inferior to that in Sennacherib's camp.!

The Assyrians, like the Egyptians, were especially a house
dwelling people. " But according to De Morgan (Reckerches sur
les Orizines de l'Égypte, 667, Paris, 1897; cp Budge, Mist,
of Egypt, 142 56102; London, 1902), the earlier inhabitants of

‘gypt lived în booths οἵ rush and reed, and the art of brick-
making (see BRICK) was introduced probably from Chaldara.
As regards the Assyrians, the theory that they, too, once dwelt
in tents or booths, can at present be supported only by the fact
that they were in the custom of erecting a tent upon the flat
house-roof(Per.-Chip., Art τε Chald. 1 197, cp above, $ 2, end), a
practice which might lead to the erection of the so-called “ upper
chamber’ (found also in Egypt, eg, Wilk. Arc. Ep. 1352), and
of the rounded tops, domes, or sugar-loaf roofs of Mesopotamia
(cp Art in Chald. 1 128 145 1652). May we also point to the
general lack of windows?

The nomad tent (4ejra, Doughty, Ar. Des. 1224) is
made of black worsted or hair-cloth, or of sheep's wool
mingled with the hair of goats and camels.? Tents of
linen were, and still are, used only occasionally for
holiday or travelling purposes, by those who do not
habitually live in them (Kitto, 2754 CyeZ. art. ‘Tent,' cp
Doughty, 2356). The Bedouins of the Jaulàn according
to Schumacher (Jaz/arn, 54 /.) do not make the plaited
goat-hair tent-cloths themselves, but buy them from
certain tribes and gipsies (/Vazzuar), who for the most
part drive a regular trade în this.* The skeleton con-
sists of a number of tent-poles (‘emdar, 'στοαν»εῖά), 5
varying in number from three to nine according to the
size of the tent, which are kept în position by cords
(vétker, mithar [cp CORD], mod. funzb or hab! [Eg.])
attached to stakes or pegs (y4/474, mod. wafed).®

1 Cp also Layard, Nineveh and ifs Remains, 2.27: (London,
18,9). and Per.-Chip. Ar ἐπ Chald. 1 330.
Hence the mod. name daif αν, ὁ. wadar; for the material,
cp,also Ex. 25 26 3624, TADERNACLE, $ 4 Δ, SACKCLOTA, $ 1 n.
3 Tent-making, the trade followed by Paul, was no doubt a
lucrative profession. The Pesh., however, in Acts 183 reads

ἸΏ οδν,, ‘saddlemakers,'

suggested that σκηνοποιός îs an error for ἡνιοποιός. See further,
Citicta, PAUL, $ 5, SACKCLOTH, and cp SHIP, $ 8 n.

4 For a collection of other mod, terms in use see Oppenheim,
Vom Mittelmeer 2. Pers. Golf, vol. 2, facing 44.

$ The Hebrew phrase for ‘to pitch a tent’ (51xn ne ypn, Gen.

4971

=lorarius?), whence it has been

TENT

Over the poles are stretched the coverirgs of skin or
rag (y@ri'oth, cp AZUBAH), and around the sides is hung
a long cloth, an open space being left at one side for
light and ventilation.® Inside the larger tents, a hanging,
commonly not more than breast or neck-high, separates
the smaller and inner apartment (ζμόδαϊ, malram) for
the women (who rarely have their own tent, cp 8 4
below), from the larger, and commonly open division,
which is used as a reception and general living room
(maf'ad).3 When there is a triple division, and this is
rare (cp Doughty, 2285), the extra room is used for
servants and cattle. The tents average 20-25 feet in
length (though sometimes reaching as much as 40 feet);
they are about 8-10 feet high, and usually oblong in
shape; round tents are mentioned in the old Arabian
poems, and a few traces have been found at the present
day near Teima {Doughty, 1284 £}; but with these
exceptions, they are used only by Turkish officials and
travellers.

The Arabs usually wander in 7/22, or nomad
hamlets, according to their kindreds,* accompanied
perhaps by some poor unprotected followers. The
collection of tents forms the mexzz/;5 if few, they may
be arranged in a circle or semicircle,5 but usage varies,
and not unfrequently a tribe may be identified at a
distance by the arrangement adopted.” Zarebas, en-
campments surrounded with a stone wall, are vonched
for în the desert of Pharan (Nowack, ZZ4 137), but are
not common.

The sheikh's tent is naturally the most important,
though not necessarily, therefore, the most luxurious.8
It is usually placed in the most prominent position, and
will often face the direction from which travellers may
be expected to arrive (cp Gen. 1817). To it repair
the desert wanderers (duyzf Allah, ‘God's guests '),
who find therein a sanctuary and can claim protection
for two nights and a day.? | The raZ/a (‘ migration') is
agreed upon the previous day by common assent or may
rest with the Sheikh, Should his tent remain standing
an hour past sunrise, it is known that the camp will not
move that day (Doughty, 1216}. Naturally the proximity
of trees and wells (cp Gen. 184) is songht for in selecting
a fresh menzil

To the women falls the duty of erecting and taking down the
tents (Doughty, 1 216), It is in their apartment that the goods
and chattels are stored, though these, it is true, are few in
number (Doughty, 1216 227). Some lumps of rock-salt, a few
lengths of cloth and patches of leather, a box for the feminine
vanities, the great brazen pot, a lamp, and a dozen minor

utensils will form the average equipment (Doughty, 1227, cp
House, $ 6 and references),

Nowhere do we find such conservatism of ancient

8125 Jer.63) realiy contains a reference to the hammering
(won) of the tent-peg.

1 This is the only door, in the proper sense of the word ; ses
Door. Contrast Gen. 1817 the ewsrance (44424) of the tent,
and 197 the door (déleth) of the city-house (84yi24; cp 2.8,
where mention is made of the beam, #4x4%), Cp Jer.49 31, the
Arabians who have neither “doors nor bars”

2 Doughty (Ar. Des. 1227) well says: ‘Tent îs the Semitic
house ; their clay house is built in like manner, a public hall
for the men and guests, and an inner woman's and household
apartment.”

3 ‘The tents în the illustrations from the monuments (above)
are also probably round.

4 Cp P's conception of the camp of Israel în the wilderness
(Nu. È 52, etc). In modern times che size of a tribe is frequently
reckoned by the number of tents; for examples, see Merrili,
East of the Jordan, 471.

From Ar. naza/a, ‘to dwell,' perhaps originally ‘to unload.*
Cpin Syr. madrithà, ‘camp, from Sera, ‘to loosen' (unload).
See Fraenkel, 04. οἶδ. 3, n. L.

δ Cp the Ar, name δμευᾶν, and the Heb, fr44; see Came,
$i; Carne, ἢ τὶ Nuceo Κὶ ἃ

Cp Camp, ὶ r. Thus the tents may be arranged in the shape
of a triangle, rectangle, în one long line, or in two parallel lines
(Conder, Zent Work in Palestine, 2273); for square-shaped
encampments, cp Robinson, 2A 2 180 207, and for oval, 76, 201.

8 Rich and elaborate tents are more characteristic of the
Persians, cp Judith 1021.

9 Doughty, 1228, cp WRS, Kishif, 41% 259, and see
STRANGER AND SOJOURNER, $ 5.

4972

TENTH DEAL

customs as in matters outside everyday life, and in the
case of the tent this is particularly

4 Tent in illustrated in certain religious festivals
Maire, and (cp above, $ 2), and in marriage cere-
Tè igion. monies,

It has not escaped notice
that in a few cases in the OT the tent appears to be the
property of the wife (e.g., [86], Judg. 47; Sarah, Gen.
2426; Jacob's wives, 31337), and in this Robertson
Smith recognised the survival of an earlier stage of
society (still found in various phases among some com-
munities) where the woman possesses her own tent, into
which she receives her husband, and in which, though
married, she retains perfect independence {the so-called
seena marriage). In later ages, when marriage entails
the loss of her independence, and the woman belongs
to the man, the importance of the tent is retained in a
variety of ways: thus, notably, the Arab still erects a

special hut or tent for his wife on the first night of ;

marriage, although it is otherwise unusual for the woman
to possess a separate dwelling (Ainski4, 167).

The erection of this tent for the consununation of the marriage
illustrates 2 S. 1622 (#e, not a, tent as in AV); such a bridal
chamber may well have been called ἀμῤῥᾶλ, ngn (cp Joel 2 16

[where the ἢ 44/27 is used of a bridegroom, as also is ἀμόῥαι
itself in Ps, 195 [6))1 According to Robertson Smith (X7ns4z2,
168 291) the “res or bridal bed (Cant. 116) was also primarily a
booth; cp Ar. ‘iris, ‘thicket,” ‘arvasa, ‘to make ἃ booth'
(esp. with a view to marriage), ‘75, ‘bridegroom, and ‘rs,
‘wife/2 but this is coubted by Budde, Fwxf MegiZiot, on
Cant, Ze.

Allusion has already been made to the circular and
tent-like shape of the earliest temples in the classica!
world {$ 1), and although there do not appear to be
actual records of the use of tents as temples, at least
Orestes had his sacred booths (Paus. ii. 316), and
temporary booths were not unfrequentiy erected in
sacred precincts (Frazer, Paws. 2165 f 204). These
usages remind us both of the tents and booths erected by
the Israelites on special religious festivals (Hos. 129, see
TABERNACLES, FEAST OF), and of the temporary tents
in which dwelt the female-mourners over Hosein.®
Portable tents were also used as shrines on military
campaigns (WRS, Rel, Sem. 37, cp Schwally, Serziz.
Kriegsalterth. 113), and the use of tents as sanctuaries ἢ
was familiar to the Israelites long after the settlement in
Canaan. See further, TABERNACLE, esp. $ 12.

SAC

TENTH DEAL (ΠΡ), Ex. 2940 AV, ἘΝ ‘tenth
part [of an ephah]." See WEIGHTS AND MEASUKES,
$3(5v. ‘omer').

TEPHON (redwn [A]),
TAPHON (g.v.).

TERAH (MA, gapa [BADEL]; AD sometimes
Gappai Ziare), the father of Abraham (Gen. 11247
Josh. 242 1 Ch. 126 Lk. 334). ‘Tradition described him
variously as the son, and as the brother, of Nahor. P
represents him as migrating from ‘Ur Kasdim' {see
UR 0F THE CHALDEES) to ‘ Haran' (Gen. 1131). To
understand ' Terah,’ we must, first of all, havea definite
view as to the meaning of ‘ Abraham' and ‘Haran.”

(1) Thereis some probability in Winckler's theory (G/224 n. 1)
that mn is an intentional distortion of ΠῚ" (verz4)= Ass. arbu,
originally ‘the beginning of a moon’ Ur Kasdim, whence

1 Mace. 950 ΕΝ, AV

1 Another word is μόδας (Nu. 258, see PAVILION, 2) with
which cp the Ar. term #42 {$ 3, above). BIDB prefer ‘(Zimri’s)
princely tent,' but the older view is better (see Ges. ΤΆ σιν Di.),
and is supported by the vulgar colloquial usage of the word în
both MH and Ar. (cp Freytag). Note that the derivative ‘al-
cove” itself, was used în Spanish to denote especially the recess
in a chamber for the bed.

È Add, τοο, the ‘aris4i (col. 4970, n. 3 above). "The stem is to
be kept distinct from Ass. eri$t, ‘bridegroom,' which corresponds
to Hebr. 785 (τ, ‘to espouse,' lit. ‘pay the price.' The original
meaning of by is uncertain.

# As Eerdmans has shown, the rite has traces ofthe Tammuz-
cult (ZA 9 303); cp also v. Kremer, Stud, 2. vergleick. Culture
gesch. 159 (Vienna, 1890).

4 The #a'Za appears to have been evolved from a tent (Wellh.
Hcid BI 73).

4973

᾿!
]

TERAPHIM

Terah came, was (as is commonly held) the 5, Babylonian city
of Uru, which was the seat of the moon-cultus. Harran
(=Haran, where Terah died) was the other great centre of the
same cultus (see HARAN), This must be taken in connection
with the theory of Winckler and Stucken as to the mythological
character of Abraham and Sarah (cp SARAH). (2) Another
view, however, may deserve to be mentioned, There is strong
reason to think that Abraham is the hero of the Jerahmeelites,
as Israel (cp Sarah) is the hero of the Israelites, and that his
original seat (i.e., that of the Jerahmeelites) was, traditionally,
in the southern Harin. Terah's close connection with Haran
and Nahor (= Haran?) suggests that he is a double of Abraham,
and that his ‘name ‘is a corrupted fragment of Jerahmeel
Possibly for ‘corrupted’ we should rather say ‘altered.’ P,
or his authority, may, as Winckler (see above) remarks, have
had a repugnance to a name which suggested moon-worship. (3)
Jensen's comparison of N. Syrian (Hittite) proper names, like
Tarhular (4A 670; Z?ftifer, 153), leads to the meagre result
that Terah may have been a divine name. Tk. C.

TERAH (MN), Nu. 33277 Εν, AV TARAH (9.0).

TERAPHIM (Ὁ ΒῚΠ, © in Gen. εἰλωλὰ, Hist.

Books θεραφίε]ιν, dap., θεραπειν, «pera [exc. 1 5.153 θερα-
πειαν (B) 191316 κενοτάφια or καιν.), Hos. 34 δῆλοι [see below,

i m. 2], Ezek.?121 [26] γλυπτά, Zech. 102 ἀποφθεγγόμενοι ; Aq.

μορφώματα, προτομαί Sym. εἴδωλα, ἐπίλυσις, θεραφειν, Theod,
θεραφίεἰεν, ἐπιλυόμενος»; AV (following Vg.) sometimes tran:
scribes, sometimes translates ‘image,’ ‘idols,’ idolatry'; ΕΥ̓
more consistently adopts ‘teraphim’ throughout.

The name appears to designate a particular kind of
idol {cp Gen. 3119 with v. 30, ‘my god’; also 8524).
Of the form of these images we learn nothing from
the scanty notices in the OT; we cannot certainly infer
from the fact that Laban's was concealed under a
camel saddle that it was small, nor from the use which
Michal makes of David's (1 S.191316) that it was of
the size or shape of a man. Laban’s teraphim (his
god) was stolen by Rachel (Gen. 31), but with other
foreign gods and heathenish amulets, was put away by
Jacob before he went to worship Vahwé at Bethel
(852-4); the meaning of the story (in E) plainly is that
the teraphim were relics of Aramzan paganism which
Israel cast off to serve Vahwè alone (cp Josh. 2415);
see also 1 S. 1523, where in a prophetic passage (E,
Budde) teraphim! is coupled with divination as a type
of sin most hateful to God, and 2 K, 2324 (Rp).
Micah had an ephod and teraphim in his shrine, which
were carried off by the Danites to their new settlement
at the sources of the Jordan and placed in their sanctuary
(Judg. 175 18). The teraphim în David's house (1 5.
1913 16) is spoken of as if it was a thing which would
be found in cvery houschold. In the eighth century
Hosea joins the ephod and teraphim® with sacrifices
and mass&bahs as essential to the religious observances
of his people; in their absence religion would cease
{Hos. 34).

Like the ephod, with which they are associated (in
Judg. and Hos.), the teraphim were employed or con-
sulted in divination (2 K. 2324 Ezek. 21 21[26] Zech. 102).
Ezekiel, in the passage cited, represents the Babylonian
king as divining by shaking arrows (belomancy; see
URIM AND THumMIM), inquiring of the teraphim,
examining the entrails of a sacrifice (ex4ispiciume); cp
also τ 8. 1623, where divination (opp, sorilegiuzm) is
connected in a similar way with the teraphim. It is
not clear, however, that the teraphim were consulted by
the lot; Ezekiel seems to distinguish the two. Spencer's
theory that the teraphim were small images (figurines),
perhaps of human form, the heathen counterpart of the
Urim, has no substantial foundation.3 Other scholars
have inferred from Gen.31r930-35 Judg.175 7 1S.
1913 τό, that the teraphim were household gods (penates,
a Lapide; Seb. Schmid, Vitringa, Ew., Eerdmans, etc.);
more specifically, images of the ancestors, so that the
consultation of the teraphim was a kind of manes oracle
{E. Meier, Stade, Schwally, etc. ). Thelatter hypothesis
rests upon questionable anthropological or etymologica!

1 Read pon pw

2 It is to be observed that @ has δῆλοι, elsewhere used to
render pig.

8 See UrIM AND THUMMIM,

4974

TEREBINTH

assumptions; other passages are hardly compatible
with the theory that the teraphim were solely domestic
idols (see Hos. 34 Ezek. 2121 [26] Zech. 102 2 K. 2324).
The etymology and meaning of the word are unknown; for
various conjectures see Ges. T'fes. 1519 ΤᾺ Moore, γακεῖσες, 381
cp also 1. Low, in /7ZAM 10:36; those who think that the
teraphim were images of the ancestors connect the name with
vani (Neubauer, Sayce, Klo., Schwally). The opinions of
ΠΣ. writers about the nature of the teraphim may be found
yy the curious in Buxtorf, Lex. Tale. 2660 7. ; Beyer, dddita
menta to Selden, synt. ii. chap. 1. The most remarkable is that
the ceraphim was a mummied human head (Jer, Targ, Gen.
31 το, etc.) ; with which cp the stories of this kind of divination
among the Harranians, Chwolsohn, Ssadier, 219,7 388/1507
Liferature.—jJerome, £?. 29, De Efhod et Theraphim ;
Selden, De dis Syris, synt, 1 chap, 2, with Beyer's dadita.
menta; Spencer, De legibus ritualibus, bk. 3 chap.T; Pfeiffer,
Exercitationes biblica, 4; van Dale, De divinationibus
idolatricis, chap. 11 (against Spencer); Ewald, Altert4aimer,
296-209; Schelz, Gofzendienst und’ Zauberwesen, 127 fl. ;
Stade, ΟΡ 1467: Schwally, Leben παρὰ dem Tode, 35.3
Moore, /udges, 379.7; T. C. Foote, /BZ 21277. (1902) See
also ρου ταν, and cp EScHATOLOGY, $ 4 G.F. M

TEREBINTH. The four forms mhx, διέ, nbx,
allak, ἤιε, clin, and |598, allon, are evidently closely con:
nected in origin. DN, 44m, or D'OR, 24228,

1. Hebrew

terma, iS best regarded as plur. of Np&, δα, or per-

haps of the masculine form box (occurring only
in the proper name ΓἼΝΒ 9) from which n2N is the nomen
wnitatis, Εἰδὰ and #5 are usually taken together as=‘tere-
binth,* αὔδα and a/lon as=“0cak’; though Celsius (7/ierod.
134 ££) joins a/liX as ‘terebinth’ to #44 and or. The con-
nection of these words—at least of nbg, D'x—with the divine
name 5, suggested by Wellhausen (ProZ ET, 238) and Stade
(6/1 455), is too vague to help towards identifving the tree
intended (cp WRS, Re4 Sem.(2) 192); the difficulty is ine
creased by our uncertainty as to the original meaning of the
root bix—according to others nbg—with which the words appear
to be connected. (See the literature cited in Gesenius(18) under
Sk, and cp Namrs, $116.) On the other hand, the fact that
Aram. 24n4, which is în form exactly equivalent to 24%, means
‘a tree’in general, may suggest that the special sense which
these words have acquired in Hebrew is derived from a more
general one—viz. that of trees Sar exceZlence—the large and
strong trees characteristic of che region. This view is supported
by the fact that the place Elim was apparently so called from
its βαρ trees (see ELIM), and the possible or (Moore) probable

identity (but see DiwaH) of the ΜῊ in Judg. 45 with the
332 PSN of Gen. 358, Twice, however (15.613 Hos.413),

&2% and allor are mentioned in the same verse as distinct trees,
And as a considerable body of tradition has identified 2/44 with
the terebinth (Celsius, /c.), and there is repeated mention ofthe
allonim of Bashan (15.213 Ezek.276 Zech. 11 5), a district
famous for its vaks, it is reasonable to conclude that δάξά and
allzn came to be used for these trees respectively. It is doubtfu!
whether the distinction in pointing between 4224 and αὐίδ and
between δώῃ and a//3n is more than an artificial creation of
later times.! ‘The occurrence in (δ of ma (1 5. 21 το [9}) and
ἥλων (Judg: 9 37 [B]) may help to show which of the forms were
original.

The special associations of large trees like the oak
and the terebinth with the religion of the Hebrews, as
ΒΜ with those of other Semitic peoples,

2 Religions neve been discussed by Baudissin
" (Siudien, 2:84 32), Robertson Smith

(Rel. Sem. 185 71), Stade (G/1455 7), and others.
Such names as d/6r mdrek (min pix), ‘ak of the
teacher’ (Gen. 126 Dt. 1130), and 2/0 mnd'ordazza (fiba
usim), ‘diviners’ cak' (Judg.937), point to their
having been early seats of prophetic oracles. The
custom of burial beneath the tree (Gen. 358 1 Ch. 10 τα)
is again an evidence of sacred association. On the
appearance of the angel to Gideon beneath the nhg in
Ophrah, see Wellh. Pr0/, ET, 238. By the prophets
the association of worship with sacred trees was con-
demned as a departure from the spiritual ideal of
Israel's religion, and also on account of the degrading
practices connected with it (Hos. 4x3 Ezek. 613 etc.).

1 G. F. Moore goes farther, ‘There is no real foundation for
thediscrimination ; the words signify in Aramaic “tree” simply;
in Hebrewusually, if not exclusively, ‘* holy tree” (note on Jug:
4rr). Ifso, however, the correctness of the text in Is. 613 Hos.
413 will have to be disputed.

4975

| #/ak occurs.

TERESH

We proceed to notice briefly the occurrence of the
various words,
1. nh, 44% (Gen.354 Judg. 61119 15. 172[G2A om.] 19

[658 0m.) 219 [10] 2 8.18.4 [GL δένδρον and în τ. 14] 14 2K.1314
1Ch. 1012 Is.130 613 Ezek. 613 [62 om.]
3. References. Hos. 413 [® δένδρον ovoxidlortos]t; τερέ-
μίβλινθος in Ecclus. 2416; the proper name

nb‘, Elath, De 28 etc. is possibly the same word) is in AV
rendered ‘cak’ (RVmg. ‘terebinth’) except in the two places
where ΠΝ, 4//0», is also present; in Is. 613 AV has ‘teil tree,”
and Hos. 413 ‘elms,’ while RV has ‘terebinth' and ‘ terebinths”
in these verses. ἐδ renders six times by δρῦς and thrice by
περέμ(βλινθος ; besides these, twice in Judges GAL has δῥῦς and
8 τερέμ(βλινθος.1

As has been shown at length by Celsius (12.} the
meaning ‘terebint@l.’ will suit ‘all the passages where
Pistacia Terebinthus, L., which in some
countries is only a shrub, attains in Syria the proportions
of ‘a noble umbrageous tree, 20 to 40 ft. or more in
height (FI. and Hanb.! 165). It may thus constitute a
landmark. Robinson (ΔΑ 8.15} describes one he saw
on the way from Hebron to Ramleh—such a tree as
we can imagine to have given the valley of Elah its
name. ‘Here, in the broad valley, at the intersection
of the roads, stands an immense Butm tree . . . the
largest we saw anywhere in Palestine, spreading its
boughs far and wide like a noble oak. . . . The Butm
is not an evergreen . . . its small feathered lancet-
shaped leaves fall in the autumn and are renewed in
the spring. The flowers are small and followed by
small oval berries, hanging in clusters from 2 to 5 in,
long, resembling much the clusters of the vine when the
grapes are just set The abundant branching and
foliage of the terebinth agree with the references in
25.189 f. 14 Ecclus. 2416; the fact that it is neverthe-
less not an evergreen explains the simile in Is. 130.

2. Mea, a2lz4 (τερέμιβγινθος, Josh. 24 26t), can be only a slightly
divergent form of MPN, 2244. The tree intended in Josh. (16)

may be the same as that mentioned Gen. 854 Judg. 96 (βάλανοτ),
Where for AV, ‘plain. read “oak' or ‘terebinth.

3. DO 22602, or ΤΟΝ, 44204, the plur. of mix or x (see
above) occurs Is.129 575 613 and possibly Ezek.Sligt. In
the first two places & has vongiy εἴδωλα, which is followed
by AV ‘idols’ in the second. În the first passage “it is the
disappointingnessofnature-worship which is indicated "(Cheyne);
the Same species of idolatry is referred to in 575. In [9.6] 3
(here & interprets loosely yereai) we have ἃ spiritual metaphos
drawn from the noble stature and luxuriant foliage of these

trees; cp 6021 and other passages. The word DX constitutes

a difficulty in Ezek.8114; its rendering πρὸς αὐτά formed no
part of the original @, according to some cursives (Field, σα
loc.), and the verse reads more smoothly if, with Comill, we
omit the word. {See Crit. Βέδ.}

4 pibxs, δόσε (in & usually δρῦς, Gen. 126 1818 1413 181
De. Li 30 Josh. 1933 [cp G] Judg.4x: 9637 1 8. 10 3}, wrongly
‘plain’ in AV), and (5) |i58, αὐήδνε (usually δρῦς or βάλανος,
Gen. 358 Is. 213 [δένδρον βαλάνου] 613 4414 (om. ®]Ezek, 276
[ἐλατίνους ἢ Hos. 413 Am, 29 Zech. 11 21).

Elon and allon are slightly varying forms of the same
word, which had come to denote a particular large tree
distinet from πῦρ, 2/44, most probably the cak. Ac-

cording to Tristram® (N42 368 7°) there are three
species of Querczs which flourish in Palestine, the most
abundant being the evergreen Q. pseudo-corcifera ; the
others are both deciduous species, Ὁ, Afgi/ops and
O. infectoria. The first he describes as in appearance
much like our ‘holm cak,' and he speaks of one very
large tree of this species, the so-called ‘ Abraham's cak”
near Hebron. The cak of Bashan he believes (follow-
ing Hooker) to be Ὁ. Afgi/ogs. Cp Anderlind in
ZDPV132z0 fi: Οἱ the caks of Sharon, see SHARON.
. N MW. Τ᾿ T.-D.
TERESH (UNN), a chamberlain of king Ahasuerus

(Esth. 22: 62.0m. BALa48, gap[plac [Nesme-]}, called in

1 For Ps.299 and Gen. 4921 where & compares Naphtali to
ἃ στέλεχος ἀνειμένον (i.e, MOB Πα, Di, etc.), see Hinp,
NAPHTALI. . .

2 His statements are based upon the important paper by Sir
1. D. Hooker in Trans. Linn. Soc. 23 381-387.

4976

TERTIUS

Esth.121, THARRA (θδρὰ [N*9], Gedeyroy [La]}.
If the name must be Persian, we have a choice between
turà, ‘dark, fierce' (Ges. Lex.011), and tariati, ' feared,*
the supposed original of Tirshatha (cp Marg. Zuzd.
70); Oppert{Aurales de philos. chrétienne, janv. 1864),
however, compares Tiri- dates, the name of the governor
of Persepolis (temp. Alexander). But if underneath the
present Esther-story there is an earlier story, the scene of
which was not in Persia, but in the land of Jerahmeel
(N. Arabia), the only one of the above suggestions
which will serve us is the second, and the question is,
What is the origin of TIRSHATHA? But cp also
ZETHAR. T.R.C

TERTIUS (teprioc), in the present text of the
Epistle to the Romans (1622), figures in the first
person as having ‘written’ the epistle (ἐγὼ Téprios ὁ
γράψας τὴν ἐπιστολήν). As iong as the authen-
ticity of the epistle is maintained it is impossible to
suggest a reason why Paul's amanuensis, while deliver-
ing the author's greetings in the usual manner în
vv, 21 23, should thus abruptly have taken an independ-
ent course in τι. 2a. True, 1 Cor. 1621 Col. 418 2 Thess.
317 compared with Gal. 811 can be urged for the opinion
that Paul dictated his epistles ; but so far as Rom. 1622
is concerned this does not lead to any further conclusion
than that an amanuensis had to be mentioned somewhere
in the pseud-epigraphon. In point of fact the appear-
ance of ‘Tertius at this place belongs only to almost the
final form of the work. See ROMANS, $ 4, 7, par. 3.

i w. Cv. M

Various conjectures have been made regarding Tertius (0.7
Terentius) on the assumption of the authenticity of the epistle.
A favourite suggestion is that he may have been one of those
Jews whom Claudius had expelled from Rome. Under Justus,
2, it has been suggested that he really is the Titius, or Titus,
Justus of Acts 187. Ryder (782 xvii, 98 197) thinks of him
as an influential Roman Christian, and argues that Rom.
15-16 23 is a letter or part of a letter from hm to his friends
at Rome. It can hardly be disputed, however, that the argu-
ment for the separation of chaps. 15-16 from the rest of the
traditional epistle is stronger than that for their ascription to
Tertius. Cp Simon {{7] the Cyrenian). In the lists of the

TEXT AND

TEXT AND VERSIONS

‘seventy’ disciples by the Psetdo-Dorotheus and Pseudo.
Hippolyrus Tertius appears as bishop (according to Dorotheus
the second bishop) of Iconium.

TERTULLUS (repryAAoc [Ti. WH]), the rhetor
or orator who appeared for the prosecution against
Paul before Felix (Acts 241 ΛΔ}.

TESTAMENT (Ala@HKH), Mt 2628 εἰς. See
COvENANT, $ 7; also GALATIA, $ 21,
TESTIMONY (ΠῚ), Ex.1634 See ARK, 8 3.

Cp also WITNESS,

TETA (ἀτητὰ [A].
HATITA (9.0).

TETRARCH (retpapyHc), the ruler of a tetrarchy
(terpapyia): that is, in the original sense of the word,
of one quarter of a region. The title of tetrarch is
familiar from the NT as borne by certain princes of the
petty dynasties, which the Romans allowed to exercise
a dependent sovereignty within the province of Syria.
In this application it has lost its original precise sense,
and means only the ruler of part of a divided kingdom,
or of a region too narrow to support a higher title.
After the death of Herod the Great (4 R.c.) his realm
was shared among his three sons: the chief part, in-
cluding Judeaa, Samaria. and Idumaea, fell to Archelaus
{Mt. 222), with the title of ethnarch (see ETHNARCH);
Philip received the NE, of the realm, and was called
tetrarch ; and Galilee was given to Herod Antipas, who
bore the same title (Lk. 81). ‘These three sovereignties
were reunited under Herod Agrippa from 41 to 44 AD.
©n the tetrarchy of Lysanias mentioned in Lk. 3: see
ABILENE, LYSANIAS,

TETTER (}03, δολαξ,; aAoc), a harmless eruption

of the skin (Lev. 1839, AV ‘ freckied spot’).

‘In Syria, at the present day, this disease is known by the
same name, ὀάπαφ, and it is recognised as not dangerous, It
takes the form of dull white or reddish spots on the skin, of
unegual size, and hardly rising above the surface of the skin.
The spots have no bright surface, and in time disappear of
themselves. $807) Lev. Eng., ad loc,

VERSIONS

On 2 K. 1112 see BRACELETS, 5.
1Esd. 528 AV)=Ezra24a,

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTORY (8 1).

TEXTUAL CRITICISM (8 2).

I. NEW TESTAMENT
A. TEXT

Authorities ($ 3).
Chief MSS ( 4).
Printed editionis (δ 5Ì
Textus Receptus (8 6).

The three texts ($ 8)

Westcott and Hat 5 theory (8 7).

Remarks: Antiochian revision Go

Pre-Antiochian text ($ r0).
Conclusion of discussion ($ 11).
Ilustrative notes ($ 12).

B. VERSIONS

È Lan.
First traces ($ 13).
Their origin ($ 14).
Classification ($ 15).
Gospels (8 16),
Pauline Spi Gin
Acts (
ale De iciles (8 19).
Apocalypse (δ 20)

istory of Vulgate ($ 21).

Gospels :
PP hista (8 23).

Conclusion ($ 28).

ii, Svrrac.
Three carly versions (8 22).

Diatessaron ($ 24).

ΤΟΙ Syriac' (8 25).

Relation of three (8 26).

Relation of OH Syr. to Diatess. ($ 27).

Acts and Epistles ($ 29).
fer Syriac versions ζᾷ 30).
Palestinian Syriac version @ 31).

ili. COPTIC AND OTHER VERSIONS.
Coptic : Date of translation (8 32).

Three versions ($ 33).

Age of Bohainic and Sahidic

(8 34).
Three compared ($ 35).
Armenian (ὃ 36).

II OLD TESTAMENT
A. TEXT

Massoretic text ($ 40).

Samaritan recension ($ 45). Massoretic notes (8 42).

Massoretic vowels ($ 41).

Ethiopic (8 37).

Gothic (8 39),

Other versions: Georgian, Slavonic,
‘Arabic (8 39).

Printed editions ($ 43).

Correction of Massoretic text ($ 66).

8. VERSIONS
List of versions ($ 44).

i. GREEK,
Septuagint : origin (ἢ 46).
citations (8 47).
Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion(88 48-50);

Old Latin (8 56).
Manuscripts (8 57).

li. Lam.

li, SYRIAC AND OTHER VERSIONS.

Feshitta (8 60).
Syriac versions from Greek (8 62).

ΑΙ sha (8 58). Palestinian version (ἢ 62)
Origen's work (ἢ sn). The Vulgate (ᾧ 59). Other versions Co 0 0)
tese recezione ᾧ τ. Armenian, coli Sa 64).
ani
Printed editions (ᾷ 64). rgume (δ δον.
Recovery of original Septuagint (8 55).
Bibliography ($ 67)

4977

4978

TEXT AND VERSIONS

INTRODUCTION

The exact determination of the ociginal text of the
Old and New Testaments is a study which has points of
contact with questions concerning both the

1 Fieneral Canon of Scripture, and the literary sources
°. ofthe several books.

a translation acquiring a scriptural authority which has
never been accorded to the original, as in the case of
ECCLESIASTICUS (g.7.); other books have been the
product of successive compilations and revisions, so that
it may become a matter of doubt at what stage of its
existence it can be said to have been in its ' original”

form. Generally, however, ihe limits of the subject
can be marked out by the actual state of extant
documents. Thus the criticism of the ' Priestly Code

(P), or of the book usually called JE, as they may have
existed before the compilation of the Pentateuch, lies
quite beyond textual criticism. Our documents do not
carry us back behind the Pentateuch already complete
as a single work. On the other hand, the extant texts
of the Greek translation of Jeremiah suggest very serious
questions as to the collection and editing of his prophecies
and as to the authority for the arrangement found in
the Hebrew and adopted in the English Bible.

The case stands much the same with the NT. We
can learn from the variations of our MSS little that
directly bears on the apostolic origin of the Fourth
Gospel or the Pastoral Epistles, Even the earliest
versions do not take us behind the collection of the
four evangelical narratives which together made up the
Gospel, or the collection of the thirteen Pauline Epistles,
Of the literary fate of the Apostle's letters, of the journeys
which they may have made from Corinth to Rome,
or from Thessalonica to Philippi, before incorporation
into the collected edition, our MSS tell us nothing.
‘There is some evidence that there circulated in the
West an edition of the Epistle ‘to the Romans," in
which the name of Rome was absent from the opening
salutation, and there is strong evidence that elsewhere
than in the West the name of Ephesus was absent from
the Epistle ‘to the Ephesians'; but on this one cir-
cumstance it is difficult to build. The only real point
where textual study touches the ‘ Higher Criticism '—
though it must be confessed that it is an important one
—arises when we consider what inferences are to be
drawn from the incomplete condition in which the
Gospel according to Mk. appears in the best texts. By
whomsoever Mk. 169-20 was supplied, and at whatever
time it was first attached to the Gospel, the fact remains
that the genuine text breaks off in the middle of a sen-
tence with all the marks of accidental mutilation. The
natural inference, the only inference which would be
drawn from a similar state of things in any classical or
ecclesiastical writing in which such phenomena were
observed, is that all our MSS are ultimately derived
from a single copy itself imperfect at the end.!

But this forms an exception to the class of problems
raised, and the subject of this article may with little loss
of accuracy be defined to be the history of the text of
the books of the Old and New Testaments from the
time each became canonical, whether in the Jewish or the
Christian church.

The methods of scientific criticism are of course
equally applicable to the whole of the Bible. Indeed, in
certain branches of textual study the division observed
in this article between OT and NT has no significance.

The Old Latin, for instance, and the Egyptian versions are
translations of the Greek Bible as a whole; in such cases the
only true divisions are those produced by the mechanical con»
ditions of transcription. Those books of the Bible which were
usually included în the same volume have usually the same

literary history. Nevertheless, the division into NT and OT
represents for the most part a real distinction. AI purely

1 Probably it was mutilated elsewhere. ‘Boanerges’ is too
monstrous a form not to be a mere corruption.

4979

There are instances of |

TEXT AND VERSIONS

Jewish documents obviously extend to the OT only. Then,
again, the Peshitta and the Latin Vulgate are in the OT trans:
Jations of the Hebrew, and the study of them raises a class of
questions quite separate from that raised by the study of the
texts of the NT with which they are bound up.

But the great distinction between the textual study
of the OT and that of the NT lies in the very different
part which paleographical error has

3. pesual played in the surviving documents. Ac-

ORbICISI. cidental mistakes in the chief ancient
texts of the NT are rare; but in the OT they are to
be found continually. The inevitable result is that
conjectural emendation, which is almost inadmissible in
the NT, is in the OT a necessity, and one which can
historically be justified.

A few words bere on this important subject may not
be out of place. Strange arid confusing as the appearance
of an ancient MS is to our eyes, it was nevertheless
clear enough to those who wrote it, and the mistakes in
copying which we make are as a rule avoided in old
times. The discoveries of very ancient papyrus frag-
ments of classical works have not overthrown but rather
confirmed the better class of extant medizeval codices.
As long as a work was frequently read, as long as the
scribe was fairly familiar with what he was copying,
mere mistakes do not seem often to have been made,
and when made were frequently corrected. In rare
and unfamiliar writings a perfectly different state of
things obtains, and there is then no limit to the perversity
of the copyist.

The NT was written by Christians for Christians ; it
was moreover written in Greek for Greek-speaking
communities, and the style of writing (with the exception,
possibly, of the Apocalypse) was that of current
literary composition. There has been no real break in
the continuity of the Greek-speaking church, and we
find accordingly that few real blunders of writing are
met with in the leading types of the extant texts. This
state of things has not prevented variations ; but they,
are not for the most part accidental, An overwhelming
majority of the ‘various readings’ of the MSS of the
NT were from the very first inzentional alterations.
‘The NT in very early times had no canonical authority,
and alterations and additions were actually made where
they seemed improvemenis. The substitution of
ἐλεημοσύνην for δικαιοσύνην in Mt. 61 and the addition of
the doxology to the Lord's Prayer a dozen verses later
are not palzeographica] blunders, but deliberate editing.

The literary history of the OT has been very different.
‘While the Canon of the OT was being formed, Hebrew
was a dying language, and the political misfortunes of
the Jews were of a nature far less favourable to the
preservation of ancient documents than the legal per-
secutions of the Christians. Under Antiochus, under
Titus, and finally under Hadrian, the Palestinian Jews
suffered all the devastating ‘and uprooting effects of a
war for existence, and it is no wonder if, at the close of
each of these epochs, the MSS which survived were few
and torn, and the scholars who could read them fewer
still Hebrew had become a learned tongue, its place
being mostly supplied by the various forms of Aramaic,
and it was not every Jew who could read the Scriptures
in the original, far less spell out correctly a damaged or
faulty exemplar. ‘These are the very conditions in
which slips of copying are inevitably made and least
easily detected. ‘The veneration which the Jews felt for
their Scriptures ultimately led them to copy so accurately
as to preserve the most obvious blunders în the trans-
mitted text; but this antiquarian science came too late.

Nor are we on much surer ground when we come to
the only very ancient version—7ze., the Greek OT,
commonly called the Septuagint. The fable of the
seventy translators, each of whom independently agreed
in their rendering, may be evidence that the Alexandrian
Jews had some common tradition of the meaning of the
Law; but if we except the Pentateuch, to which alone
the name ‘Septuagint' properly applies, the various

4980

TEXT AND VERSIONS

books of the Greek OT bear all the marks of having
been originally the private ventures of untrained scholars.
These unsatisfactory translations passed over into the keep-
ingof the Church; but Christian scribes were unable to
check corruption in a text which frequently cannot be
translated to make rational sense, nor have we any
gaurantee that the earliest MSS which came into Christian
hands were accurate representatives of the original
version. Yet from these earliest Christian MSS our
copies seem to be descended.

Thus both in the Hebrew original and in the Greek
translation there are serious breaks of continuîty in the
history of the OT, to which the history of the NT

TEXT AND VERSIONS

offers no paralleli. The textual critic is therefore
justified, in the case of the OT, in a temperate use of
conjectural emendation based (1) on the scientific study
of the Hebrew language and (2) on the ascertained
usage of the biblical writers in passages where the text
is comparatively free from suspicion.

From various causes, but chiefly from the better
preservation of the documents, the textual criticism of
the NT is at the present time in a more advanced state
than that of the OT. Contrary, therefore, to the usual
custom, the history of the text of the NT in the original
ard in translations will precede that of the OT in this
article.

I—-NEW TESTAMENT.

A.TEXT

The original authorities for the text of the NT may
be divided into three classes—v#2., Greek MSS, Versions
è made from the Greek, and Patristic

3. Qriginal Quotations. The Greek MSS range în

ὙΠ date from the fourth century! to the
invention of printing, the Versions from the middle of
the second century to the ninth. The original form of
each version is attested by MSS, some {as in the case
of the Old Latin) as early as any known Greek MS,
and by the quotations of writers who used the version.

We may point out here the inherent merit of the
testimony obtained from versions and patristic quota-
tions, and the counterbalancing difficulties attendant on
their use. The most ancient versions of the NT into
Latin, Syriac, and Egyptian, are older than our oldest
Greek MSS; wherever, therefore, we can be sure that
we have the original form of any of these versions, and
wherever we are able to retranslate with certainty that
original form into the Greek underlying it, we have a
resultant Greek reading possessing a higher direct claim
to antiquity than the reading of any single extant Greek
MS. But obviously this is not always the case.

i. Untila version has been critically studied we may not as-
sume that any single MS faithfully represents its original form,
for the text of the MS may have been revised from later Greek
texts. Moreover, the early translations were not always literal,
nor can Greek distinctions always be represented în another lan”
guage, so that retranslazion in some cases is a matter of un
certainty.

ii. The testimony derived from quotations in ecclesiastical
writers also requires very cautious handling. Many ‘Fathers’
were not in the habit of quoting accurately, and the text of their
works, which in some important instances depends ultimately on
a single late MS, is often open to suspicion.

Nevertheless, patristic quotations have a special value
to the textual critic. They are as a rule both localised
and dated. Where there is reason to believe that the
quotation in a writer's work reproduces the reading of
his Bible we have in effect a fragment of a MS
of the writer's own age and country, which serves as a
fixed point in our historical and geographical grouping
of the continuous extant biblical texts.

Unfortunately patristic evidence is often lacking just where ît îs
most wanted, The verses most instructive for tracing the literary
history of the text of the Bible are rarely those of immediate
doctrinal import, and again and again where crucial variations
occur the testimony of early Fathers is absent. It is especially
difficult to ascertain the true weight of the patristic evidence
for omissions.

Most non-Greek Fathers are to be reckoned among
the authorities for the version in their vernacular; but
some—notably Tertullian and Jerome—seem often to
make independent translations of their own direct from
the Greek.

In quoting authorities, the Greek MSS written in

n ia! letters (ranging from the fourth
4. Chief , pnetae ἡ (ing

᾿ Mas. to the ninth cent. —or later) are denoted
by capital letters, those written in minuscz/e {ranging
from the ninth to the sixteenth cent.) by numerals.
‘These latter are commonly called ‘cursive.’ (See

1 Some papyrus fragments from Oxyrhynchus are still earlier,
being assigned to the middle of the third century A..

159 4981

WRITING.) There is absolutely no distinction in critical
value between a ‘cursive' and an ‘uncial’ MS.

Cuier Greek MSS or NT
|

Designation. Place, Contents.
“(ἐᾷ Cent.
8 (Cod. Vaticanzs) | Rome all books except part
οἱ Hebe,. Pastoral
Epp., and Apoc.
n (Cod. Sinaiticus) |S. Petersburg l all books complete.
séh Cent.
D (Cod. Beza) Cambridge |Gospels and Acts,
A (Cod. Alexan
drintus) London all books,
€ (Cod. Ephrami) | Paris fragg. of nearly all
Î books.

δέᾺ ov th Cent.
Do (Cod. Claromon-

fanus) Paris Pauline Epp.
Ex (Cod. Laudi-
unus) Oxford Acts.
82h Cent,
1, (Cod. Regius) \Paris | Gospels.
géh Cent.
A(Cod. Sangal
lensis) S Gallen |Gospels ἡ Aand Gg
Gg (Cod. | Barneri- originally |
ans Dresden Paul E formed.
Po (Cod. Porfhyri- δα], Epp. } one book. >
ans) S. Petersburg

all bks. except Cospels.!

The following fragmentary uncial MSS are important
for the light they throw on the history of the text :—

Z (6th cent.)—fragments of Mt. ; & (δεῖ cent.)—fragments of
Lk.; six fragmentary MSS denoted by T, ranging from the sth
to the 7th cent. and containing portions of the Gospels with a
Sahidic translation, which, together with some similar fragments
lately published by Amélineau (No. ef £rzr. vol. xxxiv.), give
the type of Greek text current in Upper Egypt.

The most important cursives are: i. In the Gospels, those
numbered 33, 157, 28, 565, 700; and the two groups 1-118-131-
209 and 13:69-124-346-543. These two groups are composed of
the immediate descendants of two lost uncials, each of which
would have been as valuable for critical purposes as any but the
very chief codices BRDA. ii. Outside the Gospels a special
mention must be made of 67 of the Acts, for the goodness of its
text ; also of 137, 180, and în the Epp. for the margina] readings
cited as 67** (Paul) and 66** (Cath. Epp.).

Cod. 565 (Gregory) is also called 473 (Scrivener, Burgon), and

ape (7ischendor/).

Cod. 100 (Gregor9) is also called 604 (Scrivener, Hoskier).

» 543 (Gregory) » 556 (Scrivener).

The history of the printed text of the Greek NT falls

into three divisions. i. The first age opens with the
. editio princeps of Erasmus at Basel in

δ Printed 16, and includes the early printed
- edition of Stephanus (9), 1550), Beza,

ete., and the Polyglots. During this period the
ordinary form of the text, commonly called the Tex/as
Receptus, was fixed, and the first collections of various
readings were made. ii. The second age dates from
Mill's edition of 1707. Little change was made in the
printed text during this second period ; but it is marked
by the great collections of variants brought together by
Mill, Wetstein, Mattheei, and others. The first attempts

4982

TEXT AND VERSIONS

towards a systematic arrangement of the material by
Bentley, Bengel, and Griesbach also fall within this
period. iii. ‘The third age dates from Lachmann’s
edition of 1831, in which for the first time a modern
editor constructed the text from ancient evidence alone,
without reference to previous editions. During the last
fifty years many very ancient documents have been
discovered; many more have been for the first time
accurately collated, or edited in full As a natural
consequence the earlier collections of various readings
have been almost entirely superseded, ‘The same may
be said also of the earlier critical theories, which were
based on imperfect data, especially with regard to the
primitive forms of the early versions,
The Textus Receptus derives its name from a passage
in the preface to the Elzevir edition of 1633. ‘This edi-
6. Textus tion though really tate more than a
Recepina. bookselter's reprint, professed to give the
text as received by the best authorities. !
As a matter of fact the early editions of the NT
were constructed from but few MSS, and those which
were chicfiy followed were late and of no special
critical value, Yet from the very fact that the MSS
used were commonplace, these editions give a very
fair representation of the ordinary text of the middle
ages.

She importance of the Textus Receptas is derived not from
the accident that it was the text of the early editions, or of any
one of them, but from the fact that it is în all essentials the text
οὗ the NT as publicìy read in the Greek church ever since the
fifeh century. | For this reason, in collating the variations of MSS

the Zextus Receptus (e.g., in Scrivener's reprint of Stephanus}
should still be used in preference to any modern critical text.

A complete list of the editions of the NT in Greek is
given in ‘Tischendorf,’ vol. iii. pp. 202-287. ‘The
two editions which are practically indispensable to the
student are those of Tischendorf-Gregory (1869-1894),
and of Westcott and Hort (1881). ‘Tischendorf’ (i.e.,
the ‘edilio octava critica maior') contains by far the
fullest collection of variants of every class, those of the
uncial MSS being almost completely recorded. The Pro-
legomena by C. R. Gregory (who brought the whole
edition to a conclusion after the successive deaths of Tis-
chendorf and Ezra Abbot) occupy the third volume, and
include full lists and descriptions of all the MSS,
versions, and editions. ‘The edition thus forms a
complete Introduction to the study of the textual
eriticism of the NT.

In using it, however, we must remember :—-(1) The text is the
product of Tischendorfs somewhat arbitrary judgment, and has
nio special authority; (2) some valuable readings, now only
found in minuscules, are not recorded, and must be looked for
in earlier editions, such as Wetstein, or even Mill ; (3) the read.
ings of the versions, especially of the Oriental versions, are not
always given accurately, and they are rarely quoted where their
text, though implying a different Greek reading, is not supported
by any known Greek MS.

‘The genera! theory contained in Westcott and Hort's
New Testament in the Original Greek (published in
1881, ὦ) 1806) has formed the starting-
Te ogtoott point for all subsequent investigation of
theo: the textual history of the NT, whether by
TY. way of defence or of criticism. It will
therefore be necessary to describe the main ouilines of
this theory at some length.?

If a text of the NT were formed by taking in each
variation the reading of the majority of the Greek MSS,
it would be in all essentials identical with that found in
the works of Chrysostom, who died in 407, after having
lived all his life, except the last ten years, at or near
Antioch.8 It would also be the text of Theodoret and
the other writers of the Antiochian school as well as of
later Greek Fathers generally, Such a text would,

1 The words of the Preface are: Texture ergo hades, nuno ab
omnibus recedtum: în quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum
damus.

2 The Introduction to this edition is from the pen of Dr.
Hort (8 21). In the following pages it will be cited as ‘ Hort,”
with a reference to the numbered paragraphs,

3 Hort 130.

4983

TEXT AND VERSIONS

moreover, be practically identical with the ‘Received
Text'—that is, the text as first printed by Erasmus in
1516 and repeated with little serious variation till
Lachmann's edition in 1831. The text thus formed is
called by Westcott and Hort Syrian or Anziochian.
Hort commonly uses the term ‘Syrian’; but the
‘Syrian Text' of the Greek NT is so easily confused
with the Syriac version (with which it has nothing to
do), that the term ‘Antiochian’ will be used here
instead.

The agreement of the Antiochian text with Chrysos-
tom’s shows it to have been în existence as early as the
fourth century, whilst the fact that the MSS by which it
is supported form in most cases a majority numerically
overwhelming, shows that it continued to be the current
text of succeeding generations. 11 does not agree, how-
ever, with the text as preserved in onr oldest MSS N and
B or in the Egyptian versions, and still less would it be
the text represented by the older forms of the Latin and
Syriac versions. ‘he clearest view of the nature of
the Antiochian text and of the documents which support
it is found ina series of readings called ‘confate' by
Hort, where the later text has combined earlier rival
variants.

For example :—

1. Lk. 24 53 (after ‘and they were continually in the temple '--

(a) blessing God RBC“L Syr.sin.-palest Bob.

(8) praising God Dea(0)Jtr Aug.
(© praising and bless- Α unc.rell minusc.oma αὐ

ing God Lat,vg Syr.vg-hel Arm.
E ilessing and praising God’ ih

(Latin MSS are represented by itadics. For the notation of
the Versions and the weight to be given to them, see the sections
upon each version.) ᾿

Of the three readings here called o, β, and δ, either a and 8
are independent abridgments of è, or ὃ bas been made out of a
and 8, ‘That is, unless ὃ be the original reading it is nota
chance alteration or expansion, but a combination of frewiousy
existing variants. Now although è has the immensely pre-

onderating numerical majority of witnesses in various regions,
it is not supported by the older forms of text in any of the
main classes of evidence, In Greek, ὃ is opposed hy the three

oldest MSS KBC, though ît is supported by A, a MS of the
fich century ; Ît is opposed by the African (e) and the European
(067) fotos of ine Old Latin, though supported by the
tevised texts /g and Jerome's Vulgate; in the East 8 is
opposed by ché Old Syelac (Syr.sin or Ss) and the Palestinian
lectionary, though supported by the Syriac Vulgate and the
Harclear : finally ἴε is unknown in the Egyptian version.

The analysis of the evidence is fatal to the originality of ὃ,
thè Antiochian reading ἐς must, therefore, be later than a and
8, and, it later, must be a mere combination of them.

ΑἹ Mk. 8.26 (following καὶ ἀπέστειλεν αὐτὸν εἰς οἶκον αὐτοῦ
λέγων).

(ὦ Μηδὲ εἰς τὴν κώμην εἰσέλθῃς (RBL 1%-209 Syr.sin Boh,

ae bas μὴ for μηδὲ.}
pre ce τὸν οἴκόν σου καὶ nei εἴπῃς εἰς τὴν κόμην

9.

(Ea) "rape εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σον καὶ ἐὰν εἰς τὴν κώμην εἰσέλθῃς
κηϊενὶ εἴπῃς μηδὲ ἐν τῇ κώμῃ τϑ 69.346 28 565 (ἢ, and
with the omission of μηδὲ ἐν τῇ κώμῃ 6/77 vg [also e
ἘΞ ᾿ Lea
Μμηδευὶ ἅπῃς εἰς τὴν κώμην (01 ἐν τῇ non) HO.
e ΤΑ τὴν μάνας ρεοῆικοῦ to PE
(8) Μηδὲ εἰς τὴν κώμην εἰσέλθῃς μηδὰ εἴπης τινὶ ἐν τῇ κώμ
ACG dlesell minuscoli (exc. 9) Syr.vgehéi Geco
ZEth Go,

(Notice that the Old Syriac version has now to be added în
both of these examples to the little band which supports the a
text adopted by Hort.)

3. Lic, 2446.

(0) οὕτως γέγραπται παθεῖν τὸν χριστὸν RBC*L Ὁ Lavafr-

e i αἷς ome οὕτῳφ) Syr.palest Boh th.

(8) οὕτως ἔδει παθεῖν τὸν χριστὸν minusc 4 Syr.sin (#41 cur) Arm
Eus, T'Aeopk.

(δ) οὕτως γέγρι καὶ οὕτως ἔδει παθ. τὸν xp. ΑΟΙ͂Ν τεῖ!. /g vg

r.vg-hcl.

(Part ofhe verse is illegible in Syr.sin; but there is no doubt
as to the reading. Note that here, as often, the Armenian
follows Syr.vt.) o

The distribution of documents in these conflate readings is,
roughly, as follows. To @ belong SBL and the Bohairic
(or Memphitic) version: to 8 belong D and the older forms
of the Latin versions. The Sahidic (7Zedaic) version sides
sometimes with a and sometimes with A, as is the case also
with the Old Syriac. In a few cases where the Latins side with
a, the Old Syriac forms the chief item in the attestation of the 8

1 Hort 140.
4984

TEXT AND VERSIONS

text; but it never sides with 8. All other authorities (except
fragments) have been infiuenced by the ὃ text.

The groups of authorities marked off above as a, B,
and δ, are found to present distinct types of text ail
through the Gospels. We can thus test their witness
chronologically and gcographicaliy through the quota-
tions of the Fathers. 1815. examination again is as
adverse to the priority of ὃ to a or βὶ as the analysis of
the conflate readings. After the fourth century, evidence
for ὃ is abundant; before the fourth century it is doubt-
[αἱ or non-existent.

A fourth family (y), independent of f and prior to the
Antiochian text (δ), is recognised in Westcott and Hort.
No document contains it in a pure form ; but readings
characteristic of it are most frequent in N, L, T, Z
(Mt), Δ (ΜΚ), & {Lk}), and in the Bohairic version, in
fact in all the documents where a readings are found
except B. This text is supposed by Hort to have
originated at Alexandria and is called by him A/ex-
andrian. ‘The most constant witnesses for the text
called 8 are the various forms of the Old Latin ; it was
therefore supposed by previous investigators to have
arisen in the West of Europe, and is still universally
known by the name of IVesferz. ‘The a text, which is
neither ‘ Western ᾿ nor ‘ Alexandrian,' nor ‘ Antiochian,'
is called by Hort Newéra/.

These three strains—the Western, the Alexandrian,
and the Neutral--are the three great divisions into

which, according to Hort, the ante-
δι The three” Nicene text of he NT can be divided.
" The ‘Western’ text is found every.
where, from the banks of the Euphrates to Spain and
to Upper Egypt. The Alexandrian text is witnessed
chiefly in Alexandria and Lower Egypt. The Neutral
text is not so clearly associated with any local use;
but, as is implied by the name, its subsidiary attestation
is found among predominantly Alexandrian documents
as opposed to Western corruptions, and among the
Westerns as opposed to Alexandrian corruptions.
Moreover, not all Western readings are shared by the
whole of the Western array, some early Western texts
in many cases supporting the Neutral reading where
other Western authorities have gone wrong.

Put more concretely, the case may be stated thus: combina-
tions of B (the typical Neutral document) with por L or the
Bohairic on the one hand, or with D or the Latins or the Old
Syriac on the other, approve themselves as giving the genuine
reading. Β is thus the centra! witness for the text ; it is some-
times right almost alone, and to reject its readings is never
quite safe, Instances are also given by Hort of ‘ternary
variations,' where the Western texts have a corruption in one
direction and the Alexandrian in another, but B retains the
genuine reading, which could not have arisen from either cor-
ruption and yet explains the origin of both,

Next in excellence to B is x, which Hort believed to have
a text entirely independent of B ; so that the combination BN:
which frequently occurs even in opposition to all other authorities,
is practically certain to give the true text. Almost the only ex-
ceptions are found in a series of passages found in all except
Western documents, which are nevertheless considered by
Hort to be no part of the genuine text of the NT, In these
passages, called the ‘ Western Non-Interpolations,' B has gone

wrong, and the true text is preserved chiefly by D and the
Latins.

The reasons given by Hort for the final supremacy
of the Antiochian text are mainly two, one political and
the other literary.

‘ Antioch is the true ecclesiastical parent of Constantinople, so
that it is no wonder that the traditional Constantinopolitan
text, whether formally official or not, was the Antiochian text of
the fourth century, Te wis equally natural that the text recog-
nised at Constantinople should eventually become in practice
the standard New Testament of the East’ (Hort 195) ‘The
qualities which the authors of the Syrian [ἢ εν, Antiochian] text
seem mostly to have desired to impress on it are lucidity and
completeness. ον, New omissions accordingly are rare, and
where they occur are usually found to contribute to apparent
simplicity, New interpolations, on the other hand, are abundant,
most of them being due to harmonistic or other assimilation,
fortunately capricious and incomplete. Both in matter and in
diction the Syrian text is conspicuously a full text... , The
spirit of îts own corrections is at once sensible and feeble.
Entirely blameless on either literary or religious grounds as
regards vulgarised or unworthy diction, yet showing no marks

4985

TEXT AND VERSIONS

of cither critical or spiritual insight, it presents the New Testa-
ment in a form smooth and auractive, but appreciably im-
poverished in sense and force, more fitted for cursory perusal or
recitation than for repeated diligent study’ (Hort 187).

The survival of good rendings in some late cursives
may be accounted for in two ways. Readings from the
older texts may here and there have been introduced
into a fundamentally Antiochian text from marginal
glosses or through the eclectic preferences of scribes.
But as Jate MSS which contain good readings present
them in the less read parts of the narrative quite as
nuuch as in the more striking sayings, it is probabic
that these good readings are generaliy the result of a
process of imperfect correction A MS containing
another than the dominant Antiochian text would Le
corrected to that text, but not as a rule with perfect
accuracy. Only in those readings which do not agree
with the ordinary text of the Middle Ages can we be
certain that such MSS are reproducing the text of their
remote ancestors. ‘The minuscules, in short, give little
additional authority to the ‘received text’ where they
agree with it, whilst their differences from it are often of
critical weight.!

It is still held by a few scholars that the Syriac
Vulgate is a true product of the second century, and
that the version known by the name of
the ‘Separated Gospels' (called in the
above section the “Old Syriac') is a re-
vision of it. According to this the
support given by the Syriac Vulgate to
the Antiochian text transfers the evidence for that text
from the fourth to the second century. But Syriac
patristic evidence for the existence of the Syriac Vulgate
{Z.e., the Peshitta) in its present form before 411 AD.
is non-existent; whereas the text of the ‘Separated
Gospels' (or ‘Old Syriac') is actually attested from
works of the third and early fourth centuries. (For the
proof of this, see below on ‘ Syriac Versions’ 88 227.)

Another objection which has often been raised is
the silence of ecclesiastica! writers with regard to the
Antiochian revision. It has been said that 18 there had
been prepared at Antioch early in the fourth century
a revision of the textof the NT which practically came
to supersede alli other forms of the text, we should have
expected clear references in ecclesiastical writers to so
great an event. We hear something about the circum-
stances which gave rise to Jerome"s Vulgate ; should we
not find similar references to the Antiochian revision if
it had ever taken place?

The parallel here suggested with the history of the
Latin Bible is instructive; a closer examination will
show that it tells the other way. It is true that we
know something about the preparation of Jerome's
new translation; but this is owing to the fact that we
possess the correspondence of that energetic and self
assertive personality. Of the reception of his NT we
know little, except that his revision of the Giospels seems
to have found favour immediately in Africa. A still
closer parallel to the silent success of the Antiochian re-
vision is afforded by the history of the Book of Daniel,

Both the Greek and the Latin branches of the church originally
received the Book of Daniel in the LXX version, but afterwards
discarded this for the version of Theodotion. The change
occurred in the Greek-speaking church towards the end of the
second century, in the Latin church (at least in Africa) about the
middle of the third century. But on events connected with this
serious alteration of the traditional text ecclesiastical history is

silent, and we are forced to say with Jerome (Pref în Danicd,
‘et hoc cur acciderit nescio,”

A true picture of the general attitude of the fourih
century to textual revision is, in the opinion of the present
writer, given by the Latin dialogue contra Zulgentium
Donatistam,? where a Catholic and a Donatist dispute
together, the Catholic using the Vulgate throughout the
Bible unchallenged, though the Donatist uniformly quotes
from an Old Latin text.

Against these objections to the theory of the Antiochian

1 Hort τοῦ. and especially 334.7
4986

2 Migne, 43753

TEXT AND VERSIONS

revision we may now set the evidence derived from the
Sinai palimpsest (Ss), a MS discovered some years after
the publication of Hort's work.

Hort's estimate of the Old Syriac had been necessarily derived
from Cureton's MS (Sc), the surviving portions of which cover
less than half the Gospel text. It seems, moreover, to repre-
sent a type of the Old Syriac which has undergone revision
from the Greek (see col. 5002). Thus the discovery of Ss has
practically for the first time revealed to us the true character
of the great version of the Eastern world in its earliest form.

Now Ss is absolutely free from the slightest trace of
Antiochian readings. Not one of the characteristic
Antiochian conflations is found in it. Moreover, in
certain cases where the Latins agree with the ‘ Neutral*
text, but the Antiochian text has an additional clause,
this additional clause alone is found in Ss. An instance
is given above (8 7) from Lk. 2446; another may be
found at Mk. 113, whilst the additions to the true text of
Mk. 1223 and 138 have a somewhat similar attestation.
These passages do not merely prove that the Old Syriac
was uninfluenced by the Antiochian text ; they go far
to show that a text akin to the Old Syriac was one of
the elements out of which the eclectic Antiochian text
was constructed. ‘Thus the readings of B and its allies,
the readings of the Old Latin and its allies, and now the
readings of the Old Syriac, all contribute to explain the
phenomena of the Antiochian text; but the mutual
variations of B and the Old Latin and the Old Syriac
cannot be explained from the Antiochian text regarded
as the genuine original.!

In leaving the discussion of the Antiochian revision
we leave the region of comparative certainty. Hort's

division of the ante-Nicene text into the

ΒΗ three strains of Western, Alexandrian,
Hiochian and Neutral, still more or less holds the

ground; but important details of his
scheme have incidentally been undermined, and the
fresh evidence of $s is here much less favourable to his
presentation of the history of the text. The general
tendency of criticism has been to raise the value of
the texts which Hort would have grouped under the
heading of ‘Western’ The channel of early ‘non-
Western’ transmission has been stilì further narrowed,
whilst there have come to light types of early ‘ Western ἡ
texts purer than fhose which have earned them both
their misleading name and their bad reputation.

1, Recent research has decidediy confirmed Tischen-
dorfs assertion that B and N came from the same
scriptorium.

This was admitted by Hort; but he thought that the two
MSS might have been written in Rome. It now seems almost
certain that they both belonged to the great library collected by
Pamphilus at Ceesarea.? We must therefore allow for the possi-
bility that their agreements come from a partial use of the same
exemplar. This might happen in several ways; ey., the im.
mediate ancestor (or ancestors) of Καὶ may have been largely:
corrected to the B text. These considerations do not militate
directly against the excellence of the common archetype of BK
but they undoubtedly raise once more the very serious question
whether these great codices are in every case independent
witnesses. ᾿

The demonstrable inferiority of B in certain books of the OT,
notably Judges and Isaiah (see OT, ‘Greek Versions ), may be
held to cast a certain suspicion upon its NT text. But the great
Bibles of the fourth century must have been copied from several
smaller codices or rolls containing only part of the Scriptures.
The textual characteristics, therefore, of B in the Prophets or
the Octafeuch are by no means pecessarily those it exhibits in
the Gospels or the Acts.

2. The claims of the Antiochian text to represent the
apostolic original are rejected mainly because no clear
evidence can be found for it earlier than the fourth
century. It is acknowledged by all that the various
forms ‘of the ‘ Western’ text were widely spread in the
second and thîrd centuries. But where was the ‘Neutral*
text transmitted ?

1 The latest serious defender of the conflate readings of the
Antiochian text is W. Bousset (Terze und Untercuchungen,
xi. 497-102); but the emphatic rejection of these readings by 55
has made the refatation of his argument superfinous.

? See Bousset, ZU xi. 445 72: J. R. Harris, Stickometry,
71-89; 7. A. Robinson, Evthaliana, 36-43.

4987

TEXT AND VERSIONS

Hort's answer is unambiguous. ‘The Western licence dic
not prevail everywhere, and MSS unaffected by its result
were still copied. The perpetuation of the purer text may is
grest measure be laid to the credit of the watchful schotars οἱ
Alexandria; its best representatives among the versions are
the Egyptian, and especially that of Lower Egypt ; and the
quoratiene. which follow it are mosi abundant in Clement,

rigen (Dionysius, Peter), Didymus, and the younger Cyril, all
Alexandrians' (Westcott and Hort, smaller ed. 550).

It must, however, be noted that the testimony of our
Alexandrian and Egyptian witnesses becomes more and
more Western the earlier they are. Of the three great
Alesandrian fathers, Origen is more ‘ Western” than
Cyril, Clement is more ‘ Western' than Origen.! Recent
criticism has dealt similarly with the evidence of the
Egyptian versions. ‘The old arguments for the com-
parative antiquity of the Sahidic version remain, and
new discoveries of ancient fragments of that version and
its immediate kindred are made year by year. But in
the Sahidic ‘tne Western influence is often peculiariy
well marked.'? ‘The Bohairic, on the other hand, is
thoroughly non- Western; but Guidi has shown that
thîs version in its present form, so far from being
a produci of the /4#4 century, is almost certainly not
earlier than the six/£. The very existence of a specifi-
cally Bohairic literature before the sixth century is
extremely doubtful (see 8 34).

Yet with all deductions it remains true that the
"Neutral’ text receives a larger measure of general
support even from the Sahidic version than from the
early Latin or Syriac texts. In other words, a pre-
dominantly ‘non-Western' text was cutrent in Egypt
froni about Origen's time onwards. ‘We are, moreover,
placed in a peculiarly favourable position for studying
this type of text owing to the fortunate accident that the
Antiochian revision never found favour in Egypt. Until
long after the Arab conquest the text found in Egyptian
documents, both Greek and Coptic, continued on the
whole to be that which Hort has called ‘Alexandrian.'
This text, though far purer than the Antiochian, is
equally with it an artificial eclectic revision ; its survival
at Alexandria, alone among Greek-speaking communities,
was no doubt connected with the growth of Egyptian
Monophysitism.*

3. The ‘ Western' text, as a whole, has hitherto found
few defenders. This is partly due to ‘an imperfect
apprehension of the antiquity and extension of the
Western text as revealed by patristic quotations and
by versions' (Hort 170). Hort, whose general estimate
of Western readings is no more favourable than that of
his predecessors, groups Western characteristics under
the three heads of Parapkrase, /nferpolation, and

1 JBid. 549. The Gospel quotations of Clement of Alexandria
have been carefully edited by P. H. Barnard (72725 and Studies,
55, 1899).

È Hort, 550.

3 The form in which the alternative ending i0 Mk. îs
exhibited by the ‘Alexandrian' text is a good illustration of
its highly artificial character, The genuine text of that
Gospel breaks off in the middle of a clause at Mk. 168 with the
words ἐφοβοῦντο yàp . « - (‘for they feared . . . .); but an
ancient text, now represented by the Latin Codex Bobiensis (4),
added the following sentence: ‘But all that they had been
commanded they showed forth in few words to those that were
with Peter. And after these things Jesus himself also appeared,
and from the East even unto the West sent forth by nes the
holy and incorruptible preaching of eternal salvation. Amen.'
The absence of quotations from Mk. 1689-20 in Tertullian and
Cyprian makes it highly probable that £ here, as elsewhere, faith-
fully reproduces the text of the Gospels current at Carthage up
to the middle of the third century. This shorter conclusion

evidently presupposes a text which ended at 168 as in B& and
Ss.

*Most documents of course add to 168 the so-called ‘last twelve
verses of 5. Mark, forming vv. 9-20. ΖῈ is Ze charecteristic of
the Alezandrian vecension that it giues both conclusions, the
longer one being linked to the shortér by 2 critical note, This
composite ending is still extant in five Greek MSS, in some
Aechiopic MSS, and in the margins of the Harclean Syriac and
Sfthe best MS of the Bohairio, accompanied în most cases by
the critical note (see Amélinesu, Mot, ef Az#. 842, and the
descriptions of ᾧ [Gregory 445], and of +? [Gregory 1308), and
see also ἢ, R. Harris, appendix to Mrs. Lewis's Cad. 9/ Syriac
MSS at MI. Sinai, 10315).

4988

TRXT AND VERSIONS

Assimilation (Hort 173-175). Notwithstanding this
unfavourable verdict, ‘ Western' documents not unfre-
quently form the bulk of the attestation for the readings
adopted by him.! The fact is that the expression 'the
Western text'is a misnomer, ‘The ‘Western’ docu-
ments do not present a single recension, like the
Antiochian text, or even a body of aberrant readings ;
they rather represent the unrevised and progressively
deteriorated state of the text throughout the Christian
world in the ante-Nicene age. ‘Western’ readings are
accordingly of various types, ranging from the un-
corrupted original to the most extreme forms of inter-
polation and paraphrase. It was a perception of this
fact that led Hug as early as 1808 to speak of what is
usually called ‘ tile Western text' by the name of κοινὴ
ἔκδοσις,

Much of the bad repute of ‘Western’ texts comes
from the almost universal practice of treating Codex
Beze (D) as their leading representative. But this
famous MS, though it contains very ancient elements,
is far from being a pure representative of any ancient
strain of text. ‘A more just view would be gained by
taking, on the one hand, the Latin fragmentes called Cod.
Bobiensis (4) as the best type of the texts early current
in the West, and, on the other, the Sinai palimpsest (Ss)
as the best type of the texts early current in the Fast.
Both these documents would be reckoned as ‘ Western”
according to the ordinary view ; but it has not yet been
proved that they have any common origin later than the
archetype of ali our extant authorities.

The discovery of the Sinai palimpsest has materially
altered our conceptions of the early ‘ Western' text. One
of the chief characteristics formerly assigned to that text
was a tendency to admit interpolation ; and the presence
in the leading ‘ Western' authorities of a series of inter-
polations, which must have come from non-canonical
sources, seemed to make it obvious that all ‘ Western
documents were derived from an interpolated copy of
the Gospels later than the archetype of BN and their
allies.? But though the Sinai palimpsest has a thoroughìy
non-Alexandrian text, ποῦ one of Zhese interpolations is
found in ît. It was the presence of clear errors in all
‘Western' documents known to the earlier critics which
made them think of a ‘ Western' recension or edition;
every fresh discovery, therefore, of documents funda-
mentally ‘ Western," but nevertheless free from these
errors, makes the theory of a single Western recensione
less and less probable.

4. One of the arguments employed by Hort in
favour of the genuineness of the ‘ Neutral' text is the
intrinsic excellence of the groups containing B, the chief
‘Neutral’ document. ‘This line of argument is of course
quite independent of theories connected with the spread
of the ‘Western' or of any other ancient text. It
is somewhat open, however, to the charge of subjectivity,
and the very fact that not all the readings adopted by
Hort have found universal favour, proves that the evi-
dence of gronps might have been interpreted differently.
Salmon (Some Thoughts on the Textual Criticism of the
NT, 1897) calls the term ‘ Neutral’ “a question-begging

1 Notable instances are Mt.633 [(B)N], 713 [N*], 1835
[B&b min.2 Orig.], 1620 [B* codd. ap. Orig.) The square
brackets contain the ‘non-Western' attestation of the text of
Westcott and Hort. Thus before the discovery of x the true
text of Mt. 6337 13 was known from ‘ Western" documents alone.

2 There are about twenty of these ‘ Western' interpolations
in the Cospels. The chief of them are:—Mt. 8 15 (the light at
the baptism); Με, 16253 (‘the face of the sky); Mt. 2028
(seek from little to increase’); Mk. 163 (the angelic host at
the resurrection); Lk.64 (the man working on the Sabbath);
Τῆς 9 54./ (‘Ye know not what spirit ye are of); Lk. 22 43/5 (the
blochiy sweat); ΓΚ, 23 342 (‘ Father, forgive them"): Jn, 5 4 (the
angel'at the pool); Jn.753-8 τὰ (the woman taken in adultery).
ΑἹ] these are absent from Ss as well as from BS, but they
appear to belong to the earliest Latin texts, The longer con
clusion to the Second Gospel {Mk.]169-20) is absent from 4 in
addition to B& Ss, so that this passage forms no part also of
the earliest non-Alexandrian text.

4989

TEXT AND VERSIONS

name’ (p. 49), and adds with great truth, ‘if we want a
more precise answer to the question what Hort means
bby "" Alexandrian," we shall not be far wrong in saying,
those readings which are Alexandrian in their origin and
are not recognised by Codex R'{p. 51). Yet there is
mo doubt that the text of B in the Gospels is, generally
speaking, an excellent one. Of this there can be no
stronger proof than the support it frequently gives to
early readings, which, but for the witness of Β, would
have been dubbed with the fatal epithet of ‘Western.'!1
‘The habitual associates of B are of quite a different
character ; so frequently indeed does it agree with such
*Alexandrian’ documents as TL and the Egyptian
versions, that it has actually been maintained that the
Gospel text of B is a transeript of the Egyptian re-
cension of Hesychius (Bousset, TU xi. 492). But the
occasional, yet unmistakable, support which B affords
to the Western against the specifically ‘Alexandrian”
readings is inconsistent with this view.?
To sum up, Hort's text of the Gospels is less affected
by recent discoveries than his criticism of the documents,
A As was pointed out above, the readings
11. Conolusion. ce ΒΙς, fhe authorities on which Host
chiefiyrelied, are often supported by the most ancient form
of the Old Latin {£), or by the most ancient formofthe Old
Syriac (Ss). These readings are almost always to be per-
ferred, for they represent an agreement between the best
* Western’ and the best ‘non- Western’ texts.®. ‘The
erucial difficulty occurs where all the early ‘ Western”
documents unite against BR, or BNL and the Bohairic.
In other words, the question before the textual critic in
the immediate future is, Are the oldest forms of the
Old Latin and the Old Syriac independent? We may
put the question in another form. Accepting Hort's
nomenclature, and remembering that ‘Western’ docu-
ments such as £ and Ss not unfrequently support B
against the sbecifically ‘ Alexandrian' text, what grounds
have we for thinking that B, or even BN united, is
entirely free from ‘ Alexandrian' corrections?4 In the
portions of the Gospels where £ and Ss are both ex-
tant, B has the support of one or other of them about
four times out of five; may not B be itself in the wrong
în the remaining readings? How far, în fine, can we
trust B whether supported by the other Greek MSS or
not, in cases where its only attestation among the ancient
versions is Egyptian?
The answers to these questions cannot positively be
given until a complete analysis has been made of the
extant ‘ Western' variants to the text of BN. It is,

1 Zxg., in Lk. 10117, B has ‘seventy-two” disciples with the
best Latin and Syriac texts, not ‘seventy.”

2 There is not the slightest likelihood that the non-Alexandrian
readings in B have been introduced into the text of B's ancestors
by irregular revision. The probability indeed is ali the other
way. The few indications afforded by the actual readings of
the MS tend to show that ‘Western’ (or at any rate non-
‘“Alexandrian ') readings would have been corrected out, not
introduced. The most striking instance is Mt. 27 167 In these
verses the common text has Βαραββᾶν. ., Bapaffàv, but an
ancient text (now represented by some good minuscules, a
scholion, and the Old Syriac)read Ἰησοῦν Βαραββᾶν... Ἰησοῦν
τὸν Βαραββᾶν. Now B has Ἰησοῦν in neither place; but it in-
serts τὰν before the second Βαραββᾶν. The obvious explanation
is that an ancestor of B had the reading /esus Barabbas, but the
corrector who expunged the word ᾿Ιησοῦν in both places omitted
to delete the article in che second place. Other instances, some»
what similar, are ΜῈ. 21 35 (ὕστερος); Mt. 2326 (αὐτοῦ; Lk.
19 37 (πάντων); Jn.8 57 (ἑόρακες). Insuch places the ‘neutrality*
of B is the neuttality of compromis

3 A striking instance is afforded by the readings connected
with the double cock-crowing in Mk. 14. The text adopted by
Hort was that of B, a Greek lectionary, and the Bohairic. It
îs now found also in Syr.sin. The fact that Syr.sin. here agrees
with B is a strong confirmation of the correctness of Hort's
iudgment; at the same time it removes the whole set of varia-
tions from the category of places where the true text is pre-
served in “non-Western’ documents alone.

4 The definite issue is raised, for instance, in Mk. 6 20, where
BRL Boh read ἠπόρει for ἐποίει, ᾿Εποίει (with slight variations)
is found in all other documents, including Lat.vt and Syr.vt. If
ἠπόρει be not original, it looks more like an ingenious conjecture
than a palzzographical blunder.

4990

TEXT AND VERSIONS

however, in the direction here indicated —viz., the
preservation of the true text in a considerable number
of cases by ' Western’ documents alone—that criticism
may ultimately be able to advance beyond the point
reached by Hort.

We may add a few illustrations of passages where the
text adopted by WH can be certainly or probably
amended.

i. Mt. 68 ‘your Father knoweth what things ye have
need οὗ πρὸ τοῦ ὑμᾶς αἰτῆσαι αὐτόν. For αἰτῆσαι αὐτόν

we find ἀνοῖξαι τὸ στόμα in DA?! This
τὰ stra” picturesque locution has been adopted
* by Blass and by Nestle (Hastings' DB
7394); the slenderness of the attestation may be ex-
piained by the desire of avoiding what seemed an
undignified expression. AIl Syriac VSS. support the
common text; but it is worth noticing that in Mt.
52 Ss reads‘ and he began to say to them” instead of
“and he opened his mouth and taught them, saying. . «ἢ
A somewhat similar variant is to be found in
Mt. 723, where for ὁμολογήσω we find dubow attested
by 4g vg.codd.pp.lat {incl, de Redaptismate, $7): Justin
Martyr 262, with the African Latin (ὦ [Cyp] also [a] £)
and Sc (4iat Ss), have épò—i.e., their text has been as-
similated to Lk. 1327.

ii. Mt. 115 ’καὶ πτωχοὶ εὐαγγελίζονται᾽᾿ om. ὦ Ss
Diat.vid (ie, A/0es. 100).

These words belong to the genuine text of Lk. 722
and are in accordance with Lk.'s accustomed diction.
In Mt., on the other hand, the word εὐαγγελίζεσθαι
never occurs again : if the phrase omitted by ὦ and Ss
be retained, we must almost assume that Mt. is here
directly borrowing from Lk. Omit the phrase, and the
linguistic difficulty is removed; Mt. gives the actual
words of Jesus, whilst Lk.'s addition ‘the poor are
evangelised' is an early (and correct) interpretation of
them. Similarly νομικός in Mt. 2235 is alien to the
diction of the First Gospel and comes from Lk. 1025:
the word is rightly omitted from Mt. by 1-118-209
e Ss Arm Origen lat

Harmonistic additions are among the most frequent
and misleading corruptions of the text, as Jerome was
the first to see: ‘dum eundem sensum alius aliter ex-
pressit, ille que unum e quattuor primum legerat, ad
eius cxemplum ceteros quoque aestimauerit emendandos'
(Ep. ad Damasum). Other passages where the dis-
covery of Ss has helped to remove additions of this kind
are Mt. 21 44 (taken from Lk. 2018); ΕΚ, 1133 οὐδὲ ὑπὸ
τὸν μόδιον (Mt, 515); Jn. 128 ‘For the poor ye have
always with you, but me ye have not always’ (taken
from Mk. 147, Mt. 2611, but omitted in In. by Ὁ
Se).

iii. Mt 251 ‘went forth to meet the bridegroom
and the bride" D 1*-209 124* Latt Syrr (incl. Ss)
Arm, This addition is certainly genuine, and in ac-
cordance with Oriental custom. The bridegroom goes
with his friends to bring away the bride from her father's
home; no one is left at the bridegroom's house but a
few ‘virgins’ (i.e, maidservants) to keep watch, In
the parable these maidservants represent the church
(as in Lk. 1236), whilst the arrival of the wedding pro-
cession with the bridegroom and his bride represents the
coming of Christ. Christ is here the bridegroom and
the bride; the waiting servants are the church. But
the more familiar image was the comparison of Christ
to the bridegroom, the church to the bride ; when the
Bride had become the stock metaphor for the church,
the careless editor had a strong temptation to leave it
out in the parable where it does ποῦ mean the church.

iv. Mt. 832 ' καὶ παρρησίᾳ τὸν λόγον ἐλάλει. These
words come after the first announcement of the Passion,
without variation in Greek MSS. As they stand they
are a remark of the evangelist, to which there is nothing

1 λει, cod. Claromontanus of the 6th century. Ὁ has the

Itacism ΝΟ ΖΕ:
4901

TEXT AND VERSIONS

corresponding in the parallel passages Mt. 1621, Lk.
922: either the remark was considered 100 uninteresting
to repeat, or it originally contained something which
later writers might regard as unsuitable. For vv. 31},
Ss Diatà" and £ have ‘the Son of Man must suffer
many things . . . and after the third day rise and
openly speak the word'—i.e., they read λαλεῖν or ἐκλα-
λεῖν instead of ἐλάλει, thereby making the ciause part
of Jesus' word to the disciples. ‘The central thought,
therefore, of the prediction is not the physical miracle
but the general victory of the Gospel after the great
struggle (cp Hos. 62/). That Jesus did not preach
‘openly' after the Resurrection was a reason why the
clause should be omitted by Mt, and Lk., and at a later
period should be altered in Mk.; but the agreement
here of our carliest eastern and western texts enables us
to restore the original form with confidence.

v. The restoration of the true texts of Acts is a more
difficult matter than that of the Gospels owing to the
comparative poverty of the evidence. ‘We need especi-
ally something corresponding to the ‘Old Syriac,' by
the aid of which we might separate really ancient read-
ings in the Old Latin and in D from those western
variants that never had anything beyond a local circula-
tion. Several of the proper names are undoubtedly
corrupt. £.g., ᾿Ιουδαίαν Acts 29 is impossible, for
Tudzea is quite out of piace between Mesopotamia and
Cappadocia. The African Latin (Teri. adv. ud. 7,
Aug. e. Fund.) substituted Armenian, but this is
palsographically unlikely : possibly Lk. wrote
ropivyaian—ie., Gordyszea, now Kurdistan, vi. In
Acts 46 ᾿Ιωάννης is a mistake for Ἰωνάθας, the true
name being preserved only in D, in Berger's Perpignan
MS and (as E. Nestle points out) in Lagarde's OS
6918: on the other hand the Fleury palimpsest (4) is
said to have [/o]kerzes, and we may conjecture from
the Doctrine of Addaiî 31 23 that the Old Syriac attested
Qrias. vii. In Acts 18 8 the present writer has a strong
suspicion that the mysterious name ‘EAvpas, for which
ἕτοιμος is read or inferred in several Western documents,
is a corruption of ὁ λοιμός, ‘the pestilent fellow’ {cp
Acts 245), But conjectures of this kind stand on
quite a different footing from those restorations of the
text which are based on a consenus of the most ancient
evidence. If we are to feel any confidence that this or
that phrase or variant is the actual word of the original
writer, ît must be because we can really trace back the
phrase in question to the earliest times, not because it
happens to have commended itself to some critic of the

ancient or modern world.

In addition to Hort's /atroduction (above, 8 7), the following
works on NT texiwal criticism may be recommended.
Nestle, /azrod. to the Textual Criticism of the Greek NT
(Theologica! Translation Library, vol. xiii.), 1gor, F. G. Ken-
yon, Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the NT, προ.
K. Lake, Z%e Text af the NT (elementary), 1900. G. Salmon,
Some Thoughts on the Textual Criticism cf the NT, x897.
Ὁ R. Gregory, Text&ritik des NT) vol, i., 1900 τ this will bea
separate edition of the Pro/egomena to ‘Tischendorf,' brought
up to date. A new and important work on textual criticism is
announced (1902) by H. von Soden,

2. VERSIONS
I. LATIN

Latin versions of the scriptures can be traced back into
the second century. The Scillitan martyrs at Carthage
Μ in the year 180 A.D. had in their case of

13, Latin ver- τοις. ‘epistles of Paul the just man!
sione: feb What type of text these MSS may have
2688 contained it is of course impossible
directly to determine ; but the occasional references of
Tertullian (e.g., adu. Prax. $ 5) to the translation then
in common use are not inconsistent with the belief that
it was of the same general type as that found in the
many biblical quotations of Cyprian.
To Cyprian, according to the judgment of the latest

1 Texts and Studies, î.2 114.
4992

TEXT AND VERSIONS

investigator of his style, the Latin version seemed
‘clumsily executed and quite modern '; but he quotes it
continually with remarkable accuracy, and never seems
to question the correctness of the renderings. The
natural inference is that Cyprian in the middle of the
third century found a definite Latin text established as
an authoritative standard in Carthage.

We are able to carry back the history one stage
farther. ‘The quotations of Novatian, Cyprian's Roman
contemporary, give us the text current in Rome, just
as Cyprian's quotations give us the text curreni in
Carthage. ‘To them we may add the few verses
quoted by the Roman presbyters Moyses and Maxi-
mus in their lettér to Cyprian (ap. Cypr. 22. 31,
$ 4). These quotations present marked differences
from the Cyprianic text, as well as marked agreements
with it; we are, therefore, justified in assuming for both
the Carthaginian and the Roman types a common
origin, which at the same time must have been sufficiently
remote to allow for the development of the characteristic
differences between the two texts.

No tradition of the origin or literary history of the
Latin versions seems to have been known even to

;, Augustine or Jerome; it remains an open

14. Their cuestion whether the first translation was

OTIBIR: made in Roman Africa, in Italy, or in Gaul.
What is certain is that by the middie of the fourth
century, Latin biblical MSS exhibited a most confusing
variety of text, caused at least in part by revision from
later Greek MSS as well as by modifications of the
Latin phraseology. This confusion lasted until all the
‘Old Latin’ (or ‘ante-Hieronymian') texts were sup-
planted by the revised version of Jerome (383-400 A.D.),
which was undertaken at the request of Pope Damasus
and ultimately became the Vulgate of the Western
church.

We are thus driven back on evidence other than
tradition to classify our MSS—to find, if possible, the
local texts which they respectively represent, This
classification is the more necessary as the primary
importance of the Old Latin versions lies in their age.
The ‘Oîd Latin' may go back to the second century ;
but before any particular Old Latin reading can be
safely treated as second-century evidence we require at
least prima facie proof that the document in which it
occurs has A text which has largely escaped revision
from later Greek MSS.

In classifying our Old Latin authorities each group of
books must be treated separately, As a matter of fact,

saention the different groups have had differ-
15. Classification. int literary fates. In the Gospels,
the Psalms, and Isaiah, we find a maze of aberrant
texts; onthe other hand, the book of Wisdom seems
never to have undergone a thorough revision in
later times, and the text of Cyprian's citations here
hardly differs from the printed Vulgate.

The necessary starting-point is supplied by the biblical
quotations in the Letin Fathers. Some of the evidence,
however, derived fron this source must be used with
great caution.

i. It îs rarely possible to take the many scriptural allusions
in Tertullian's works as literal representations of the biblica]
text current in Carthage în his day. Theyare, în fact, so unlike
any surviving type of the Latin versions that it 15 maintained by
Zahn? and others that the Bible had not been translated into
Latin în Tertullian's time, Even those, however, who place the
origin of the Latin Bible earlier than Tertullian'admit that he
often translates directly from the Greek. A clear instance of
this îs de Carne Christi 8 20, where Mt. 116 is quoted in agree-
ment with the ordinary Greek reading against the combined
testimony of all the older Latin texts

- A grent uncertainty hangs over the age of the Latin trans-
lation of Irena:us's work against Heresies.. If it be contemporary
with the author it becomes a primary witness for the Gallican
text. Some, however, including Hort, have placed it in the

fourth century, and this is undoubtedly the safer view.
ili. One of our chief authorities, the Testimonia of Cyprian

1 E, W. Watson in Studia Biblica, 4195.
3 Gesch. d. NT Kanons, 1 51-60.

4993

TEXT AND VERSIONS

(a series of proof.texts from Scripture), was so popular în the

Latin church chat certain later writers quote from it instead of

using the Bible directly. In so far as this is done these writers

cease to be independent witnesses. This applies to Firmicus

Maternas, Commodian, Lactantius, and in part to Lucifer and
eno.

Fragments at least of eighteen MSS of the Old Latin
Gospels are still extant. Of these only one—the Latin

The 0Î Codex Bezx (d)—is a bilingual. Εἶνε
ἀφοροὶς of these Μ85---φῆο,, codd. Vercellensis (α),
-Veronensis (δ), Palatinus (e), Sangallensis
(x), Bobiensis (4), —as well as d itself, are of the fourth /
or the fifth century, having therefore been transcribed:
at a time when the Old Latin was in fuil church use.

Hort was the first to point out the close connection
of the texts of # and e with the many and accurate
quotations of Cyprian (died 258). Of these two MSS
£ is more faithful to the Cyprianic standard than e;
but both are quite on a different plane from the rest of
the Latin MSS. We may therefore take the text of £
and e as representing the form in which the Gospels
were read at Carthage in the middle of the-third century
before the Decian persecution. ‘The only other non-
Patristic authorities which show a distinctive African
{.e., Cyprianic) character are the contemporary correc-
tions in the text of x {esp. in Lk. and Mk.), corrections
which must have been made from a MS very like e, and
isolated sections (e.g., the last chapters of Lk.) in the
late MS c (Colbertinus).

The character of the ‘African Latin' differs much
from other Old Latin texts both in language and in the
underlying Greek text,1 But one fact stands out above
all others—its unlikeness to the eclectic texts of the
fourth century, both Greek and Latin.

For the most part the interpolations of this, the oldest con-
tinuous Latin text of the Gospels that has come down to us, are
to a large extent not the interpolations of the eclectic texts, and
its omissions are not their omissions; moreover its renderings
are not the renderings of the later revised Latin texts such as
the Vulgate and its immediate predecessors. ΑΙ this tends to
show that the Affican text of the third century had to a large
extent escaped revision from Greek sources; in other words,
that the Greek text implied by £ and its companions is that
which underlies the origmal translation.

The remaining Old Latin MSS, including the Latin
of Cod. Bezze, may be classed as ' European,’ since
they agree with the European Fathers against the
peculiar African renderings. The origin of this type of
text is still obscure. ‘The MSS group themselves round
the two great codices @ and 3. Of these 4 occupies a
central position, the other MSS differing from one
another more than they differ from it. At the same
time it may be doubted whether 2 does not represent an
earlier stage of the European text, as the quotations of
Novatian {the Roman contemporary of Cyprian) pre-
dominantly favour @ against è, so far, that is, as the
‘«European' type is developed in them. This is especi-
ally the case in Jn., where the ἃ text is also supported
by Lucifer of Cagliari. On this view ‘African’ read-
ings found in 2 are relics of the earlier form of the
‘ European’ text. On the other hand ὁ is the oldest
representative of that stage of the European text from
which most of the later forms of the Old Latin, and
finally the Vulgate, are descended.

Some of the later Latin texts have been partially
conformed to the Antiochian Greek text. The most
prominent surviving example is Cod. Brixianus (7), a
Gospel MS of the sixth century. It has bcen con-
jectured that MSS of this type were referred to by
Augustine under the term /f2/e and that they formed
the basis of Jerome's revision. But it is much more
probable that Augustine's //2/a means the Vulgate;
see below ($ 59). The peculiar element of Y is derived
from the codices of the Gothic version brought into N.
Italy by the Lombards and perhaps by previous northern
invaders during the fifth and the sixth century, whilst
the agreement of / and the Vulgate (which in parts is

1 See especially Sanday’s essay on the text of α în 0/4 Latin
Biblical Texts, vol, ii,

4994

΄
Ζ

TEXT AND VERSIONS

very marked) is most likely due to the intrusion of
Vulgate readings înto the text of £!

Many ‘ Antiochian' readings are found in the Vulgate, as is
only natural în a revision undertaken by the aid of Greek MSS
at the end of the fourth century. Some noteworthy agreements

of the Vulgate with the Greek MSS & and B are also found,
especialiy in the Acts : this points to a use of the great library
at Casarea. Jerome gave special heed to the elimination of
harmonistic corruptions and to correcting the rendering of
important doctrinal expressions. A well-known instance of the
latter is the introduction of susersubstantialerm into the Lord's
Prayer in Mt. instead of cofidiazzze, to render ἐπιούσιον, Quite
as characteristic is nexus for ὁ κόσμος in Jn., ἀξ mundus being
reserved for è κόσμος οὗτος.2

The African text of the Pauline epistles is im-
perfectly preserved. "The version used by Cyprian is

17. Pauline not represented in any known MS, though
epistles, some of its peculiar renderings reappear
in the not inconsiderable quotations of
Tyconius (flor. 380). Entirely distinct from these, and
representing a different Greek original, is the text of
Gal. 5:97 as quoted by Nemesianus of Thubune at
the Council of Carthage (256 A.D.), a text which has
points of contact with Tertullian (cp de Pudic. $ 17).3

Among European texts the Latin of cod. Claromon-
tanus (D, 4) hoids a high place, The twin texts of
bilingual MSS are always open to the suspicion of
having been greatly assimilated one to another. In the
case of dy, however, the genuine Old Latin character of
the text is vindicated by its frequent agreement with the
quotations ot Lucifer of Cagliari (+370). "The curious
interlinear Latin version of Cod. Boernerianus {Gg g3) is
not predominantly supported by any Latin writer, and
perhaps ought not to be reckoned among continuous
Old Latin authorities The revised text used by
Augustine in this part of the NT is represented by
fragments of two MSS formerly at Freising, now at
Munich (», #9).

In the Vulgate itself comparatively few changes
appear to have been made by Jerome in the Pauline
Epistles, so that it may almost be reckoned among the
late Old Latin texts. On the other hand the Gothic-
Latin MS usually quoted as gze has very litile inde-
pendent value, as the Latin has been assimilated to the
parallel Gothic text.

The Epistle to the Hebrews was absent from the
original form of the Latin canon, and it js not quoted
by Cyprian or Tyconius, nor apparently by Irenceus.
Tertullian quotes it once {de Pudic. $ 20), but not as
seripture; as in the other parts of the NT the version
he uses does not agree with any other Latin authority.
It is, therefore, of interest to observe that the text of
Hebrews in 4, stands on the same footing with that of
the rest of the epistles, the agreement with Lucifer
being there as clearly marked as elsewhere, although in
the MS itself the epistle forms a sort of appendix at the
end. The epistle also occurs in the Freising MS, with
the text of which the quotations of Augustine agree.

The ‘Western’ text of Acts is found in nearly all
Old Latin authorities (see col. 4996, n. 3); in attempt-

18. Acts, ing therefore to trace their mutual connec-

ὲ ” tion we must chiefly be guided by the style

of the Latin renderings. The mere presence of Western

glosses în a Latin source, such as Augustine, tells us
little of his relation, e.g., 10 the Latin of Cod. Bezx.

The most important quotations are found in Irenzeus,
Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, Lucifer of Cagliari,
and the anonymous African tract de Rebaptismate

1F. C. Burkitt, Jowrm. 07 TAeol. Studies, 1 129-134; Fr.
Kauffmann's ‘ Beitrage zur Quellenkritik der gotischen Bibel-
inbersetzung s,' in Zfsc4. Καὶ deutsche Philologie, 82 305-335.

Σ In Jn. 10/16 the Vulgate, against all Greek MSS, subsritutes
unum ouile (‘one fold) for the Old Latin wnzserez (‘one
fiock ), and from the Valgare was derived the familiar rendering
ofthe authorised version. The Vulgate rendering of this verse has
been used by Wordsworth and White in support of their view
that Jerome used Greek MSS of a type of text now lost. See,
however, 1. H. Bernard in /ermatfena, 11 335-342.

$ For Nemesianus see Ὁ, H. Turner în Journ. of Theol.
Studies, 2502 ff

4995

TEXT AND VERSIONS

(usually bound up with Cyprian). Of MSS we have
besides the Latin of the bilinguals Cod. Beza (4) and
Cod, Laudianus (e), large fragments of an African text
in the sixth-century palimpsest Cod. Floriacensis (4), a
complete European text in Cod. Gigas Holmensis (g),
and 1-186 2816-end in a (?) Spanish text published ‘by
Berger from a MS once at Perpignan (23). There are
also fragments of a late European text in a fifth-century
palimpsest at Vienna (s), now published by H. J. White.
The 'Acte’ of Augustine's dispute with Felix the
Manichee at Hippo in 404 A.D, should almost be
counted among the MSS, for in them Augustine reads
from a codex the continuous text of Acts1-2ir (see
below, $ 21).

The most primitive form represented by these MSS is
that found in 4, the text of which is almost exactly that
of Cyprian and also of Augustine. That the text con-
tained in g is ancient, although the MS is only of the
thirteenth century, is proved by its close agreement with
the quotations of Lucifer, where it agrees with as well
as where it differs from the Vulgate.

This type of text is also found in a Milan lectionary (gp) con-
taining the story of Stephen, and to some extent ins; itreappears,
strange to say, in the non-Vulgate portions of the “Liber
Comticum, a Visigothic tectionary published by Morin. The
text of αὶ differs greatly from g, and seems to have most affinity
with the very scanty extracts in the Speculum (#2) which run
parallel to it. The not unfrequent agreements of 2 with 2 seem
rather to be due to the fact that each is a very literal version of
the Greek than to real kinship of text. The Latin columns of
the two bilinguals 4 and eg, as we might almost expect, agree
closely with no ancient Latin text.1 The renderings found in
the quotations of Tertullian and the Latin translation of Irenzeus
here as in other parts of the Bible do not agree consistently
with any other authority.

With regard to the underlying Greek, Irenzeus and
the Africans together with the Perpignan MS all go
back to a Greek text such as that of Codex Beze, but
comparatively seldom afford any real support to the
eccentricities of its Latin side. It is probable that the
‘Western’ element of E, (Laudianus) is ultimately of
Latin origin? This, however, but rarely gives an
independent value to the Latin side of the existing MS,
except where E, stands alone among Gree£ authorities.
Whatever the history of the ancestors of Cod. Laudianus
may have been, in our MS the Greek and the Latin are
almost completely equated to cach other. The pages
indeed have quite the appearance of a glossary.

In the later Enropean text represented by g and
Lucifer the ' Western' glosses have been to some extent
corrected out. This is true still more of the Vulgate,
which in Acts not unfrequently follows the Greek text
approved by modern critical editors.

A very remarkable type—a third-century African text
as far as regards renderings, but without the ‘ Western *
glosses—is found in the anonymous tract de PRebaptis-
mate.

It reflects in fact the isolated position of the writer, wha,
although a contemporary of Cyprian, differed from the majority
of the Africans in the biblica! text he used, as he differed from
them on the question of the Rebaptism of heretics.3 The
literary history of Acts in Latin can never be regarded as de-
finitely settled until the appearance of this curious text is
sufficient]y accounted for.

‘The full collection of seven Catholic epistles which

n usualiy follows Acts in Greek MSS was

19. Catholie not included in the Latin canon until
pIStIeS. the fourth century. Only 1 Pet. and

x Jn. with Jude had hitherto been universally re-

1 This contrasts strongly with the perfect agreement between
δὲ and Beda, who actually used the Cod. Laudianus itself,

2 Blass, Acta Adi. p. 28.

3 The phraseology of the quotations în the de Redaptismate
is almost always that of the Cyprianic Bible. The work is a
letter apparently addressed to Cyprian himself ($ 4, $ 10). It
is possible that it was not originally composed în Latin, and that
we possess only the Latin translation, as in the parallel case of
Firmilian's letter to Cyprian (ap. Cypr. ΕΖ. 75). This would
‘account both for the African phrases and for the non-African text.
It is worth noticing that the de AeSagfismate contains a clear
allusion to Mk. 16.14 8 9, end: son crediderunt, nisi Jostmodume
ab ipso Domino omnibus modis fuissent oSrurgati atque
increpati).

4996

TEXT AND VERSIONS

ceived, although 2 In. is also quoted by some early
Fathers,

The extant Old Latin authorities for this division of
the NT are as follows :—(i.) Of the Old African version
no MS is known ; but we have the quotations of Cyprian
from 1 Pet. (called 24 Porzicos, as in Tertullian) and
1 Jn. With these, on the whole, agree the quotations
of Tyconius, A verse from 2 Jn. is quoted by one of
the Bishops at the Council of Carthage. (ii.} A later
African revision, including all the seven epistles is found
in Augustine. Of this revision we have two MSS, 4 at
Paris {fragments of 1 and 2 Pet., 1 In.) and g at
Munich {a large fragment of 1 Jn.). ἃ is the same
Cod. Floriacensis as în Acts, but in the Cauh. Epp.
the text is not Cyprianic, but late African. A peculiar
recension is found in the pseudo-Augustinian Speculum
(σα), in which the extracts from Jas. agree very closely
with the quotations of the Spanish heretic Priscillian.
This late Spanish type of text is noteworthy as the
original source of rhe famous gloss of the Three
Heavenly Witnesses in 1 Jn. 57. (ili.) Among Euro-
pean texts we have the extensive quotations of Lucifer,
including more than half of Jude; fragments of Jas.
and 1 Pet. are also found in 5 (see $ 18). Of Jas.a
complete text is extant in a non-biblical MS formerly at
Corbey, now at St. Petersburg {7}. This translation
appears to be as old as the early part of the fourth
century, and is apparently used by Chromatius of
Aquileia. A fragment of 3 Jn. is found in Cod. Bezee,
immediately before Acts; but it must remain a matter
of conjecture what other books that MS once contained
between the Gospels and Acts.1

The Apocalypse from the first formed part of the
Latin NT, and in Africa the ecelesiastical version of it

does not seem to have suffered re-
20. Apocalypse. ,;sion in the fourth century as was the
case with the rest of the NT, except Acts. Hence it
comes to pass that the ‘late African' text of the Apoca-
lypse, as given almost in full in the Commentary of
Primasius, bishop of Hadrumetum in the sixth century,
differs but little from the Cyprianic text. The same
text is also found in the fragments of Cod. 4 (see above,
8 18/5). A somewhat different type appears in the
Commentary of Tyconius, large fragments of which
are preserved in Primasius, in Beatus the Spaniard,
and in other sources. Beside these a late European
text is extant in g (see above, $ 18); but Lucifer avoids
quoting the Apocalypse altogether. A third type of
text seems to underly the Vulgate, which has affinities
both with g and with the African text.

In certain circles some parts of Jerome's revised
translation were received immediately into Church use.

5, This, for instance, was the case at Hippo.

31. pietory Augustine, whilst writing to Jerome in
Vulgate, 1034. to deprecate his great changes

in the OT, nevertheless says: ‘Proinde
non paruas Deo gratias agimus de opere tuo quod
Enangelium ex Graco interpretatus es, quia peene in
omnibus nulla offensio est.* This limitation of his
praise to the Gospel ‘s confirmed by the story of the
trial of Felix the Manichee in the following year (see
above, $ 18). At the trial Augustine had occasion to
read from the NT the story of the descent of the Spirit.
Accordingly there was handed to him first a Codex of
the Gospels, from which he read Lk.2436-49 in the
Vulgate text ; then being given a Codex of Acts, he
read out Acts 11-21: ina very pure African Old Latin
text. The fact that the text of Acts as here given is
quite unmixed with Vuigate readings shows that our MSS
of ‘Aug. contra Felicem' have suffered no wholesale cor-
ruption; we cannot therefore but conclude that by 404
A.D. the Gospels were read at Hippo from the Vulgate,

1 The vacant space would suggest that the missing books are
the Apocalypse, and all three Johannine epp., making up
with the Fourth Gospel the complete /rstrumentica lohannis
(Tert. de Res. Carnis, 8 38).

4997

TEXT AND VERSIONS

whilst in other books of the Bible, such as Acts, the
unrevised Old Latin was still publicly used.

In some parts of the Western Empire the dld versions
were long retained in ecclesiastical use, especially in
Gaul and N, Italy, This resulted in the formation of
mixed texts, sometimes by the insertion of familiar Old
Latin phrases into Vulgate MSS, but more often by the
imperfect correction of the codices of the old versions to
the Vulgate standard, These principles were în action
in all parts of the Latin church; but they produced
somewhat different types of text owing to the different
epochs at which the Vulgate text, as current in Rome
and S. Italy generally, was brought in among the
various nationalities.

Some of the most interesting texts of the Vulgate come
from the British Isles. Both Great Britain and Ireland
had received the Bible before the victory of Jerome's
revision; but the coming of the heathen English almost
entirely destroyed Christianity in what is now England.
The mission of Augustine brought the Vulgate with it,
and the careful English scholars of Northumbria looked
to Rome and S. Italy for patterns of text, rather than
to north-western Europe. A product of the North-
umbrian school is the Codex Amiatinus, now at Florence,
the leading MS of the Vulgate both in the Old and in the
New Testament, This great book appears to have been
copied from a Neapolitan text ; it was written at Jarrow
or Wearmouth a little before 716 A.D. and was brought
to Italy as a present to the Pope by the Abbot Ceolfrid.

The Irish, until after the time of Columba, adhered
to the Old Latin ; one fairly pure Irish Old Latin text
of the Gospels survives in Cod. Usserianus (r). From
about the year 700, however, the Roman tonsure and
the Roman text began to make way among the Irish
also, and this resulted in the prevalence of a mixed type
of MSS of which the Book of Kells and the Book of
Armagh are noteworthy examples. A similar type of
text is found also in MSS written in Britain, represent-
ing the fusion of Iona and Rome.

Simultaneous with the re-establishment of a Western Empire
under Charlemagne came efforts for improvement of the Vulgate
text. Hence arose the two great eclectic editions of the ninth
century: that of 7eadu//of Orleans, who aimed at collecting
a large body of variants in the form of marginal notes ; and that
of Alenin οἵ York, who at the express desire of the great
Emperor constructed a standard text. Alcuin's revision was
presented to Charlemagne on Christmas Day, 8o1 A.D., and
although his text was soon corrupted in minor details his work
marks a turning-point in the history of the Vulgate. ‘Up to
the middle of the ninth century . . . we find a distressing
jumble of the best and the worst texts existing side by side,
the ancient versions mixed with the Vulgate in inextricable
confusion, and the books of the Bible following a different order
in each MS, After Alcnin all îs changed; the singularities
have been levelled, the text has become more equal and its
character more tame. ... From Alcuin's time onward the
only Bible in use has been that of Jerome, and the ancient
versions have disappeared’ (Berger, Vi/gaze, p. xvii).!

II SyYRIAC

Almost everything that relates to the origin and early
history of the Syriac versions is the subject of contro-

versy. In the following account an
22. Ta, carlo attempt has been made to distinguish
versions. between what may be regarded as

proved beyond reasonable doubt, and

i what must în our present state of knowledge remain only

a probability. It will be necessary, in discussing the

1 earlier forms of the Syriac versions, to take the various

parts of the ΝΎ one by one, as in the case of the Old
Latin. ‘The later Syriac versions will be described
subsequently by themselves.

The Four Gospels.—About the year 420 A.D. the
Gospel was extant in Syriac in three forms, viz.1t—

{i.) The Peshifta, or Syriac Vulgate.

1 The Vulgate was first printed at Mainz between 1452 and
1456 (‘ Mazarin Rible'), The authoritative edition used by the
Roman Church was issued by Clement VIIL in 1592. A critical
edition of the NT is being prepared by Bishop f. Wordsworth
and the Rev, H. J. White, of which the volume containing the
Gospels has already appeared (02/074, 1889-98).

4998

TEXT AND VERSIONS

{ii.) Tatian's Dia/essaron.

(iL) The ‘Zvangelion da-Mepharreskt' or Old
Syriac.

A clear idea of the nature of these three documents
and their relation to one another is necessary for a right
‘use of the Syriac versions in the criticism of the Gospels.

{i.) The version of the ΝΎ which alone has been in
ecclesiastica use int he Syriac church since the middle

of the fifth century, is known by the
23. Peshitta. name Piskrztà (er Derhitio im the
Jacobite system of pronunciation)—f.e. ‘the simple."

The name Peshitta was in use as early as the ninth or the tenth
century ; it has been conjectured that it originally served to
distinguish the Syriac Vulgate of the Old and New Testaments
from the Hexaplaric version of the OT and the Harclean of the
NT (sce below, $8 30, 61), editions which were furnished with
marginal variants and other critical apparatus.

The Peshitta is extant in many MSS, a few of which
are as old as the fifth century. All of them, however,
represent the same type of text as is found în the
modern editions. It was first printed by Widmanstad
(Vienna, 1555). The best edition of the Gospels is
the Tetraeuangelium published by (the late) P. E.
Pusey and G. H. Gwilliam (Oxford, 1901). A small
American edition of the NT in the Nestorian character
{New York, 1886, etc.) gives an excellent text in a very
handy form. Following the notation of Westcott and
Hort, I shall speak of the Peshitta as Syriac Vulgate.

ii.) The Diafessaron, a harmony of the Four Gospels
composed by Tatian the pupil of Justin Martyr, at one

Di. time took the piace of the separate Four

34. Dia Gospels in the public services of the

SesBaroM. Syrinc-speaking church, But a vigorous
effort to get rid of it was made by the bishops during
the first half of the fifth century, and in consequence
of this no copy of the Syriac Diatessaron is now
known to survive.

Our main extant authority for the text of the Syriac
Diatessaron is the Commentary of Ephraim! {t373).
This work is no longer extant in Syriac, but is known to
us through an Armenian translation A few express
quotations from the original work survive in some later
Syriac commentaries on the Gospels, such as those of
the Nestorian Ishò'dad and the Jacobite Dionysius
Barsalibi. A complete Arabic version of the Diates-
saron, made early in the eleventh century, has been
published by Ciasca from two MSS (Rome, 1888); this
was not made from the Diatessaron as Ephraim knew
it, but from a later edition in which the text had been
almost wholly assimilated to the text of the Peshitta.?
It is therefore nearly worthless for the study of the zexf
‘of the Diatessaron, though valuable for determining the
arrangement adopted by Tatian.® The Commentary of
Ephraim is quoted by the pages of a Latin rendering of
the Armenian, published in 1876 by G. Moesinger.
Another version of the Four Gospels, distinet
from the Peshitta (or Syr.vg), was called Zvangelida

25. “οἵὰ e-Mepharrisht_i.e. * Gospel of the Separ-
eriac: 8164 (ones).'* The name obviously contains
STARE. a reference to the Diatessaron, which in
contradistinction to it is also called in Syriac £vangelida
da-Mòhalitté, ‘Gospel of the Mixed.’ "The title “Sepa-
rated Gospels' would be equally applicable to the Four

1 Ephraim is often spoken of as E44rem Syrus, and as ‘the
Deacon of Edessa.’ The Syriac form of the name is A/sesm.

2 It is worth notice that the textual history of the Diatessaron
in the E. is largely paralleled by its history în the W., where it
is extant in Cod. Fuldensis and its copies, the text being
altogether assimilated to the Vulgate. But there are many
indications that it had formerly existed with an ‘Old Latin*
text, In other words, the text of the Diatessaron, so far as we
are able to trace it, was always in process of being assimitated
to the prevalent local text of the Four Gospels.

3 English translation by J. Hamlyn Hill, Τὰς Zardiest Lie
giri (T. & T. Clark, 1894), and (direct from the Arabic) by

. W. Hogg in Anfe-Nicene Christian Library, add. vol, pp.
35-138(T. & T. Clark, 1897). I

erhaps ‘Gospel according to the Separated (Evangelists)"
is a nearer translation, the particle 42 being used for κατά in the
Syriac titles of the Gospels.

4999

TEXT AND VERSIONS

Gospels as read in the Peshitta, and indeed the Peshitta
is probably intended in the passage where ZAvangeliéa

| da-Mépharréshé occurs in the canons of Rabbilla,! On

the other hand, the Sinaitic and the Nitrian MSS both
call themselves by this name, and Barsalibi and Bar
Bahlùl the lexicographer expressly quote from the
Evangelion da-Mépharreshé the reading ‘'/esus Barab-
bas' in Mt. 2717, found in the Sinaitic MS,2

Two codices of the Evargelidn da-Mèpharréshé are at
present known to scholars, viz., the Sinai palimpsest
(Ss), and the Nitrian MS used by Cureton {Sc}
The Nitrian MS, now B.M. add. 14,451, came with
the rest of the library of the Convent of S. Mary
Deipara in 1842-7 to London, where its peculiar char-
acter was shortly afterwards recognised by Cureton,
then keeper of the Oriental MSS. His edition of the
MS appeared in 1858, and from him the version came
to be known as the * Curetonian.' The Sinai palimpsest
was discovered at the Convent of S. Catherine on
Mount Sinai by Mrs. Lewis and Mrs. Gibson of Cam-
bridge in 1892, and transcribed in the following year
by the late R. L. Bensly, J. Rendel Harris, and the
present writer.

Sc may be assigned to the middle of the fifth century. It
contained the Gospels in the order Mt. Mk. Jn. Lk.; but all
that is now extant is Mt.11-832 1032-2325 Mk.1617-20 In.
1 1-42 86:1 37 14 10-12 16-18 21-23 26-29 Lk, 248.8 16 7 33-16 13 17
1-24 44, or Jess than half of the whole, 85 is perhaps half a
century older than Sc. It contained the Gospels in the usual
order: Mt. Mk. Lk. Jn.; only about 450 verses (î.e., about one
eighth ofthe whole) afe now altogether missing ; but many words
and lines are illegible, Most of the gaps in Cureton's text can
now in a measure be filled ; but for the history of the text che
value of Ss lies less in those parts where it supplements Sc
than in those where the two MSS run paralici. By a com-

parison of these portions we are able to gain some idea of the
range of variation found in the codices of the ‘Old Syriac.”

Since the publication of Cureton's Codex in 1858, a
discussion has gone on as to the relative age of the
A Evangelifn da-M&pharrèshé and the
26. relation Peshittà. ‘The general opinion bad
" formerly been that the Peshitta, much
in its present state, had existed ever since the earliest
ages of the Syriac-speaking church. The defenders
of that opinion rested their case upon the common
reception of the Peshitta by all the sects into which
Syriac Chistendom has been divided from the end
of the fifth century, the exclusive use of the Peshitta by
Syriac ecclesiastical writers, and the alleged conservatism
of Orientals. The first of these arguments proves,
indeed, what is universally acknowledged-—that the
Peshitta had already attained a position of exclusive
authority by the latter part of the fifth century. But
the publication of a mass of early Syriac works during
the last fifty years has materially weakened îhe second
argument. The decisive moment is the episcopate of
Rabbila, bishop of Edessa from 411-435 A.D. From
that time the NT quotations of Syriac writers are all
influenced by the Peshitta, beginning with Isane of
Antioch (4460). But the quotations in Syriac writers
earlier than Rabbùla agree with the known peculiarities
of the Diatessaron and the ἔν. da-Mépharréshé. The
text of the Diatessaron itself, as known to us from
Ephraim's Commentary and the few but express quota-
tions of later writers, very closely resembled that of the
Ev. da-Mépharréshé without being identical with it.

1 The codices of the /se/fer in the Peshitta bear the title
‘The Book of the Praises of David da-Mépharrèshé.' May not
the last word be taken to mean ‘in separate (Psalms)'?

2 The Evangelion da-Mèpharrèshé could not have got its
name in contradistinetion to the Peskifz. The only piece of
evidence which seems to suggest this unlikely conclusion is the
above-quoted statement about 7ests Bar2Zbes, which is repeated
word for word by Barsalibi and Bar Bahlul. Probabiy, there-
fore, they each took it from some older scholion, in which the
‘Old Syriac” was contrasted, not with the Syriac Vulgate, but
with the Diatessaron, It is possible that Evangelion da-
Mipharrishé in Rabbila's canons (Overbeck, 220 3) means any
MS of the Four Gospels as opposed to a MS of the Diatessaron.

3 It had been already in print for ten years. Three leaves of
the codex found their way to Berlin, and are now numbered
Orient. Quart. 528 in the Royal Library.

5000

TEXT AND VERSIONS

The writings in which the Diatessaron or the δ, da-Mfephar |
reshé are used include the Ac#s gf /udas Thomas (3rd cent), ὦ
the Doctrine of Adidai (4th cent.), the Homilies of Aphraates
(337-345), the genuine writings of Ephraim (4373), the writings
of Cyrillona (A. 400), the Syriac Doctrine 97. the Apostles
published by Cureton (4th cent.). The Syriac translations of
Eusebius' Zcclesiastica! History and Theopharia (made be
fore 411) also show the influence of the £2. da-Mepharreshé,
and even Jacob of Serug (6th cent.) follows the Diatessaron in
his Homily on the Lord's Prayer. ᾿

The witness of Ephraim was long claimed for the Peshitta
against the £u. da-M7ètharrèshé on the authority of commen-
taries and homilies which were printed as Ephraim's in the
Roman edition (1737-43), but on insufficient evidence. Ephraim's
genuine writings, which include more than 350 homilies, show
no trace of distinctively Peshitta readings (F. C. Burkitt, S.
Ephraim's Quotaticns from the Gosfel, Cambridge, 1901).

To Rabbilla is due both the publication of the
Peshitta and the suppression of the Diatessaron. At
the beginning of his episcopate (411 A.D.) ‘he trans»
lated by the wisdom of God that was in him the NT
from Greek into Syriac, because of its variations,
accurately just as it was' (Li@ gf dfar Rabbula, in
Overbeck, 17218 7). And în his canons he ordered
‘that in every church there should be a copy of the
Ev. da-Mépharr®ht, and that it should be read’ (Over-
beck, 220 3}. When we consider that up to the time
οἵ Rabbila the Gospel quotations in Syriac works never
exhibit the peculiarities of the Peshitta, whilst after the
time of Rabbiila they uniformly agree with it, there can
be little doubt that the translation of the NT prepared
by Rabbùla was the Peshitta itself.1

The Peshitta is thus an edition of the £v. da-.M@}har-
réshé, revised into closer conformity with the Greek,
and published by authority with a view of superseding
both the Diatessaron and the then current Syriac texts
of the Four Gospels.

The method by which the new edition was propagated
may be learnt from Theodoret, bishop of the adjoining
see of Cyrrhus, who ‘swept up more than two hundred
copies of the Diatessaron in the churches of his diocese
and introduced the Four Gospels în their place ' (quoted
in Wright's Syriac Literature, g). The older forms
of the £v. da-Mépharréshé seem throughout the fourth
century to have been much less used than the Dintes-
saron, so that when the Peshitta was substituted for the
Diatessaron in the public services, it practically had no
rivals. Neither Ss nor Sc show any signs of having
been prepared for church use. In a word, the Diates-

saron was condemned; the Zv. da-Mépharresht was |

antiquated. .

The internal character of the Peshitta, as compared
with that of the £v. da-M@pharréshé confirms the view
of their relation 10 one another which has been given
above.

1. The style of the Zo. da-M@pharr&hé gives an
impression of great age. ANI the later Syriac versions,
such as the Harclean, are marked by excessive literal-
ness; but the ἔν, da-Méskarréshé is less conventional
and more idiomatie than the Peshitta. Certain particles
also and idioms are found in the Zv. da-Mépharréshé
which are avoided in the Peshitta and later Syriac
writings.?

2. The subscriptions at the end of each Gospel in
the Zv. da-M@pharrèshé contain no more than ‘ Here
endeth the Gospel of Mark, or ‘of Luke," as the case
may be. But to render Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ M. more
exactly the Peshitta has ‘ 7. [λον] Gospel, the preach-
ing of MY Moreover, it is added in almost all codices
of the Peshitta that Matthew composed his Gospel ‘ ἐπ
Hebrew in Palestine, Mark ‘în Latin at Rome,' Luke
‘în Greck at Alexandria the Great” and John ‘ir
Greek at Ephesus' Similar statements are found in
some Greek MSS of the Gospels, This peculiar render- |

1 See F.C. Burkitt, S. ZsAraioes Quotazione, 57.

2 Such are the occasional use of the copula to introduce the
apodosis of a conditional sentence (e.g., Lk. 12 45. Ss Sc) and
the occurrence of the word ‘34%, ‘ forsooth,' which is met with
only in the oldest Syriac literature and has been consistentiy
expunged in Sc by εἰ corrector.

5001

TEXT AND VERSIONS

ing of xard, and the insertion of these pseudo-biblio-
graphical notices, when contrasted with the simplicity
of the ἔν. da-Mepharrèshé, are by themselves enough
to stamp the Peshitta as a later recension,

3. Although Ss and Sc usually agree closely with
one another against the Peshitta text, and sometimes
even stand alone together against all! other critical
authorities, they often differ in important readings.!
But the MSS of the Peshitta hardly vary except in ortho-
graphical matters and other trifles. It is difficult to re-
concile this fact with the priority of the Peshitta. If the
two versions had existed side by side during the third
century, it is not easy ta see why the codices of the ἔν.
da-Mépharreshé should have been honoured by revision
from the Greek, whilst the codices of the Peshitta were
untottched.

The Peshitta has too many points of resemblance
to the Ev. da-Mépharréshé to be considered an in-
dependent translation from the Greek. We must
therefore regard the Peshitta as a revision of the
previously existing Zv. da-Mépharréshé, just as the
Latin Vulgate was a revision of an Old Latin text.
For that reason Westcott and Hort quote the Peshitta
as Syr.vg. The agreement of Ss and Sc may be
conveniently indicated by Syr.vt. or the ‘Old Syriac.

The Greek text of the Antiochian revision (see $$
7. 9) is usually followed by the Peshitta, where it
differs from the Old Syriac; but to this rule there are
some exceptions (e.g., Mt. 1119 2213 Jn. 118). The
revision of the Syriac N'T was therefore made from a
Greek MS such as Cod, Ephraemi (C) which retained
some non-Antiochian readings in the midst of a funda-
mentally Antiochian text. It will be remembered that
Rabbila was the friend of Cyril of Alexandria, in whose
quotations much the same state of things is found. Αἱ
the same time there are readings in Syr.vg which
definitely reflect the local Antiochian tradition (e.g., the
punctuation of Jn. 5277).

The only theory to account for the textual facts which has
been advanced by defenders of the priority of Syr.vg to the
Ev. da-Mépharréshé is that, on the suppression of the Diates-
saron, a sudden demand may have arisen for copies of the Four
Gospels. Scribes would then have made imperfect copies, full
of phrases taken from Tatian's Harmony, two of which survive
in 85 and Sc. This theory accounts for the marked resemblance
of the Zv. da-Mépharrishé to the Diatessaron on the one hand,
and to the Peshitta on the other. It does not account, however,
for the numerous instances where Ss and Sc (or one of them)
have a reading which is neither that of the Diatessaron nor of the
Peshitta. Thus in Lk. 1721 (‘the kingdom of God is ἐντὸς
dpòr')the Peshitta has 202/%/x yox, the Diatessaron has ix vene
Acart, but Ss and Sc have azz0rg ox. Other notable instances
are Mk. 10 50 Lk. 429.

No hypothesis about the origin and mutual relations of carly
Syriac texts can stand, which does net account for the erucial
fact that Mk. ends at_ 168 în Ss, although the ‘last twelve
verses’ are found in the Diatessaron as well as in the Peshitta.

Of our two codices of Syr.vt Ss is in every respect a
better text than Sc. The discovery of $, has justified
Hort's conjecture that Sc represents a form of the Old
Syriac which has suffered ‘irregular revision’ from the
Greek.® The best evidence for this is afforded by the
presence in Sc of several conflate readings (e.g., Mt. 518
Fn. 424).

‘The fact of this revision once established, it is reason-
able to assign to the reviser the many passages where
words and verses which are absent from Ss have
been added in Sc. Thus the episode of the bloody
sweat, the missing clauses of the Lord's Prayer in
Lk., the jong interpolation after Mt, 2028, and the
verse Mt. 2144, are all found in Sc, though absent from
Ss. The process of revision, however, was by no means
thorough, for Sc agrees with Ss in omitting Mt. 1623
1721 1811 Jn. 53 4, εἴς. 3

1 The most striking instance is [Mk.]169-20, which is read by
Sc but omitted by Ss.

ἢ Hort, 118,

3 In Lk. 1041 42 Ss has the shorter reading found also in all
genuine Old Latin texts, viz., ‘Martha, Martha, Mary has
chosen the better part,’ etc., omitting the γάρ after ‘Mary "in

5002

TEXT AND VERSIONS

Τὶ might have been suspectedì that Ss had been corrected to a
Greek text such as that of B by the excision of all these passages.
But this suspicion is shown to be groundless by the fact that 55
contains several interpolations (notably one at the end of Lk.
234€) which are especially characteristic of the Old Syriac,
though found in no Greek MS. Had the passages which are
‘wanting in Ss been deliberately expunged owing to their absence
from certain Greek MSS, these other passages would have been
rejected along with the rest. .

The crucial problem in the history of the Old Syriac
is its relation to the Diatessaron. There are two views

; conceivable,

ὅτι Relation I. That the Diatessaron was the
‘to Diat ST. original form in which the Gospel was
natese circulated in Syriac, and that the
Evangelibn da-Mepharreshé (Syr.vt) was a later trans-
lation from the Greek; but the translation was much
infiuenced by the text of the already existing Syriac

Diatessaron,

2. That Syr.vt was the original form of the Gospel
in Syriac ; and that the Diatessaron was an independent
work, originally composed in Greek (or Latin), but
translated into Syriac as far as possible in the wording
of Syr.vt, which ît eventually superseded for church use.

A third theory, that the Diatessaron was a purely
Syriac work, later than Syr. vt and compiled exclusively
from it, can no longer be held since the discovery of the
Sinai palimpsest.

The Diatessaron , andoubtedly contained extracts from the
“last twelve verses’ of Mk.,l which are absent from Ss and
therefore from the carliest form of the Evangelion da-Mephar-
resht. If the Diatessaron had been entirely based upon
Syr.vt, we should have to assume that Syr.vt had been already
revised by 170-180 A.D., the date of Tatian's return to the Fast.

Besides, the theory that the Diatessaron was a Syriac work fails
to account for the Latin Codex Fuldensis and allied documents.

An adequate discussion of the other two theories

would far exceed the limits of this article, although it

depends upon the conclusion reached

28. Conela- ..herher we are to place the Old Syriac in

SION the middle or end of the second century.

It must suffice to say here, that the scanty historical

notices of the early Syriac-speaking church contain

nothing contrary to the first view (viz., that the

Diatessaron preceded the Zvargeli$n da-Mepharreshé)
and much that confirms it.?

On this hypothesis we may conjecturally date the £7.
da-Mephari ‘reshé about 200 A.D. and connect it with the
mission of Palit, who was ordained bishop of Edessa by
Serapion of Antioch.

The arguments în favour of the second view are chiefiy
based on the text of Ss. Some of the readings character-
istic of that MS are quite contrary in tendency to what
we otherwise know of Syriac Christianity, and that such
a text should exist at all 15. a remarkable testimony to
the essential faithfulness of the translator to the Greek
text before him. ‘The Diatessaron much nearer reflects
the tendencies of the time. In fact, some things which
we knòw to have stood in the Diatessaron almost read
like a deliberate protest against the text of Syr.vt as
represented by the Sinai palimpsest.

Tatian held Encratite views, and it accords with them that he
left out the genealogies from the Diatessaron, and that Joseph
is never called husband of Mary. This course is also followed
in Sc {except so faras concerns the genealogies), and it harmonises
with all we know of the Syriac-speaking church în the third
century. But in Ss this tendency is altogether absent, to such
an extent that the last clause of Mt.116 js rendered ‘ /osesà, fo

soho was etroticd Mary the Virgin ὁσία Jesus which ἐς
called Christ.'8. Certain statements in Aphraates' Homily on

v. 42, as well as the words about the ‘something necessary’ in
v. 42: In Sc the missing words are supplied τὸ τὶ 41; but no

article is added after ‘Mary’ in 2. 42, and thus the reviser’s
Randi is betrayed.

1 The same mosaic of Mt. 28 Mk. 16 and Lk. 24 15 found în
£uld 25 în the Arabic Diatessaron. Aphraates 120 mentions
Christ's session at the right hand of The Father (Mk, 16 19)
immediately after quoting Mt. 28 zo.

2 The public reading of the Diatessaron at Edessa în early
times τὸ che apparent exclusion of the Four Gospels, is implied
in the Doctrine ef Addai 36. For the date and historical
value of this work, see L. J. Tixeront, Les Origines de PEglise
d' Edesse, esp. 120.

3 [On the text of this verse cp MaxY, $ 13(2).]

5003

TEXT AND VERSIONS

the Genealogy of our Lord, and some comments preserved by
Barsalibion Me. 1 16 prove that these readings of Ss are not mere
peculiarities of an isolated MS. On the other hand, Sc through-
out the whole of the first chapter of Matthews gospel presents
a corrected text (except 1 ft. lo, ‘/0 fee). The attempt which
has been made to represent 85 as an heretical codex rests on no
sure foundation, and the natural inference is that Syr.vt in its
original form was characterised by a primitive innocence of
offence in this matter (sce Lk.2 48).

The arguments which go to prove that the Ar-
menian and thiopic versions were originally made
from the Old Syriac are indicated elsewhere (sce $ 36 £).
It may be remarked that there is nothing to connect
these versions with the Diatessaron. But if, as seems
most probable, they were made from the Evangelion
da-Mepharreshé, this cireumstance affords another proof
of its antiquity, Ifthe Evangelion da-Mepharreshè were
a novelty, hardly holding its own against the ancient
and popular Diatessaron, it would scarcely have been
chosen in preference to the Diatessaron for missionary
translations.

On the first. publication of Se in 1858, Cureton brought
forward arguments to por that the. Gospel of Mt. in Sc
represented the original ‘Hebrew' Gospel whilst the other
Gospels were mere translations from the Greek. This wild
theory found few defenders and is almost forgotten, But it
was based on a perception that there is a difference of style
between the various Gospels in the Zv. da-Mepharreshé.
Lately Dr. A. Hijeit has collected the indications which show
that the translation of the four Gospels does not come from
the same hand, Mt. being the earliest and Lk. the latest to be
rendered into Syriac (Dic altsyrische Evangelienitersetzung,
Leipsic, rgor) The theory is attractive and may very well
rest upon a basis of fact; at the same time too much stress
should not be laid upon irregularity of rendering as a proof of
composite authorship. Only those who have tried to make a
pedantically consistent translation of the Gospels can realise
with what difficulty consistency is attained.

No MS of the Old Syriac version of Acts or of the
Pauline epistles is known to have survived. ‘That the
Peshitta is not the original form of the
29. acta AnÀ ssriae version in these books also is
pisbles. τονε by the quotations in Aphraates,
and from the commentaries of Ephraim. These com-
mentaries are preserved only in the ancient Armenian
translation, having no doubt fallen out of favour when
the text on which they were based had been superseded
by the Peshitta. In using these commentaries great
care is necessary, as the biblical text appears sometimes
to have been assimilated to the Armenian Vulgate. The
quotations of Aphraates from the Pauline epistles are
many; but those from Acts unfortunately cover only
five verses.

The almost complete loss of the Old Syriac version, except
for the Gospels, causes a serious gap in the apparatus of critical
authorities for the text of the NT. It can be to some litile
extent supplied from the Armenian. Readings of the Armenian
Vulgate which differ from the ordinary Greek text, especiall
if they are supported by the Peshitta, may be considered wit!
some confidence to have been derived from the lost Old Syriac.

The Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse formed no
part of the Old Syriac version! In the Peshitta this
defect is partially supplied by a translation of James,
1 Peter and 1 John, in agreement with the usage of
Antioch as represented by Chrysostom ; but to this day
the Syriac Vulgate does not include the Apocalypse or
the minor Catholic epistles.

The Peshitta was firmly established for ecclesiastical
use in the Syriac-speaking church at the time of the
Nestorian schism, and has continued to be
exclusively used by the Nestorian com-
munity. Among the Jacobites (or Mono-
physite branch of the Syrians), however, two
successive attempts were made to render into Syriac the
full canon and the current text of the later Greek-speak-
ing churches.

What appears to have been a revision of the NT

versions.

1 Addai 46; ‘The Law and the Prophets and the Gospel
+,- + andthe Epistles of Paul . . . and the Acts of the twelve
Apostles—-these writings shall ye read in the churches of Christ,
and besides these ye shall read nothing else.’ Neither in
‘Aphraates nor in the genuine works of Ephraim are there
any quotations from Apoc. or Cath. epp.

5004

TEXT AND VERSIONS

Peshitta, supplemented by those books of the Greek
canon which were lacking in Syriac, was made in 508
A.D. for Philoxenus, bishop of Mabbòg.

Whether any part of this revision of the Peshitta survives îs
doubtful:1 but there is good reason to believe that the supple-
mental version of 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude, which was
first published by E. Pococke in 1630, and is generaliy bound up
with modern editions of the Peshitta, belongs to the original
Philoxenian. A MS of the Apocalypse in the same version has
been discovered ὃν Gwyno, who has published the text with
fall Prolegomena and critical notes (Dublin, 1897).

In the year 616 Thomas of Heraclea (Harkel), bishop
of Mabbog, made at Alexandria an elaborate revision of
the Philoxenian which still survives in several MSS and
is called the Harclean Version. It was edited by Joseph
White at Oxford in 1778-1803 from a slightly imperfect
MS; but the missing portion of Hebrews was at length
supplied from a Cambridge codex by Bensly in 1889.
It is not improbable that the version of the Apocalypse
published in 1627 by De Dieu, and now commoniy
printed with the Peshitta, is a part of the work of Thomas
of Heraclea.

The text of the Harclean version is remarkable for its excessive
literalness,® and for the critica! notes with which it is furnished.
These notes contain the various readings of two (or three) Greek
MSS collated by Thomas at Alexandria. In Acts these notes
are of real importance, as one of the MSS must have contained
8. Western’ text much like that of Codex Bezae. The text of the
Harclean version itself, as distinguished from these alternative
or additional readings, is almost invariably that of the later
Greek MSS.

The Syriac versions hitherto described have all been
in the ‘classical’ Edessene idiom. It is customary
also to reckon under ‘ Syriac Versions’
the surviving biblical fragments in the
* Palestinian” dialect.

The Aramaic language is divided into two branches,
the classical Edessene being the main example of the
Eastern Aramaic, whilst Palmyrene and the various types
of Jewish Aramaic (including Samaritan) belong to the
Western branch. The dialect in which the Christian
version described in this section is written is a variety
of the Western Aramaic, almost identical with that of
the later Galileean Jews.® Its linguistic interest, there-
fore, is very great, for although it is a somewhat literal
translation from the Greek, the language in which it is
written comes nearest of all known Christian dialects to
that spoken by Jesus and the apostles. See ARAMAIC,
ὃ 7 (col. 283).

The surviving documents can be traced to three
sources: (1) the Malkite convent of S. Elias on the
Black Mountain în the district of the Dax near Antioch ; ὁ
(2) the convent of S. Catherine on Mt. Sinai; (3) a
community, or communities, of Malkites settled in Egypt.

The MSS included under (1) appear to have been bought for
the convent of 5. Mary Deipara in the Nitrian desert în the
thirteenth century, after the sack of Antioch by Bibars the
Mameluke Sultan. They include the Vatican lectionary and
the London fragments published by Land. The 5, Petersburg
fragments published by Land, which were brought by Tischendorf
from the East, are almost certainly to be added to the MSS of
class (2). Those of class (3) include the book of occasional offices
now at the British Museum (Or. 4951), the Pra.razosto/os edited
by Mrs. Lewis, and the fragments from the Cairo Geniza now în
the Bodleian and the Cambridge University library.

For the Gospels we have fragments of four continuous
codices :-—

1. Land's Pefsopolitanus antiguior (gth cent.): 2. Land's
Petrofolitanus recentior (8h cent.), two leaves of which

31. Palestinian
version.

1 See Wiseman, ore Syriace, 178 n.

2 The same torturing of the Syriac idiom in order to express
every particle of the Greek is found in the contemporary
ΠΥΡῚ of the Hexaplar text of the LKX by Paul of Tella
(see $ 61).

3 Dalman, Graz. des Jad.-Pallist, Avamdisch, 33-40. The
only locality in Palestine with which any of cur documents can
be definitely connected is ‘4524, a smali town in lat. 32°, long.
35°, almost equally distant from Jaffa, Nablus, and Jerusalem—-
Le, not far from the frontier between Judea and Samaritan
territory,

4 The Malkites(or ‘King's Party”) arethose Oriental Christians
who did not become Monophysites or Nestorians, but remained
in communion with Constantinople. The district of the Dux (τὸ
Δούξ) is mentioned by Anna Comnena (A/ezi2s, 13 12).

5005

TEXT AND VERSIONS

appear to be still at Sinai in Ced. 726. 32;1 3. One leaf of
E.M. Add. 14,450, published hy Land (8th cent.) ; 4. Fragments
of Mt. and Lk. from B.M. Add. 14,654, published by Land
(erth cent.), Besides these there are three complete Gospel
lectionaties, one at the Vatican and two at Sinai, besides
fragments of at least two others at Sinai and London, all dating
from the eleventh century. "Fhe Vatican lectionary (Vat. Syr.
xix) has been well edited by Lagarde (Zvangeliarinz Mierosoly-
miilanum, 1892). The Sinai lectionaries, together with the
readings of the Vatican lectionary, were edited by Mrs. Lewis
and Mrs. Gibson în 1899.

The rest of the NT is but imperfecily preserved. The very
ancient Bodleian fragments of the Pauline epistles have been
edited by G. H. Gwilliam (0x/0»4, 1893-6), and a small frag.
ment of Galatians from Sinai by J. R. Harris. Land has edited
Acts 140.13 from an ancient lectionary (see $ 62) In 1895
Mrs. Lewis bought in Cairo a late MS (? r2th cent.) containing
lections from all parts of the Bible except the Gospeis, and in
conjunction with Mrs. Gibson and Dr, Nestle published the text
in 1897 as Studia Sinaîtica, 6. The lections differ from those
in Land’s much older lectionary, and Mrs. Lewis' MS is dis-
tinctly stated not to have come from Sinai, [τ may have belonged
to the same community that owned the very late MS of the
Liturgy of the Nile, edited by G. Margoliouth (/R.45, Oct.
1896). This Liturgy contains a lesson from Acts16; but the
text is nothing more than an adaptation of the Peshitta to the
Palestinian dialect.

The Palestinian documents exhibit a mixed text.
The infiuence of the Peshitta is ofien apparent; but in
the main the Greek is closely followed, so that even
such Semitic names as ᾿Ιησοῦς and Σίμων are transliter-
ated /sés and Sîmdr, not Κρ δ᾽ (or Zské) and Skim'6n.
The syntax, moreover, is so much assimilated to the
Greek as to render the Palestinian version a very unsafe
guide in the reconstruction of the original Aramaic of
Gospel phrases.

The origin of this curious literature is still obscure ;
but the present writer has given reasons for connecting
it with the efforts made by Justinian in the sixth
century to extirpate the Samaritan relition and by
Heraclius early in the seventh century to harass the
Jews. An earlier date than the sixth century is not
suggested either by the general course of history or
by the character of the surviving documents. F. C.
Burkitt's art. in /ourz. of ΤᾺ, Studies, 21837, con-
tains a full bibliography of the Christian Palestinian
literature,

III COPTIC AND OTHER VERSIONS

‘The

determination of the age of the Egyptian

Be versions is therefore a problem of con-

franalation. siderable interest for the general history
ti of the text of the NT.

Im Egypt 'the progress of Christianity was for a long
time confined within the limits of a single city, which
was itself a foreign colony; and till the close of the
second century the predecessors of Demetrius 2 were the
only prelates of the Egyptian church. ‘Three bishops
were consecrated by the hands of Demetrius, and the
number was increased to twenty by his successor
Heracles. The body of the natives, a people dis-
tinguished by sullen inflexibility of temper, entertained
the new doctrine with coldness and reluctance; and
even in the time of Origen it was rare to meet with an
Egyptian who had surmounted his early prejudices in
favour of the sacred animals of his country. ΑΒ soon,-
indeed, as Christianity ascended the throne, the zeal of
those barbarians obeyed the prevailing impulsion ; the
cities of Egypt were filled with bishops, and the deserts
of Thebais swarmed with hermits.'* ὙΠῸ date here
assigned for the spread of Christianity in the country is
borne out by the Life of S. Pachomius (8. 1), which
puts the repentance of the nations as coming to pass
after the persecutions of Diocletian and Maximin.
Pachomius, the founder of organised monastie life, born

Egypt is the stronghold of ' non-Western' texts.
32. Coptic

1 The Sinai leaves are published in Mrs. Lewis's Cat of
Syriac MSS, App. pp. 118-120. They exactly agree în size and
character with the leaves of Land's Petropolitanus recentior.

2 Bishop of Alexandria, 189-233 A.D.

8 Bury's Οὐδόση, 26o, following Eutychius (Axza/. 1333) and
Orig. Cels. 1757.

5006

TEXT AND VERSIONS

in 285, was converted early in the fourth century, and
established the Tabennitic monastery in Upper Egypt
in 322. Such a community could not long be without
the Scriptures in the vernacular, so that the earliest
version in Egyptian cannot be later than the first quarter
of the fourth century.

There is very little reason for placing it much earlier.
The notices in Fus. 274 641 of the 'Egyptian’ Alex
andrians who suffered during the Decian persecution
contain nothing to indicate that they formed a separate
community, with a translated Bible and Liturgy. The
Life of S. Antony is generally quoted as implying the
existence of a Coptic version in the third century ; but
it is not easy to say how much may be built upon the
details of the early part of Antony's career, as related
by his biographer.! The evidence of the is/s Sophia
also is indecisive as to date. The /islis Sophia is a
Gnostic work of the latter half of the third century,?
which survives in a very ancient Sahidic MS.? Most of
the allusions in it to the Old and New Testaments are
loose and paraphrastic. But several of the Psalms are
quoted ὃν zz22der în full, almost word for word with the
Sahidic version. We cannot, however, certainly infer
from this that Sahidic is the original language of the
book. The Sahidic version must be older than the
Pistîs Sophia as we have it; but the Psalms in question,
which are all put into the mouths of the various apostles
to illustrate the Gnostic teaching of Jesus, may have been
added by the Sahidic translator with the view of com-
mending the book to orthodox readers; their strict
fidelity to the biblica] text shows quite a different spirit
from the free invention of the rest of the book,

As many as five or six Coptic dialects have been
distinguished.by modern scholars; but from the point

33. Three of view of textual criticism. the Coptie
versions, Versions fall into three divisions : — the
Sakidic, the Fayyamic, and the Bokairic.
The Sahidic (Sa'idic) is the version of Upper Egypt (in
Arabic ey-Sa'#4) ; it was formerly sometimes called the
Thebaic version. The Fayyamic version@ formerly
called ‘ Bashmuric,' is represented chiefiy by documents
coming from the Fayyîim; to this version belong also
the biblical fragments in the ‘Middle Egyptian’
dialect, as in text they agree with the FayyUmic,
whatever the relation between the dialects may be.
The fragment of a very ancient MS of the Catholic
epp. in the ‘Akhmimic’ dialect must be reckoned
among Sahidic authorities for a similar reason. Some
of the more ancient Sahidic MSS are Grasco-Egyptian
bilinguals, the Greek occupying the page on the left
hand'of the open book.

The version now in ecclesiastica! use among all the
Copts, or Christian Egyptians, is called by scholars
the ‘Bohairic‘' This version was formerly named
“Coptic’ and ‘ Memphitic'; but the latter term is now
known to be inaccurate, whilst ‘Coptic’ is equally
applicable to Sahidic or any other Egyptian dialect.
The term Bohairic comes from the Coptic Grammar of
Athanasius, Bishop of Cos(4%s) in the Thebaid during the
eleventh century. Athanasius recognised three dialects,
viz., 'Cairene Coptic, which is also that of Upper

1 Antony died at an advanced age in 356. The received
date of his birth, viz. 250 A.D., appears îo depend upon the
fact that shortly before his death RE claimed to be τὸς years
old, but such statements from the mouth of illiterate men are
rarely to be trusted. 5, Antony could neither read nor write,
and could not speak Greek. “My book,' he is reported to have
said, ‘my book is the Book of Nature (ἡ φύσις τῶν γεγονότων),
and that is present whenever I wish to read the words of God"
(Evagrius, ap. Migne, 40 1249). The statements in the Life of
S. Antony (88 2 and 3), even if we accept the details of the
story, imply no more than that wo ise/ated sayings of Jesus
were forcibly brought to S. Antony's mind, and upon these he
built his whole theological system. Many illiterate Roman
Catholics, who may have never heard the Gospels except in
Latin, know that Christ said ‘Sell that thou hast and give to
the poor,' and ‘Be not anxious for your life.”

2 See Harnack, TU vii, 294, ; Amélineau, Pistis Sophia,

8 Both Harnack and Amélineav hold that Greek was the
original language of the Pistis Sophia.

5007

TEXT AND VERSIONS

Egypt; Bohairic Coptic, which is named from the
Bohaira ; and Bushmuric Coptic, which is named from
the Bushmîir.'% The Bushmuric dialect had already
died out in the time of Athanasius, and it does not
appear that the Bible had ever been translated into it.
The ‘ Bohaira” (f.e., ‘ Lake’) is not, as is sometimes
stated, the Arabic for Lower Egypt (e/- Wajk e/-Bakri)
or for the Egyptian sea-coast; it is a district near
Alexandria between Lake Marcotis and the W. arm of
the Nile.? ‘The Bohairic version is therefore almost
certainly of Alexandrian origin. The dialect in which
it is written became, later, the ecclesiastica) language
of Cairo; but this change occurred only after Coptic
had ceased to be«the speech of the people in Lower
Egypt, and it was probably caused by the removal of
the Coptic patriarch from Alexandria to Cairo.

The earliest surviving codices of the Bohairic NT of
which the date is known with certainty are of the
twelfth century, though some fragments are probably as
early as the ninth.* ‘They are often accompanied by an
Arabic translation ; but there is no instance of a Graco-
Bohairic MS. ΑἹΙ appear to present the same type of
text, the chief variation being the presence or absence
of certain interpolations derived from the great vulgates
of the Fast—r.e., the ‘Antiochian’ Greek text and the
Peshitta.*

The Bohairic version was known in Europe for a
considerable period before any form of the Sahidic. It
was long assumed to have been the

Sii oi, earliest version of the NT in any
mairie and. Egyprian dialect, and this opinion is stil

maintained—e.g., by A. C. Headlam
in the fourth edition of Scrivener's ‘Introduction.’ Many
scholars, however, consider the Bohairic to be an
altogether later recension. The most thoroughgoing
exponent of this view is Guidi, whose argument in the
Nachrichten von der Κ΄. Ges. der Wissenschaften,
Géttingen, 1889, pp. 49-52, is reproduced in the
following paragraphs.

Guidi considers that the use of the various Coptic
dialects as literary languages was in great part a re-
action against the foreign Greek element. The true
Egyptians hated foreigners and Alexandrians, and the
diffusion of Christianity would be favoured rather than
retarded by the dislike of the Imperial Roman authority
which was persecuting it. We may add that this
dislike did not cease when the Empire became
Christian When the Emperors were Arian, Egypt
was Orthodox; when the Emperors became Orthodox,
Egypt became Monophysite.

The foreign and Greek element was comparatively
strong in Lower and Middle Egypt; but in Upper
Egypt it was weaker, and so the native Egyptian
characteristics made their presence felt more quickly
there in any new movement. Hence it is that the first
beginnings of Coptic literature are found in Upper
Egypt (where also, for analogous reasons, Coptic
maintained itself as a living language longer than in the
Delta). ‘These early products of Egyptian Christianity,
whether originals or translations, contain a purely
Egyptian element. Such, for example, are the Pists
Sophia, the Bruce papyrus, and other Gnostic writings,
all of which show traces of the ancient beliefs and

1 The original Arabic text is given by Quatremère,
Récherches, 21. A later form of Athanasius' statement is
given by Stem, 2.7 Ag. Sprache, 1623 (2878), în which the
Bohairic is claimed as the Cairene dialect, and the Sahidic is
said not to be current N. of Minieh. £7-Bxs4727, not Pasknfr
is the Arabic name of a district near Damietta (Vakat 1634).

2 The modern Ze42ra (Yakît 1 514).

3 In Lord Crawford's Catena (Parham MS τοῦ), edited by
Lagarde, the exposition is translated from Greek writers; but
the Gospel text is that of che Bohairic version. This MS is
dated 888 Aa.D. A facsimile is given in Kenyon's /ufroduction.

4 See the passages in square brackets in Lagarde, Die Vier
Evangelien arabisch (1864), anà the critical notes which belong
to them.

5 Diocletian's action in Egypt was not directed against the
Cheistians alone (cp Gibbon, 1 363-365).

5008

TEXT AND VERSIONS

superstitions of heathen Egypt. The school of thought
represented by these writings is quite out of touch with
the orthodox Christianity of the Greek church οὗ
Alexandria, and woukl not long be content to have the
Scriptures only in Greek. Thus the Sahidic version is
probably of considerable antiquity; it can be traced
back, as we have seen, to the early part of the fourth
century.

To allow the national Coptic element to come to the
front in Lower Egypt, where it was less powerful than
in Upper Egypt and where the centre of government
and of the church was situated, required a longer interval
of time. In the end, however, 1 was remarkably
helped by the Monophysite heresy. It is well known
that after the death of the Emperor Anastasius (518 A.D.)
and the repression of the heresy in Syria, Egypt became
the true home of Monophysitism. From that time
Egyptian Christianity detached itself more and more
from Byzantine Christianity and the Greek church, and
under these changed conditions there grew up a new
Coptic literature written in Bohairic (the Coptic dialect

spoken in the neighbourhood of Alexandria), comprising |

translations of the Bible from the Greek and of many
other writings. It was probably at the same period that
popular Egyptian legends, such as the death of Joseph,
were adapted into Bohairic from the Sahidic.!

Coptic is generally supposed to have become a
literary language somewhat earlier; but that is not
supported by historical evidence, nor can it be proved
from the documents we possess. These show us that
down to the sixth or the seventh century the official
written language of Egypt was Greek. With this
accords the fact that the most ancient writings connected
with Egyptian Christianity—the original of the Bruce
papyrus, the Life of 8, Macarius, the Rules of 8.
Pachomius, etc. —were all in Greek. Antony did not
know Greek; yet the Coptic letters attributed to him
and published by Mingarelli (pp. 198, 201) are trans-
lated from the Greek.*

An additional reason for assigning a late date to the
Bohairic version and literature is the rapid decay both
of the Coptic language and of Christianity in Lower
Egypt after the Arab invasion. By the tenth century
Coptic was almost as dead a language in the Delta as
Greek (see Schwartze, Cost Gram. το), though as
late as the time of Makrizi, in the fifteenth century, the
Sahidic dialect was still used in Upper Egypt.
entire absence of native exegetical literature is also in-
consistent with the assumed antiquity of the Bohairic.
In Lagarde's Cafera more than thirty ‘Fathers’ are
quoted-—all Greek. Can one imagine (to take a
parallel from another Eastern church) a Syrizc Catena
on the Gospels without one extract from Ephraim or
Philoxenus or Jacob of Serlig?

‘The three chief forms of the Egyptian NT—the
Sahidic, the Fayyùmic, and the Bohairic, are not

independent. A comparison of the

36. TRPSO passages where all three forms are extant

comoared, Drings to light three peculiarities of the
pared. Bohairie :

1. Greater faithfulness to the Greek, The Bohairic
contains a representation of nearly all the particles of
the original, which are often omitted by the other
Egyptian versions; it also often reverts to the Greek
order of the words.

a. A different choice of Greek words to be transliter-
ated. The Bohairic is especialiy distinguished by
vernacular renderings for abstract’ substantives.
Perhaps words such as πίστις, χάρις, σοφία, ἐξουσία,
had acquired a heretical and ‘ Gnostic' signification,

3. Where the Bohairic follows a diferent Greek
reading from the others it ὃς almost always a specifically
‘Alexandrian’ reading. The textual character of the
Bohairic thus fits in with the date assigned to it by

1 See F. Robinson, Captic Agoe. Gosfels, T. and 5. 42, p. xvi
2 Guidi, 51.

5009

The |

TEXT AND VERSIONS

Guidi. Its chief allies are Cod. Regius {L) of the
Gospels, a MS probably written in Egypt in the cighth
century, and among the Fathers not so much Clement
and Origen as Cyril of Alexandria.

In ali this a close parallel is afforded by the Harclean
Syriac, itself the work of a Monophysite living ‘near
Alexandria at the beginning of the seventh century.
The great difference between the general type of Greek
text represented by the Bohairic and by the Harclean is
due rather to the difference of their ancestry than to
their final revision,

The Fayyamic version occupies a very peculiar
position between the Sahidic and the Bohairic. In the
Pauline epistles, indeed, the Bohairic separates itself so
much from the other two as practically to become an
! independent version; but in the Gospels the Fayytmic
* stands much nearer the Bohairic. The general turn of
the sentences and the Egyptian vocabulary are the same
in both versions, though the Fayyùmic is careless of the
, connecting particles of the Greek, which here as else-
| where have been industriously supplied in the Bohairic,
| In essentials, therefore, the official Bohairic recension

preserves in the Gospels an Egyptian text somewhat

older than itself. Unfortunately, the date of the
| Fayyùmic version is unknown, and its relation to the
Sahidic obscure.!

The *Antiochian’ Greek text seems never to have
influenced Egypt—at least not before the tenth century.
Freedom from specifically Antiochian readings is a
characteristic of ali forms of the Egyptian NT. The
relation of the Egyptian versions to the ‘ Western” text
is more complicated. All Egyptian texts are pre-
dominantly non- Western; but a few very striking
* Western' readings and interpolations are found in the
Sahidic,? yet not as a rule those which were most widely
spread in later texts.3 In Acts also, there is in the
Sahidic a decided ' Western' element; but it is by no
means so large as that, for instance, of the margin of
the Harclean Syriac. Blass (p. 29) puts the Sahidic
‘among the numerous ‘mixed ' texts of Acts, and it seems
probable that it had this character from the beginning.

Even more interest attaches to the many readings
where the Sahidic supports N or B, or both, where these
great MSS stand almost alone.t Here again, the
version must faithfully have preserved its original form,
as these readings are usually found also in the fragments
of the Greeco-Sahidic bilinguals.® We learn, therefore,
from the evidence of the Sahidic version that a text
similar in essentials to that of N and B, though slightly
more ‘Western’ in character, was current in Egypt
about the beginning of the fourth century.

The full Greek canon is represented both in the
Sahidic and the Bohairic; but the Apocalypse seems to
have been regarded as non-canonical, and is never
bound up in the MSS with the rest of the NT. Acts is
placed γεν the Catholic epistles. Im the Pauline epistles,
Hebrews follows 2 Thess, in Bohairic MSS; but in the
Sahidic and the Fayyimic it follows 2 Cor.

1 A curious point of contact between Fayyîmic and Bohairic
MSS is that the same contractions for ‘Lord' and ‘God’ are
found in boch, whilst in Sahidic che words are always written out
in full.

2 Prominent among them is the interpolation about the great
stone în Lk, 23 53, with which is connected the longer form of
Lk. 2412. The only non-Egyplian evidence for this reading îs

LA
3 ἄς ‘ Nineue' for the name of the rich man în Lk. 1619;

comp. ‘ille Fineus dives’ in de Pasch. Comp. 265, and ‘ Finees

inmisericordis diuitis'in Prisci//arn, 91.

| 4 F.g., Μὲ 814 (om. ᾿[ωάννης}; Mt 68 (add. è θεός).

5 See, e.g., Lk. 1024 28 344 36 Jn. 8 57, în the fragments pub.
lished by Amélineau (Ν᾽ δὲ Αι τῆν. 84). 1ἴ should be noticed that
Graeco-Sahidic bilinguais are generally written with two columns
on a page, the Greek occupying the whole of the we7so and the
Sahidic the recto, so that of the four columns visible at the open
page, the two on the left are Greek, and the two on the right are
Egyptian. The Greek and the Sahidic agree column for
column, but not line for line, and the two sides of the codex now
| and then support different readings--e.g:, în Jn. 9.33, the Sahidic
! side of T reads è τοῦ ϑεοῦ with ND against its own Greek.

soro

TEXT AND VERSIONS

In an article of this kind it is almost impossible to indicate
the printed texts of the NT in the various Egyptian dialects,
which (apart from early edicions, now antiquattd) lie scattered
in periodicals such as the Zeitschri/t fit Aegyptische Sprache.
Complete lists of editions and MSS will be fina in Scrivener
(th ed. {by A, C. Headiam]), 2.106-123, 127-136, 140-144. For
the official Bohairic by far the best edition is the Oxford text
edited with translation and critical apparatus by G. H[orner],
vol. i. £ Gospels, 1898 ; vol, iii, Acts and Epistles (shortly).

The first mention of an Armenian church dates from
the episcopate of Dionysius of Alexandria (248-263),

jan Concerning whom Eusebius relates that

#6. Armeni #1 he wrote a letter to the Armenians,

" and that their bishop was named
Meruzanes, Gelzer (Die Anfinge der armenischen
A'irche} believes that this communiiy lived in Azerbaijan ;
but in any case there can be little doubt that it was
evangelised by Syriac-speaking missionaries, and that
its ecclesiastical language was Syriac. An Armenian
version does not appear till much later. Tradition
ascribes the work to Isaac and Mesrob {/. 400); but, as
Armitage Robinson remarks, the accounts ‘combine a
certain conflict of assertion with a suspicious family
likeness' (Ewthaliana 72). Headds: ‘One fact which
seems to stand out distinctly after the perusal of these
puzzling statements is-that the earliest attempts at trans-
lating the Scriptures into Armenian were based on Syriac
codices,' and goes on to show (pp. 76-91} that there
are stili unmistakabie traces of the primitive renderings
from the Syriac in the existing Armenian Vulgate. The
Syriac text which was employed was not the Peshitta
but the Old Syriac, both in the Gospels and in the
Epistles. About the middle of the fifth century thìs
primitive version was thoroughly revised from the Greek,
so that it is only here and there that we can recognise
the original groundwork. The Greek text by which the
revision was made was apparently not the Antiochian,
but one akin to BN ; the readings of the Armenian which
are attested neither by Syr.vt nor by BN are very few
and may have come from chance corruption in later
times.!

The only critical edition of the Armenian version is
that of Zohrab (ΝΎ, Venice, 1789). A useful abstract
of the native traditions about the Armenian version, with
lists of some ancient MSS, is to be found in F. C. Cony-
beare's article in Scrivener (4th ed. 2 148-154).

Old Armenian MSS of the Gospels usually omit [Mk.] 16 9-20
altogether; those which retain the verses make a break at 2. 8,
givine the colophon Gospel of Mar# both after 168 and after 16 20,

. C. Conybeare (ExSositor, 1893, pp. 242 7°), however, dis.
covered at Etchmiadzin a codex of the Armenian Sospels, written
in 989 a.D., which contains the disputed verses with the rubric
Ariston Eritzu (‘Of the Presbyter Aristion'), A photograph
of the page containing Mk. 168 /Z is given in Swete's Sf Mark,
p. civ. The inference is that the scribe of the MS, or of its
archetype, had access to a tradition that Aristion, the friend of
Papias mentioned in Euseh. ΑΓΕ 339, was the man who added
the verses at the end of the second Gospel. This would seem
to be some fifty years too early, if other indications are to be
trusted. In any case, the readings of the codex should be pub-
lished in fu)l, asalone among Old Armenian MSS it contains the
story of the Woman taken in Adultery, but in a form quite
different from any other authority (Conybeare in ZaZositor,
Dec. 1895).

The version in Ge'ez, the classical language of the

TEXT AND VERSIONS
Abyssinians, is usually cited as the ‘ Athiopic.'

87. Ethiopic
version.

Abys-
sinian Christianity is said to go back into
the fourth century; but the existing
version is not older than the fifth or the
sixth century. The translation was from the Greek;
but it has been proved by Guidi (Ze Traduzioni degli
Evangelii in Arabo e în Etiopico, Rome, 1888) that
many of the existing MSS, which are all very late,
represent later revisions made from the medieval Arabic
text current in Alexandria.!

A few traces survive of a yet older Ethiopic version
of the Gospels, made from the Syriac, as in the case of
the Armenian version. ‘The Aramaic colouring of the
vocabulary of the Ethiopic NT has been pointed out by
Gildemeister (‘Tischendorfs ΔΤ 3895 note), and the
text now and again agrees with Syr.vt against almost
all other authorities, though it usually follows the Greek
or the Arabic. Thus in ΜΚ. 1050 it reads ἐπιβαλών
for ἀποβαλών, supported only by cod. 565 and by Ss.
{ποῖ by the Diatessaron).

The Ethiopic NT was printed at Rome in 1548-9;
this edition was repeated in Walton's Polyglott, and
has been carefully rendered into Latin {C. A. Bode,
Brunswick, 1753). Another edition was prepared by
"T. Pell Platt for the British and Foreign Bible Society
in 1830.

The remaining versions of the NT are of much less
importance for the text. ‘The Gothic version dates from

:, the middle of the fourth century. It is the
38. Gothie vork of Ulphilas (Wx/f/2, ' Little Wolf"),

“ the apostle of the Goths, and so is the
earliest surviving literature in any Teutonic language.
Ulphilas worked among the Goths of the Danubian
Provinces; but the surviving documents all appear to
belong to N. Italy and the age of the Ostrogoths or
even of the Lombard conquest. Of the N'T we have
the Gospels and Pauline epistles (except Hebrews}, but
with many gaps, well edited from MSS of about the
sixth century.

The Gothic, unlike the Armenian and the Ethiopic, has hardly
‘any link of connection with the great ante-Nicene versions and
so for critical purposes is of less value. For the influence of the
Gothic on some late Old Latin texts see above, $ 16. The MS of
Romans cite as gue (or g%e/42) is a Latino-Gothic bilingual ;
the Latin appears to be entirely dependent on the Gothic text.
Here and there the Gothic MSS seem to have taken over O.
Latin readings (e.g., Lk. 13), in the same way that the Latin
cod. f has been influenced by the Gothic.

The Georgian (or Zberian) version shows signs of having been
originally made from the Old Syriac, like its sister the Armenian

(δ. C. Conybeare in Amen. Journ. of Theology

39. Other 1683 7). The S/avoric version, of the ninth

versions, century, is made from the Greek and is too late to

represent any ancient type of text not otherwise

preserved. Arabic versions from the Syriac and the Greek can

he traced back to the eighth and the ninth century ; but the

current Arabic is essentialiy a translation of the Bohairic Coptic,

interpolated from the Greek and Syriac Vulgates. Its sole

claim to our attention here is that Guidi has recognised it as the
source from which the far earlier Ethiopic has been corrupted.

Just as in the East late versions were made from the Greek and
Syriac Vulgates, so in the West there are various translations into
Anglo-Saxon, Frankish, etc., from the Latin Vulgate, All these
secondary translations contribute nothing for the criticism of the
| original text of the NT because the Greek, Latin, and Syriac
| Vulgates can be accurately constructed from earlier authorities.

II, OLD TESTAMENT

A. THE MASSORETIC TEXT

All MSS of the Hebrew OT are copies, more or less
full and accurate, of a single critica edition commonly
called «the Massoretic Text." This

10. Massoretie edition, like other critical works, con-
d tains a Texi, a Punetuation, and Notes.
*Massora’ means tradition, and the unknown editors only
profess to give the traditional text, as it was traditionally
recited in the synagogue, The date of the Massoretic
edition must be placed somewhere between the fifth and

1 E.g., in Mt.17-8 the Armenian has dodé with BN, against
the Antiochian Greek text on the one hand, and all forms of the
Syriac on the other.

8011

the eighth century of our era. Jerome knew nothing of
any system of vocalisation in Hebrew MSS ; the present
system must have been introduced later than the be-
ginning of the fifth century ; an inferior limit is set by
the existence of Massoretic codices as old as the ninth
century.? (On the Samaritan text of the Pentateuch
see $ 45.)

1 Possibly a reminiscence of this revision has been preserved
in the Enconziuzi of Abba Salama published by Ludolfin 169r
Commentarius, p. 295. .

2 Systems of vocalisation similar in principle are now used for
Syriac and classical Arabic. ΑἹἹ three systems must have a
common origin, and may have been indirectly a result of the
Mohammedan conquest and the consequent spread of the Arabic
language in a vulgarised form. Before the seventh century

5012

TEXT AND VERSIONS

1. The 7exf of the Massoretic edition consists of the
consonants of the Hebrew (cp WRITING, $ 7), which
are, however, divided into words.

According to the Jewish view this alone is ‘Scripture,’ and în
theory it is complete by itself without farther punctuation or
vocalisation. The extant MSS, none of which are older than
the ninth century, give the consonantal text adopted by the
Mossoretes with great fidelity ; throughout the forty-eight
chapters of Ezekiel only sixteen real variations occur between a
modern edition based ultimately on Western MSS and the
‘Codex Babylonicus Petropolitanus’ (916 a.D.), a newly dis
covered MS of wholly Eastern ancestry. Yet, as will be shown
later, this consonantal text is frequently corrupt, so that the
agreement of our MSS only enables us to reconstruct their
common exemplar and affords no proof whatever that this
exemplar faithfully represented the lost original as it left the
authors hands.

The leather rolls used in the synagogue contain no vocalisa-
tion; but their full agreement with the pointed codices proves
that they also are only transcripts of the official Massoretic text.

2. The Massoretic Purncfuation serves what we are
accustomed to consider the double purpose of vocalisa-
41. Vowel: tion and accentuation. Each word is

- Yowels. Provided with ‘points’ and one or more

‘accents, the points indicating the vowels that are to be
supplied to each letter, whilst the accents indicate the
inflections of the voice, telling the reader what pause, if
any, is to be made on the word, and thus forming a
complete system of punctuation in the English sense of
the term. These additional signs also are given with
considerable accuracy în the MSS, though there is a
certain amount of variation in the case of the subordinate
accents.

The value of the whole system as a kind of gram-
matical commentary on the Hebrew Scriptures can hardly
be over-estimated. So well is the vocalisation carried
out, that there are very few places where the text can be
emended by altering the points and leaving the con-
sonants as they stand. In fact, the Massoretic pointing
may even be used as a means of discovering errors in
the text. ‘The Massoretes did not make a critical
revision; they only supplied traditional vowels to the
traditional consonantal text; where the consonantal
text was corrupt, really suitable vowels could not be
placed. As a general rule, therefore, anomalous point-
ing in our Hebrew text is a sign that the consonants are
wrong.! The chief exceptions are to be found în places
where theological or national prejuduce appears to have
influenced the punctuation. Even there, however, the
false readings are hardly ever novelties; they are the
perpetuation of old and popular errors.?

3. In addition to text and punctuation the Mas-
soretic edition includes critical Nofes, which occupy

the margins of our copies. Some of these
42. Notes. notes draw attention to anomalies of vocali»
sation, or what might seem to be such, thereby fulfilling
the same purpose that we express by putting sic after a
word; others form part of a vast system of ‘marginal
references ' and computations intended to preserve the
absolute integrity of the Massoretic standard. For
textual criticism, however, the most interesting of these
notes deal with passages where the Massoretes against
their usual custom have deserted the reading of the text.
Not that even in such cases they have dared to change
the written Word (A%#4754); the consonantal text re-

other systems of partial vocalisation, such as the introduction of
the ‘matres lectionis’ and in Syriac the diacritical point, had
been employed în Semitic writing where a purely consonantal
alphaber had been found too ambiguous.

Mustrations of this statement will be found, e.g., in Dt, 8321
1 8,160 1s.96(7), Ezek. 2812 Mi. 38.

2 ὧν the Hebrew oath was by the lifè of the person sworn
by {eg., Gen. 4215 £ Amos 814); but in swearing by the true
Cod if is alteredinto a predication of His Being. Hence the
impossible mixed formula ' As the Lord liveth, and by the life of
thy soul' (1 Sam. 20 3, etc.). But this mixed form is as old as
the Targum. For other instances, see col. 5029.

3 Some of these lists and calculations form separate works,
such as the tract Oc4/2, and are no doubt in part older rhan the
written vowel-points and the Massoretic edition. For a full
description of the methods used in the Massoretic Notes see
Welthausen-Bleek, Zin/esfuag, $ 277.

160 5013

᾿

TEXT AND VERSIONS

mains unaltered, but the vowels supplied to it are
those of the emended consonantal text, which appears
only on the margin, followed by the word 47% ('to be
read')

A certain number of these alterations refer to the
spelling or pronunciation of grammatical forms, of which
the A##ki5k has often preserved the older type, especially
in the Aramaic portions of Daniel and Ezra. But
where it is a question of real variation of reading there
can be no doubt that the 44/54 was simply supposed
to be corrupt, and the Αἰ δγξ was a more or less successful
conjectural emendation. Thus we come to the very
important conclusion that the Massoretic text itself is,
in parts at least, ultimately based on a single faulty MS;
when we find in Ezek. 4816 ‘five five hundred' in the
text, not correcied, but with a marginal note to read
‘ five’ only once, we cannot but conclude that here at
any rate the editors had been reduced to following a
single MS in which ‘five’ had been written twice over
by mistake.!

Few scholars will suppose that the Αὐὐγᾷ readings
cover all the corrupt passages in the Hebrew text.
They are simply the passages where the mistake was
most patent and the remedy nearest at hand. It is
only likely that we should find corruptions în the ancient
literature of the Jews, literature written in a dead
language and relating to vanished national and social
conditions, circulating among a people whose seats of
learning were again and again broken up by political
misfortunes (see further, $ 66).

But in whatever condition the text underlying the Mas-
soretic edition may be, criticism has to start from it.
The direct evidence takes us no farther, and the only
quarter from which we can hope for an improvement
of the Hebrew text (apart from conjectural emendation)
is the study of the ancient versions. From these we
may at least learn something of the history of the text
back to the second or the third century B.C.

Since the above was written some fragments of
papyrus, containing the ten commandments, followed
by the Sk27a' (Dt. 647) in Hebrew, have been edited
by S. A. Cook in PSZA (Jan. 1903). The appear-
ance of the papyrus and the very remarkable hand-
writing, which presents striking resemblances with the
Palmyrene character, point to a date not later than the
second century A.D. The text agrees in several instances
with the Septuagint against MT. It is possible, there-
fore, that further discoveries may one day enable us

directly to control the Massoretic tradition.
The three chief pointed editions of the Hebrew text are the
Bomberg Folio, published in Venice 1525-6, the Mantua Quarto
with Norzi's commentary 1742-4, and the octavo
43. Editions. edition of Van der Hooght, 1705. The last is
the parent of the ordinary reprints. The Bom-
berg edition is the work of Rabbi Jacob ben Hayyim, and
contains, besides Rabbinical commentaries and the Targums, a
vast collection of Massoretic material there brought together for
the first time. Of modern editions that of Baer-Delitzsch is to
be noticed for its correctness and the fulness of its Massoretic
notes. C. D. Ginsburg also may be mentioned; his Massora
(ον nearly completed) will contain the entire apparatus, with
indices.

In addition to canonical Scripture there was a con-
siderable body of pre-Christian Hebrew literature ; but
this has altogether perished, or is only known by trans
lations into Greek, etc. Such for instance is the First
Book of the Maccabees, the Book of Enoch, and
others (see APOCRYPHA, APOCALYPTIC),

A fragment of this literature in the original Hebrew was
brought to light in 1896 by the discovery of part of a MS of the
Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach (w3'b 5), commonly called

Ecclesiasticus.® Yragments of other MSS have been discovered
in the following years. It is still disputed to what extent these
MSS preserve the original text, as they seem to have been
corrected in places to agree with the Syriac and with the Greek,

1 In any given variation ît is of course quite likely that the
copies used by the Massoretes had not fallen into the error for
the first time, but were slavishly repeating the originally
accidental error of a single MS.

2 See ECCLESIASTICUS, 84; SirAcH.

5014

TEXT AND VERSIONS

whilst in other places the newly-recovered Hebrew differs widely
from both versions. See EccLeSIASTICUS, $ 4 f, and especiali
Straca. The extensive variations between the Hebrew MS
and the ancient Greek and Syriac versions show the dangers to
which Hebrew works were exposed in transmission unless artà®
ficially preserved by rules such as those observed by the Mas:
soretes; they also illustrate the freedom used by the ancients
when translating profane literature.

B. VERSIONS

The age and character of the versions of the OT are
so different that it may be well to prefix a list of them,
44. gp 2rranged roughly în chronological order,
si ne, !° the more detailed examination which
versions: follows τος

1. The Samaritan (Heb.) Pentateuch ($ 45) and the
Samaritan {Aram.) Targum {SAMARITANS, $ 5), the
origin of which goes back toa 400 B.C.

2, The ancient Gree& version, commonly called the
Septuagint (88 46/. 51-55). Parts ofit date from the third
century R.C.; but other portions are not so ancient, and
the whole has been much revised and altered in later
times. This is the OT of the Greek church. There
are valuable subsidiary translations of the Septuagint
into Lazin (88 56-58), Copric (8 63), Ethiopic (8 64), and
Armenian ($ 64), from the second to the seventh century
A.D.), and at a later period into Syrtac ($61£), Arabic,
Gothic, etc. (8 64).

3. The Targums, paraphrases of the Hebrew OT
in the various dialects of Jewish Aramaic for, use in
the synagogue. Their origin goes back to before the
Christian Era ; but their extant form was fixed at a much
later period (8 65).

4. Later Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures,
made during the second century A.D. by Jews or Jewish-
Christians named Agus/a (8 46), Symmachus ($ 47), and
Theodotion (8 48). ‘

s. The Syriac version, commonly called the Peskiffà,
a translation from the Hebrew, of unknown age but
certainly earlier than the fourth century Α. Ὁ, ($ 60),

6. The new Zafir version made by Jerome at the
beginning of the fifth century A.D., now known as the
Vuigate ($ 54).

It will be practically convenient to describe these
versions of the OT under the languages in which they
are found, irrespective of the character of the text.

The ‘Samaritan Pentateuch' is not a version; it is
the Hebrew text of the ‘five books of Moses' as pre-
served by the Samaritan community.

The Samaritans were a mixed race settled in the country
round Samaria. ‘They had been willing to join the Jews in

è rebuilding the temple after the return; but
46. Samaritan when the Jews refused their help they became
Pentateuch, bi:terly hostile, and Samaria formed a perma-
nent asylum for those who left or were driven
out by their co-religionists in Jerusalem. About 333 B.c. one of
these refugees, a certain Mazasseh, grandson of he high priest
Eliashib (Neh. 1823-31; Jos. 4x4 xi. 78), obtained leave from
Darius Codomannus to set up a temple on Mt, Gerizim, and it
is highly probable that along with the temple ritual he brought
with him the then canonical Jewish Scriptures—-.e., the Book
of the Law in Hebrew! This alone forms the Seriptures of the
Samaritans, Itis written, like all their books, in the ‘ Samaritan *
character, which is the direct descendant of the old Hebrew
writing. The dialect spoken by the Samaritans was a variety
of western Aramaic (see ARAMAIC, $ 8; SAMARITANS, ἃ 54),
into which at some period was made a translation of the Penta-
teuch known as the Samaritan Targum (SAMARITANS, $ 54};
there is also found in Samaritan MSS an Arabic translation
made about the eleventh century a.p., at a time when the
Samaritans, like the rest of the peoples of Syria, had adopted
the Arabic language. See SAMARITANS.

The Samaritan Pentateuch had from the beginning

certain intentional adaptations to fit it to the new wor-

1 Itis not unlikely that the schism of Manasseh is the cause
of the well-known various reading in Judg. 1830, where the

name Moses (myp) has been changed into Manasseh (pp) by
the insertion of a letter above the line. By this thoroughly
rabbinic device a parallel between the earlier and the later
northern schism was indicated, yet without entirely falsifying
the text.‘ Manasseh’ is in the Κα τε, the Targum, the Peshitta,
and the later texts of & ; but the earlier text of & had ‘ Moses,”
wbich is still read by the Lyons Octateuch and some Greek Μ58.

5015

TEXT AND VERSIONS

ship, as the command to build an altar on Mt. Gerizim
inserted after Ex. 2017, and the interchange of Ebal and
Gerizim in Dt, 274. Characteristic also of the Samaritan
Pentateuch are certain long interpolations from parallel
or semi-parallet passages {e.g., at Ex. 2019 7 from
Deut. 18, and in Nu. 20 7 from Deut, 1-8), and in some
places anthropomorphic expressions are paraphrased,
much as in the Targums.! On the other hand it has,
presumably, escaped the corruptions which have befallen
the purely Jewish line of transmission since the fourth
century B.C., whence now and then it agrees with the
Septuagint in preserving words and letters which have
dropped out of the Massoretic text.? There is nothing,
however, to show that the roll or rolls carried off by
Manasseh contained a recension in any way superior to
those then current in Jerusalem ; in fact, the Samaritan
shares with all other extant forms of the Pentateuch
some clear palzeographical corruptions, such as ‘ep,
Nu. 233, San, Deut. 3313, an pino, Deut. 3321 (see 8. 66).
‘The main thing, therefore, to be learnt from the
Samaritan recension is that about the year 333 B.C.,
less than a century after Ezra, less than a century after
the Torah in its present form had become once for all
the Law-book of the Jewish church, the text of the
Pentateuch was read substantially as we read it now.
The Samaritan Pentateuch and Targum were first printed by
. Morinus in the Paris Polyglott (1632) from a MS brought to
arope by Pietro de la Valle. This was repeated in Walton's
Polyglott (1657), and the Hebrew text separately printed in 1750.

Bagster's Polyglott contains a collation of this edition with the
ordinary printed Hebrew. Cp SAMARITANS, ὃ 54.

I. GREEK

Earliest among the versions properly so-called, per-
haps the earliest translation of any considerable body of
int, literature into a totally different lan
46. Septuagint : guage, is the ancient Greek version
origin. commonly known as the Septuagint.
According to the constant tradition of the Alexandrian
Jews the Law was translated into Greek in the reign of
Ptolemy Philadelphus (284-247 B.C.) at the instigation
and under the patronage of Demetrius Phalareus the
librarian of the Alexandrian Library. One of the two
authors from whom we gather this is Aristobulus of
Alexandria, a Jewish philosopher of the second century
B.C.; the other is a Jewish writer of the Ptolemaie period
who composed under the name of Aristeas, a courtier of
Philadelphus, a fictitious account of the origin of the
version. Aristobulus (ap. Clem.Alex. Strom.1342 and
Kus. Praep. £v.96 1812) maintained that Pythagoras
and Plato derived their philosophy from Moses, whilst
the object of the pseudo-Aristeas ( HISTORICAL LITERA-
TURE, $ 19, vi.) appears to have been to represent the
Greek version of the Law as having been undertaken
with the express approval of the high-priestly circles in
Jerusalem. These authors had no object in asserting
that the version had been made about 280 3.0. under
distinguished heathen patronage-—such a representation
must have stood in their way ; we may therefore assume
that it was a historical fact of which they were obliged
to take account. The name Sestuagint comes from
the story given by pseudo - Aristeas, and. variously
embellished by later writers, that the translation was
made by seventy men (or seventy-two, six from each
tribe), who all agreed în their renderings.

It will be noticed that these stories refer exclusively to the
Pentateuch, to which alone the name Septuagint (LXX) properly
belongs. But the whole Greek OT is now comprehended under
this term, by a convenient if unhistorical usage, which goes back
to the time of Origen.

The other books of the OT had an even less official
origin than the translation of the Law. They seem to
have been turned into Greek by different hands at
various times from the middle of the third century B.C.

1 Ἐκ, Nu.234,

2 Elg., Gen. 48 Deut. 89 35. ᾿

3 Demetrius Phalereus was exiled by Philadelphus early in
his reign; hence we cannot place the translation of the Law
much later than 280,

5016

TEXT AND VERSIONS

down to the Christian Era, or even later. There is
evidence for believing that Philo the Jew (about 30 B.c.-
that o A.D.) was acquainted with all the
47. Citations. jr ἜΗΝ Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song
of Solomon, and Daniel! (cp CANON, 8 so), Ata still
earlier date (132 5.0.} the translator of Ecclesiasticus
speaks of ‘the Law and the Prophets and the rest of the
Books' as existing in Greek (cp CANON, 8 39), whilst the
Book of Wisd. 2.12 {? go R.C.) contains a clear adaptation
of the very peculiar rendering of Is. 3 10 in the LXX.

‘The use of the OT hy the writers of the various books
of the ΝΎ suggests many difficult problems, the solutions
of which have by no means all been reached. Some
writers, notably Lk., clearly use LXX. Others, such as
the writer of the first Gospel, often agree with the Hebrew
in places where it differs from LXX.' But it by no means
follows that this latter class are using an independent
Greek version. In the opinion of the present writer
it is far more likely that the quotations in the NT
that do not follow ILXX are derived either directly
from the Hebrew or mediately through the more or less
fixed Aramaic renderir.gs then current in the synagogue.
In the case of the Apocalypse we must remember that
it is in language an adaptation of a previously existing
Jewish Apocalypse in Hebrew or Aramaic {APOCALYPSE,
$ 24 f:), an adaptation so close as to be in parts, at least,
a translation. Such a work naturally shows in its Greek
dress many coincidences with the OT which are quite
independent of LXX; but these coincidences can
scarcely be used with any confidence to postulate in-
dependent Greek versions. After’ the catastrophe
of the Jewish War in 790. A.D. the Semitic-speaking
Christianity of Palestine disappeared, and by the next
generation the church became entirely dependent on the
Greek version of the OT.

In the middle of the second century A.D. we find the
Christian Justin and the Jew Trypho equally using the
LXX and founding theirargumentson its wording, though
here and there (as in Is.312 714) the Jew is no longer
satisfied with the traditional rendering. But after the
Hebrew canon became detinitely closed under 'Akiba and
his school, and a stricter exegesis began to come into
fashion, the LXX failed to satisfy the synagogue, and
three separate attempts were made to supersede it,
These are the new translations of Aquila and of Sym-
machus, and the elaborate revision of the LXX by ‘Theo-
dotion. As these works are of importance mainly for
their influence upon the text ofthe LXX, which continued
to be the translation used by the church, it will be con-
venient to describe them here,

Aquila, a native of Pontus, is said to' have been a
proselyte to Judaism and a disciple of the celebrated

: Rabbi ‘Akiba (d. 135 a_D.). His ver-

48. ΝΜ ΟΣ sion, therefore, may be dated about
the second quarter of the second

century. It is marked by the greatest literalness, an
attempt being made to express every word of the
original, and even to render the derivatives of a Hebrew
root by derivatives from the corresponding Greck root
(Field, 22). ‘This method of translation was not the
result of ignorance, but of a system of exegesis which
was willing to deduce important theological conclusions
from the presence or absence of the smallest particles.?
For the textual critic Aquila's method is extremely con-
venient. It is always easy to retranslate his renderings
into their Hebrew original, and (what is practically
more important) his style is so pronounced that frag-
ments of his work which have been incorporated with
other documents can be easily recognised and eliminated,

1 Ryle, Pilo and Holy Scrifture, 82.

2 “ The Hebrew prefix efk, which marks the definite accusa-
tive, agrees in form with the preposition ‘with Hence, when
Deut. 10.20 says, ‘Thou shalt fear e44-Jehovah thy God, Akiba
interprets, ‘Thou shalt fear {e doctors of the fato along with
Jehovah,” So Aquila, the disciple of Akiba, translates the mark
Ὁ the accusative by σύν (WS, 07/C, 1881, 399% In such Ϊ
cases σύν does not govern a case,

5017

TEXT AND VERSIONS

The version of Aquila was used by Greek-speaking
Jews in the days of Justinian (ox. 146); but no ΜΒ
was known to survive until some fragments of two very
handsome codices were found among the débris from
the Geniza of the Cairo synagogue, which were trans»
ferred in 1897 to the Cambridge University Library.
The fragments of the books of Kings (1 Καὶ, 207-17 2K.
23 12-27) were edited in 1897 by Ε΄. C. Burkitt, those of
Psalms (parts of Pss, 90-103) in 1899 by C. Taylor.!
Small as is the extent covered by these fragments, they
are of great importance for the criticism of Origen's
Hexapla and the Hexaplar readings in our Greck MSS
of the LXX.

A peculiarity of Aquila's version, as revealed by these frag-
ments, is the use of the Old-Hebrew character for the Tetra:

grammaton (Yahwè : sce Namrs, $ 1007) 37794, which is
Jeft thus untranslated. In Ps.10217 we find TEIGON for pu, a
notable transliteration, to be paralleled onîy by TIAÀH in B's
text of Lam. 1182183 52-54 416, itself probably adapted from
Aquila,

Symmachus is said to have been a Samaritan by race
and an Ebionite Christian by religion His version

49. Of Sym- seems to have been published between

cha e times of Irenzeus and of Origen,
mac about 200 A.D. His method was
utterly different from Aquila's, as he aimed at giving a
rendering of the OT in Greek sufficiently idiomatic not
to offend a reader ignorant of Semitic constructions.
‘The Hebrew text which underlies the translation of
Symmachus is equally with that of Aquila almost
identical with the Massoretic. Both Syinmachus and
Aquila appear to have published second editions of
their translations, differing slightly from the first.

Theodotion is mentioned along with Aquila by
Treneeus (er. 323) as a modern translator in contra-

distinction to the ancient Seventy.
50. DE Theo He is said to have been an Ephesian

and a proselyte to Judaism; other
accounts make him, like Symmachus, an -Ebionite.
The date of his work is uncertain; but, according to
Epiphanius, it falls within the reign of Commodus (180-
192 A.D.), The only reason for doubting this and
assigning Theodotion to a consìderably earlier date is
that coincidences with the version of Daniel, which goes
by his name, have. been detected in various early
Christian writings, including some books of the NT.
But these coincidences admit of another explanation
(sce above, $ 47) which has strong claims on our accept-
ance; it would, moreover, be against all analogy that
Christian literary tradition should put a work of this
Kind a century t00 /a/e.

Theodotion's edition differs essentially from those of
Aquila and Symmachus. It was nat, like theirs, an
independent translation, but a revision of the LXX by
the existing Hebrew. He supplied translations of
words and passages of the Hebrew for which there was
no equivalent in the LXX, but retained the additions of
the Greek which are unrepresented in the Massoretic
text. The renderings of the LXX were largely retained
by him, and the construction of the sentences but little
changed. His own renderings followed the general
style of the LXX, his chief peculiarity being a fondness
for transliterating Hebrew words instead of translating.
Theodotion seems to have based his work on a good
text of the LXX, which is often unrepresented in our
existing MSS, and this constitutes for us his chief value.

The revision of the LXX thus made by Theodotion
appears very soon to have influenced the text used by
Christian scholars. Clear traces of Theodotion's render
ings are found in some of the quotations of Clement of
Alexandria (eg, Ped. 110=1s, 4822; Sfrom. 222=
Ezek. 18 4-9). A little later the same remarkable

2 The numeration în each case is that of the Z/ebrew text.

2 See ‘Clemens Alexandrinus und die LXX,' by Dr. Otto
Stahlin (Zeit. e. Jadresb, d. Κ΄. neuen Gymmnastums in Nin»
berg, 1901),

5018

TEXT AND VERSIONS

phenomenon meets us in Tertullian's quotations from
Ezekiel (Tertullian, De Res. Carnis, $ 29= Ezek. 8371-14;
Adv. Iudeos, $ 11= Ezek. 812-96). But the quotations
of Cyprian and other Latin writers from Ezekiel are free
from admixture with Theodotion. On the other hand,
the Church definitely adopted ‘Theodotion's revision of
Daniel in the place of the older and more paraphrastical
translation of the LXX. ‘The history of this important
change is extremely obscure. It may have been helped
on by the popularity of the commentary on Daniel
issued by Hippolytus {about 220 A.D.), and, in any
case, it was accepted even in the Latin-speaking church
at Carthage during the lifetime of Cyprian (250 A.D.}.
One consequence of this change is that all copies of the
genuine LXX text of Daniel have disappeared except
two, and these give the text only as revised by Origen
(ξ 49) We have, therefore, a very imperfect idea οἱ
the range of variation in the ecclesiastical texts or
Daniel current in early times, and it is probable that
the coincidences of language with Theodotion's Daniel
which have been observed in early writers are due to
the use, not of Theodotion's text itself, but of a text of
the LXX, akin to that which Theodotion took as the
basis of his revision.

It has been maintained by Sir H. H., Howorth (5284
23147-159 [1901]), and the theory has great probability,
that the book called Ezra B in our Greek MSS of the
Septuagint, which is practically a literal translation of
the Massoretic text of Ezra-Nehemiah, is a part of the
werk of Theodotion, the original Greek rendering of
the book being that called Ezra A—î.e., ‘1 Esdras' in the
English Apecrypha (see EZRA, THE GREEK, col. 1490).

About the year 240 the celebrated Origen, then living
as an exile from Alexandria at Cesarea in Palestine,

inan'a Prepared an edition of all these versions
δι. Srigent arranged în parallel columns, which
is known as the ZHerap/a. The six
columns contained (1) the Hebrew, (2) a transliteration
of the Hebrew into Greek letters, (3) Aquila, (4) Sym-
machus, (5) the LXX, (6) Theodotion. In the poetical
and prophetical books there were also extracts from a
fifth and a sixth Greek version, both of unknown age and
authorship. ‘The columns were arranged în very short
cela, the extant fragments rarely containing more than
the equivalent of one or two Hebrew words. A smaller
edition, called the Tetrapla, was afterwards prepared by
Origen himself, consisting of the four Greek versions
alone, without the Hebrewcolumns. The Hexapla, how-
ever, was not merely a synoptical table ; it was rather an
attempt to emend the LXX by the Hebrew, like the
edition of Theodotion. In the words of Jerome {P7ef
in Paralipomenon), ' Origen not only brought together
the four translations—writing down their renderings one
against the other, so that the eccentricities of any one of
them can be convicted by the agreement of the threeothers
between themselves ; but, what was more audacious, he
interpolated the LXX from Theodotion's translation,
marking the fresh additions with asterisks, and at the
same time obelising those parts [of the genuine LXX]
which seemed to be superfiuous'—i.e., as having no equi-
valent in the Hebrew.! It shonld be remarked that
though the additions are usually taken from Theodotion
there are many places where the missing wordsare adapted
from Aquila or Symmachus. In principle the Hexaplar
text of the LXX differs from Theodotion's edition only
in two particulars :—(1) the process of revision was
chiefiy confined to supplying what was missing, not to
altering the Greek renderings ; {2} all additions to the
text, of whatever kind, were indicated by critical marks.
But there was no clear indication of actual changes in
the text itself, as distinct from additions or suggested
subtractions.?

1 See also Origen ὧν Mart. 1514 (3671).
2 There probably were a few various readings set in the
margin, some of which are preserved iu the Syro-Hexaplar text

of 4 Kings under the sign Oj(.e, fifthcolumm). Some ofthese OJ
5019

TEXT AND VERSIONS

The last quarter of the third century and the beginning
of the fourth are marked by the appearance of three
editions of the LXX, from one or other
03, Three re- of which practically ail our Greek MSS
*aredescended. ‘Alexandria with Egypt
uses as its Septuagint the work of Hesychius; Con-
stantinople, as far as Antioch, uses the copies of Lucian
the martyr ; the provinces lying between these extremes
use the MSS of Origen's work ‘issued by Eusebius and
Pamphilus' (Jerome, Pref în Paralip. τ " Alexandria et
gyptus in Septvaginta suis Hesychium laudat auc-
torem, Constantinopolis usque Antiochiam Luciani
martyris exemplaria probat ; medize inter has prouincize
Palestinos codices legunt, quos ab Origene elaboratos
Fusebius et Pamphilus uulgauerunt, totusque orbis hac
inter se trifaria uarietate compugnat'). Of these three
editions, the Eusebian is the Hexaplar text of the LXX
with its apparatus of asterisks (*) and obeli (+); the
Hesychian edition is that found in the quotations of
Cyril of Alexandria, and corresponds în character to
Hort's ‘Alexandrian’ text of the NT; the Lucianie
edition, like the 'Antiochian' text of the NT, is
characterised by attempts to smooth down grammatical
harshnesses and by conflate readings, where two pre-
viously existing and mutually exclusive renderings have
been fused into one.! It is this circumstance which
gives the Lucianic LXX considerable value for us, as
internal evidence conclusively shows that one at least of
the elements out of which this composite text was con-
structed was not only ancient, but also quite indepen-
dent of the texts used for the Hexapla.

Such in brief is the history of the LXX ; a few words

must now be said about the existing MSS, and the
relation they bear towards the various
53. patent ancient texts. First of course come the
n four great MSS of the fourth and fifth
centuries, viz, the Vaticanus (B), the Sinaiticus (N), the
Alexandrian {A), and the fragments of Cod. Ephraemi
(C). Besides these there are a multitude of copies from
the sixth century onwards ; but very few of these ever
contained the whole OT, which is usually divided up
into divisions such as the Octateuch, the Prophets, ete.
The Psalter is usually separate.

The original MS of Origen's Hexapla was doubtless
never copied again in full on account of its unwieldy
bulk; but fragments of the Psalms in all five editions,
accompanied by a Catena Patrum, were discovered
in the Ambrosian Library at Milan in 1896 by G.
Mercati. The MS (O 39 τωρ.) is a palimpsest, the
original writing containing in tenth-century minuscules
all the columns of the Hexapla, except the Hebrew in
Hebrew letters. A fragment of Ps.22, containing all
six columns, was found in 1898 among the Cairo Geniza
MSS at Cambridge, and has been published by C.
Taylor together with his fragments of Aquila {see
above, $ 48).

More important for practical purposes than these frag-
ments are the MSS connected with the Eusebian edition
of the LXX. These are of varied character, Some,
like the great codex &, give a text more or less corrected
to the Hexaplar standard, but without the diacritical
marks. Others, such as Codex Sarravianus (G} of the
Octateuch, have the critical signs, whilst others have the

readingsare the last survival of a very pure LXX text ; see below,
66.

As to the amount of change admitted by Origen into the
Hexaplar text, it is probable that he emended the Hebrew
proper names (cp Orig. i /oarn.1 159 in Brooke's edition with
the Hexapla to ha $ 16); but he seems often to have hesitated
to introduce emendations which seriously affected the sense.
Thus in Jer. 16 10 he retained οὔτε ὠφέλησα, οὔτε ὠφέλησέν μὲ
οὐδείς for 55 Ρ} ΝΟῪ ma ΝΌ, instead of substituting ὠφείλησα
and ὠφείλησέ μοι from Theodotion, although he believed the
1.XX to contain a scribal error (Orig. 8225) The scribal error,
however, seems to occur in Philo (De Confis. Ling., 8 12).

1 The original copy of Lucian's recension, written by his own
hand, is said by Theodoret to have been found in che time of
Constantine at Nicomedia walled up in the turret of a house
belonging to Jews.

ΠΣ

TEXT AND VERSIONS

critical signs together with marginal notes containing
renderings from Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, etc.
Foremost among these fuller authorities is the Spro-
Hexaplar version made by Paul of Tella in 616-617
A.» {see$61), one of the most valuable extant works for
thé text of the LXX.

From some of the notes in the Syro-Hexaplaric version
and from remarks of Theodoret it has been possible for
Field and Lagarde independently to identify the MSS
which contain a Lucianic text. The Hesychian text is
best represented by the first hand of Codex Marchalianus
(Q), a sixth-century MS of the prophets. A second
hand has added to this MS a number of Hexaplar
readings from the other editions.

The chief printed editions of & are :—(1) the A/dine, Venice,
1518; (2) the Comp/etensian Polyglott, Alcala, printed 1514

᾿ 17, published 1522, representing a Lucianic

54, Printed text; (3) the δὲ κέ, Rome, 1587, based on Cod.

editions. B; (4) the A/erandrian, Oxford, 1707-20, î.e.,

Grabe's edition, based on Cod. A ; (5) Holes

and Parsons, Oxford, 1798-1827, ἃ reprint of the Sixtine text

(Cod. B.), but with an &pparatus containing the various readings
of many MSS and Fathers.i

Quite distinct from these, as aiming to reproduce not MSS
but particular recensions of @ are ;—Field's ?eraz/a, a collection
of the extant fragments, Oxford, 1875 ; and Lagarde’s restoration
of the Lucianic text [Gex.-Zsther only), Gottingen, 1883. __

Lagarde in his Anmertungen sur griechischen Uber
setzung der Proverbien, 3 (see Driver, TBS, p. xlvii)

has laid down the following rules for
55, Recovery of recovering the original text of the LXX
Lasi from our authorities :—

τ, The MSS of the Greek translation of the OT are
all either immediately or mediately the resuît of an
eclectic process : it fo'lows that he who aims at recover-
ing the original text must follow an eclectic method
likewise, His only standard will be his knowledge of
the style of the individual translators : his chief aid will
be the faculty possessed by him of referring the readings
which come before him to their Semitic original, or else
of recognising them as corruptions originating in the
Greek.

2. Ifa verseor part of a verse appears în both a free
and a slavishly literal translation, the former is to be
counted the genuine rendering.

3. If two readings coexist, of which one expresses
the Massoretic text, while the other.can only be ex-
plained from a text deviating from it, the latter is to be
regarded as the original.

These admirable rules, however, practically give up
the attempt to trace out the history of the text of the
LXX. It may therefore be worth while to indicate the
lines on which such an attempt may be undertaken.

In the first place it is necessary to get some criterion
for estimating the worth of the Hexaplar text with its
apparatus oî asterisks, etc., as preserved in existing
MSS. For this we may use the fragments of the Old
Latin which are cerlainìy derived from a Greek text
older than the Hexapla (see $ 56). Along with the
Old Latin we may take the quotations from the early
Greek fathers, so far as their text can be trusted,
When we compare our Hexaplar text with these
primary sources of information the general result
may be summarised thus:—{r) The critical. signs
attached to the text, especially the all-important

asterisks (*) which mark interpolations introduced into |

the LXX from Aquila, Symmachus, or Theodotion, are
fairly well preserved. Single authorities have dropped
or misplaced them here and there ; but it 15 rarely the case
that the majority of our witnesses conspire in error.
(2) The Hexaplar text itself, when purged of the inter-
polations under * is a good text of the LKX, on the whole
the best continuous text which survives. (3) It is very
far, however, from being really pure. The proper

1 The useful editions of Tischendorf (7th ed. 1087) give the
Sixtine text with the variants of BRAC. The Cambridge ditio

Minor, 1887-1894, gives the text of Β and the variants of RAC
with some other uncial MSS; a larger edition is în progress
which it is hoped will supersede //o/mes and Parsons.

sozi

THXT AND VERSIONS

names have been largely corrected to the Massoretic
Hebrew, while in other matters inferior readings have
been either introduced or have been wrongly followed.

Having thus gained some idea of the worth of the
Hexaplar text we may go on to apply these results to
the criticism of our chief surviving MSS. Their value
and independence will be found to differ greatly in the
various books. ‘That they all contain ‘’Theodotion’s’
Daniel, not the Daniel of the genuine LXX, is perhaps
not due to the Hexapla alone, as the change probably
occurred earlier. But it was Origen who introduced
nearly 400 lines (z.e., half-verses) into the LXX text of
Job from Theodotion, yet these interpolations are found
in all our MSS ; so far therefore as Job is concerned it
is certain that none of our MSS go behind the Hexapla.
The fact that in various parts of the OT, notably the
four books of Kings {KInGs, 8 3; cp SAMUEL, 8 4) and
Ezekiel, &" leaves out many passages known to be in-
terpolations, has given plausibility to the belief that it
presents us with a pre-Hexaplaric text; but other pheno-
mena of 658 are inconsistent with this view, and it is better
to regard € as in the main a Hexaplar text without
the passages under asterisk (Lagarde, Proverbiez, 3,
n. 1). In Judges, Isaiah, and Lamentations, the text
of (55 is neither Hexaplaric nor that of the unrevised
LXX.! {On the text of Judges, cp JUDGES, $ 18.]

The text of GA shows greater independence than that
of (55 and though it is sprinkled more or less throughout
the OT with Hexaplaric additions it often retains the
reading of the LXX when most other MSS have gone
wrong.? :

The Lucianic text contains a singular mixture of good
and bad readings ; but so far as can be judged from the
surviving evidence its good readings are also those of
the Old'Latin. Its value to us therefore is to supply
evidence akin to the Old Latin, where that invaluable
witness fails us. ‘he character of the Lucianic text is
indicated by Jerome (Zp. ad Suwriam et Fretelam, ap,
Field, p. Ixxxvi) when he says: ‘editionem, quam
Origenes, etc. xofv id est comminen appellant atque
uulgatam, et a plerisque nunc Λουκιανὸς dicitur.’
Lucian's revision, rather than the Hexaplar texts, is the
representative of the old κοινὴ ἔκδοσις that survives
approximately pure in the better texts of the Old Latin,
The difference between the comparative value to us of
the ‘Antiochian’ texts of the OT and the NT simply
comes from the paucity of what we might call ‘early
Western texts’ of the OT' in Greek. If a MS analogous
to Codex Beza survived, the value of the Lucianic text
would have been largely discounted.

II LATIN

The Old Latin is the only version of the OT made
from the Greek which is certainly older than the Hexapla.
The Syriac version of the OT was
Ne old translated direct from the Hebrew, not
from the Greek, and the other Oriental
versions belong to a later period, Hence the Old Latin
occupies a unique position, and must be regarded as
the chief authority for the restoration of the κοινὴ ἔκδοσες,
or pre-Hexaplarie LXX. Unifortunately it survives only
in fragments, and some of the better-preserved forms
are the result of revision from Greek texts later than the
original translation.

As în the NT, the quotations of Cyprian (ἃ. 258) form
the standard by which we may classify our texts.
Cyprian quotes fron nearly all the books of OT and
NT and with almost unfailing accuracy, so that we may
gather from his works a fair idea of the characteristics
of the OT in Latin as it was read at Carthage about
the middle of the third century. Closely akin to the

1 Cp, for example, 15, 4θ 18 in 688. and the Hexapla. In
Lamentations the names of the Hebrew letters of the alphabet
are transliterated in 458 differently from other MSS, τι being
used for y and ye for pj (see above, $ 48)

3 Eg., Judg. 58, end.

5022

TEXT AND. VERSIONS

Cyprianic text is that used in De Pascha Computus,
except in Daniel. A slightly later type is presented by
the various Donatist texts, such as that found in the
extensive quotations of Tyconius, and in the Gesta of
the ‘Collatio Carthaginiensis' held in 411 A.D.; among
these also must be reckoned the Lucca Gerealogie
(Lagarde, Segtuaginta Studien, 25-28), a historical work
of purely Latin origin containing a very large number
of biblical proper names, all of which are given in pre-
Hexaplaric spelling.

Among ‘European’ texts special mention must be made of
Lucifer of Cagliari (d. 371), whose quotations, especially from
the historical books, are very full and accurate, The pseudo.
Augustinian Ssecw/ior (Corp. Scrip. Eccl, Lat. xii.), a collec-
tion of biblica] extracts somewhat similar to the Testimonia of
Cyprian has a text, possibly Spanish in origin, which contains
some elements belonging to the earlier form of the version.

Revised texts, which cannot be used as evidence for
the true Old Latin save in exceptional cases, are met
with in Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome. Jerome's
quotations especially are often taken direct from the
Greek and usually agree with @&$ and &P. Augustine (to
mention only the clearest cases) used Jerome's transla-
tion of Job from the Zexag/a, and in Judg. 5 he agrees
with the Hexaplar Codex Coislinianus against the true
Old Latin as preserved by Verecundus.! Tertullian's
curious use of a text of the LXX mixed with Theodotion's
in the Book of Ezekiel has been already noticed (see
above, col. 5019).

The most complete MS of any part of the Old Latin
OT is the Lyons Heptateuch of the seventh century,

ὅτ. MISS containing most of the Pentateuch, Joshua,
. "and Judges to 2031 (ed. by U. Robert, 1881
and 1900). A better text is to be found in the Freisizg
Palirgsest now at Munich, of the fifth or sixth century
(Bruchstiiche einer vorhieronymianischen Uberseteung
des Pentateuch . . ., by L. Ziegler, 1883); although
this MS shows some marks of literary revision it con-
tains a Cyprianic element, which in conjunetion with the
general independence of its text places it in the first
rank of LXX authorities.2 Its independence is especi-
ally noticeable in the latter chapters of Exodus.

Other Old Latin MSS, all of them palimpsests or
mere fragments, are:—the Viezza Polimpsest of Genesis
(Ὁ Oct.} and the historical books, fifth-sixth century,
a text which agrees remarkably with that of Lucifer,
and only requires to be well edited to take its place
among the very best MSS; the two Wwreburg
Palimpsests, one of the Pentateuch, the other of the
Prophets, fifth-sixth century, both edited by E. Ranke,
1871; the Weingarten MS of the prophets, fifth century,
also edited by E. Ranke, 1868-1888. Besides these
there are smaller fragments at Quedlinburg, Vienna,
and S. Gallen. Of a slightly different character are
the two documents edited by Vercellone in his Varie
Lectiones Vulg. Lat, Bibl, editionis, viz., extracts out
of Genesis and Exodus from the Codex Ottobonianus,
an eighth-century MS of the Latin Vulgate, and the
various readings written in the margin of a Visigothic
MS of the Latin Vulgate at Leon in Spain. These
various readings agree very closely with the Lucianic
text, much closer in fact than any other form of the Old
Latin, so the conjecture may be hazarded that they
were translated direct from some Greek MS.

A number of Latin Psalters are extant; but none of

1 Printed in Pitra's Spicilegium Solesmense and in Vercellone's
Varia Lectiones.

2 See Ex. 17 14 for the revision. In Ex, 321 the MS has cicere
for to “bring out’ of Egypt (ἐξάγειν) with Cyprian, 754. 1.
For an instance of its positive value in correcting the Greek see
Ex. 40 3, where in place of σκεπάσεις τὴν κιβωτὸν [τοῦ paprupiov]
τῷ καταπετάσματι, which is the reading οἱ ali other LXX
authorities, Greek and Latin, and corresponds verbally with the
Massoretic text, we find în the Freising MS ef super came fro-
gitiatoriwm; that îs, it reads pony instead of πῆς, with the
Samaritan and the Jer. Targ. Thus by Lagarde's canons the
Freising MS alone has preserved the true text of the LXX in
this passage.

5023

TEXT AND VERSIONS

them represents the earlier stages cf the versicn, as the
quotations of Cyprian differ widely from them all!

The OT ‘ Apocrypha ‘—i.e., those books of the Greek
ΟΤ which are not in the Hebrew canon —were left more
or less untouched by Jerome; in these
58. ApocryPha- },00ks, therefore, the ΟἹ Latin survives
in the Vulgate. In fact, the Vulgate text of Wisdom
and Ecelesiasticus does not differ appreciably from the
Cyprianic standard. It is therefore important to notice
the divergence in the arrangement of Ecclesiasticus
30-36 in the Greek and the Latin. ‘In these chapters
the Greek order fails to yield a natural sequence, whereas
the Latin arrangement, which is also that of the Syriac
and Armenian versions, makes excellent sense. ‘wo
sections [of the Greek], chap. 3025-3313? (ὡς καλαμώ-
μένος... φυλὰς ᾿Ιακώβ) and ‘chap. 33 13) —86 162
λαμπρὰ καρδία... ἔσχατος ἠγρύπνησα), have ex-
changed places, . . . There can be little doubt that in
the exem/ar from which, so far as is certainly known,
all our Greek MSS of this.book [Ecclus.] are ultimately
derived, the pairs of leaves on which these sections were
severally written had been transposed, whereas the Latin
translator, working from a MS in which the transposition
had not taken place, has preserved the true order’
(Swete, pref, to vol. ii. of the Cambridge Septuagint, p.
vi7.).® A fact of this kind deserves to be particulariy
mentioned, as it brings out the exceptional value of the
Old Latin for the text of the LXX, and the essential
homogeneousness of our Greek authorities notwith-
standing their numerous variations.®

A conspectus of the biblical quotations of the Latin Fathers,
together with such Old Latin MSS as were then available, is to
be found in the great work of Sabatier (2:02iorum Sacrorum
Latina Versiones Antiguee, 1743 and 1751),

Jerome’s edition of the NT was a simple revision of
an existing text; but his version of the OT was wholly

new, It is, in fact, a translation of the
59. Vulgate. Hebrew into Latin independent of the
LXX, though Jerome frequently adopts renderings fron
the other Greek editions, particularly that of Sym-
machus. ‘The great work had been begun at the in-
vitation of Pope Damasns; but that powerful patron
died when only the Gospels had been issued (384 A.D.),
and Jerome left Rome for Bethlehem. The various
parts of the OT were published separately and furnished
with prefaces, in which the merits of the Hebrew over
the Greek and the methods of translation adopted are
vigorously defended.

Thus the Latin church was confrouted with a new
version of the Bible which had no external authority to
recommend it save the well-deserved reputation of
Jerome as the most learned scholar of his day. It is
not surprising that it met at first with opposition.
Its ultimate success is probably due in great measure
to Augustine. At first Augustine thought the new
version of the OT too revolutionary, and almost to
the end of his life clung to a belief in the inspiration
of the Seventy. He wrote of Jerome's translation,
however, with increasing respect and occasionally
quotes from it (e.gi, De Civitate Dei, 1843), and in
his last work—the genuine Specz/zzz, a collection of
biblical extracts, left unfinished at his death in 430---
he follows the new version wholly, except where he
quotes from memory. In the sixth century Cassiodorus
seems to have treated the two versions on an equal

1 Cp also the remarks of Augustine (De Doct. CAristiana,
219) on Ps. 135,

The English version, both în AV and ΕΥ̓͂, follows the
Latin here.

3 The Syriac of Ecclesiasticus îs not a witness for the LXX,
as it was made for the most part direct from the Hebrew; the
Armenian here probably follows the Syriac as so often elsewhere.
The newly-recovered Hebrew text supports the Latin order, as
might be anticipated.

With regard to the Latin text of Ecclesiasticus it has recently
heenshown by Thielmann that chaps. xlv.-]. are the work ofa later
hand ; apparently the praise of the Jewish Fathers was inten-
tionally left ont by the Christian translator as superfluous to his
object (cp J. H. À. Hart's edition of the Greek cod. 248).

5024

THXT AND VERSIONS

footing; but Isidore of Seville in the seventh century
uses Jerome's exclusively. From that time it really
deserves the name ‘ Vulgate” now universally applied τὸ
it, though as a matter of fact it was not so called before
the time of Roger Bacon. In Jerome's own works
Vulgata means the Old Latin.

The difference between the Vulgate and the Old
Latin in the OT is so great that mixed recensions were
less readily formed than in the NT, though single
passages have suffered corruption from time to time în
the MSS. As was remarked above, the Latin church
in adopting the new version added to it from the Old
Latin those books which formed no part of the Hebrew
canon and were therefore left untouched by Jerome.

The best MS of the Vulgate is considered to be the
Codex Amiatinus (a seventh-century MS of the whole
OT and N'T, see $ 21), the variations of which from the
authorised Clementine text have been not very accurately
published by Heyse and Tischendorf (in 1873); a
valuable collection of readings is brought together in
the unfinished Varie Lectiones of Vercellone.

The Vulgate is less useful to the textual critic than
the Old Latin, just as the later forms of the LXX which
contain interpolations and corrections from Theodotion
are not so useful as the earlier forms. That, however, is
because we hive access to the Massoretic Hebrew in the
original and possess admirable renderings of it into the
vernacular. ὙΠῸ early forms of the LXX are valuable
because by their aid we can correct some errors which
have befallen the existing Hebrew text. 11 should not be
forgotten, however, that the LXX is often a bad trans»
lation to work from, many passages being quite devoid
of sense as they stand, a defect that was sometimes in-
tensified by the further translation of Greck into Latin.
‘The Vulgate, on the other hand, is the work of a com-
petent scholar, and gives the meaning of the Hebrew
with comparative accuracy and clearness. It was the
great good fortune of the Latin church that so excellent
a translator should ave been raised up for the work,
and it is her great glory that neither the sentimental
associations of the old version nor the increasing
ignorance of the Dark Ages were able to interfere with
her final acceptance of S. Jerome's labours.

III SYRIAC AND OTHER VERSIONS

In the OT the Syriac Vulgate, commonly called
Péshitta, is a translation made direct from the Hebrew.
Time and place of translation are alike
60. Peshitta. unknown. It is conjectured that it was
made at Edessa, the centre of Syriac literary culture,
and it seems to have been the work of Jews rather
than Christians.® There is no surviving trace of any
previous recension of the text ; the earliest Syriac Father,
Aphraates, who is our chief quarry for pre-Vulgate
citations from the Syriac NT, quotes the OT in literal
accordance with the Peshitta.

The charneter of the Peshitta varies în the different
books, which has been held as an indication that the
version was the work of several hands. The Pentateuch
and Job (which in the Syriac follows the Pentateuch)
are rendered literally; some of the other books,
notably Chronicles, are very freely paraphrased. But
the Hebrew underlying the Syriac is in almost all
cases simply the Massoretic text.® Here and there,

1 Cp especially x Ch.52, where the words ‘for Judah pre.
vailed above his brethren, and of him came the prince’ (tiy)are
rendered in the Peshitta ‘From Judah skal cosse forth King
Res Νὰ €p also J. Perles, Afeletemata Peschitthoniana

1859).

2 Some of the best MSS supply a striking illustration of the
close connection of the Peshitta with the Hebrew by the fact that
they contain a note marking the exact place where the half of a
book comes in the Massoretic text. Cornill(£zec4ie/, Prol. 144)
brings this forward as a proof that the Azxbrosianss has been re-
vised from the Hebrew ; but the phenomenon is to be found in
other MSS of other books, and as far as we know the tendency of
the Syrians was to correct from the LXX, not from the Hebrew.

There are a few instances where the Syriac seems to represent

5025

TEXT AND VERSIONS

especially in the Prophets, there are unmistakable traces
of the influence of the LXX. No satisfactory explana-
tion of this influence has yet been reached; it is possible
that it dates from the establishment of the church in
Edessa about the end of the second century.

In addition to the Hebrew canon the Syrians had
translations of the OT Apocrypha, in most cases derived
from the Greek; but the Syriac Ecclesiasticus is partly
a rendering of the Hebrew. The dates of all these
translations are quite unknown; but ‘it seems tolerably
certain that alterations were made from time to time
with a view to harmonising the Syriac text with that of
the LXX' (Wright's Syriac Lieralure, 4), a process
which may have begun as early as the episcopate of
Palùt (about 200 A.D.).

The Peshitta isextant in many MSS of considerable antiquity.
The oldest known dated MS ofany portion of OT or NT in any
language is the Cod. Add. 14,425 in the British Museum con-
taining Gen., Ex,, Nu., Dt., transcribed at Amid in the year
464 a.D. A good text of the whole OT is presented by the
Cod. Ambrosianus of the sixth century, which contains, in
addition to the ordinary rioni ha, the Apocalypse of
Baruch and 4 Esdras. This MS has been reproduced in photo-
lithography by Ceriani.

The most accessible edition of the OT Peshipta (without the
Apocrypha)is that prepared by Lee for the ‘ British and Foreign
Bible Society” in 1823; but it only reproduces with little varia
tion the text of the London and the Paris Polygiott. Im fact
all the printed editions go back to the ed. $rrncegs in the
Paris Polyglott, which îs a mere transcript of a very late MS
(now at Paris), as conjecturally emended by the editor Gabriel
Sionita,! For practical purposes, therefore, Ceriani's repro-
duction of the Arxbrosianzs is the most satisfactory text that
has yet appeared,

The earliest attempt at a Syriac version from the LKX
seems to have been that called by the name of Philoxenus,

san made in 508 A.D, (see $ 30). Of this version
61 Syrlao fragmenis of Isaiah survive in a ΜΒ în the
from the British Museum (edited by Ceriani in Morz-

Greek. 72002 Sacra et Profana, v.li-qo), It seems

to have been a free revision of the Peshitta
by a Lucianic MS, producing a curious mixed text.

Of far more critical value is the Syriac version corre-
sponding to the Harclean revision of the NT, which is
commonly known as the Syro-/exaplar, This was
made at Alexandria in 616-617 A.b. by Paul, Bishop
of Tella {Assemani, BO 2 333 334). It contains a trans-
lation of Origen’s text of the LKX with the asterisks
and obeli, together with many marginal renderings from
the other Greek editions ; the style, moreover, of the
Syriac translation is so literal that the exact Greek re-
presented can be recovered with considerable accuracy.
‘The work of Paul of Tella formed Field’s chief authority
in his reconstruction of the Hexapla,

The Syro-Hexaplar version is extant for most books of the
OT. The poetical and prophetical books are extant in a cod.
in the Ambrosian Library at Milan which has been published in
photo-lithography by Ceriani (Mon. ὅσον. ef Pref 5). The
remains of the Pentateuch and Historical Books are collected in
Lagarde's 2:%2iothece Syriaca etc., published in 1892.

At the beginning of the eighth century Jacob of Edessa made
a final effort to revise the Peshitta by the various Greek versions ;
But his work does not seem to have ever gained any currency.
He made use of no materials which we do not possess from
other sources

The whole OT appears to have been translated into
the Palestinian dialect (see $ 31); but only small frag-

‘an Ments now survive. It is a translation
82. Palestinian from the Greek, certainly post-Hexa-

" plaric, and it probably presented a text
closely akin to the ‘ Eusebian' edition ($ 52) and the
Codex Vaticanus. The fragments of the OT, so far as
they have already been published, are collected in Land's
Anecdota, vol. iv., in Anecdota Oxoniensia (Semitie

a really different Hebrew, notagreeing with the LXX. In Judg.
148 Pesh. reads mama for nomi, 50 as to make the seritence
run ‘when Samson had not yet entered the marriage chamber."
Such readings occur so rarely, however, that we must suppose
this instance to have been the result of a brilliant guess (cp
chap. 15 τ),

1 See da Afparatus Criticus to Chronicles în the Peshitta
Version by W.E. Barnes, 1897.

5026

TEXT AND VERSIONS

Series), and in a lectionary edited by Mrs. Lewis
{studia Sinaîtica, 6, 1897).

The general history of the Bible in Coptic has been
discussed in the section upon Egyptian versions of the
63. Copti NT. The Bohairic version in the OT has

- POPSIC he same characteristics as in the New, and

VErBION8. inere is every reason to assign it to the
same date, viz., the sixth century. It is not even yet
edited in full; but the Prophets have been edited by
‘Tattam, the Pentateuch and Psalms by Lagarde, and
lately Proverbs by Bouriant.

‘The Sahidic version from its greater antiquity is of
more importance. Of this the Borgian MSS, together
with other fragments previously collected, were admir-
ably edited by Ciasca (Rome, 1885-9). The Psalms
have been edited by Budge from a seventh-century MS
in the British Museum (1898), and now lately again by
Rahlfs, There is also a large addition to OT Sahidic
texts to be found in Maspero, Mission archéol. frang.,
tom, 6. The general character of the text resembles that
of the first hand of Cod. Marchalianus (0); that is,
it is akin to what we are accustomed to call the Hesychian
recension of the LKX (8 52). Ciasca himself (255) points
out that the Minor Prophets show clear signs of
revision 'iuxta archetypum hebreeum.' The text of
Daniel is that of Theodotion, as in the Greek MSS.
The type of Greek text followed by the Sahidic in the
Psalms is represented by U, the fragments of a papyrus
book in the British Museum (see F. E. Brightman in the
Journ. of Theol. Studies, 2275). U is now considered
to be of the sixth or the seventh century, and is said
to have come from a monastery near Thebes. Doubtless,
therefore, it gives us the text of the Psalter as sung în
the earliest days of Christian monasticism, and where
it is defective it may be reconstructed from the Sahidic
as edited by Budge, Rahifs, and Ciasca.

The chief interest of the Sahidic version centres in
the Book of Job. As has been explained above ($ 55), the
original Greek translation of Job omitted between three
and four hundred lines, or half verses, which were
supplied in the //exag/e under asterisk. The Sahidic
leaves these lines out, and it is generally supposed that
it therein represents the pre-Origenian κοινὴ ἔκδοσις,
like the Old Latin. But apart from the difficulty
of assigning to the Sahidic version of Job the high
antiquity which would be required for ‘a translation
uninfluenced by the Hexap/a-—we should have to think
of the second century, instead of the end of the third or
the beginning of the fourth—there are other reasons
which are inconsistent with this view. It is far more in
accordance with all the facts to regard the Sahidic Job
as a translation of Origen's revised text of the LKX, witk
the passages under asterisk omitted. The Sahidic text,
when it is examined closely, cannot claim to preserve
even so large a measure of independence as the Greek
Cod, A; we may fairly describe GA as a text of the κοινή
interpolated from the exap/e, but the Sahidic is
Origenian from post to finish.

The importance of this question for the history of the Greek
Bible makes it necessary to indicate the chief signs of the
dependence of the Sahidic on the ἐγεταῤία.

1. Ciasca uses five Sahidic codices for Job. One of these,
the Bodieian MS edited by Erman, contains the Hexaplaric
additions as an integral part of the text. The 4oo half-verses,
therefore, were not altogether unknown în Upper Egypt.

2. A few of the lines which are distinctly assigned to Aquila
or Theodotion in our Hexaplar authorities are found in the
Sahidic, Thus Job 80 205 and 228 (from Theod.) are in their
ordinary place: 9 155 (from Aq.) is inserted after τὴ 14.

3. After [0511 90,6 GA adds map αὐτῷ γὰρ σοφία καὶ δύναμις.
Syr.-Hex. οδοίϊεος these words—i.e., they are a genuine part of
®, though not în the Hebrew, They are omitted by BNC and
also by the Sahidic, which thus represents here ἃ critica/9
rerised text. [See also 3 17 ἐξέκανσαν; 7 11 om. ἀνοέξω,Ἱ

4. The original Greek for 153y* 85 in 1069. 36 appears to have
been οὐδ᾽ οὐ μὸ ἀντείπῃ (cp Her. ad loc.) Symmachus and
Theodotion had οὐ μὴ ὑπακούσῃ αὐτῷ. In the Hexa/2, followed
by the Greek MSS, a conflation of the two was made, producing
où μὴ ὑπ. αὐτῷ ἵνα μὴ ἀντείπῃ. This conflation is reproduced
în the Sahidic.

5. The clearest case of the dependence of the Sahidic on

5027

TEXT AND VERSIONS

Origen îs in Job 2821 £, which runs thus în the 7era//a, the
lines from Theodotion being italicised :

It {viz., Wisdom] is concealed from every man,

and from the fowls of the heaven τὰ is hid.

Destruction and Death said:

But (δὲ) we have heard the fame thereof.

Omit the italics, and the first person plural in the fourth line
is meaningless; it îs impossible to suppose that it could have
been the original form of the Greek. Yet that is exactly what
the Sahidic gives. The true LXX is probably preserved by
Clement of Alexandria (517072, vi. 6.763) who quotes Ὁ. 21 thus:
λέγει ὁ ἔδης τῇ ἀπωλείᾳ εἶδος μὲν αὐτοῦ οὐκ εἴδομεν φωνὴν δὲ
αὐτοῦ ἠκούσαμεν (cp ἧπι ὅ 37), ‘This not being an accurate
rendering of the Hebrew, it was emended in the /exa/ by the
help of Theodotion; but simply to omit the lines here taken
from Theodotion, as has been done by the Sahidic, cannot be
managed without ruining the sense, and (we may add) revealing
to all time the Origenian source of the text.

The £#4iopie version dates from the fourth or the fifth
century ; but the existing codices are late and seem to

64, Other have been much revised, some from medizeval
Ta Greekor Arabic texts, some from the Hebrew.

Verslon8. Gen.-Kings has been edited by Dillmann,
Psalms by Ludolf (1701), Song by Nisselius (1656),
Lamentations by Bachmann (1893). "The best critical
discussion on this version is to be found in Cornill's
Ezechiel, 36-48.

The Armenian version appears to contain in the OT,
as in the NT, both Greek and Syriac elements, The
best edition is still that of Zohrab, published in 1805.
Some Armenian codices have the Hexaplar critical
marks (‘Scrivener,' ed. 4, 2153).

The Go#kic of the sixth, and the .S/avorie of the ninth
century, both of which are intimately connected in origin
with Constantinople, are remarkable for their affinity with
the Lucianic text (Lagarde’s Zuciaz, 14, 15). Of the
Gothic OT, however, only fragments of Ezra B, chap. 2
and Neh. 5-7 survive, besides a few verses of Gen. 5.

The Arabic versions of the OT are of various char-
acter and value. The version printed in the Polyglotts
is derived from a MS now at Paris {Colb. 900=
de Sacy, 1) written in Egypt in the sixteenth century.
‘The Pentateuch is the translation of Sa'adia from the
Hebrew ; but the Prophets were translated from an old
uncial MS of (5 akin to A (Cornill’s Ezeckiel, 49-37).

The Targums, or Aramaic paraphrases of the OT
prepared for use in the Synagogue, contain elements

of various dates. They differ from the

65. TargumB. versions hitherto considered in having
a directly edificatory aim ; they are, in fact, paraphrases
rather than translations, although the style of some of
them is often very literal. They take their rise from
the custom, described in:Lk. 416 7, of giving a short
explanation of the sacred Hebrew text in the Aramaic
vernacular of Palestine. At first the Targum was a
free oral exposition; then it gradually acquired fixed
forms, and at last it was reduced to writing.

The written Targum is fonnd in MSS sometimes
alone, sometimes verse by verse with the Hebrew text.
There are two Targums to the Pentateuch {besides the
Samaritan Targum ; see SAMARITANS, $ 5 a), the official
Babylonian Targum, known by the name of the reputed
author Or4elos (mòpix, vbpne)! and the Jerusalen
Targum, also known as [Pseudo-] Jonathan. “Jeru-
salem' {Yerwshalmi) means Palestinian; in fact, this
Targum gives to a great extent the old popular exegesis,
though its extant form dates from after Mohammed.
There once existed a ‘Jerusalem’ ‘Targum to the
Prophets ; but the Babylonian recension alone has come
down to us; it is commonly cited by its reputed author
Jonathan ben Uzziell The Hagiographa are also pre-
served in a Babylonian recension; but they are of varied
character, being to some extent private literary works,
since the Hagiographa were not regularly read through
in the Synagogues like the Law and the Prophets.
Job is a comparatively literal rendering; Proverbs
appears to have been made up from the Peshitta ;
Esther is extant in two forms, both wildly paraphrastical.

‘The Targums are to be found in the great rabbinical

1 Onkelos ἴδ probably a corruption of pbvpy AqriZa.
5028

TEXT AND VERSIONS

editions of the OT. e.g., the Bomberg edition of 1517,
ed. by Felix Pratensis. Onkelos has been edited by
Berliner in 1884, the Prophets and Hagiographa by
Lagarde in 1872, 1873.

The Hebrew text from which the Targums were
made is practically identical with that of the Massoretes.!
Their value for us is not so much the text they attest,
as the prejudices they display. They show us the
atmosphere of thought in which the tradition of the
meaning of the OT was preserved, an atmosphere abso-
lutely unliterary and unartistic, and anxious at any
cost to remove the anthropomorphism of earlier Hebrew
religion (see the amazing list of locutions in Cornill's
Ezxechiel, 123). Some of the toning down of old
metaphors or reminiscences of ancient heathendom is
very ancient ; even & does not call God by His personal
name but translates mm by [ὁ] κύριος (NAMES, col. 3321),
and refuses altogether to call him a Rock [Heb. na,
eg, Ps.95:] The Targums simply exhibit this
tendency in an exaggerated form. ‘The popular exegesis
has now and then influenced the Massoretic text. But
the Massoretes were too good scholars simply to point
the true text wrong ; it almost always happens in such
cases that there is some corruption in the transmitted
consonants, which formed the starting-point for the
wrong interpretation. ‘The mode of procedure by
which the critic recognises the corruption is somewhat
as follows. A grammatical anomaly in MT surprises
him; he refers to the Targum and finds it carefully
reproduced, perhaps in the midst of quite a free
paraphrase. Evidently the anomalous punctuation is
intentional, and as the prophets wrote better Hebrew
than the Targumists, it is only too likely that the
traditional interpretation of the whole passage is wrong.
Now and then it is possible to restore the original, to
the great gain of literature.

No better instance can be given than Is. 63 1-6. Here we
find a series of verbs pointed as jussives instead of with waw
consecutive ; this arouses suspicion. The same verbs are taken
as futures in the Targum, and the reference to future punish-
ments upon the heathen is more pointed than in the Hebrew.
Now 631-6 is the only passage in Deutero-Isaiah that contains
the name of any of the petty nations of Palestine; in fact the
sudden and inartistic mention of ‘Edom’ has given much
trouble to commentators. In the popular Jewish exegesis, how-
ever, ‘Edom' regularly stands for Rome and the Roman Empire
(p, δι. Targum to Lara. 42r/). It is cut of place here,Z and
we should rcad with Lagarde (PropA. Chadd. p. 1) DI8D for
ἘΥΊΝ and Ns for 20, so that the sentence runs: Wo ἐς
this that cometh all reddened, with garments stained more
than the gatherer of the vintage?” "The corruption of 2. 1,
which took its rise in popular exegesis, was the excuse for the
wrong pointing of the verbs in 77. 3-6 by the Massoretes.

An article like the present ought în strictness to
consider what may be called the pre-canonical history

inn Of the text. It is almost demonstrable
86. Gorveotion that some of the most serious corrup-
ο i tions originated in the documents before
they became partofthe OT. Such areall the variations
which can be traced to confusions arising from the Old
Hebrew alphabet. Ze, bun ‘for he dew' in Dt. 3313
corresponds to the more appropriate byn ' adove' in Gen.
4925, as in both cases the word is contrasted with
* Beneath.’ But in the older character pis O and pis δῷ,
so the corruption was easily effected. Again, the
influence of Hosea217 (‘1 will take away the names of
the Baalim out of her mouth') should be mentioned.
‘This verse was interpreted to mean that the very names
of heathen gods were unlawful to be used ; accordingly
the vowels of 4dske# (‘shame ') are substituted for the
real vowels in such words as 7'pAe/% and Mdleck (also
‘Afoloch'). In Amos526 Aaiwér (i. *Saturn') has
been vocalised with the vowels of 4425 (i.e., ‘abomin-

1 This is especially the case with the Babylonian Targum.
The Jer. Targum sometimes differste.g., in Exod, 40 3 it reads
ma for non5, with the Samaritan axd fe Οὐ Latin.

36 of this passage cannot be correctly preserved, for the
constant rendering of ‘Edom’ in the Prophets is ἡ ᾿Ιδουμαία,
not (as here) 'Ἐδώμ,

5029

i

TEXT AND VERSIONS

ation'), producing the form jeu (Ckizz, AV). Bra
more violent change Saul's son ’/s4-5a'2/ (‘Baal's-
man ᾽), preserved almost intact as £s4daa/ in 1 Ch. 833,
becomes /s4-Sosketà (‘ Man-of-Shame') in the more
frequently read book of Kings. In later Jewish writings
this tendency is carried into original literature ; there is
no reason to doubt that the name Aded-xego, evidently
meant for Aded-nebo (' Worshipper-of-Nebo '), is the
invention of the author of Daniel, not a scribe's
blunder. It is in Daniel (12xx) that we find τὸν pipe
{the ‘Abomination which maketh desolate’), an inten-
tional perversion of png dpi, the title of Zeus BeeA.
σαμην.ἵ

We are now concerned, however, with the corruptions
which have befallen the text in the course of transmission,
and here, as Wellhausen remarks, the chief agents have
been chance and caprice, not deliberate falsification
(cp Well.-Bleek, $ 295 7). Space will oniy allow of
a few examples; but those given below will sufficientIy
exhibit the commonest kinds of corruption, while at the
same time they bring forward the instances where modern
scholarship has been most successful în restoring the
true reading, whether by means of the ancient versions
or by simple conjecture.

Conjecture is not always a mere arbitrary procedure,
it may be based on the surest of all exegetical and
critical rules, viz., the explanation of passages which
are obscure by those which are plain and free from
suspicion. ‘Thus we can be quite certain by comparing
Zeph. 214. with Is. 341r that for un. ‘desolation,’ we
must read 25y, ‘raven,’ and that the mysterious ques
not only contains the name of some bird, but must be a
corruption of sigy, varskiph or panshopk, ‘the eagle
owl' (see OwL, 4). ‘The translafion then runs: ' Both
the pelican and the porcupine shall lodge in the
chapiters thereof ; hark to the eagle-owl in the window,
the raven on the threshold 1"

Although the Massoretes poînt well where the text
is sound, the smallest error definitely represented in the
consonantal text is sufficient to throw them out. Thus
the long final zzz of isa tp 15 (‘verily the poor of
the flock') in Zech.1171r, was doubtless the cause
which prevented the first two words from being run
together and vocalised peun vamp, Ala Ind Aas-sinie.,
‘the sheep-dealers." There are of course a few cases
where the restoration of the true text depends on a
point of archasological knowledge which might easily
fade from the narrowly grammaticali Hebrew tradition.
Thus in Jer. 4615 we should divide anpy pw into yin
an 8}, and translate with €& ‘Why has Apis fled?' (cp
APIs). Again, it was not till some progress had been
made in Assyrian that Halévy was able to recognise in
n (Ezek. 2711) the name Cilicia, the 77/244 of the
cuneiform monuments.

&—in its original form—often preserves excellent
readings which have quite disappeared from our other
authorities. ‘Thus ‘in 2 K,15ro Gritz's clever con-
jecture (Gesc&. der /uden, ii.199) oybv3 for the un
Hebraic py-b2p is confirmed by Lucian' (ἐν Ιεβλααμ,
quoted in Driver, 785, p. lii note). Another example
is furnished by Dr. Hayman's too little known emenda-
tion of Dt, 332x (Proc. Cambridge Philol, Soc. 1895,
p. 8), the essence of which is the substitution of ΠΡΟ ΠῚ
for the impossible &nv 1150. ‘The phrase is then exactly
parallel with . s.? Here also @ appears to support
the true reading; but ὅτε ἐκεῖ ἐμερίσθη γῇ ἀρχόντων
συνηγμένων ἅμα ἀρχηγοῖς λαῶν is to0 paraphrastical
to suggest the actual change required. ‘The cause of
the corruption here in the Massoretic text may have

1 Nestle, 24717,
DesaLaTION.

2 Translate: ‘And [Cad] saw the first fruits were for him,
for there was the allotment of the Lawgiver, and so the chiefs of
2 people were assembled together’ The reference appears to
be τὸ the settlement of Gad on the E. of Jordan (cp Nu. 88).

5030

1884, p. 2431 See ABOMINATION OF

THADDAUS

been a transposition, the word having been written

at the end of a line in the archetype.

Some corruptions are older than any of the versions,
perhaps older than the final redaction of the Pentateuch.
Thus all extant authorities give ‘ay bn as the end of
Nu. 233, generally translated: ‘And he [Balaam] went
to a level place.’ Apart from the grammatical harshness,
however, this and every other sense which these letters
can be made to bear are alike poor, and Kuenen has
suggested that at some period Se/ore the development of
media! 3 the letters > had been written once instead of
twice over; then by reading the final + as ) (or sup-
posing 1 to have been lost before the following apn) we
get map (i.e, vog»5 100), ‘he went to his incanta-

neo
izle]

tions.* This agrees with Nu.24:, where we read that
Balaam ‘went not, as at other times, to seek for
enchantments.*

Equal brilliant is Lagarde's emendation of Ps,826. For
δῶν piso ne he writes pd Dj rep nyP—ie., “ID has
been written NSD (for ἼΣ2) by some scribe. Translate ‘in the
time of distress ; the sound of the flood of mighty waters shall
not come nigh him” Finally, we may quoto Wellhausen%
restoration of the original of 2 K.1926 (=1s.8727f) For
Sme (97) : ΠΡ 1120 he writes Inden Op 25} (27): so that
2. 27 begins ‘Before me îs thy rising up and thy sitting down,
and thy going out and coming în L'know. It is worth while
pointing out, as a final testimony to the excellence of ® in its
original form, that this palmary emendation is not without sup
port from &. In 15, 3727 the nop ob of MTis omitted, In
2K 1926 most documents have ἀπέναντι ἑστηκότος for ΠΏΡ sb:

but the text called Θὲ in the Syro-Hexaplar MSS (see col.
» Top 1155, the con-

5019) had ἀπέναντι ἀναστάσεώς σου---
sonantal text suggested by Wellhausen.

In concluding an article of any length on the textual
criticism of the Bible it is always wholesome to remind
oneself of the comparative soundness of the text. That
there are blots, especially in the OT, some of them
probably irremovable, must be admitted ; but they are
not enough seriously to obscure the main features of
the narratives related or the ideas expressed. So far
as the P’entateuch is concerned we may be especially at
our ease. It would have been impossible to separate
the documents with the minuteness which modern
scholarship has found possible if the text had been
much confused by scribal errors. And with regard to
the Prophets, though their works are less accurately
preserved than the Pentateuch, we can be sure that
textual corruption never improves the style or the
thought. The fact that so much of the Prophetical
Books is—judged by any standard—of the first rank as
literature, is the strongest proof that they have not
been utterly disfigured in transmission.

Some of the most important bibliographical references have
already been indicated above. ‘The best general account of

ì the text and versions of the OT in any
67. Bibliography. language is Wellhausen's monograph in

the fourth edition of Bleck's EzreZezzw,
in das Alte Testament, Berlin, 1878, $$ 275-298; later edd.
are arranged on a different plan. Somewhat similar in plan,
but more confined to the special books treated of, are the intro:
ductions in Driver's Notes on {he Hebrew Text of the Books of
Samuel, pp. χχχιἰχχχῖν, and in Comill's EzeckieZ, 1-160.
Klostermann, quoted by Driver, p. lii, says ‘Let him who
would himself investigate and advance learning, by the side of
the other Ancient Versions, accustom himself above all things
to the use of Field's Μίεσαῤῥία, and Lagarde's edition of the
Recension of Lucian,” To these specially valuable authorities the
Present writer would add any well edited fragment of the Ola
atin.

[See also Kittel, Veber die Notwendigkeit und Maglichkeit
einer neuen Ausgabe der hebr. Bibel: Studien το, Rrrvdgunpen
(1901); Cheyne, Crifica Biblica, pt. τ (Isaiah and Jeremiah).]

F:C.B

THADDZEUS. Τὰ MKk.313 @aAAaloc appears
tenth in the list of apostles. Ae@Baîos is here a western
variant (Da bffliq) In Mt 103 Θαδδαῖος is

1. Name. :he right reading (NB), but Λεββαῖος is found
in western texts (D 122 Aug.), and the con.

flate Λεββ. ὁ ἐπικληθεὶς @a88. în the late ‘Syrian’ text.
Θαδδαῖος has been derived from the Heb. ng=Syr. #hedi=
manina, and AeBfaîos from ab=cor. But Dalman (Wosfe

5031

THASSI

Fesu, 40) connects Θαδδαῖος with Θευδᾶς and Λεββαῖος with the
Nabataan sggb. WH (Netes, 11) suppose Δεββαῖος to be due
to an attempt to bring Levi (Mk, 214) within the number of
the Twelve. But we should have expected Λενείς. Λεββαῖος
Aseveis is unparalleled. lt seems clear that Λεββαῖος is a
*Western® gloss of a copyist who connected Θαδδαῖος with
thèéda=mamma, and wished to substitute a not dissimilar
name which should be more appropriate to an apostle, and
less undignified. If Λεββαῖος can be thus explained as an early
emendation the difficult Θαδδαῖος remains. Dalman’s Θαδ-
Saios=@evdîs 15 improbable. It is more likely that Θαδδαῖος,
by corruption în Greek or Aramaic, represents an original
10): or an) For the θ cp θουδουια [B]=mnn, Neh. 7 43
(see Hopavian), θνηλ [B*vid.n]=xt8, Ezra 10/34 (see UEL);
Gove[B]=xing (Ahava), Ezra8 21; θελκαθ [A]=npbn (Helkath),
Josh, 2131; θασειρει [B], θασουρ [Α]Ξ Ὧν, 25-29 (see
Asuurrtes); 0arofay[AD], 4 [L]=}2y8 (Ezbon),Gen.46.16, For
the doubled ὃ and the ending «aîos cp ὙὙ - Ἰαδδαῖος, De Vogiié,
Syr. Cent. 63.
In Lk. 616 Acts113 "Tovdas ᾿Ιακώβο
James,! takes the place of Thaddeeus. See JUDAS, 7.
It may, therefore, be reasonably
2. Identification. conjectured that Judas was the name
of the apostle, that Thaddzeus is a corruption of Judas,
and that Lebbaus is a gloss upon Thaddaus. Of
James, the father of Judas, nothing is known. Syr.
Cur. has here /udas Thomas, and Syr. Sin. Thomas
(see THOMAS}. The evidence of the Gospels being so
confused we not unnaturally find great uncertainty in
the post-biblical tradition. In Origen (Pref ad Rom.)
Thaddaeus= Lebbeeus= Judas Jacobi. In the Chror.
Pasch. Thaddaus= Lebbeus= Barsabas, whilst Judas
Jacobi=Simon the Canaanite. In the Abgar legend
preserved by Eusebius (4113) Thaddaus is distin-
guished from Judas Jacobi="Thomas. In the Acfe
Thome Judas Thomas is the Lord's brother. Accord.
ing to the Syrian Ischodab (gth cent.) quoted by Zahn
(Zini. 2263) the Diafessaron identified James son of
Alpheus with Lebbzeus (note that D in Mk.214 has
Ἰάκωβον for Aevetr).

The earliest form of legend connected with Thaddaus is that
which represents him as preaching at Edessa. A very ex-
haustive bibliography of the literature and sources of this
tradition may be found in von Dobschiitz, CAristusdilger, 158%
249*, In the account given by Eusebius (7Z1 13) from Syriac
sources, Thadderus the Apostle, one of the Seventy, was sent
by the Apostle Judas Thomas to Abgar, king of Edessa, in
accordance with a promise made by Christ before his death. [ἢ
the later Syriac legend (Doctrina Addai, | cent.? ed. Phillips)
Addai is substituted for Thaddieus. In the Gk. Πράξεις
Θαῤδαίον (Lips. Acta Agosti. Afocr, 1273-27) Lebbaus is
identified with ‘Thaddaus, one of the Twelve. For this and
the later legends which represent Thaddaus as preaching in
Armenia, în Syria and Mesopotamia, and în Persia, see Lips,
Dict. Christ. Biog., sw. ‘ Thaddseus.* αν, C. A.

THAHASH, or (RV) TAHASH (WMA, royoc.
FADL]), a name in the Nahorite genealogy (Gen.
2224t).

He is identified by Winckler (Mitskeil. d. Vorderas. Ges.,
1896, p. 207) with Tihis, mentioned in the so-called Travels of
an Egyptian (Pas. Axest.i. 223; see RP 2111) and elsewhere,
as in the region of Kadesh on the Orontes (to the N.). Cp
WMM, 45. μ΄ Eur. 258. But see also TeBAH, T.,K.C.

THAMAH (MON, cema [BA]), Ezra 253 AV, RV
TEMAH (g.v.).

THAMAR (@amap[Ti. WH]), Mt.13.
THAMNATHA (Gamnaga [ANV]), 1 Mace. 950.
See TIMNAH (3).

THANK OFFERING Ma). 2 Ch. 2931 εἰς, See
SACRIFICE, $ 20 ὁ.
THARA (9apa [Ti. WH]), Lk. 334 AV, ΕΝ TERAH.

THARRA (Gappa [BK°*AL]), Esth. 121.
TERESH.

THARSHISH (Ὁ Ὁ), τ K.1022 AV, RV Tar.
SHISH (9.0).

THASSI (6accle]: [RV]), 1 Maco. 23.
(1), and MACCABEES, 88 1, 5,

Judas, sor of

See TAMAR.

See

See Simon

1 So Syr. Sin. Mt. 103 Lk. 616; Pesh, Lk. 6.16 Acts113.
5032

THEATRE

THEATRE. Although theatres and amphitheatres
were erected by the Herods in Jerusalem and other
towns of Syria (Jos. Ax4 xv.81, 96, xvi. Bi, xix. 75,
82; B/i.218, 1 1} in which magnificent spectacles
were exhibited, principally in honour of the Roman
emperors, there is no reference to them in the Gospels
or Acts. Even în narrating the death of Herod Agrippa
{Acts122r 7), whose fatal seizure, according to the
Jewish historian, took place in the theatre at Cresarea
{.124 χίχ. 82), the word does not occur, The word |
theatre is absent alike from the canonical and from the
apocryphal books of the OT, and in NT is found only |
in Acts1929-31 where the theatre of Ephesus is spoken
of. It was probably the usual place of meeting for
the assembly; and the ruins can still be seen {see
EPHESUS, $ 3).

x Cor. contains two probable references to theatrical
representations, neither of which is very apparent in EV.
The word translated ‘ spectacle’ (τ Cor. 49) is θέατρον,
and the whole passage seems to refer to ‘the band of
gladiators brought out at last for death, the vast range
of an amphitheatre under the open sky well representing
the magnificent vision of all created beings, from men
up to angels, gazing on the dreadful death-struggle ;
‘and then the contrast of the selfish Corinthians sitting
by unmoved at the awful spectacle' (Stanley, Coràe.
thians, 73). Cp Heb.1033 ‘being made ἃ gazing-
stock' (θεατριξόμενοι). Int Cor. 731, ‘the fashion of this
world passeth away' {παράγει τὸ σχῆμα τοῦ κόσμου),
many have seen an allusion to the drama, drawn either
from the shifting of the scenes, or the passing across
the stage of the gorgeous processions then so common.

Ancient history records the name of at least one Jewish
dramatist — Ezekie!, who lived in Alexandria in the second
century 5.c. and wrote a ‘tragedy ‘or dramatic poem, entitled
The Fxodus (ἰβξαγωγή, of which considerable fragments are
preserved in Ciem.Alex. (Sfr0m, 123), Eusebius (Pref. Fo.
9285) and Evstathius (ad Zeraéw. 25) On the question
x agito drama cp CANTICLES, $ 7, POETICAL LITERATURE,

40

'THEBES. See No-AMON.

THEBEZ (}'31), where Abimelech was killed whilst
besieging the citadel (Judg. 950 :64BHCc [BL]. GAIBAIC
[A]; 2 S.112xandv. 22in 65, Gamacleli [BA. -meccei
{L]), was situated, according to Eusebius and Jerome
(OS, 26244, 15715), 13 R. m. from Neapolis on the
rond to Seythopolis. Starting from this, Robinson
plansibly identifies Thebez with the mod. 72045, a large
village on the W. slope of a fruitful valley, τὸ m. due
NE. from Nablus. So Buhl, Pa/ 204 and the PZ# |
Survey.

But is this correct? Tubas suggests rather pui, Apart from
this, the form of the name is peculiar. We expect some famons !
fortress to be referred to. From the point of view of SHECHEM,
2, one may naturally think of Zephath (= Zarephath); noy might
easily be written n2y, out of which by transposition would come
pan This seems to give greater vividness to the narrative,

T. K. C.

THECOE (Gexwe [ANV]), 1 Macc. 933 AV, Εν
TEKOAH.

THELASAR (MESSA), 5. K.19:2 AV, ΕΥ̓͂ Ter
ASSAR (g.v.).

THELERSAS (6eAepcac [B]), 1 Esd. 536.
TEL-HARSHA.

See |

THEMAN (garman [BAQT]), Bar. 322 AV, Εν
TEMAN.

THEOCANUS (θωκάνου [A] θοκ. [B]), 1 Esd. |
914 AV=Ezra10 15, TIKVAH (9.0).

THEODOTUS (GeoAotoc {AV]}, one of Nicanor's
ambassadors to Judas the Maccabee in 161 B.c. (2
Mace. 1419) |

THEOPHANY. The invisibility of God formed no
part of early Hebrew belief. Although it was commonly i
inta thought that to see God (or indeed to '
1. Immediate. near his voice Dt 433 52347 [20 751})
was dangerous and even fatal (Ex. 3320 Judg. 1322 cp

5033

THEOPHANY

Gen. 16131 Ex. 86 1921 Judg. 6227 1K.19r2/ 1s.65),
many narratives, including those just cited, record cases
in which men saw God, or at least perceived hrough
the senses that he was present, and yet lived. The
most striking of these is in Ex. 2410 (JE) where it is
quite simply related that Moses and Aaron, Nadab and
Abihu, and seventy elders of Israel, having gone up Mt.
Sinai, saw the God of Israel. ‘The narrator is well
aware of the exceptional character of the occasion, for
in the next verse he expressìy records that God ‘laid
not his hands' upon them; but he gives no hint that
what was seen was anything less than the fullness of
the glory and person of the deity or that it was seen
in any other way than by ordinary vision Cp Nu.
126-8 (F).

In most cases, however, it is implied that the deity,
although he makes his presence known by a physical
appearance, does not manifest himself in his fuliness
to the ordinary human eye. We may convenientiy
classify the OT theophanies into those in which the
appearance is of the human form and those in which it
is some other physical phenomenon.

1. Theophanies in human form. —{a) Fx. 24ro
records, as we have seen, a complete exception to the

Τὰ Ἀν law that the sight of God was fatal.
2 TOMBA ‘The nearest parallel to this occurs in Ex.

τος 83177 (J). which relates that Moses saw
the back of Vahwè as he passed away, but that even he
could not with safety see the face of Yahwé. In other
narratives, however, it is just the face of God which is
seen—Ex. 3811 {E}, Gen. 8230 [31] (probably E); in
Nu. 126-8 it is said that Moses, unlike others (cp Dt.
4:2 15), in hîs customary and immediate intercourse with
Yahwè sees his form or témunah (someshing less distinct
than his appearance—cp Job4:6), But these are only
typical cases in connection with the present subject, in
which looseness and inconsistency of expression corre-
spond to looseness and variety of thought. We are
dealing with popular ideas and expressions, not with
theological and systematic thought. What is common
to the present type of theophary is that the sight of God
15 partial.

(6) In another type the peculiarity consists in the fact
that God is seen în human form indeed, but only by
sosten Means of dream or vision (cp Nu. 243.
3. In vision. ς we should probably ἤδη nel)
perience of Isaiah (Is. 6) and certainly those of Ezekiel
(Ezek. 1 etc.) and Daniel (Dan. 729) Cp Gen. 28
13-16 (7).

(c) But the commonest type of a theophany in human
form? was by means of the ‘angel of Yalwè' or ‘of

4. ‘Angel of God” (orata “D, mar pelo).
YFahwò. $ 2; NAME, 8 6.

- clearly identify the ‘Angel of Yahwè”

with Yahwéè, though often in the same narrative a
certain differentiation is also implied. Thus in Gen. 16
the angel of Yahwè who appears to Hagar is called
‘Yahwé who spake unto her' (τ. 13), and Hagar
expresses surprise that she still lives after seeing God
(cp further τ. 10 with e.g., 122). On the other hand
in v. 12 the angel speaks of Vahwè in the third person.

For further illustrations from other narratives of this identifica.
tion, see Gen. 2211 £ Ex.3 (angel of Yahwè, τ. 2= Yahwè,
vu. 40 3 7), Nu. 22 32-35 (cp especialiy τ᾿. 35 with 24 13), Judg.
21-5 61124 (angel οἱ YVahwè, vw. 117 20 f2=Yahwè, om.
14 1623), 1323; for indications of differentiatioris see Gen. 247 40
yet cp ve, 27,48 Nu. 22 31 Judg. 1387 25. 2415173 See also
DesTROvER.

1 Read ‘Have I even seen God and am I (stili) alive?” 50
Ballin SB07'in accordance with a large consensus of critical
opinion. See BEER-LAHAT:ROI, $ 1.

2 In Ex.32 the ‘angel of Yahwè' exceptionally manifests
himsell'in ‘a fame of fire,’ presumably not in human form.

ἃ The Vahwistic narrative in Gen. 187 presents. special
peculiarities. Yahwè appears to Abraham (181) as three men
(2.2) who speak or are addressed sometimes in the singular
(rr. 310), sometimes in the plural (72.47). Subseguentiy
(16-33) one of the three, who is identified with Yahwè, remains
behind with Abraham, the other two, who are described in 191

5034

THEOPHANY

In brief, the ‘angel of Yahwè' is an occasional
manifestation of Yahwè in human form, possessing no
distinet and permanent personality but speaking and
spoken of, at times as Yahwè himself (cp the way in
which the word of Yahwè passes over insensibly into the
prophetic comment), at times as distinet from him.
The danger which attached to the sight of God attached
also to the sight of the angel. The two early literary
strata of the Hexateuch differ in their detailed accounts
of the angel, In J he eats, drinks, and converses with
men, and În every respect comports himself as a human
being—the narratives of Judg. 6 13 are also in many
respects similar; in E there is a tendency to keep even
the angel from close contact with men—thus he appears
in and speaks from heaven (e.g., Gen. 2211).

At a later date, theophanies in (human) form were
denied (Dt. 415) or, as regularly in P, the theophany is
referred to in the barest possible terms without any
indication of its character—e.g., ‘ And God [or ‘ Yahwè ']
appeared . . . and spoke (said)’ {Gen, 171 359; cp
Ex. 63); and thus (after the Exile) the ‘angel of Yahwè”
was ΠΟ longer regarded as a theophany but became one
of the numerous distinet angelic personalities which
thenceforward formed prominent objects of belief (see
ANGEL, $3f.)

2. Theophanies în which the manifestation is not în
human form. (a) Fire, in one form or another, fre-

δ. Fire, Iuentiy indicated the divine presence. The

most notable illustrations of this are the
*Burning Bush’ (Ex. 8) and the ‘ Pillar of Fire' (Fx,
1322). In Ex.14196 (1) the ‘pillar of cloud'='the
angel of God,' v. 194 (È). For further details see the
articles BusH and PiLLAR ΟΕ. Fire. But there are a
number of other passages where fire or a fiery
appearance clearly has the same significance—e.g.,
Gen. 1517 Ex. 1918 2417 Dt. 412 15,

We ought also to compare the part played by fire in the
destruction of Nadab and Abihu (Lev, 10), of Korah and his
company (Nu. 10 35), of the people at Tab'erah (Nu. 11 1-3), in
Elijah's conflict with the priests of Baal (1 K.18, cp 2K.
11022), in the theophany at Moreb (in τ K.1031/, where
fire 15. not itself the theophany but an accompaniment of it), in
the assumption of Elijah (2 K. 211), and generally in the later
literary theophanies (see below, $ 6), and in similes (e.g., Is.
1017; ‘Yahwè is a devouring fire," Dt.424 93). Cp also the
Arabic stories of fiery appearances of the jinn; Goldziher, (δ.
sur Arab, Philologie, 205 ff

Even in the NT we find, in addition to citations from
or references to the OT (e.g., Acts730 Heb. 1218 29),
two or three instances of theophanic fire; the fire
clearly indicates, or is the accompaniment of, the divine
presence in Acts23 2 Thess. 18 (of the second coming
of Christ) 2 Pet. 3710-12 Rev. 101 {of an angel); perhaps
also Mt. 81r=Lk. 816 should be compared. Generally,
however, in NT (as already in Enoch; e.g., 1013 217-10
98 3) fire is the instrument of the divine punishment and
does not necessarily or explicitly affirm the divine
presence, ‘The transition from the older to the later
conception was facilitated by such passages as Am. 56
Is.3314 (cp 6624) Mal. 82, and is actually seen in
certain NT passages—2 Thess. 18 2 Pet, 310-12 1 Cor.
Brg1s

(ὁ) The ‘glory of Yahwè® (” 30), which from Isaiah
(63) onwards (eg., Nu,l4e17 Dt. 52: [24] Ezek. 3921
Ps.81192[1]963)expressesthe manifestation
of the divine character in nature and history,
is used by Ezekiel to express also the fiery
appearance which, in his visions, indicates the presence of
Vahwè1—1 28 104 432 etc. In P the phrase is invariably
used of a fiery theophany—in the first instance of the
theophany on Sinai (Ex, 24x5 17) and, subsequently, of
that in the tabernacle—Ex. 2943 4034 £ 167 τὸ (inv. τὸ
restore 2mpon, tabernacle, for the redactorial n2791),
Lev. 96 23 Nu. 1410 1619; cpfurther, 1 K. 810f, which
is dependent on P (Corn. Zir4 108). In its last usage

as “the two angels,* proceed to Sodom; but these in turn are
addressed and speak în the singular (7. 19-21), and speak and
act as Yahwè himself (72. 21/75).

5035

THESSALONIANS (EPISTLES TO)

the phrase corresponds closely to the Shechinah of post-
biblical Hebrew. The fact that the ‘glory of Yahwè,'
where it indicates a fiery appearance, is so frequently
associated with cloud and the similar combination of
fire and cloud in the stories of the Pillar of Fire and
Cloud (g.v.) may be, in part at least, explained as
modified survivals of an old view, which also maintained
itself in greater purity in poetical passages (e.g., Pss.
18 29), that Yahwè manifested himself in the thunder-
storm,

(c) Closely related to the term just discussed, and in
some cases almost synonymous with it, are the ‘ Name
of Yahwè' and the ‘ Face of Yahwè';
‘ ἢ the former stands in parallelism with

Toce Of the ‘glory of Yabwè' in Is.5919 Ps.
ti 102:5. The most strictly theophanic
passage in which either occurs is Is. 8027, and even that
is clearly figurative. Cp NAME, $ 6. Generally speak-
ing, both terms are used of God as made known to men,
but rather by some decisive event, or otherwise indirectly,
than by a physical phenomenon. In Phceenician, on the
other hand, ‘the face’ or ‘ name of Baal” is a goddess—
Spa jan Spa oe mey (cp Baethg. Beitr. 56 / 267,
also NAME, $ 6; and see Fr. Giesebrecht's monograph,
Die Alttestamentliche Schitrung des Gottesnamens u.
ihre religionsgeschichtliche Grundlage [1901]}.

Two remarks are suggested by the preceding survey.
(1) The belief that fire, especially the lightning of the
storm, was the physical indication of
Yahwè's presence may lie at the base of
the belief in the danger of beholding
Yahwè's face ; at the same time, it must be remembered
that analogous beliefs occur in other religions. (2) A
large proportion of the stories are connected with the
Exodus and the subsequent Wanderings. The idea of
the ‘Angel’ or ‘ Messenger of Vahwè' may well have
sprung out of an attempt to reconcile the belief that
Yahwè abode in Sinai, and yet that he accompanied
Israel to Canaan (cp Ex. 2320-23). A similar conflict
would stili have called for reconciliation when Yahwéè

was regarded as seated in heaven.

In addition to the narratives of theaphanies where the

theophany is regarded as sober historical fact, we have numerous

purely literary theophanies—-i.e., descriptions

9. Later. clearly intended by the writers to be metaphorical

and imaginative. Some of these are concelved in

the boldest anthropomorphic manner (cp, the descriptions

of Yahwè as a warrior—ls. 6 1-6 59154 7.); in others, figures

drawn from the storm or other natural phenomena play a large
part (cp, ce., Ps. 18 Hab. 3).

In he we have angelophanies (see ANGEL, 87), but
(except as indicated above, ὃ 24, ad fix.) no occasional theo-
phanies such as the OT records. Instead, we have the life of

lesus which, most clearly by the author of the fourth gospel,
ut also by other NT writess, is regarded as a prolonged mani.
festation of God in the flesh (cp especially Jn.11-314, and eg,
Rom.11-7 Col.115, 29 Heb.11-3). In the same way the
helief in the Parozsia is tantamount to the expectation of a
coming theophany.

Literature. Ch, 1. Trip, Die Theophanien in den Ge
schichtsbiichera des AT(Leyden, 1858); this is primarily a history
and discussion of the view that the ‘ Angel of Yahwè'= ‘the son
of God. Kosters, ‘De Mal'ach Jahwe' in 7%.7, 1875, pp.
369-415. See, further, under ANGEL. Ὀ.8. 6.

THEOPHILUS (θεοφιλος [Ti. WH]), the ‘most
excellent person to whom the Third Gospel and the
Book of Acts are dedicated (Lk.13 Actsli). See
GOSPELS, $ 37.

THERAS (Gepa [BA]), 1 Esd. 861 (cp v. 41)
831, AHAVA.

THERMELETH{GepmeAc0[BA]}, 1 Esd. 536= Ezra
2.59, TEL-MELAH,

THESSALONIANS (EPISTLES TO)

Its authorship (8 8).
2 Thess. (8 4/0).

7. ‘Name’ or

8. General
estimate.

Ezra

Place and time ($ 7).
Character of epistles (8 6). 45).
Thessalonian Christians ($ 7). Its authorship (88 gr
1 Thess. (ἢ 2/). Bibliography (ἢ τὸ

The two Epistles to the Thessalonians were written,
5036

THESSALONIANS (EPISTLES TO)

not in Athens (cp 1 Thess. 31) as stated in the subscrip-
tion to the epistles in the Texsus Meceptus,
but in Corinth during Paul's first visit
there recorded in Acts1817 This
appears from the following considerations :—

i. The names of Silvanus and Timothy are joined with the
name of Paul in the salutations of both epistles, and they were
witù Paul in Corinth during his first visit there, according to
Acts185, which is confirmed by 2 Cor. 119. A considerable
period had elapsed since Paul left Thessalonica, for the fame of
the Thessalonian Christians had already spread throughout
Macedonia and Achaia (1 Thess. 17), and Paul must ‘have
laboured at least for some months in Achaia, as may be gathered
from the spread of Christianity in that province implied in the
same passage. Timothy had been sent back to Thessalonica
from Athens, and had had time to return and make his report
to the apostle (1 Thess.326), and this return may fairly he
identified with the arrival of Silas and Timothy în Corinth,
mentioned in Acts185. See TmorHy, $ 3; cp SILas.

ii. On the other hand, the epistles cannot have been written
at ἃ time subsequent to Paul's first visit to Corinth, for the first
of them was evidently written immediately after the return of
Timothy from Thessalonica, whither he had been sent by Paul
from Athens (1 Thess. 36); the Thessalonian church was
apparently still a young church (1 Thes. 19), and, finally, there

is no sign that Paul and Silvanus and Timothy were together
again after the first visit in Corinth; cp SiLas.

The episties were written probably in the year 48 or
49,1 or, according to the generally accepted chronology
of Paul's life, in s3 or 54.2 They are commonly
regarded as the carliest of Paul's epistles ; but there is
good reason for thinking the Epistle to the Galatians
stili earlier. The notable lack in x and 2 Thessalonians
of the doctrinal element which is so prominent în most
of Paul's epistles counts for nothing in the matter of
date, for in any case they were written later than the
Council of Jerusalem, sixteen years or more after Paul's
conversion, and an interval of only some five years
separates them from the Epistle to the Romans, and still
less from Galatians and Corinthians. As a matter of
fact, the simplicity of the Thessalonian epistles and the
absence of the great characteristic Pauline doctrines are
to be explained, not by the date of the epistles, but by
the particular cireumstances which called them forth.

Those circumstances are indicated with sufficient
clearness in the epistles themselves. Paul had been
, compelled to leave Thessalonica before

2.1 Thess.: he wished to do so, and under circum-

9ecasion- stances which made him fear for the
permanence of his work there {1 Thess. 217 317). He
had apparently been driven away from the City by a
persecution which continued to assail the disciples after
his departure. Whether this persecution is to be
directly connected with the attack of the Jews upon
Paul recorded in Acts 175 f is uncertain. At any rate,
if the persecution was begun at the instance of the Jews,
it was carried on afterwards by the Gentiles, and it was
at their hands that the Christians of Thessalonica chiefly
suffered (τ ‘Thess. 214)* The persecution was 50
severe that Paul feared his Thessalonian converts might
lose courage and renounce their faith, and he therefore
greatly desired to return himself to Thessalonica (1 Thess.
2177). For some reason, however, possibly because
his friends had given bonds for his continued absence
{Acts179), he was unable to do so, and he therefore
sent ‘Timothy from Athens to encourage and strengthen
his converts and to bring him news concerning them
{x Thess. 8: f).5

It is possible that Timothy also carried a letter from Paul to
the Thessalonian church (see Rendel Harris în Zx/0s. 8174

1. Place
and time.

1 According to the chronology οἵ Paul's life adopted by
Kellner, Kafkolit, 1887, î 1465, O. Holtzmann, N7licke
Ztgesch. (1894), Blass, Acta Apostolorum (1895), Harnack,
Chrono. (1897), M'Giffert, Hist. Christ, in Apost. Age (3897),
and some others.

2 Cp CHRONOLOGY, $ 7277

8 See M'Giffert, ἐς, 226/; Zahn, Zinl 11387; Barilet,
Afostolic Age, 84; Bacon, /atrod. t0 NT, 57.

4 Zimmer (Der erste Thessalonicherbrit}, 34, 94 fo) takes the
opposite view, but without sufficient warrant,

Of this mission of Timothy to Thessalonica we hear nothing
in Acts. In fact, there is no hintin Acts that Timothy was with
Paul in Athens, as we know from 1 Thess. that he was,

5037

[1898}}} but we have no evidence of such a letter, and the
information which Paul gives his readers in r Thess. 217 8 5
rather argues against an earlier communication from him. But
though we have no adequate ground for assuming that Paul
sent to Thessalonica another epistle before our 1 Thessalonians,
there is some reason for thinking that the Thessalonians sent a
ietter back to Paul by Timothy (see Harris, #14. 1677). Harris
finds evidence of such a letter în 1 Thess.125 21591013 8 3:6,
and also în 19, where he suggests the alteration of * hey report’
(ἀπαγγέλλουσι»} to ‘ you report’ (ἀπαγγέλλετε), in order to bring
it into line with 21; and he gives a tentative reconstruction of
the letter on Ὁ. 172. ‘Also we' (καὶ ἡμεῖς) in 213, ‘also Τ᾽
(ay) in 3 5, the conventional epistolary formula ‘yè have good
remembrance of us’ (ἔχετε μνείαν ἡμῶν ἀγαθήν x.7.A.) in 36,
‘for you yourselves report concerning us’ (aùroì γὰρ περὶ

ἡμῶν ἀπαγγέλλετε) in 19 (to adopt the reading suggested by
Harris) may fairly be regarded as pointing to a Thessalonian
epistle; but beyond these hints we can hardìy go. It will not
do at any rate to regard rhe words ‘ye know (cidare) as evidence
of such an epistle, for we cannot well suppose that the Thessa-
lonians gave Pau! an account of his sufferings in Philippi (2).

The report which Timothy brought back from
Thessalonica was upon the whole very cheering ; but
he informed Paul of the existence of certain evils among
the Thessalonians which demanded the apostle's atten-
tion. ‘The common fleshìy impurity of the heathen
world, especially prevalent in a great commercial
metropolis like Thessalonica, had not been entirely
overcome by the Thessalonian Christians {1 Thess. 441}:
a spirit of enthusiasm was abroad among them which
led them to neglect their ordinary employments and so
bring disrepute upon the brotherhood (1 Thess. 411f.};
and there was on the part of some a tendency, entirely
natural where fanaticism had so free play, to disregard
the counsel and authority of the leaders of the church
{x Thess, ὅσα Δ}. On the other hand, in opposition to
the common enthusiasm, there were some who ‘ despised
prophesyings’ and frowned upon all spiritual manifesta-
tions (r Thess. 520). It looks also as if some of the
disciples were casting aspersions upon the character
and motives of Paul himself, possibly because he had
left the city during a time of persecution, At any rate
he felt obliged to defend himself in his epistle against
variouscharges, such as covetousness, avarice, selfishness,
and personal ambition (x Thess. 21-12). Finally, the
Thessalonians had apparently asked the apostle a
question touching the fate of Christian brethren dying
before the return of Christ (1 Thess. 4137). Evidently
they had believed that Christ would come so soon that
they shonld all be alive to greet him; but as time
passed some of their number died and Christ still
tarried. The question naturally forced itself upon them,
Were such brethren to be deprived of the privilege of
seeing the Lord at his coming and sharing his glory?
Fither Timothy was asked to consult the apostle upon
the matter, or the question was raised în the epistle to
the Thessalonians referred to just above, It was due to
all these circumstances that Paul wrote his first epistle
to the Thessalonians.

The epistle has no central theme, nor is it a studied
composition constructed upon a well-defined plan. It

is a familiar letter in which expressions

3. Contents. cf affection and words of exhortation
and warning follow one upon another with no attempt
at logical arrangement.

After a salutation, in which the names of Silvanus and
Timothy are joined with his own (11), Paul expresses his
gratitude, beginning with the conventional terms of contemporary
correspondence (see Harris, 72i4.), for the faith and steadfast-
ness of the Thessalonians (1 2-6), and reminds them of his own
conduct while among them, of his devotion and self-sacrifice
which some bad evidently called in question (21-12), gives
utterance to his joy at the reception they had given his message,
and at the steadfastness they had shown in the face of persecu-
tion (213-16), tells them of his anziety about them while in
Athens and of his great desire to see them, which resulted,
when he could not go himself, in his sending Timothy to visit
them (8 r-5), and which is now fully relieved by the good news
brought by him (86-10). The commendatory, apologetic, and
explanatory portion of the letter is concluded with a beautiful
prayer for the readers’ growth în grace (8 11-13).

. The passage just referred to serves at the same time to
introduce the second and hortatory section of the epistle (4.1).

After emphasising the importance of purity (41.8), of brothérly
love (#9), and of quietness and diligence in daily business

5038

THESSALONIANS (EPISTLES TO)

(a1/), the apostle turns to the subject of eschatology and
insiructs the Thessalonians, first, touching the brethren dying
before the return of Christ (4 13-16), and secondly, touching the
uncertainty of the time of the Parousia, which makes it necessary
to be constantly watchfal and zealous (51-11) Then follow
various exhortations having especial reference to the disciples'
association with each other as a Christian brotherhood (8 12-22),
and the epistle closes with a petition for their perfect sanctification
(235°), a request for their prayers (25), a salutation, and a
benediction (26-28).

The epistle apparently accomplished its purpose, for

we hear nothing more of aspersions upon Paul's
character, and the Thessalonians seem to
4 2Th658. have needed no further instruction as to
the resurrection of the dead. But Paul's words touch-
ing the Day of the Lord {52 4) evidently led them to
believe that the Parousia was imminent, and some of
them in their expectation of the immediate return of
Christ were greatly excited and were neglecting their
ordinary employments {2 Thess. 237). Ît is possible
that it was this expectation which had led them to
similar fanaticism before Paul wrote his first epistle
(τ Thess. 4r1 Δ); but if so he cannot have been aware
of it, or he would have dealt with the matter in that
epistle.

How Paul learned of the esisting situation we do not
know. It is not impossible that he had received
another letter from the Thessalonians in answer to his
former one {see Bacon, /.c. p. 72); but we have no
positive evidence of it. At any rate, however the news
reached him, it led him to write a second epistle intended
to put a stop to such unwarranted fanaticism.®

After commending the patience and faithfulIness of
the Thessalonians (2 Thess. 11-4), as he had done in

the first epistle, and comforting them
5. Its contente, with a reference to the recompense
which God will render both them and their enemies
(15-12), he proceeds at once to his main point. When
he wrote before, he supposed that an exhortation to go
about their daily business with quietness and diligence
would suffice to put a stop to their fanatical conduct,
and that they needed no special instruction touching
the time and the season of the consummation (τ Thess.
51). He saw now, however, that it was because they
believed that Christ might come at any moment that
theîr minds were disquieted, and so he reminded them
that certain events must occur before the consummation,
The ‘man of sin,’ the ‘son of perdition,’ the ‘lawless
one’ must be revealed as he had told them when he
was with them (2 Thess. 25); but he cannot be until
‘that which now restraineth (2 Thess. 26 τὸ κατέχον,
v. 7 ὁ κατέχων) has been taken out of the way”
{2 Thess. 23-10).3

This eschatological passage is followed by renewed
commendations, and by exhortations to steadfastness
and patience, sobriety and diligence (213-315), and the
epistle concludes with benedictions and with a salutation
from Paul's own hand, which he asserts îs the token in
every letter (316-18).

It would seem that those disciples who were insisting
that the Parousia was immediately at hand were appeal-
ing to a letter bearing Paul's name (2 Thess. 22); but
as he was not conscious of having written anything to
support their opinion, he concludéd that they must be
making use of a forged document, and so he was careful
to call attention to his autograph signature which
guaranteed the genuineness of all his letters. [1 is not
likely that Paul's surmise was correct, for it can hardly

1 On this apocalypse see H. St. John Thackeray, Τὰς Relation
ef.St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought, 102.f

2 it was formerly maintained by some scholars (e.g., Ew.
Sendschveiben des Paslus, την Laurent, N7° Studien,
49.) that 2 Thess, îs earlier than 1 Thess. ; but this îs excluded
by the literary relationship between the two epistles, which
clearly points to the secondary character of the second, by the
sharper tone of 2 Thess, in dealing with the disorderly (36),
and by the relation of the apocalyptic passage în 227 ἴὸ
1 Thess. 4137
ἢ τοι the interpretation of this passage see ANTICHRIST)

4“

5039

be supposed that any one would venture to palm off a
forged letter upon the Thessalonians so soon after the
apostle’s departure, and as a matter of fact the eschato-
logical passage în the first epistle (51-11) was of such a
character that it might easily serve to promote the
belief in the immediate consummation, though he seems
not to have realised it.
The Epistles to the Thessalonians are almost wholly
personal and ethical and throw very little light upon
Paul's theological views,? except in the
pipi matter of eschatology to which there
* are a great many allusions. Thus,
the Parousia of Christ is referred to in 1 Thess. 1 τὸ 219
3x3 dis fo 52/23 2Thess.17/ 21 5 ἢ the judgment
in 1 Thess. 1τὸ 2 Thess.167 2x2; the resurrection of
believers in 1 Thess. 4147. ; their future glory and blessed-
ness în 1 Thess. 417 ὕχο 2 Thess.214; and the final
kingdom in 1 Thess 212 2 Thess.15. It is evident
that the Thessalonian Christians were much interested
in eschatological questions, and it would seem that Paul
must have laid considerable stress, while in Thessalonica,
at any rate upon the speedy retum of Christ and the
impending judgment {cp 1 Thess. ro 52 2 Thess. 25).
Possibly he was led to do so by the great prevalence of
vice and immorality in the city. However that may be,
the Thessalonians expected the return of Christ very
soon, before any of their number had passed away, and
Paul had evidently given them some warrant for the
expectation, for even when he wrote his First Epistle he
looked for the Parousia during his own lifetime and
theirs (cp 219 415f). It was doubtless because of this
that Paul had not instructed them touching the resur-
rection of believers and so was obliged to do so at
some length in x Thess. 413f. (cp 1 Cor. 15 and see
M'Giffert, Lc. p. 248).
The two Epistles to the Thessalonians throw con-
siderable light upon Paul's work in Thessalonica and
upon the character and condition of

7. The b Bas
$ his converts there. The Christians ad-
Thessalonian ;
Christians. dressed were most, if not all, of them

Gentiles (1 Thess.19 2x4) ; and, more-
over, as appears from the former passage, they had
been converted directly from heathenism to Christianity
‘under Paul's preaching. Βαϊ the account of Paul's work
in 'Thessalonica contained in Acts (171 £) gives a very
different picture of the Thessalonian converts. Accord-
ing to that passage, ‘Some of them (ὦ, 6., of the Jews)
were persuaded and consorted with Paul and Silas, and
of the devout Greeks (z.e., Jewish proselytes) a great
multitude, and of the chief women not a few." Of
these Jews and Jewish proselytes there is no trace în
either of Paul's epistles, and though of course it is quite
possible that there were some of them among his,
converts, it is certain that they must have formed an
altogether insignificant minority. It is clear then that
the author of Acts, as is frequently the case, has
recorded the least important part of Paul's activity in
‘Thessalonica, and that it was not in the synagogue
that he did his chief work (the only part of his work
mentioned in Acts), but among the heathen population
of the city, At the same time there is no reason for
doubting that Paul actually did preach to Jews and
proselytes in the synagogue of Thessalonica.® But after
a brief period spent in that work he must have turned
to the Gentiles, instead of leaving the city directly as
implied in Acts17ro, and must have spent at least some
months in labour among them, as is clear from 1 Thess.
27 f. and Phil.4:6, and also from the large and
permanent results accomplished. The account în Acts
is thus very meagre and misleading at this point and
has to be not only supplemented but also corrected by
1 Thess. It is evident that that epistle was not in
the hands of the author of Acts when he was writing

1 See 1 Thess.212 8813 478 51018 2 Thess. 111 21316 for
familiar Pauline ideas,
2 See M'Giffert, op. cit. 246.

5040

THESSALONIANS (EPISTLES TO)

his account of this part of Paul's work, nor was Acts in
the hands of the author of 1 ‘Thess.

The Thessalonian epistles bear eloquent testimony to
the success of Paul's raissionary labours in ‘T'hessalonica.
He succeeded in founding there a strong and vigorous
church, and the faith and patience and brotherly love of
his convertswere so marked that their famespeedily spread
even beyond the provinces of Macedonia and Achaia (1
Thess. 17/), and their generosity in ministering to the
necessities of other churches, even though poor them-
selves, called forth the apostle’s hearty commendation
(τ Thess. 410; cp 2 Cor.81f. and Acis 204). Τὸ none
of his churches was he bound by warmer ties of affection
than to the churches of Thessalonica and Philippi, and
none of his epistles, except that to the Philippians, is
more thoroughly pervaded with joy and confidence and
affection than 1 Thess,

It has been assumed throughout this article that both
1 and 2 Thess. are genuine epistles of Paul, So far as
the former is concerned its authenticity,

5 puthor: denied a couple of generations ago by
i fhose many scholars, is to-day generally recog-

nised except by those who deny the
genuineness of all the Pauline epistles {see PAUL,
$ 38). As a matter of fact, if one accepts any of
Paul's epistles there is no good reason for denying the
authenticity of 1 Thess. The argument against its
genuineness, drawn from its lack of the doctrinal and
polemical material found in the great epistles to the
Galatians, the Corinthians, and the Romans, is now
universally recognised as fallacious, for the situation
in T'hessalonica as indicated in the epistle itself fully
accounts both for what it contains and for what it
‘omits. Moreover, the style of the epistle, its revelation
of the character of its author, its familiar and personal
tone, the absence of any doctrinal or polemic interest
which would account for pseudonymity, the discrepancies
between the epistle and Acts, the use of the three names
Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy (the form Σίλας being
found uniformly in Acts and Σιλουανός only in
1 and 2 Thess. 2 Cor. lr9 and 1 Pet, 512} all make for
genuineness {cp SILAS]; and the evidence brought by
Rendel Harris in the article referred to above ($ 2)
that it is part of a correspondence with the Thessalonian
church, strengthens ‘he argument, and if that evidence
be regarded as conclusive, of course places the genuine-
ness of the epistle beyond all question. Finally, the
implication in 417 that Christ was to return during the
lifetime of the apostle is of itself enough to prove that
it was not written after his death.1
©On the other hand, the authenticity of 2 'Thessalonians
is by no means so c‘ear, nor is it so widely recognised.
The tendency to view ît as a genuine
9. Of 2Thess. ρίξει of Paul has apparently grown
somewhat in recent years among scholars of the critical
school {e.g., Jilicher, Z£îx/ 40 [1894]; Harnack,
Chronol. 239 [1808]; Bacon, Znérod. lo NT, 75£
[1900]; and compare the statement of Holtamann
[&int.9 216] that ‘at the present day the question is
not whether the epistle is to be brought down into the
post-apostolic age, but whether it does not on the con-
trary reach up into the lifetime of the apostie, and
whether consequently it must not be genuine, and have
been written soon after 1 Thess.'). Many, however, who
accept I ‘l'hessalonians reject 2 Thessalonians altogether
(as, e.g., Lipsius, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Pfleiderer,
Schmiedel, Weizsticker), or regard it as largely inter
polated (e.g., P. Schmidt, Der ersle Thessalonicherbrief,
127 f.).

‘The first objection urged against the genuineness of

1 Schmiedel, while accepting the cpistle as a whole, suggests
that 2155 is an interpolation. There is, however, no reason to
doubt the genuineness of the passage, though it is quite possible
that 2, 168 is an interpolation; and the same may be said of
Ὁ, 236. The latter looks decidedly un-Pauline, and by its omis-
sion τι 24 is brought into immediate connection with m. 234 with
which it seems to belong.

5041

the epistle is the apocalyptic passage, 2 Thess. 22-12.
This objection is based chiefiy upon
the assumption that the passage is in-
consistent with 1 T'hess. 52 ΚΑ, and since
eschatology. ;ts substunce is said to have been
imparted to the ‘Thessalonians while Paul was stili
present with them {2 ‘Thess. 25), the inconsistency cannot
be explained as due to the further development of
Paul's thought after the writing of x Thessalonians.

It is to be noticed, however, that though the author
indicates in 2 ‘Thess. 2 that certain events must occur,
and, consequently, some interval elapse before the final
consummation, there is no' sign that he regards the
interval as long, and that he does not expect to live
until the Parousia, Nor is the fact that certain signs
are to precede the consummation inconsistent with the
exhortation in r‘Thess. 52 to be watchful, for the day of
the Lord comes as a thief in the night only for those
who sleep, the implication being that those who are
awake know the signs of its coming and will not be
taken unaware. It is quite conceivable that Paul might

| have told the Thessalonians when he was with them

why the Parousia was delayed, and might have spoken
of the traditional figure of Antichrist (the ταῦτα of 25
refers to what precedes), without contradieting his belief
‘or theirs that the consummation was to take place very
soon. Only when he found that their expectation of its
inaminence was leading them into fanaticism would he
naturally, in order to show that it could not come
immediately, dwell more at length upon the inter-
vening events, and indicate still more fully what those
events were. Possibly the protection of the Roman
pro-consul at Corinth {Acts 18 x2) had led him to recog-
nise more clearly than ever before the protecting power
of Rome (to which τὸ κατέχον and è κατέχων [‘the
restrainer") certainly refer}, and so, for the first time,
to bring this element of the traditional eschatology into
prominence as in 2 Thess. 26 f.

The further objection brought against the genuineness
of 2 Thess, 22 Δ, on the ground of its alleged dependence
upon the Apocalypse, or of its acquaintance with the
Nero redivivus legend, breaks down completely when
the passage is interpreted as it should be in the light of
current Jewish eschatology, and the figure of Antichrist
is recognised as purely traditional (see ANTICHRIST,
8.42}

It must be recognised then that there is not sufficient
ground in the eschatology of the second epistle for deny-
ing its Pauline authorship. If there is good reason for
ascribing the remainder of the epistle to Paul, there
need he no difficulty in assuming that he wrote the
apocalyptic passage, 22/7 In fact, we may perhaps go
farther and say that that passage, when taken in con-
nection with the remainder of the epistle, can be better
understood on the assumption of its authenticity than on
thatof its pseudonymity. It can hardly be supposed that
any one would venture to produce such a pseudonymous
epistle during Paul's own lifetime, or that it would find
acceptance if he did, On the other hand, if Paul's
first episile gave rise to misunderstandings-—as the second
epistle, whether genuine or not, seems to show that it
did-—we should expect those misunderstandings to have
arisen immediately, not after an interval of many years,
when the expectation expressed in the epistle was
already at least partially discredited by Paul's own
death. And if the fanatical abuse of his words appearcd
during his lifetime, it would be strange if he took no
notice of it. If it could be supposed that the epistle
was written simply to save Paul's reputation and set
him right with the Thessalonians after his death, by
showing that he had not expected the consummation as
soon as 1Thessalonians seemed to imply, its post-
Pauline date would be easy to understand, but there is
no sign of such an interest. "The sole purpose of the
eschatological passage is clearly to put a stop to the
fanaticism to which the belief in the speedy consum-

5042

THESSALONIANS (EPISTLES TO)

mation was giving rise. Under these circumstances
2'l'hessalonians, so far as the eschatological passage 15
concerned, seems easier to explain as a letter of Paul's,
written within a few months of 1 Thessalonians, than as
the work of a later time and of another hand.

It has been suggested by some scholars (eg.,
Schmidt, 09, cit. 127) that 2 Thess. 22-12 has been inter-
polated in a genuine epistle of Paul; but there is no
ground for such a hypothesis. The point of the epistle
is entirely gone if the apocalyptic passage be omitted,
and the difficuities which beset the genuineness of the
remainder of the epistle are even greater than those
which beset the apocalyptic passage. As a matter of
fact, the suggestion of Hausrath (NTliche Zeitgesch.)
3 198) that this passage is the only genuine part of the
epistle is much more plausible.

A second objection to the Pauline authorship of
2 Thessalonians is drawn from its language and style.

It is true that the epistle contains an

ni From, a Ucommonly large number of words

presta and phrases which occur nowhere else

on "in Paul (the Pastoral epistles not being
reckoned as Pauline).

Such are : ‘groweth exceedingly' (ὑπεραυβάνωΝ), 131 “glory”
(ἐγκαυχάομαι", 7.4; ‘token’ @rBeeyua*), ‘judgment' (χρίσις),
‘count worthy” (καταξιόω), 7.5; ‘Haming fire’ (πῦρ φλογός),
v.8; ‘punishment’ (δίκη), ‘suffer’ (xivw*), ‘everlasting de
struction’ (αἰώνιος, ὄλεθρος), ‘from the presence’ (ἀπὸ
προσώπου), 7.9; ‘“glorify' (&vofdto*), τῶ. 10 12; ‘good pleasure
οἱ Wocdners (ὐδοξία ἀγαθωσύνην, tv. 11; ‘gathering together
unto” (ἐπισυναγωγή), ‘shake’ (σαλεύω), "be troubled’
(ϑροοῦμαι), 2.2; ‘falling away” (ἀποστασία), τ΄. 3: ‘object of
“worship' (σέβασμα), τν Αἱ "ἀεςεῖς of unrighteousness' (ἀπάτῃ
ἀδικίας"), ‘because ' άνθ᾽ ὧν), ‘love of truth’ (ἀγάπη ἀληθείας"),
v. 10; ‘a working of error! (ἐνέργεια πλάνης"), v. 11; ‘be
lief of truth” (πέστις ἀληθείας"), 7. 13; ‘chose’ (αἱρέομαι), 2.
13 (oceurs once in Phil. 122 and Heb. 1125 în another con-
niection ; the common word în Paul, to express the idea, being
ἐκλέγω); ‘good hope’ (ἐλπὶς ἀγαθή), 7. 16 (cp Heb. 7 19 1 Pet.
13); ‘unreasonable' (&roros), 32; ‘busy-bodies' (περιεργάζο-
pa), 11; ‘well-doing’ (καλοποιέω), τ. τ; ‘note’ (σημει-
οὔσθε"), 7, 14; and the particle ‘nor’ (μήτε) in 22.

Considerably more than half of these, however, are
found in the apocalyptic passages in chaps. 1 and 2,
and their presence is sufficiently accounted for by the
nature of the subject-matter, and it is now generally
recognised that very little weight can be laid in any
case upon the mere occurrence οἵ Zapax legomena.

More striking is the fact that the epistle contains very
few words which are found in Paul's epistles but not
elsewhere in the NT, except such as it has in common
with 1 Thessalonians.

The, particle ‘if so be' (εἴπερ), 2 Thess.16, and the word
‘working’ (ἐνέργεια), 2911, are found half a dozen times in
Paul, the former in Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, the Jatter
in Philippians, Ephesians, and Colossians, and ‘goodness *
(ἀγαθωσύνη) in Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, once each.
Tie phrase “as that (ὡς 800). 2 L'hase 22, pecure caly in 2Cor.
1121; ‘exalteth himsel” (ὑπεραίρομαι), 2 Thess. 24, only in
2Cor.127; ‘withdraw' (στέλλομαι), 2 Thess. 36, only in 2 Cor.
820; ‘keep company with' (συναναμέγνυμαι), 2 Thess. 3 14, only
in rCor. 5911; ‘decelve’ (ἐξαπατώω), 2 Thess. 23, which is
found in Romans and 1 and 2 Corinthians, occurs also in the
post-Pauline 1 Timothy. ᾿

On the whole, the argument from style, so far as it
goes, seems to point away from Paul rather than
toward him as author; but it must be recognised that
no definite conclusion can be drawn from it.

Nor can any conclusion be drawn from the ethical
and theological content of the epistle. There are but
few characteristically Pauline ideas—e.g., lrn: ‘that
our God may count you worthy of [your] calling’ (ira
ὑμᾶς ἀξιώσῃ τῆς κλήσεως ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν ; cp Eph 41); 216,
‘God who loved us' (ὁ θεὸς. . . ὁ ἀγαπήσας ἡμᾶς; cp
Rom. 83 Eph. 24); 2x3,‘ God chose you from the begin-
ning unto salvation’ (εἵλατο ὑμᾶς ὁ θεὸς ἀπ' ἀρχῆς εἰς σωτη-
ρίαν ; cp Eph.14, where the idea is the same but not
the language), and no argument can be drawn from any
‘of these. On the other hand, there is nothing in the
teaching of the epistle which can be pronounced in any

1 The words and phrases marked with an asterisk are found
nowhere else in the NT.

5043

way un-Pauline, except possibly the conception of
divine recompense and vengeance in 16-12. One might
almost be tempted, if accepting the epistle as a whole,
to regard these verses as an interpolation and to con-
nect the ‘to which end’ (εἰς 3) of v. 11 directly with
‘that ye may be counted worthy' (eis τὸ καταξιωθῆναι
ὑμᾶς) οἵ ©, 5.

Much more serious than the objections to the genuine-
ness of the epistle already mentioned is the objection

drawn from its close resemblance to
εὐ From 1 Thessalonians, amounting at times to

tO 1 Thes 20 almost slavish dependence. A

N@B8: detailed comparison of the two shows
that the only new matter in the second is found in 15-12
22-1215 B1-51013/ 17.

Even within these passages there is more or less dependence
upon 1 Thessalonians. Thus 2 Thess. 17 suggests τ Thess. 110
219 416; and 2 Thess, 1 τος suggests 1 Thess. #13. 2 Thess. 215,
taken with the verses immediately preceding, seems to show the
influence of 1 Thess. 56-10. 2 Thess.31 and 1Thess. 525 both
have the words, ‘brethren, pray for us’ (προσεύχεσθε, ἀδελφοί,
περὶ ἡμῶν), which occur nowhere else in Paul, and 2 Thess. 31
and 1 Thess. 18.415 have the phrase ‘word of the Lord' λόγος
κυρίον), which is also wanting in Paul's other epistles, though
‘word of Christ’ (λόγος Χριστοῦ) is found in Col. 3 16. α Thess,
83-5 contains reminiscences of 1Thess.522-24 13 811, and
2 Thes. 315 of 1 Thess. 51214.

The remainder of the epistle, about a third of the
whole, is simply a more or less close reproduction of
the first epistle.

Thus, in addition to the salutation at the beginning and the
benediction at the close, which are identical, except for the
addition of ‘from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ*
ἰἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) in 2 Thess. 12, and
of ‘all’ (πάντων) in 8 18, we find that 2 Thess, 1 1-4 is a condensed
summary of 1 Thess. 1. 2Thess. 21 has the clause ‘now
we beseech you, brethren' ζἐρωτῶμεν δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοῦ, which
occurs in 1 Thess. 512 (cp 41) but nowhere else in Paul ; also the
clause ‘touching the Parousia,’ etc. (ὑπὲρ τῆς παρουσίας x.7.A.),
which is nearly identical with x Thess. 2 19 3.13 415 5 23, and the
remainder of the verse suggests 1 Thess. 417, 2Thess. 213f
contains reminiscences of 1Thess.12 213 (though ‘we are
bound ᾿[ὀφείλομεν] isadded as în 13); of 1 Thess. 14(‘brethren,
beloved of the Lord” [ἀδελφοὶ ἠγαπημένοι ὑπὸ κυρίου] for
‘brethren, beloved of God' [ἀδελφοὶ ἠγαπημένοι ὑπὸ θεοῦ}; of
1 Thess. 47 (though the combination of ‘of spirit’ [πνεύματος]
with ‘sanctification’ [ἁγιασμῷ], and the phrase ‘ belief of truth”
{πίστει ἀληθείας] are new); and of τ Thess, 59. 2Thess. 2167
may be compared with 1 Thess. 8.212, (notice the connection
of the two words, ‘comfort’ [παρακαλέσαι] and 'stablish’
ἰστηρίφωγ. 2 Thess 36-12 is entirely, with the «xception of the
latter part of 7. ro, which is new, a reproduction of 1 Thess, 26.
4x1f; Ὁ. 8 being verbally identical with a part of 1 Thess. ὅς
(‘wrought in labour and travail night and day that we might
not burden any of you' [tr κόπῳ καὶ μόχθῳ νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας
ἐργαζόμενοι πρὸς τὸ μὴ ἐπιβαρῆσαί τινα ὑμῶν]; and 77. 104
with the first clause of 1 Thess. 8 4 (‘ for even when we were with
γοῦν [kai γὰρ ὅτε ἦμεν πρὸς ὑμᾶξὶ, the particle ‘when' [6re]
being found nowhere else în either epistle, and ‘for even’ [καὶ

ἀρ] only here in 2 Thessalonians) The passage also contains
striking reminiscences of 1 Thess.16 41115714. 2 Thess. 316,
‘now the Lord of peace himself' (αὐτὰς δὲ è κύριος τῆς εἰρήνης)
may be compared with 1Thess. 523, ‘and the God of peace
himself* (αὐτὸς dè ὁ θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης). The following words and
phrases, which are common to 1 and 2 Thessalonians, but occur
nowhere else in Paul, may also be referred to: ‘work of faith*
(ἔργον πίστεως), 2Thess.l1r 1Thess.13; ‘obtaining’ (wr
ποίησις), 2 Thess. 214 1Thess.59 (the word is found once in
Ephesians in a different sense); ‘stablish’ (ormpiG@) with
‘heart (καρδίας), 2 Thess. 2 17 1 Thess. 313; ‘direct’ (κατευθύνω),
2Thess. 35 1Thess. 811; ‘patience of Christ' (ὑπομονὴ τοῦ
Χριστοῦ», 2 Thess. 3 5 (in' 1 Thess. ì 3, ‘patience of the hope of
our Lord Jesus Christ' [ὑπομονὴ τῆς ἐλπίδος τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν
"Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ»; ‘disorderly’ [adv.] (ἀτάκτως), 2 Thess. 36215
‘“behave disorderly’ (&roxréo), 37; ‘disorderly’ |adj.] (ἄτακτος),
x Thess. 5 14.

In the light of these many and close resemblances
between the two epistles it is clear that the genuineness

of the second requires the assumption
13. By Paul? παῖ Paul had much of the thought and
language of the first epistle in his mind when he wrote
the second. If it could be supposed that the two were
written at a single sitting, or within a few hours or
days of each other, as is possible in the case of Ephesians
and Colossians, the resemblances might be explained ;
but an interval of at least some months separates
2 Thessalonians from 1 ‘fhessalonians. The verbal
resemblances are altogether too many and too close t0
be accounted for on the ground that the general situa-

5044

THESSALONIANS (EPISTLES TO)

tion in Thessalonica and Corinth remained much the
same, and suggested consequently a similar line of
thought. ‘The genuineness of the second epistle can be
maintained, in fact, only by assuming that Paul had a
copy of 1 Thessalonians in his possession, and that he
read it over again shorty before writing 2 Thessalonians,
and saturated himself with its thought and language.
It seems a little unlikely that Paul should have had a
copy of his earlier epistle at hand,! but it is not im-
possible; and if he had, it was not perhaps unnatural
that, when the report reached him that Thessalonians
were appealing to a letter of his in support of their
views touching the Parousia, he should read over the
earlier epistle to see if it gave any justification for such
an nppeal.

This would also serve to explain particuiarly the
relation between 2 Thess. 367 and 1Thess. 26/ ln
both passages Paul refers in almost identica terms to
the fact that he had supported himself with his own
hands while in Thessalonica ; but in the first episile
he cites the fact as a defence against the charges of
his enemies, in the second as an example to the
disorderly.

‘The effori of Spitta (Zur Gesch. u. Lit. des Urchris-
tenthums, 1x22f.; cp TimorHy, $ 6) to explain the
resemblances and divergencies between the two epistles

by. the ingenious suggestion that the
LE Noe DI second was written not by Paul but by
Au Timothy at Paul's request and in the
name of the three fellow-workers, while it might relieve
the difficulties somewhat, is rendered impossible by the
use of the first person singular in 25 which cannot, occur-
ring as it does without qualification, refer to Timothy, as
Spitta assumes, but must refer to Paul. ‘That the Thessa-
lonians should have known from the handwriting that
‘Timothy was the author of the epistle instead of Paul
there is no ground for supposing, for it was Paul's
custom to dictate his epistles to an amanuensis, and 317
must suggest to the readers of 2 Thessalonians that it
was written in the same way.

Those who deny the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians
explain the striking resemblances between the two
epistles by the assumption that the author of the second
purposely conformed it to x Thessalonians în order to
gain Pauline authority for its eschatologica! teaching,
and so to displace the earlier epistle, which was giving
rise to so much trouble in the Thessalonian church.
Such a procedure is nat without parallels, nor can it be
regarded as in itself more improbable than the unique
self-repetition involved in Pauline authorship. Indeed,
while the reproduction of the earlier epistle is at times
subtle and of such a character as to suggest that the
author wrote with a free hand, it seems quite as easy to
suppose that some one familiar.with Paul's style pro-
duced 2 ‘Thessalonians in conscious imitation of 1 Thes-
salonians as to suppose that Paul unconsciously repeated
himself so slavishly. And if this conscious effort be
assumed, the reference to Paul's own signature in 317
(cp 1 Cor. 1621 Col. 418 Gal. 611) need constitute no
insurmountable obstacle At the
same time, in view of the considera-
tions urged above in connection with the apocalyptic
passage, the present writer is inclined to think that the
evidence points rather in the direction of the Pauline
authorship of the epistle, but it must be recognised that
its genuineness is beset with serious difficulties, and that
it is at best very doubtful.

Upon the epistles to the Thessalonians see the various intro»

15. Conclusion.

1 The common notion that copies of Paul's epistles must have
been from the beginning carefully preserved, either by Paul
himself or by his companions, rests upon a conception of their
dogmatic importance which was not shared in Paul's own rime,
as is sufficienty indicated by the fact that so few of his epistles
—s0 far as we know, only those which we still have-—were
handed down to the next generation, and that even the author
of Acts apparentiy made no use of them in the composition of
his work (see McGiffert, κου, 436).

161 5045

THESSA LONICA

ductions to the NT, the histories of the apostolie age, and lives
. of Paul, and the special commentaries: by
16. Literature. Schott (1834); Jowett, Te £gistles of Sh
‘Paul to the Thessalonians, Galatians, and
Romans (1856, (9) 1394); Eadie (1877); P. Schmidt, Der erste
Thessalonicherbrief new erhlivt nebst cinem Kxkurs δον den
ameiten gleichnamigen Brief (1885); Zimmer, 7heologischer
Kommentar zu den Thessalonicherbri fen (1891). Oî the
general commentaries on the NT special mention may be made
of Linemann (Meyers. Handbuchk4)), Bornemann (Meyer, 6)
and 61), and Schmiedel in Holtzmann's Wand-Commentar zum
NT, Bd. 2 (1889). On the integrity of the epistles, see especialiy
Clemen, Die Zinkcitlickkeit der paulinischen Briefe (1894), p-
13£, and on the text Zimmer, Der Text der Thessalonicher-
Oriefe (1893). .

In defence of the genvineness of both epistles, see the NT
introductions of Weiss, Jiilicher, and Zan, also Bornemann in
Meyer. In defence of the first epistle, see also von Soden in
StK7., 1885, È 2635, and Weizsicker, 46. Zeitalter, 241f.;
in defence of the second, Klopper in Z'Aeclogische Studien und
Skizzen aus Ostpreussen, 8 (1889). Against the gennineness of
both epistles, see especially Baur, Der Afoste/ Paulus (1845,
(Β) 1867); and against the genuineness of the second Weiz.
slicker, Zc., 249. τῇ Schmiedel, Zc., 8.4 ; Bahnsen, 74 7, 1880,
4017 For further literature see Holtzmann, Εἰμὶ, (8) 51ὸ Χ,
and Findiay in £x905., 1900, 22510 A. C. MCG.

THESSALONICA (GeccaAoniKH,} WH, Acts 171
1113 Phil 416 2 Tim. 4 10; ethnic Θεσσαλονικεύς, Acts
s, 272204 1Thess. 11 2 Thess. 11 [translated
1. History. in the three latter passages by the curious
syneopated form ‘Thessalonians,' EV]). A large and
important city (now Se/ozica) at the Nicad of the Gulf
of Salonica, which in ancient times was called the
Thermaie Gulf, from the city itself. Thessalonica, we
are told, was originally named Therma or Therme,®
from the hot springs found on the coast in its neighbour-
hood. But Therme scems to have been a small place in
the vicinity, from which, as well as from twenty-five
other towns on the gulf, the inhabitants were compelled
to migrate in order to create the new city (Strabo, 330,
rg. 2r; Plin. AN, 417).

The creation of Thessalonica was due, according to the most
probable account (that of Strabo, £c.), to Cassander, who called
τὸ after his wife Thessalonica, step-sister of Alexander the Great
(about 315 B.c.). ‘The history of the town begins therefore with
the Macedonian, and îts importance increases as we approach
the Roman, period. It was the great Macedonian navai station
(Livy, 4410); and when Macedonia was conquered by the
Romansand was divided by them into four districts, Thessafonica
was made the capital of the second region, Macedonia Secunda
(168 B.0.; .3 When the whole of Macedonia
was reduced to a single province (146 B.c.) Thessalonica became
virtually its capital.

Even before the close of the Republican period the
natural advantages of Thessalonica had raised it to
importance, for it lay upon the great route which con-
nected Rome with the East (cp Cic. De Prov. Cons. 2:
* Thessalonicenses, positi in gremio imperii nostri},
about midway between Dyrrhachium on the Adriatic,
and the river Hebrus in ‘l'hrace. It was the residence
of the proconsul; Cicero during his exile found here a
refuge, in the queestor's house (Pro Parc. 41).
During the first Civil War the town was the head-
quarters of the Pompeian party (Dio Cass. 41 18); but
in the second war it took the side of Octavius and
Antonius {Plut. 2r44 46; Appian, BC 418), and by
way of reward was made a ‘free city' (Plin. AV 4 χη}.
As a free city it was ruled by its own assembly (cp the
use of the word δῆμος in Acts 17 5, in accordance with
the actual constitutional fact) and by its own magis-
trates,5 who here bore the special title of politarchs
{πολιτάρχαι, Acts 176).

1 Θετταλονίκη in Pol. 234; Θεσσαλονίκεια in Str. 330,77. 20
ero,
? Θέρμη, Herod. 7 rat, ef s24.; Thuc. 161 229.
ZEschin. De Fal, Leg. 29 (Bekker).

3 After 158 B.c., when the right of silver coinage was granted
by the Senate, Thessalonica issued silver tetradrachms with the
inscription ΜΑΚΕΔΌΝΩΝ ΔΕΥΤΈΡΑΣ. See Head, Mist
Num. 213. Its bronze coîns before and during the empire are
plentiful, bearing the name of the town, or the ethnic in the
genitive, often with titles μητρόπολις or κολωνία. The later
title dates from the time of Valerian (see Momms.-Marq. 1 320).

4 To this may allude the word ἐλευθερία with female head on
some of its coins.

5 Cp Livy, 45 29, where ZEmilius Paulus at Amphipolis

5046

Θέρμα,

THESSALONICA

The title politarch does not occur elsewhere in Greek
literature, but its use here is quite accurate, as appears
from an inscription (C/G, 1967) which was engraved on
a Roman arch of the Vardar gate (perhaps a monu-
ment of the victory of Philippi) recording its erection
when certain persons, whose names are given, were
politarchs of the city” (rod:rapyobrrw»).1 It is doubtful
whether the number of politarchs was five or six (see a
paper on the politarchs by Dr. Burton, reprinted from
the Ave. Jour. Theol. [1897], 598, where other inscrip-
tions are cited from Macedonia, and more particularly
from ‘l'hessalonica, in which the title πολιγάρχαι, or the
verb πολιταρχούντες, OCCUrS).

The town flourished greatly. Strabo (330, 727. 21) calls it the
μητρόπολις of the Macedonia of his time, and notes its populous-
Tess (323, ἢ νῦν μάλιστα τῶν ἄλλων εὐανδρεῖ), Lucian, in the
Second century A.b., speaks in similar terms (Asiz, A%. 46,
πόλεως τῶν ἐν Μακεδονίᾳ τῆς μεγίστης Θεσσαλονέκηςλ.

The spread of the Jews after Alexander's death would
doubtless affect the city, well placed as it was for con-

trolling the trade of Macedonia. That
2. NT Ἧς ish ity in Paul's ti
references, the Jewish community in Paul's time
° was fairly large is evident from the fact
that it possessed a synagogue here {Acts]71; con-
trast Philippi, and compare with Bercea, which also,
being a commercial town, possesses a synagogue, Acts
170). The number of the Jews settled in the town
had also produced an appreciable effect upon the
Hellenic section of the population, and prepared the
way for Paul's work of evangelisation by the creation of
a large class of proselytes (cp Acts 174, ‘of the devout
Greeks a great mulfitude," EV; πλῆθος πολύ). A
testimony to the number and influence of the Jews,
both in Thessalonica and in all this region of Macedonia,
is to be found in the apparent ease with which they
excited hostility ageinst Paul. The exact ground of
complaint alleged against Paul at Thessalonica should be
closely compared with the charge used against him at
Philippi, for the difference runs closely parallel with the
actual difference of political status between the two
towns.

The charge at Thessalonica is virtually one of political
innovation or revolution {v. 7, ‘contrary to the decrees of Casar*

no St another king )e-a thiag τὸ which the Empire was very
sensitive, and one fraught with grave possibilities of undesirable
changes for the people of Thessalonica if the imperial authorities
were minded to take it seriously. In Philippi, on the other
hand, a Roman colony, where there could be no question of
loyalty, the charge touches reliziors innovations (See on this
point, Ramsay, SÉ Paul the Traveller, 229f). The riot itself,
though not so represented în the narrative in Acts, would appeat
to have surpassed that at Philippi in malignity and violence (cp
1 Thess. 214.7). The attitude of the magistrates, so far as can
be inferred from the short account, would seem to have differed
entirely from that of the magistrates at Philippi, and to have
been not in harmony with the feelings of the girege of the popu>
lace stirred up by the Jews. With the attitude of the politarchs
and upper classes of Thessalonica we may well compare that of
the Asiarchs at Ephesus (Acts 19 31), Nevertheless the poli.
tarchs were obliged in the interests of their own safety to fetter
Paul's work effectually by taking suteties of Jason and other
prominent Christians of Thessalonica against the repetition of
the teaching. Paul was therefore cut off from the city by a
barrier more effective than the threat of merely personal danger
(1 Thess, 2.18, ‘Satan hindered us.’ Cp Rams, 07, ci£. 230).

As regards the time spent in the city by Paul, nothing certain
can be inferred. Probably, however, it would be an error to
confine his work to the limited space mentioned in Acts 172
(‘three sabbatb days’). Not only is a longer sojourn indicated
by the expression used in x Thess. 18 (* For from you sounded
out the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia and Achaia '),
but such Îs perhaps proved by the statement in Phil, £16 (€ Fér
even în ‘'hessalunica ye sent once and again unto my necessìty ").

declares ‘omnium primum liberos esse iubere Macedonas,
habentes urbes easdem agrosque, utentes legibus suis, annuos
creantes magistratus.*

1 The arch was demolished about 1867, but the inscription is
now preserved in the Brit. Mus, (Murray, H[d5£. ἐσ Greece, 826).
It is remarked as a curious coincidence (Conybeare and Howsoni,
Life and Efp. of St, Paul, 1395) that three of the names on the
inscription are identical with those of three of Paul's friends in
this region (Sopater, Gaius, and Secundus; cp Acts 19 20 204).
Possibly a later date should be assigned to the arch than is
given above (so Leake and Tafel), but that will hardly invalidate
the weight of the inscription as a testimony to the accuracy of
Acts in this passage.

5047

THESSALY

Further, the church in Thessalonica would seem to have been
composed very largely of Gentile converts (whether proselytes or
pagans at the time of Paul's teaching is, of course, not to be
decided). At any rate the Jewish Scriptures are not employed
in the two Epistles to the Thessalonians, and in 1 Thess. 19 the
members are spoken of as having ‘turned to God from idols.'
Hence we should infer that much time was spent in Gentile
cireles, apart from the work among the Jews which îs most
prominent in Acts. It does not appear thàt the inference as to
the length of Paul's stay in Thessalonica derives any further
support from a consideration of such passages as 1 Thess, 29
2'Pfess. 86/5, in which stress is laid upon Pauls self‘supporting
industry.

Though the name of Thessalonica does not recur in
Acts, Paul almost certainly saw the town again, both
going and returning, on his third missionary journey
(Acts 2017). ©On his return two members of the
church of Thessalonica accompanied ‘him into Asia
(v. 4) [see ARISTARCHUS, SECUNDUS]. Possibly he
was also there after his first imprisonment (cp Phil. 126
224); the visit to Macedonia recorded in 1 Tim.13
might very well embrace an excursion to ‘Thessalonica.

Of members of the church at Thessalonica we can
specify Jason (Acts 1753; possibly identical with the
Jason of Rom. 16 21}, Demas (probably; 2 Tim. 410),
Gaius (Acts 1929), Secundus (Acts 204), and above all
Aristarchus {Acts 1929 204 272; he is alluded to also
in Col. 4το and Philem. 24).

Christianity, having been once established in Thessa-
lonica, spread rapidìy (1 Thess. 18), and in later times
the city was the bulwark of religion in this region of
Europe, so much so that it was designated ‘The Ortho-
dox City.' Its name is prominent in the Byzantine
historians. It was a safeguard of the Empire during
the Gothic inroads, and later during the Sclavonic wars,
of which it bore the brunt from the middle of the sixth
century A.b. onwards. During the Middle Ages the
city was thrice captured, by the Saracens, the Normans,
and the Turks. Itis now a flourishing place, the second
in European Turkey after Constantinople, Itis specially
rich in remains of Byzantine ecclesiastica architecture,
surpassing in this respect any other city in Greece
(Leake).

The most elaborate work is that by Tafel, the first part of
which was published in 1835 and afterwards prefixed as /yolego-

mena τὸ his De Thessalonica einsque agro,

8. Literature. Dissertatio grographica (Berlin, 1839). This

isespeciallyfull'in relation to the topography

and the Gothic and Sclavonic wars. For the history FinlayS

History of Greece (ed. Tozer) may also be consulted. Descrip-

tions of the town and remains are given by all travellers from

Clark (1810) to Leake (1835), and onwards. A good succinet
account will be found in Murrays Mandbo0k to Greece.

Www

THESSALY (geccaMia, Acts171s D). Thessaly is
mentioned only in an addition to Acts1715s in D, which
runs, ‘and those who conducted Paul brought him as
far as Athens; [and he passed by Thessalia, for he was
prevented from preaching the word unto them]. It is
not clear whether at this time Thessaly was included in
the province of Acheea, or fell to Macedonia. 1f the
latter was the case, we should naturally expect to find
Paul going from Bercea to Larissa, the chief town iu
Thessaly, for his call was to Macedonia (Acts1610);
and in that case his neglect to visit Thessaly must have
been due to divine injunction (as in Acts167}. If
Thessa]y fell at that time to Acheea, there was no
necessity specifically to mention its omission, unless we
assume that already Paul felt that he was called to a
wider field than Macedonia. It is indeed a strange
emission in Acts that nowhere is it indicated when
and how this conviction forced itself upon his mind;
already in Athens (Acîs17 17) the special call to Mace-
donia is forgotten in the absorbing self-imposed task
of disputing with the Jews and proselytes of that city.
Apparently there is no feeling of restriction to a particular
province.

As regards the actual attribution of Thessaly, Ptolemy
assigns it to Macedonia, Strabo to Achaa (p. 840).
The separation may have been the work of Vespasian.

Www.

5048

THEUDAS

THEUDAS

CONTENTS
Acts and Jos. on Theudas. 5. Textand purpose of Acts536/
Not two persons. ὃ. Separation of sources.

Ὁ error in Jos. 7. Inexact use of Jos. by Lk.
Did Lk. know Jos.? 8. Literature,
Theudas {[geyAac® Ti. WH) is mentioned only in
Acts 536, where Gamaliel, in his speech in the synedrium
in support of his plea for letting the
1, νὰν and nostles alone, names him as the leader
Thedas of a movement which, notwithstanding
ti “its threatening appearance at first, very
soon came to nothing. The peculiar interest which
attaches to this passage lies in the fact that a quite
similar story is found also in Josephus (Ax xx. δα,
88975). (4) As the poînt to be investigated is
whether Lk. has here drawn upon Josephus, it will be
convenient to print both passages in close Juxtaposition.

Josephus.—BBov δὲ τῆς Ιουδαίας ἐπιτροπεύοντος γόης τις ἀνὴρ
Θευδᾶς ὀνόματι πείθει τὸν πλεῖστον ὄχλον ἀναλαβόντα τὰς κτήσεις
ἕπεσθαι πρὸς τὸν ᾿Ιορδάνην ποταμὸν αὐτῷ. προφήτης γὰρ ἔλεγεν
εἶναι, καὶ προστάγματι τὸν ποταμὸν σχίσας δίοδον ἔφη παρέξειν
αὐτοῖς ῥᾳδίαν. καὶ ταῦτα λέγων πολλοὺς ἠπάτησεν. οὐ μὴν
εἴασεν αὐτοὺς τῆς ἀφροσύνης ὄνασθαι Φᾶδος, ἀλλ᾽ ἐξέπεμψεν ἴλὴν
ἑππέων ἐπ' αὐτούς, ἥτις ἀπροσδόκητος ἐπιπεσοῦσα πολλοὺς μὲν
αὐτῶν ἀνεῖλεν, πολλοὺς δὲ ζῶντας ἔλαβεν" αὐτόν τε τὸν Θευδᾶν
ζωγρήσαντες ἀποτέμνουσι τὴν κεφαλὴν καὶ κομέφουσιν εἰς Ἱεροσό-
λυμα. ‘While Fadus was procurator of Judsea, a certain
charlatan, Theudas by name, persuaded a very great number of
people to take their effects with them and follow him to the river
Jordan; for he told them that he was a prophet, and said he
would at the word of command divide the river and give them
an easy passage through it; and by these words he deluded
many. Fadus, however, did not permit them to gain aught by
their folly, but sent a regiment of cavalry against them, which,
falling upon them unexpectedìy, slew many of them and took
many alive. Taking Theudas also alive, they cut off bis head,
and carried ît to Jerasalem.'

Acts.rpò γὰρ τούτων τῶν ἡμερῶν ἀνέστη Θευδᾶς, λέγων εἶναί,
τινα ἑαυτόν, ᾧ προσεκλίϑη ἀνδρῶν ἀριθμὸς ὡς τετρακοσίων. ὃς
ἀνῃρέθη καὶ πάντες ὅσοι ἐπείθοντο αὐτῷ διελύθησαν καὶ ἐγένοντο
εἰς οὐδέν, ‘For before these days rose up Theudas, giving him-
self out to be somebody, to whom a number of men, about four
hundred, joined themselves: who was slain ; and all, as many
25 obeyed him, were dispersed and came to nought.

(4) In so far as the differences betwen the two ac-
counts affect their substance, they are so unimportant
as in no way to hinder us from believing that the same

fact is inten'led in both.

Lk. naturally is shorter, for his object is not to tell the
history οἱ l'heudas, but simply to cite an instance appropriate
to the purpose of Gamaliel's speech. He therefore mentions
only the beginning, and the ultimate issue of the move-
ment. ‘Therefore, there is no contradiction with Josephus
when Lk. says of the followers of Theudas simply that ‘they
were dispersed and came to nought.* If Theudas gives himself
out ‘to be somebody,’ the meaning can well be what Josephus
says—that he called himself a propher.? Lk.'s expression re
calls Acts89, where almost the same claim is atributed to Simon
Magus—an identical claim if ‘great’ (μέγαν) there be a gloss
(see Simon Macus, $ 3, n.)

The greatest diserepancy is that whilst Lk. is able to
give the number of followers of ‘Theudas as about 400
men, Josephus has τὸν πλεῖστον ὄχλον. It does not
follow from this expression that he intends a substanti-
ally larger number.

Krenke! (below, $ 8), 170,7, has collected abundant instances
to show that Josephus, in places where we are able to control
his statements, often gives much too high figures. On the other
hand, we are not precluded from supposing that to Lk.'s 400
men, women and children ought to be added.

That the number must have been a relatively moderate one is
evident from Josephus's own statement that an ἕλη (=2/2) of
cavalry (some 500 men) was all that was required for the sup-
pression of the rising.

(e) Much more serious is the next difficulty. Li.
goes on to say that a/fer Theudas, Judas of Galilee
raised another revolt in the days of the taxing. As he
particularises the taxing by means of the definite article
(ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς ἀπογραφῆς) and in his own Gospel
{2:/.) mentions that under Quirinius {in 6 or 7 A.D.)
and that alone, he cannot intend any other here; and

o pi

1 On the name see next col.,

2 If Theudas promised his” followers to lead them through
Jordan. like another Joshua, this will be not the sole purpose he

ad in view, but probably only a first trial by means of which he
hoped to confirm faith in his miraculous power with a view to
being afterwards în a position to take up some bolder enterprise.

5049

THEUDAS

it was at the time of this taxing that in point of fact
Judas of Galilee did make his revolutionary attempt
(see JubAs or GALILEE). Thus, Lk. carries the in-
surrection of Theudas back to a somewhat early date,
According to fosephus, however, the insurrection of
Theudas was when Cuspius Fadus was procurator, that
is, some time between 44 and about 46 A.b, {Tiberius
Alexander, rhe successor of Fadus, held office till 48
A.D.). If Lk, is thinking of the same Theudas, he has
thus not merely assigned him to a wrong date but, what
is more, has put into Gamaliel's mouth a reference to
an occurrence which at the alleged time of speaking
had not yet happened.

‘To avoid the ascription of so serious an error to Lk.,
it has often been assumed that he has in his mind

2. Not two another Theudas than the one mentioned

Theudases bY Josephus. Indeed, the attempi has

" been made to prove this from Josephus
himself, (a) Sonntag (below, ὃ 8) thought he had
discovered Lk.'s Theudas în the Simon who, originally
a slave of Herod the Great, shortly after the death of
that monarch (4 B.C.), gathered round him a band of
robbers in Pera, got himself chosen to be their king,
burned and plundered royal citadels in Jericho and else-
where, but finally was defeated in battle by Gratus, an
officer of Herod's, pursued and beheaded (2/ ii 42,
88 57-59, Are. xvii. 106, $$ 273-276). That this Simon,
however, also bore the name of Theudas is a mere
conjecture. (ὁ) Zuschiag (below, $ 8) identifies
lk.'s Theudas with Theudion, brother of Doris, the
first wife of Herod the Great and mother of his eldest
son, Antipater.

After the execution of Herod's third son, Aristobulus (7 B.c.),
Theudion married Berenice his widow (2/ i. 281, $ 553) He
subsequently engaged in a plot against the life of Herod the
Great which had been set on foot by the Antipater just men-
tioned. Antipater caused poison to be fetched from Egypt
through the agency of Antiphilus, one of his friends ; Antiphilus
passed it on to Theudion and Theudion to Pheroras the brother
of Herod. Pheroras handed it over to the charge of his wife.
Nor till after the death of Pheroras (5 B.c.) did the matter come
to the knowledge of Herod ; the result was that Antipater was
put to death (87 i. 303.£, 88 392-598; Am£ xvii. 42, ΒΒ 69-77).

τ îs plaîn that between this ‘l'heudion and the Theudas of Li.
there is not the faintest resemblance, and it is therefore quite
useless to inquire whether Theudion could also be called Theudas.
Ja point of fact, Theudas can quite well be an abbreviation of
Theudion; but with few exceptions a person was known ex-
clusively either by the full or by the abbreviated form of his
name, not by both indifferently (Winer, Gr222.18), $ 169).

(c) Wieseler (below, $ 8) discems the Theudas of
Τα. in Matthias the son of Margaloth or Mergaloth or
Margalos, a teacher of the law, who, together with his
colleague Judas the son of Sariphzaeus or Sephorseus,
in the last days of Herod the Great, persuaded a number
of their pupils to cut down the golden eagle which
Herod, in contravention of the law against graven
images (Ex. 204/ Dt. 415-1823 587 2715}, had caused
to be placed over the great gate of the temple. Herod
roused himself from his deathbed and caused Matthias
and Judas and their most prominent accomplices to be
burnt to death, and the rest of the forty who had been
taken to be executed (27 i.332-4, 88. 648-655, Az£
xvii. 62-4, $$ 149-167).

This story also has but few points of agreement with what we
read in Acis. That Matthias gave himself out to be any great
person of any kind is neither asserted nor probable ; he simply
appealed to the OT command. Nor can it be said that he won
over a band of followers; for those who joined in his under-
taking were from the outset his pupils, and the entire action
was an affair of a few hours, since the temple captain intervened
at once with armed force. At the same time all those taking
part, who were not captured, were dispersed, and it was only
afterwards that Matthias and Judas were seized. Further,
Judas was as deeply involved as Matthias ; in fact, in 87 and in
the first two mentions of him in 4x4, he is named before Matthias,
and only afterwards ($ 167) does Josephus name Matthias alone
because directly before he has spoken of another Matthias ; so
also xvii.91, È σοῦ: Ματθίαν καὶ τοὺς σὺν αὐτῷ. The only
reason Wieseler has for passing Judas over is that the name
Matthias has the same meaning as Theudas.t But that Mat-
thias bore this second name also by no means follows.

1 Θεύδας is oneofthe names formed withthe well-knownabbrevi=
ation-ending (cp Names, $ 86, end; Luke, 86; ApoLLOS, $ 7,

5050

THEUDAS

(@) Other critics, with rather more prudence, attempt
no identifications, but nevertheless declare that some
Theudas other than the Theudas of Josephus must have
come forward before Judas of Galilee. Thus, in the
last instance, again Ramsay (below, ὃ 8). The scholar
who with Ramsay starts from the axiom that Lk, is a
historian of the same rank as Thucydides (see GALATIA,
$ 12, end) will not readily give up this way of dealing
with the difficulty. Those on the other hand who take
cognisance of the great untrustworthiness of Lk. in
specifically historical questions (cp ACTS, $$ 2, 4. 13 Δ;
GospeLs, $ 132; LySsaANIAS) will regard the assertion
as rash. Ramsay is certainly right in saying (p. 259)
of Josephus that ‘he does not allude, or profess to
allude, to every little disturbance on the banks of the
Jordan.’ But it is just as certain that Gamaliel must
be supposed to be alluding not to a little but to a great
disturbance, if his speech is to be in keeping with the
gravity of the occasion. An occurrence which could
reasonably be placed side by side with the affair of
Judas of Galilee would certainly not have been passed
over by Josephus.

Therefore also ît is quite irrelevant to urge that the name
‘Theudas was a common one, that the later Theudas was perhaps
the son or grandson of the earlier (so Blass), or that Theudas
was not his original name but only one which he had afterwards
assumed (so Ramsay). As for the frequency with which the
name occurs, the evidence— particularly that from the inscriptions
—will be found in Schirer (G/V18 1473, ETi.2168/). That
the name was frequent among the Jews, however, is not affirmed.
John Lightfoot (on Acts 5 36) mentions two men named prin in
rabbinic literature, with regard to whom he himself adds that
neither of them can be the person intended in Acts.

Lastly, some critics have asked: If one or other of
the two authors must have been mistaken, why not
Josephus ' cui et in historia et in chrono-
È FO logia titubari et vagari non insuetum?'

τ (50 John Lightfoot). Joh. Dav. Michaelis
(Zinl.i.d. Schriften d. Neuen Bundes,W1[x788] p.62 Δ}
formulates this position with greater precision thus:
Lk. dates Theudas correctly; Josephus correctly re-
members (from his childhood) that a revolt occurred
under Cuspius Fadus, but is mistaken in thinking that
Theudas was the name of the leader on that occasion,
Blass is conscious that such a charge against Josephus
would be inadmissible, but reaches the same result by
the extremely bold assumption (which, however, he
introduces only with a Yorfasse) that, in describing the
rising under Cuspius Fadus, Josephuswrote either another
name than that of Theudas or no name at all, and that
his copyists, carelessly identifying this narrative with
that of Acts 536, introduced the name of Theudas into
‘his text. This identification would have been occasioned
by the circumstance that with both authors the mention
of Judas of Galilee immediately follows.

Indeed our problem becomes still more complicated
than at first sight it appeared to be, by reason of the

ἃ. Did Lk, fac that Josephus, immediately after the

* flow Νοτὰς about Theudas quoted above (8 1),

I hus? mentions Tiberius Alexander*s succession

OSEPAUS? πο Cuspius Fadus in the procuratorship
and the famine in Judeea during hiz term (Acts 1128),
and then proceeds as follows :—

(Ant. xx. 52, $ 102 [Naber]) πρὸς τούτοις δὲ καὶ οἱ παῖδες Ἰούδα

n.1; Sivas, $74). Probably it comes from Θεόδωρος, Θεόδοτος,
or some such form, and thus the meaning does coincide with
that of Matthias (“gift of God'); but various other forms such
85 Θεοδέκτης, Θεόδημος and the like could also have produced it.
@ev- for ®e0- rests upon a contraction met with mostly in the
Jonic dialect (Gust. Meyer, Grieck, Gram.) $ 119; Schweizer,
Gram. der pergamen, Inschriften, 1898, & 825; Meisterhans,
Grant. der att. Inschriten,(8) $ 193). Il the accent lies on the
first element of the composite name as in the first instances
given above (of which Θεύδοτος is established in Attic inscrip-
tions of about 200 B.c. and ®eiSwpos—both with ev—from the
period of the empire, whilst Θεόδοτος is already found în Plato
and Θεόδωρος in Thucydides), it is proper to accentuate the
word as Θεύδας (see Sias, col. 4519, n. 2); if such a form as
Θευδόσιος- -ἃ name met with also in Attic inscriptions of about
160 B.C. at the basis of the contraction Θευδᾶς will be the
correct accentuation.

ΕΟ

THEUDAS

τοῦ ΤῬαλιλαίου ἀνῃρέθησαν [Niese, ἀνήχθησαν] τοῦ τὸν λαὸν ἀπὸ
Ῥωμαίων ἀποστήσαντος Κυρινίου τῆς Ἰουδαίας τιμητεύοντος, ὡς
ἐν τοῖς πρὸ τούτων ἐδηλώσαμεν, Ἰάκωβος καὶ Σίμων, οὖς ἀνα-
σταυρῶσαι προσέταξεν ὁ ᾿Αλέξανδρος : ' Besides all this, the sons
of Judas the Galilean were now put to death,—[that Judas] who
drèw away the people from the Romans when Quirinius made a
census of Judara as has been shown in a former part of this work.
Their naines were James and Simon, whom Alexander com
manded to be crucified.’

With this must be carefully compared what is said
in Acts 537:

μετὰ τοῦτον ἀνέστη "Todas ὁ Ῥαλιλαῖος ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς
ἀπογραφῆς, καὶ ἀπέστησεν λαὸν ὀπίσω αὐτοῦ " κἀκεῖνος ἀπώλετο
καὶ πάντες ὅσοι ἐπείθοντο αὐτῷ διεσκορπίσθησαν τ ‘After chis
man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the enrolment, and
drew away [some of the] people after him : he also perished, and
all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered abroad.

(α) If Lk. cannot be cleared of the charge of having
made a mistake about Theudas it will be exceedingly
natural to Iook for the cause of his mistake in this
passage of Josephus, on the assumption that Lk. took
the latter part of the passage just quoted from Josephus
as referring not to the sons of Judas but to Judas him-
self. If so, it could indeed appear as if Theudas ought
to be placed before Judas as long as Lk. confined his
attention to the dating of Judas which he found in his
own gospel (21 7.) and left that of Theudas out of con-
sideration (see further, $ 7 ὃ).

The remarkable collocation, by which the two are mentioned
in the same order, has (since Keiin) determined most critics who
are not shocked at the suggestion of an acquaintance with
Josephus on the part of Lk. to see here a proof of such an
Acquaintance—a view which it israther difficult to avoid. Indeed,
so strong is the proof that ît and it alone has led Wendt, who in
the seventh edition of Meyers commentary on Acts had still
denied the use of Josephus by Lk., to affirm it in the eighth
edition (1899, pp. 35-38); and Blass, who does not admit it,
nevertheless says: “non facile adducimur ut casui tribuamus
Theoda Judeque apud utrumque scriptorem junctam com-
memorationem,' and has no better way of escape than that
mentioned in 3, end.

(3) As for the phraseology : the expression ‘to draw
away the people’ (λαὸν ἀποστῆσαι) in particular is one
that two authors writing independently would not easily
happen upon. ‘Then there is also the mention of the
census. In ‘obeyed’ (ἐπείθοντο) Lk. uses, both in the
case of Judas and in that of Theudas, the same verb
which Josephus uses in speaking of Theudas (‘per-
suades,' πείθει). It is specially important to mark that
of all the five passages of Josephus in which Judas is
mentioned (see JuDAS) on]y that which we are at
present considering exhibits these agreements with Lk.
Theudas's description of himself is introduced in both
cases by λέγειν, and the participle λέγων which Lk.
employs Josephus has in his second passage. The
statement that after his capture Theudas had his head
cut off was plainly too detailed for Lk.; but he uses
with reference to him the verb ἀναιρεῖν (‘was slain')
which Josephus applies to the death of the foliowers
of Thedas (ἀνείλεν, “he slew'), and to the sons of Judas
in precisely the same aor. pass. (ἀνῃρέθησαν, ‘were slain')
as we find in Lk. Anyone of these coincidences can
appear indecisive, but taken together they turn the
scale.

The last of the coincidences enumerated above is, it
îs true, denied by Blass. (a) Eusebius (4. ii. 111)

quotes the words of Gamaliel regarding

δ Text and ‘Theudasin indirect narrationasfollows:—

Acbss no fi ds ἄρα κατὰ τὸν δηλούμενον χρόνον ἀνέστη

* Θενυδᾶς, λέγων ἑαυτὸν εἶναί riva, ὃς κατε-

λύθη, καὶ πάντες ὅσοι ἐπείσθησαν αὐτῷ διελύθησαν :

*thai at the time specified Theudas arose, giving him-

self out to be somebody, who was destroyed, and all, as
many as obeyed him, were dispersed.'

Although this quotation is far from being verbally
exact (notice ἐπείσθησαν and the order of the words
ἑαυτὸν elval τινα), Biass, nevertheless, believes that we
have a survival of the original text of Lk. in κατελύθη,
and that we shall be warranted in supposing the ἀνῃρέθη
of the best authorities to have been first introduced into
Lk. by copyists of the Bible, from the text of Josephus

sos

4

THEUDAS

(ἀνεῖλεν ; cp ἀνῃρέθησαν in his section relating to the
sons of Judas), and vice versa that the name of Theudas
was introduced into the text of Josephus also by copyists
{above, $ 3). Assuredly a bold hypothesis.

(6) Blass considers that some support for this hypo-
thesis can be found in the reading of D*: ὃς διελύθη
αὐτὸς δι αὑτοῦ καὶ πάντες ὅσοι ἐπείθοντο αὐτῷ καὶ

ἐγένοντο εἰς οὐδέν.

Not only, however, does this vary greatly from the rendering
of Eusebius; it also appears to be the older of the two. This
has been recognised by Blass in so far as he takes up into what
he maintains to be the first form in which Acts was written the
words αὐτὸς δι᾿ αὑτοῦ {τ-- ἑαυτοῦ) and omits the διελύθησαν. It
îs all the more remarkable to find that he refrains from proceed»
ing to the natural consequence—that of taking the κατελύθη
of Eusebius as a modification of the διελύθη in D which was
preferred after the διελύθησαν had been introduced from the
ordinary text into the text of ἢ, KaraAvew will have been
selected in the process because it occurs in vv, 38/7 The con-
verse, that D or his predecessor changed the κατελύθη (of the
original text put forward by Blass) which yet was not followed
by any διελύθησαν, into διελύθη, might be hard to explain.

(c) On the other hand it is nevertheless quite intel-
ligible why Blass should have found difficulty in
accepting the text of D entirely, including the διελύθη,
as the original. For D's text admits very readily of
being regarded as modification—not indeed of the
primitive text assumed by Blass, yet certainly of the
generally received text of the best authorities. The
ἀνῃρέθη καὶ... διελύθησαν has here been compressed
into one verb διελύθη.

If this διελύθησαν had not lain before the scribe, the single
verb διελύθη would never have been chosen. It can be applied
to a group of men who have been dispersed or to a thing which
has been destroyed, but to apply it to one man is not natural,
Only καταλύειν is so used (2. 39); but κατελύθη in view of what
has been said above cannot be accepted as the original reading.
By che compression of the two verbs above referred to, however,
the construction also has suffered. The subject t0 διελύθη is in
D not merely és hut also the plural as well, πάντες ὅσοι ἐπείθοντο.
αὐτῷ, and this same second subject receives further a verb in the
plural: καὶ ἐγένοντο εἰς οὐδέν. The Latin translator of D has
seen that this is inadmissible, and has therefore taken occasion
to delete the καί before ἐγένοντο : ‘qui interfectus est, et omnes
quotquot obtemperabant ei facti sunt nihil’; and Hilgenfeld
(«feta apest, grace ef dat, 1899) las found necessary the
following punctuation-—so completely inconsistent_ with the
genius of the Greek language—of the words of D which he too
fegards as those of the true original : ὃς διελύθη αὐτός, dl αὐτοῦ
καὶ πάντες ὅσοι ἐπείθοντο αὐτῷ, καὶ ἐγένοντο εἰς οὐδέν, The
reason for the compression of the two verbs into one (διελύθη)
was perhaps that the eye of the copyist before it reached ἀνῃρέθη
had already run ahead to διελύθησαν. Yet the addition of the
words αὐτὸς δι’ αὑτοῦ seems to indicate that the alteration, even
if in the first instance ît was due to an accident of the sort
indicated, was nevertheless carried out with full consciousness.

(d) Blass also urges reasons derived from the context
for preferring κατελύθη to ἀνῃρέθη. Gamaliel's design
is to persuade his hearers to leave the apostles alone
(vv. 38/); but if the revolt of Theudas had been
quelled by his being put to death, such an instance
would tend to show on the contrary that the right policy
was to punish the apostles with death. We are willing
to believe that it was this argument, whether by itself or
taken in connection with the oversight conjectured above
under (ε), which led to the reading διελύθη αὐτὸς de
αὑτοῦ in D. But the argument is not conclusive.

Wendt (in Meyers Cone.) has already pointed out that it is
not the apostles who are intended to be put in the parallel
position to that of Theudas, but Jesus himself as the head of the
new movement; Jesus, however, has already suffered the
penalty of death, and Gamaliel therefore might all the more
assume that his followers were no longer seriously to be feared.
At the same time it is by no means indisputable that Lk. was
here thinking of Jesus. Had it been so, to have referred ex-
pressly to the fact of his death would have been very natural. In
point of fact not only is this reference not made, but in speaking
of the case of Theudas it is not so much as hinted that his death
was the cause of the dispersion of bis followers; rather are the
two facts brought into juxtaposition merely,

‘Thus the point of the comparison between the move-
ment originated by ‘fheudas and that in which the
apostles were engaged will rather be simply that both
at first had an apparently threatening character but
soon lose it, without reference to the manner in which
the change is effected, If this view is correct, it must
be conceded that the example of Theudas from Josephus

5053

THEUDAS

is not in all its particulars quite apposite, and the
attempt of Blass to discover or conjecture another
Theudas who was not ‘slain' (ἀνῃρέθη) but only
* broken’ (κατελύθη) must appear to be called for.

{e) But let us now for a little leave aside all this
argumentation and simply ask: What of Judas of
Galilee? What avails it to eliminate the death of
“fheudas by operations on the text if nevertheless that of
Judas remains? True, Josephus knows nothing of it;
but this does not come into account, for Lk. makes
Gamaliel say, ‘he also perished': κἀκεῖνος ἀπώλετο.
Against this Blass can only adduce the Perpignan codex
cited in ACcTS, col. 50, n. 2. ‘This in fact has for
ἀπώλετο in the case of Judas, just as for ἀνῃρέθη in that
of Theudas, ‘dissolutus est"; but must we believe that
the original has been preserved in a solitary Latin trans-
lation? Is it not very easily conceivable that the second
‘dissolutus est ' is due to repetition by a careless'copyist ?
And who was it who introduced the ἀπώλετο in the case
of Judas? The ἀνῃρέθη for Theudas, Blass will have
it, is taken from Josephus; but the ἀπώλετα for Judas
could not at all have been taken from Josephus by way
of correction of a κατελύθη originally written by Lk.
(according to Blassì, for Josephus says nothing at all
about the end of Judas.

It thus appears that text-criticism is of no avail in the
endeavour to show that J.k. has fallen into no error or
to disprove his acquaintance with
Josephus. Our next question there-
fore must be as to whether analysis of
the sources can contribute nothing to a solution of the
problems of our passage. Most of the source-critics
named in AcTS, $ 11, have no difficulty in attributing
the mistake as to Theudas along with the entire speech
of Gamaliel to the author of their ‘secondary’ source,
to whom also they trace everything else that is inappro-
priate or incredible in Acts. The situation is changed
somewhat if, as Clemen holds, the two verses about
Theudas and Judas of Galilee were introduced into
Gamaliel’s speech by the final redactor only. Clemen
shares the view of Blass as to the inappropriateness of
both these instances to the purpose of the speech, and
therefore assumes that its purpose had not been recog-
nised with sufficient clearness by that redactor. Lastly,
B. Weiss, with whom Feine and Hilgenfeld concur,
regards only the instance of Theudas (from ἀνέστη in
τ. 36 to ἀνέστη in v. 37} as being due to the final
redactor. The motive of the interpolation was, he
thinks, because the movement led by Theudas, as being
of a more religious character, supplied a better parallel
to that led by the apostles than the purely political
agitation of Judas of Galilee. Even if this is not very
convincing, there is nevertheless this advantage gained
by means of Weiss's hypothesis that the literatim repeti-
tion of ἀνέστη which would seem clumsy if we suppose
a single writer, as well as that of πάντες ὅσοι ἐπείθοντο
αὐτῷ, become less inexplicable. ΑἹ] critics who accept
separation of sources at all are agreed in admitting the
existence of the error in the existing text of Acts; asto
acquaintance with Josephus on the part of the author of
v. 36 they differ in opinion, and this is easily possible,
since separation of sources naturally cannot shed any
light upon this question.

{a) Thuswemust resume the question at the point where
we left it in 84. α. Lk.'s acquaintance with Josephus
was in no case an exact one; in fact
Tiene χὰ it is sometimes denied even from a

i * standpoint for which the chronological
difficulty does not exist. Thus Schiirer (below $ 8)
without holding the priority of Lk. in point of time,
says: ‘either Lk. took no knowledge of Josephus at
all, or if he did he afterwards forgot ali that he had read.
The first supposition, as the simpler, seems preferable.”
With reference to the case before us, he therefore
supposes that any knowledge Lk. had regarding
Theudas was by hearsay only. In that case, however,

5054

6. Separation
of sources.

THEUDAS

the remarkable degree of coincidence with Josephus
must be set down to mere chance—at which explanation
even Blass stumbles (above, $ 4 @).

(3) It is difficult to sce why the following explanation
might not serve. Lk. had made notes from Josephus
in which occurred the exact words now common to both
authors. According to the order of Josephus, Theudas
stood in the first place, Judas in the second, Perhaps
in his reading Lk. had overlooked the circumstance that
Josephus strictly speaking was dealing with the sons of
Judas, and thus erroneousiy took what was said of the
fate of these as referring to the father; perhaps, how-
ever, on the other hand he read quite correctly, but at
the same time made his note only to some such effect
as this, that ‘Judas of Galilee stirred the people to
revolt in the days of the taxing'; because the instance
of the father seemed to him better suited for his purpose
than that of the sons. Ifnow he had never before
heard anything of a trastworthy kind abont Theudas,
it will certainly be excusable in him if he did not retain
in his memory the date of Theudas (which of course he
did not require for his actual purpose and therefore did
not note), and (especially if the composition of his work
did ποῖ follow immediately on the making of his notes)
took the order of his notes to be also in chronological
order, and therefore represented Theudas as appearing
before Judas whose date was well known to him. If he
assigns to Judas himself the fate which according to
Josephus overtook his sons, this admits of being ex-
plained, on the first of the assumptions suggested above,
from careless reading of the passage; on the second it
explains itself Even Krenkel concedes that Lk., even
without literary authority for it, could believe that Judas
must have come to the same end as nearly all the in-
surrectionary leaders of that period (see JUDAS, 10).

An instructive example of careless reading which no one can
dispute is to be met with în Eusebius (ΖΓΕ, 271), who reproduces
verbatim Josephus's account of Theudas, including the mention
of Fadus, and nevertheless says that it relates to the same event
as Gamaliel refers to in his speech. The mention of Fadns had
thus failed to suggest to him the question as to the date to
which the event ought to be assigned, and as to whether it could
possibly be reconciled with the assumed date of Gamaliel's
speech.

Ῥ (ε) The attempt here made to account for the remark-

able degree of coincidence between Josephus and Lik.
would have to be abandoned only in the event of its
being possible to show that Lk. could not have used
Josephus. Not to speak, however, of the great number
of cases in which his employment of that author is
raised to a very high degree of probability indeed, if
not to absolute certainty, the non-employment in the
strict sense is incapable of being proved. It is not
difficult, indeed, to prove that Lk. did not make use of
Josephus in the manner in which a modern scholar
does; but all the cases în which he diverges from him
admit of being arranged under two classes; either he
knows some other account besides that of Josephus and
prefers it! (whether, in our judgment, rightly or no is
not the question), or he fails to use statements of
Josephus as to the accuracy of which he would have had
no doubts, simply because he has forgotten them, unless
indeed, perchance, he had never read them {for it is
possible that his use of Josephus may have been
sporadic only).

(d) Let us suppose, however, the case that a modern
scholar has read the whole of Josephus—or most of
him. Will he αἱ τῆς end of his reading be in a position
to say with confidence, for example, what were the
territories included in the tetrarchy of Philip, and par-
ticularly whether Itureea (Lk.31) was one of them
{there are, in all, five passages in Josephus, not all of
them in full agreement, to pe taken account of here;
cp HeroD, $ 11; LvSANIAS, $ 1 δ), orto recapitulate the
facts about Lysanias? He will have to refer to his
author again. But not only was such an expedient more

1 For example, on the death of Herod Agrippa 1. (Acts
12 20-23); see HeRoD, $ 12, end.

5055

TREUDAS

laboricus and time-consuming in those days in the case
of a large work not then, as'now, divided into chapters
and paragraphs or provided with an index; we do not,
above all, in the least know whether Lk. deemed this
necessary, or whether he did not rather acquiesce all
too willingly in the suggestion that he knew the matter
well enough already without verifying it. We do not
by any means deny that Lk. often gives way to fancies
which a careful reading of Josephus on his part would
certainly have dispelled ; as for example the notion that
two men could be high priest at one and the same time
{Lk.32) or that the census under Quirinius which
Josephus plainly assigns to 6-7 A.D. could have coin-
cided in date with the birth of Jesus. The question,
however, is whether Lk. read Josephus with so much
attention as to be able to correct these errors which had
already passed into his flesh and blood. If, for example,
as has been with probability supposed (see CHRONOLOGY,
88 59 fi QuIRINIUS), he had already confounded the
census under Quirinius with some other, it could not
of course make any great impression on him if he found
it in Josephus mentioned in another connection than
that in which he had already in his own mind placed it.

(e) If we are to form any correct judgment as to Lk.'s
procedure with reference to sources which in our modern
view ought to have been absolutely authoritative for him,
it will be our duty to observe the manner in which he
uses the Pauline epistles. He leaves so much of their
contents unnoticed and contradicts them to so large an
extent (cp ACTS, 88 4, 7, 14; COUNCIL; RESURREC-
TION, $$ 16-18, 21, 23, 27 εἰ, etc. ; SIMON P. R, $ 35
SPIRITUAL GIFTS, $ 9 f.) that even some critical theo-
logians have supposed he was entirely unacquainted with
them. Yet this, if he wrote about 100-130 A.D., is
almost more impossible than it would be on the
assumption of his having been a companion of Paul.
We could imagine that not every companion of Paui
became acquainted with the contents of his epistles
before they were dispatched. Yet this is a matter of
indifference here; for a companion of Paul became
acquainted, from his own observation or from the oral
accounts of eye-witnesses, with facts of which but a small
number is known to us from the epistles, yet in sufficient
number to show us how far it was from Lk.'s intention
to pay serious heed even to these authentic sources in
constructing his picture of the apostolic age.

(7) To return once more to Theudas, it is clear that
in this case also Lk.'s divergences (above, $ τ) from
the account in Josephus are not decisive against his use
of Josephus. ‘It îs very casily possible that Lk., as
Schîirer thinks, knew something about Theudas by
hearsay, and indeed that the reported number of his
followers reached him in this manner. With this it is
not at all irreconcilable that his collocation of Theudas
with Judas of Galilee and the chronological error may
be due to his use of Josephus. The case is not such as
makes it possible to say that every other explanation is
excluded ; but the explanation here offered has in point
of fact a probability that presses, and no counterproof
can be brought forward, As against it may be urged,
if one chooses, the contradiction apparently involved in
the fact that Lk. is found aceurately reproducing certain
words of Josephus while yet altering so profoundly the
general contents of his statements. This last fact seems
to counteract the evidential value of the verbal coinci-
dences, We believe, however, that this difficulty has
been obviated by the suggestion that the words in
question come from Lk.'s notes of Josephus (see
above, 5).

That Josephus had been used by Lk. was first affirmed
by Holtzmann (Z#7, 1873, pp. 85:93, and especially £9/;

1877, pp. 535-549). See also Hausrath,

8. Literature, NTche Zi.-gesch.I2) 4, 1877, pp. 239-243;
eim, BL 5, 1875, pp. 510-313, and Aus dem

Uschristenthum, 1, 1838, pp. 1-27, especially 18-21; Clemen,
Chrono!, d. paulîn. Brisfe, 1893, pp: 66-69, and Sz. Ax: 1895, ppi

333-397 ar Krenkel, Jose fn u Lucas, 894 pp. 162-174 (very
thorough). Lk.'s use of fosephus was denied by Sonntag, Sf.

5056

THIMNATHAH

Kr. 1837, ppi 622-6523 Wieseler, CAronolog. Synofse, 1843, PP.
103-105, and Beitr. sur Wirdigung der Evangelica, 1860, pp.
101-104} Zuschlag, 7 4eudas, 1849; Schirer, ZW4'7) 1070, ppe
74582} Belser, 76. theol. Quartalschrift, 1896, pp. 61-71;
lass, St. Ar. 1806, p. 4597, and Ace afostolormme . . è
secundum formam Romanarni, Leipsic, 1896, p. xvi f (cp Acta
apostoloriin edit, philologica, Gotvingen, 1895, ad/ec.); Ramsay,
Was Christ born at Bethlehem? 1838, 252-260: Feine, Zheol
Lit.-Blatt, 1900, 60/3 Cross, £26.7, 1809-1900, pp. 538-540.
Prw.

THIMNATHAH (1N3)9P), Josh. 1943. See TIMNAH.

THISBE (G1cBH [BN], 61BH [A]), the native place
οἵ Tobit (Tob. 12).

It was situated ‘at the right hand '—i.e., southward—of xuStws
[ΒΝ] or κυδιων [A] (Kadesh) in Galilee, and above aolo hip
(Hazor?). x adds that ît was ὀπίσω δυσμῶν ἡλίου, ἐξ ἀριστε-
ρῶν φογωρ. . ον

So far on the hypothesis that we have the Book of Tobit in an
approximately origina! form. There is, however, strong reason
to believe that the stories of Daniel (in part), Esther, Judith,
and Tobit, have been systematically altered as regards their
historical and geographical names (see Crif. 254). Thus che

addition in x represents muan μοι Inybn ma; but this is a
corruption of Daybp: 50} ὉΝΌΠΥ, and the names Masson,
Raphaîn, Sephet in It. Vg. come respectively, (2) from 1:13, (ὁ)
from D'RDI (see ἘΕΡΗΑΙΜ), and (6) from ness. 53 and 3953
are liable to confusion: the original reading was probably not
*Galilee’ but ‘Cilead'—i.e, the southern Gilead in the Negeb.
‘Naphtah” is a southern district so called, and ‘Asher’ repre:
sents the southern Asshur or Ashhur, See, however, Toxr,
and on another reference to a Thisbe or Tishbeh, see ΤΙΒΗΝΙΤΕ:
T.K.C.

THISTLE, THISTLES occur in AV as the rendering
of the following words :—

1. tm. derdar (τρίβολοι, Gen.3:8 Hos.108t), a
word also found in Aramaic, Arabic, and Ethiopic, but
apparently quite distinct from another word dardar
which, in Persian and Arabic, denotes the ‘elm tree”
(see Low, 98 7). Being coupled in both places with
pp. 40s (‘thorns’ or ‘thorn-bushes,' see THORN}, dardar
has been reasonably identified both in ancient and
modern times with the τρίβολος of the Greeksti.e.,
either a thistle or more probably a spinous plant of the
knapweed kind, such as Centazrea Calcitrapa, 10.
{Ascherson ap. Lòw, 427) or the more formidable €.
verutum (Tristram, NAB 426). Petermann (Reiser
im Orient, 174) reported that the name dardar was still
used in Syria for plants of the thistle kind.

2. For ἼΝ, 4/44, ῥάμνος, EV ‘bramble’ AVme. offers in
Judg. 9 14 the alternative rendering ‘thistle. See BRAMBLE, 1.

3. nin, Z24k, is rendered ‘thistle* in 2 K.149 2 Ch. 25.18 Job

31 40, and ‘bramble’ (ΑΥ̓͂ only) in 15. 8413, elsewhere and in
RYme. exe. Is. THORN (7.0).

4. τρίβολοι occurs twice in NT (Mt. 7 16 Heb. 68t); the mean-
ing is probably the same as that of OT ὙΤΊ.

Frnistlodown appears once in AVimg. (IS 17.13), producing as
the result, ‘like thistledown before the whirlwind,' But if a
definite plant is required, one might think rather with W. M.
Thomson! of the globe-like branches of the wild articholce (prob-
ably Cyxaza syriaca). When ripe and dry in autumn these
‘vegetable globes ' are carried far and wide by the wind. AV,

i gives in the text of Is. (£0.) ‘a rolling thing,’ and in
the similar passage, Ps.8313 [14], ‘a wheel” (see Wuret); RV
in both passages renders ‘the whirling dust.’ The analogy of
Syr.geltà, Arab. 525, would, however, rather recommend ‘stubble'
as the true meaning of 5103, ga/z22, în these two passages.

N. M.

THOCANUS (goxanoy [B], Θωκ. [A]), 1 Esd. 914
RV= Ezra 10:5, TIKvaH (g.2.).

THOMAS THE APOSTLE. For the order in which
the name occurs in the lists in Mt. 10 Mk. 3 Lk. δ
Acts 1, see APOSTLE, $ τ (col. 264). In
the Fourth Gospel the name occurs
seven times, thrice with the addition ‘who is called
Didymus," ὁ λεγόμενος Δίδυμος (1116 2024 212 145
20267). From Jn. this addition found its way into
the Greek and Latin text of Lk. in cod. D. Tormerly
the name was read also in Jn. 2029 by the TR without
any Greek attestation and in the Vulgate of this passage,

1. The name.

1 Viu Land and the Book, 563=S. Palestine and Jerusalem,
nf

5057

THOMAS THE APOSTLE

| though none of the MSS collated by Wordsworth-
i White have it there,

The spelling of the name is without exception Θωμᾶς, in
Latin Z%ezzas (only two MSS of Wordsworth-White have fre-
quently Tomas); in Syrinc Τ συνά (|a οὐ h) according to Bar-
Hebreeus, but the Nestorian vocalisation is Z4e'an14 (ao olh),
preserving the consonantal character of x as în Hebrew; the
Syro-Palestinian writes the Grecised uzi) 004) (cod. A, Jn

1116 μολθ οἱ), and for δίδυμος husoojk (cod C, 2024

]aoo/l) The Syriac appellative for twin is 48 (Nes-

torian «A2’ama), and scarcely differs in pronunciation from
the proper name, for which reason the explanation ὁ λεγόμενος
Aid. was omitted în all three passages in Syr. Sin. Syr. Cr. îs
defective in all passages of the Gospels where Thomas occurs,
But in both these Syriac texts the name Thomas occurs in a
passage where it is not found in the original Greek, namely jn.
1422; instead of Ἰούδας οὐχ è Ἰσκαριώτης, Syr. gives
Thoma, Syr. Cur. Juda-Thoma ; Blass gives now Ἰούδαεί, οὐχ
ὁ ἀπὸ Καρυώτου] The Greek Δίδυμος has been preserved 25
Didymus în the Latin versions, but rendered τ cressents or
dubitos in the MSS of Lyon and Carpentras of the Provengal
version and ein: 2eveife/er in the pre-Lutheran German Bible, as
if it ψετετεδίψυχος (see PRE) 866. The OS translates the

name ἄβυσσος, ἀκατάληπτος βαθύτης -- Hebrew 46/422 (Inn, in
Pal.-Syr. 4212), and δίδυμος. The meaning “twin” îs certain,
but the original form of the Semitic word is much dis.
puted (see, on the one hand, Olshausen, $ 188, Lagarde,
Ucbersichî, 144; Barth, 1828, n. τ; Ges.-Buhl, δέκ; on the
otherhand, Siegfried-Stade, Lex.; Kénig, 269; Dalman, Gramene.
112, n. 4), The question is whether the Hebrew word be ἐδ ὅγε
Gather than #2'671) or 12 ἄγη (in Arabic faw'an). Still more doubt
ful is the relation to the corresponding Ethiopic word. | The
spelling #2v32 in the Targums is merely due to the pronunciation
of x between two vowels, No example of the use of the noun as
a proper name older than the NT is known ta the present writer.
There is no Thomas for instance in Josephus, but cp Pheen.
=bi12y [53 bien in C/S 1 no. 46, wheré also Θαμὸς Αβδουσιρου,
though the name became very frequent în all parts of Christen-
dom; for modern Syriac instances, see Maclean's Dictionary.
From the reading ' Thomas ' or ' Judas-Thomas' for
‘Judas not Iscariot' in Jn. 1422, it is apparent that
Thomas was identified at a very early
2. The person. inte with ‘Judas of James' in the lists
of Lk, 6 and Acts1. This is strange enough, since the
name Thomas also occurs in these lists. Yet so it is,
and this identification has been maintained by Resch
(Texte u. Unt. x. 3824 76], who explains ‘Judas of
James' as ruther (not son) of James, and finds the other
! twin în James the son of Alpheus, taking Lebbmwus-
Thaddxeus to be different from ‘Judas of James' (see
JupaAs, 7, col. 2623). This ‘Judas of James' has been
identified further with Judas (or Jude) the son of Joseph,
the brother of Jesus, and thus Thomas has been made
brother of Jesus himself. On the latter identification see
especially Th. Zahn, Forschunger, 6346 7, who thinks
that ît is an invention of the author of the “εἰς of
Thomas. A Syriac origin for these Acts has been
maintained by Noldeke and supported lately upon valid
grounds by Burkitt (Joxrz. 7Ae0/, Std, 12807 294f.).
The name Judas-Thomas occurs also in the Syriac
Doctrine of Addai (see Lagarde, Religuie Syriace, p.
i 420 τό Δ; Grace, p.94L 35; Cureton, Documents, 33}
ed. Phillips, 5; Barhebreeus, Chror. ZccZ. 32), and it was
doubtless from a Syriac source that Kusebius got his
’Tosdas ὁ καὶ Θωμᾶς (ZE 113, where the Syriac text of
Eusebius has only /udas Thomas). Ephrem Syrus,
too, called him fudas-Thomas (616 F of his works,
where the Roman edition printed ‘Thomas,’ see
Burkitt, Zeats and Studies, vii, 24). Others make Simon
Zelotes a brother of Judas or James (see the Armenian
Commentary of Ephrem on Acts in Rendel Harris,
Four Lectures on the Western Text of Acis, 37), and
from this combination the other fact may be ex-
plained, that for Lebbaeus also Judas Zelotes is found in
Latin MSS in Mt, 103, in Miinter's Sahidic version, Jn.
1422 (see L.ipsius, 3:63), in the Latin Chronicle of the
year 334 (ed. Mommsen, 670, ed. Frick, 100, who
wrongly presupposes a lacuna between Judas and
| Zelotes). For the question whether under the ‘things

5058

THOMEI

which Judas ‘Thomas wrote from India’ (Lagarde,
Reliquie Syr. 416; Cureton, Documents, 32) the
epistle of Jude is to be understood, see Lipsius, 3.194 ;
Zahn, Lorschungen, 5116 122 6347, n. 4. The ‘Gospel
of the Twelve Apostles’ (ed. by J. Rendel Harris, 190)
makes him a member of the tribe of Benjamin, the
‘Book of the Bee' (ed. Budge, 1886) of the tribe of
Judah.

‘The legends that gathered round this apostle are of the most

fancifal kind and too intricate to be treated at length here; cp !

the Greek edition of Bonnet, the Syriac of Wright, and its
supplement by F. C. Burkitt'in Studia Sinailica 9 25-44, and
the treatment of these Acts in Lipsius, Die Afokrybhen Afostel.
geschichten.

In the Clementine Homilies Thomas has a twin brother
Eliezer (or, Eleazar, see Lipsius, Ergdnzwrgshe/t, 24), in
another list a twin sister Lysias (299. ad CAron. fasch. 2142,
ed. Bonn). In the Aosfolic Constitutions, vi.14 (173, cd.
Lagarde) the name Thomas is omitted in the list of the Apostles
by the MSS wr, supplied between Bartholomew and Matthew
by eyz.

In the ‘Apostolic Church order or Third book of Clement's
Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, as published by T. P.
Arendzen (in 7, Theol. Stud. 860) the order is (7) James, (8)
Nathanael, (9) Ἴάονιας, (10) Kephas, (11) Bartholomew, and (12)
Fudas son δὰ "James (the Sahidic version bas ‘brother of James,
see Arendzen, 74. In the corresponding text (to be published
by Mrs. M. Ὁ. Gibson in Hore Senztice, 120) we get (7)
James, (8) Judas son of James, with (9) Nathanael, (10) Thomas,
Cr) Bartholomew, (τ) Matthias. À MS in the possession of
R, Harris agrees with the text of Arendzen (Gibson, appendix).

In the History ef Mary (Budge, ET, 105) Thomas is said τὸ
have preached to ‘the Indians, and’ the Chinese, and the
Cushites, and (the people of) all the islands near and far”.
His day in the Western church is the 2ist Dec., in the Greek
the 6rh Oct., in the Syriac the grd July (see Nilles, Aalen-
darium). On the zand Oct. 394 his coffin was deposited in the
great church of Edessa: but this was, perhaps, only a removal,
85 other sources tell of his grave at Edessa at a much earliet
time, ΟἹ the church of the Thomas-Christians of Malabar,
which refers its origin to the apostie himself, see Germann, Die
Kirche der Thomaschristen (1877); on the character of the
apostle see the Commentaries on the Gospel of John and
exegetical and homiletical books. That the legends make him
a carpenter and builder may have arisen from his association
with Jesus, E. N.

THOMEI (Gomei [A]), 1 Esd. 532 ΕΝ, AV Thomoî.
See TEMAH.

THORN, THORNS, occur in AV as the rendering of
many different words. "Itis in nearly all cases impossible
to arrive at a determination of the particular species
intended, and indeed most of the words may be pre-
sumed to be of somewhat general application.

1. TON, 4/40 (sce BramaLe), Îs probably some species of |

Rbammus, MT în Ps. 589 [το] where ἼΩΝ occurs is probably
corrupt. [In Cheyne’s restoration the ‘pots’ and ‘thorns' dis.
appear în asentence which mayremind us of Job 27 δος Duhm
ille is more conservative. Olshausen's note, however, still
deserves consideration.]

2. PIN. 44428, ἴ5 rendered ‘brier’ în Mic. 7 4 (but cp 45), and
‘thoms’ in Prov. 15 τοί, See BrieR, 6.

3. min, 4044 (2 K.149 2 Ch. 2518 Job 8140 Prov. 269
Cant. 22 Is. 3413 (cp &) Hos. 96), rendered in AV thrice
‘thorn,’ thrice ‘thistle,’ and once ‘bramble,' is a word
which elsewhere denotes a ‘hook’ (Job 4026 [412]
2 Ch. 8311)}; the mn. Advdkim, of 15. 136t is pro-
bably a corruption (Dr., 24 /oc.). © has in three places
ἄκανθαι (‘thorns') and once κνίδη (‘nettle’); in 2 Κα.
axav (accus. arara[v} but ἀκχαν [1.]}} in 2Ch. 2518
the word is merely transliterated. ὁ Xote, τὸν axovx
[B], è οχοΐ, τὸν ax- [A], è ἀκχαν [L]. 15 is usually
taken to be a tall and strong thistle, such as Nofodasis
syriaca (FFP 336), whose ‘ powerful spines' {ΛΓ ΓΒ 424)
would explain the connection with the meaning ‘hook’;
but some other thorny plant may be intended. Arab.
and Pers. ζατοᾷ (' peach' or ‘ plum') is probably quite
a different word, and does not justify the rendering
‘sloe’ adopted by Celsius, 14787 See Low, 147 7

4 }rsyI, na'dszs (σπήλαιον Is. 719, στοιβή 2 15. 5613), is

1 On the reading în 2 Ch, see ΜΑνάβββη.

2 This word appears in Dioscorides (412) as the name of a
common plant. According to Pliny (21 15, $ 54) it had a prickl
stalk. Fraas (Sym. μὲ FI. Class. 78) identifies στοιβή witl

5059

THREE TAVERNS

probably a general name for a prickly plant or bush, and con-
nected with the verb pp) (4 46), to ‘pierce' or ‘prick,' which
appears în post-biblical Hebrew (see Barth, Nowzina/8, 913).

5. ΡΨ, sirim(Eccles.76.1s.3413 Hos.28[6] Nah.1 τοῦ», denotes

‘thorns,” ‘thory branches,’ or ‘thorny bushes' @ has în
Eccles. ἄκανθαι, in Is. ἀκάνθενα ξύλα (?), and in Hos. σκόλοπες ; in
Nah. its text differs from MT, which is corrupt (see Wellh. σα
loc.) As the etymology is unknown, no nearer speculation is
possible! The form ΠῚ Ὁ, s#7224, in one place denotes ‘hooks”
(Am. 42).

6. fio, sion (Ezek. 2524, σκόλοψ), and D'Yi9o, sallaniza,
παροιστρήσουσι Ἷ (Ezek. 26). See BRIER.

7. αι, sinniza (Job 55 Prov. 2254) and (8) D'IIS, βόνεζνεν»ε
(Nu. 3855 Josh. 23134), are also general words for ‘therns.'
The former is rendered πρίβολοι by ὧδ (in Prov. 225); the latter
βολίδες. The Hebrew words are possibly connected with
PINS, piesénezh, Aram, #34, Ar. sin, which all mean ‘basket.*

In Job 55 the reading of MT is not supported by & and seems
suspicious (see Hoffmann, 24 /oc.).

9 pp: 445 (ἄκανθα, Gen. 3 18 Ex. 22 5 [6]Judg. 8,7 162 5. 286 Ps.
118 12 Îs. 3213 38 12 Jer.43 1213 Ezek. 2824 Hos.108t), is the
commonest OT word for ‘îhorn' or ‘thoms,' but is also (so far
as we know) quite general (L5w, 198).

το, Dip, Fimmat(Prov, 2431 15, 8413 Hos.96t). See NETTLE.

τα. πὶ, fayith (15.567234 917[18] 1017 2744), a word which
only occurs in Is., is, in all the seven places where it appears,
combined with Og), #27», and is probably of similar meaning
(see BriR, 2). Dietrich (A4kand/. zur semit. Wortforsch. 73)
proposes ἃ derivation from n&Y, sa°4, “to be waste,' but this
is unlikely. n

12. ῥάμνος occurs Bar. 671 [70]. Cp BRAMBLE.

13. σκόλοψ, 2 Cor. 127. See above (5), (6). In Ecclus. 4319
Heb. isopp. For the meaning of the expression see PAUL, $ 32,
Eve, DISEASES OF, $ 4. N. MW. T. T.-D.

THRACE. A ‘Thracian’ horseman {τῶν ἱππέων
τινὸς Θρᾳκῶν) is incidentally mentioned in 2 Macc. 1235
as one of the bodyguard of Gorgias, the governor of
Idumeea under Antiochus Epiphanes. The opportune
arrival of the Thracian saved Gorgias from capture by
one Dositheus.

Thrace at this period was the general name for the
entire region included between the Strymon and the
Danube, embracing a variety of tribes (cp Herod,
53). With the death of Lysimachus in 281 B.c., all
chance of Thrace becoming an independent kingdom
ceased. The country became a recruiting ground for
all who needed troops and could pay for them.
Thracian troops were chiefiy light-armed infantry and
irregular horse (Xen. Arad. i. 29; Memor. iii. 92).
Frequent references are made to them as an element in
Macedonian, Roman, and other armies; probably the
name came to be applied to indicate a certain type of
equipment and mode of fighting rather than actual
nationality.

[For Θράκων of GA, however, @Y* reads Θαρσος, and Gva
@aprovs; and it is, to say the least, quite as likely that the
Syrian cavalry was drawn from Cilicia as from Thrace (cp

ARMY, 8 7). As tothe possible identification of Tiras (Gen. 102)
with Thrace, see Trras.] W.J.w.

THRASEAS or (ΕΝ) TERASZEUS (epacaioy [A],

Bapcioy [5 31, eapceoy [V?], #rasizs [Syr.]),
father of APoLLONIUS, 2 Mace. 85. The name may
possibly be another form of Tarsus.

THREAD ban, etc.), Josh. 218 etc. See Corn.

‘THREE CHILDREN, SONG OF THE,
(Book), $ 22,

THREE-STRINGED INSTRUMENT ASP), 15.
186 EVme See Music, 8 3[4].

THREE TAVERNS (TpIWN TABEPNowN [Ti. WH];
Acts2815t, AV ‘The three taverns,” ἘΝ ‘The Three
Taverns.’).

Here Paul was met on the final stage of his journey

See DANIEL

Poterium spinosum, a low herb occurring in Syria, the branches.
of which terminate în intricate branching spines.

1 ἄκανθα în both Greek and Latin writers was undoubtedly
Acanthus spinosus. The nearly allied A. syriacus is abundant.
in Syria.

5060

THRESHING INSTRUMENT

to Rome by a company of the Roman Christians. It }
was a station on the Via Appia; evidently, from the
order of the names, lying between Rome and Appii
Forum. From Cicero {Zp. ad ΑΝ, 212, ‘emerseram
commode cx Antiati in Appiam ad Tris Tabernas'), we
learn that it stood just where a cross road from Antium
on the coast fell into the Appian Way from the W. ‘Tres
‘Tabernae stood therefore very near the northern end of
the Pomptine marshes, in the midst of which Appii
Forum actually lay (cp Horace, Saz. i. B3f£). The άπ
Itin. gives 17 R.m. between Aricia and "Tres Tabernze,
and τὸ R.m. from Tres Tabernee to Appii Forum;
Aricia stood 16 m. 8, of Rome. These distances locate
Tres Tabernae at about 3 miles from the modern
Cisterna on the Appian road. Ww.J.W.

THRESHING INSTRUMENT (am), 25, 2422.
See AGRICULTURE, $ 8.

THRESHOLD. This is the rightful rendering of (1)
δ, saep4 (some scholars compare Ass. σαί 9 }2), the more
usual term (see DOOR) ; (2) πε, ee/p4602, is
1. eprew probably the special term for the threshold

SINIS. cf the sanctuary proper {Thenius), 15.54
(Dagon's temple), Zeph. 19 Ezek. 93 10418 462 471 (cp

Dagon, $ 3). The rendering ‘threshold’ in AV of
τ Ch. 26 15 17 needs correction (see ASUPPIM). We also
find the plural πο, τέῤῥένε, ‘thresholds.' So in Is. 64,

‘And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the
sound of their voices’ (read ΠΡΌ τα, and cp Job 386).
We are probably to suppose the front of the temple
divided by one or more pillars into several entrances.
So, too, in Am. 91, ‘Strike the capitals (of the pillars)
that the thresholds may tremble.' The temple at Bethel
is spoken of These 'thresholds’ had special keepers
(EV ‘porters’), 1 Ch. 922 2 Ch. 234. Elsewhere the
phrase is ‘keeper (or keepers) of the threshold” (but np
may be used collectively); so, e.g., Jer. 354 ὦ K. 224
284 etc., for which in Esth. 221 @ gives ἀρχισωματο-
φύλακες, taking the Hebrew phrase as synonymous with
* Keeper of the king's head' (15.282, (δ ἀρχισωματο-
φύλαξ). In Ps. 8411 {if the text îs correct), a psalmist
values even this Levitical office highly (q5înpn but &
παραριπτεῖσθαι). Gates and thresholds being sacred,
it was of course a privilege to guard them. Βαϊ though
it is usual to quote this passage, it is doubtful whether
this is critically justified,

Sacrifices for the family were originally at the entrance
of the home. According to Hommel, the Ass. σωρ( ῥ)έ,
‘prayer,’ is a denominative form si/pu,
«threshold.' In modern Egypt a threshold
sacrifice may be offered to welcome the
incoming master of the house,! and, in
ancient times, Herodotus reports that
every Egyptian sacrificed a hog to Osiris before the door
of his house (248). Trumbull makes it probable that,
in the narrative of the institution of the Passover, the
words ‘and he shall take a bunch of hyssop and dip it
in the blood that is in the bason' {Ex, 1222) misrepresent
the true meaning. ἢθ5 might in fact mean either ‘in
the bason' or ‘at the threshold,” and Trumbull prefers
the latter rendering (6 παρὰ τὴν θύραν, Vg. in limine).
‘To set foot on the threshold in a careless manner was
probably unlucky ; Trumbull reports that even now in
Syria ‘it is unlucky to tread on a threshold,' and that
in Upper Syria the bride is sometimes carried across the
threshold of the bridegroom’s house by the friends of the
bridegroom. In Egypt it is the bridegroom who does
this, and in ancient Greece and Rome, also in ancient
India, similar customs are well known to have existed.
Obscure passages in 1 Κ. 185: and Zeph. 19 can now be
understood ; also probably the name of the Pesah (EV

2. Sacred-

ness of the

threshold
stone.

1 So on the arrival of the new Khedive at his palace in 1882
(H, Clay Trumbull, 7%e 7reskold Covenant (1896), 7, quoting |
Folk-Love Journal, 193). Ì

5061

THRONE

' Passover‘'). πδ5, φάταξ, means ‘to leap, to dance.
The Pesah was perhaps so called because the Israelites
‘leaped’ over the threshold after the special sacrificial
rite referred to had been performed at the threshold in
recognition of its freshly attested sanctity, or performed
a ritual dance near it.

In 1 K. 1821, ‘How long halt ye between two opinions’ (AV),
is admittedly most improbable. The revisers, however, not being
allowed to correct the text without ancient authority, could find
nothing that was plainly better, But Klostermann δὰ provided
the easy and natural correction D°BEN (for MT D'BII Itonly
remains to interpret the reference to the 57455 aright. The
true explanation seems to be, ‘How long will ye leap over both
threshoids?°—;.e., enter with the same scrupulous awe the
sanctuaries of the two rival deities, Yahwè and Baal. Andin
Zeph. 19 (reading τ. οὐ as in ®) we may paraphrase, ‘And on
that day 1 will punish those who, though they leap with scrupu-
lous awe over the sacred threshold, yet bring with them into
Vahwè's house hands stained with cruelty and injustice’ (Che,
SOR 40 5687. [1898]; cp Jastrow, 782. 17 τοῦ / [1898)) See
further, Crié. 850. Trumbull has already expiained 15,51-5
by thelight of the same archzeological facts. The explanation in
15. 5 5 is of course an uncritical guess akin to that in Gen. 82 32.

T.K.C.

THERONE. It will be convenient under this heading

to deal with seats in general, the Hebrew

1. TerMS. vvord for throne being applied to all articles
of furniture of that description. The terms are :—

1. Aisse (803, but N05 1 K.1019 Job 2691), is apparently
derived from the Ass. &wss# ‘sent, throne, the Aram. equiva-
lent Zorsà' (4993 Dan. 5 20, etc., cp Syr. 4475294), from whichis
borrowed Ar. #uzs? ‘chair,’ being probably an earlier form.1
Purely colourless are the two terms—

2. mofab (UM, 18.20.18, etc, EV ‘seat,’ lit. ‘place of
sitting’ from ydF25), or sell (N3Y, Am.63, EV ἐδ, 6
καθέδρα ; and

3. find (3B3N, Job 233 ‘seat,’ lit. ‘fixed place’), used of
the dwelling-place of the Almighty.

4 βῆμα, Acts1221 (RVmg. ‘judgment-seat’). Properly a
raised platform (Lat. ἐγ έδειρεαί, cp suggestum) upon which, as
Jos. B/ii.l1 shows, the θρόνος (Lat. sella) was erected. In
Neh. 84 βῆμα κιαηας for migdal, ‘tower '—ie., an elevated stand
or pulpit.

5. καθέδρα, Ecclus. 74 (Heb. 2526), cp Mt. 2112 Mk.115
(seat of the dove-sellers).

6. πρωτοκαθεδρία, the first or chief seat in a synagogue
(Mt. 236 Mk. 12 39, etc.). Cp SvwAGOGUE, $ 9.f

7. θρόνος (in @ for 1 above), Rev. 44 11 τό, etc., a state chair
having a footstool. Plu. in Col. 1 16 as the name of a class of
angels; cp Test. Levi,3, where they appear as in the seventh
heaven. See ANGEL, 81.

Such pieces of furniture as chairs, seats, or stools are
unknown to the ordinary tent-dweller, and doubtless the
Hebrews firstcame to use themafter the
2. References. cecupied Canaan (seo MEAIS, $ 35).
It is true that in the representation of Sennacherib's
camp before Lachish a kind of seat or bench is to be
seen in some of the tents, but this departure from the
ordinary custom is doubtless due to the superior culture
of the Assyrians (see ‘TENT, fig. 1). As in Assyria,
Babylonia, and Egypt, seats were no doubt to be found
in every house in Canaan, and together with a bed,
table, and lamp formed part of the equipment of a well-
appointed room {2 K. 410; EV ‘stool’) ‘The word
used în this passage (4/ssè) elsewhere refers to the seat
or throne of Eli the priest (1 S. 19 413 18), of the
governor ‘ beyond the River’ (Neh. 37, see Ryle, Camzb.
Bible, ad loc.), and of the throne of Solomon (1 K.
10187, 2 Ch. 917 7).

The reference to Satan's throne at Pergamos (Rev. 213, see
PercAmMOS, $ 2), if the great altar of Zeus is meant, is associated

1 According to another view the 7 in the Aram. forms has
been inserted to compensate for the loss of the doubled s (fora
statement of the views see Bevan, Dan/e/, 104./). It is to be
noticed that the form with + occurs in the old Aramaie inseription
of Bar-rekub (Zenjîrlì, Bs, temp. Tiglath-pileser III). The
same form appears to recur in Phornician inscriptions from
Cyprus of che beginning of the foarth century nc. (0151, nos:
22, 44, 88), where D'onzn) γ δ ‘interpreter of the two thrones,”

ἧς perhaps the ἐρμηνευτής (cp Gr. inscr.) between the rulers of

| Cyprus and Persia (see (15 1 65).

Ὁ But note perhaps that the hostess is said to have been a
‘great’ woman.

5062

THRONE

with the interesting question of throne-worship. That there isa
very close connection between the throne of the deity and his altar
appears certain, and it is notimprobable that they were originally

intical Οπ the whole subject see Reichel, Vorkellen. Gotter»
culte, 3 (Vienna, 1897), with Budde's remarks, £x2.7
9 3967; and Clermont-Ganneau, Rec. d'Avch. Orient. 4247 ff

‘There are three main varieties of seats to be noticed ;

(4) the seat with neither back nor arms, (6) the seat with
sntion Straight back, and (c) the straight-
8. Description. picked seat with arms. The three
practically correspond to the classical sella, cattedra,
and thronws respectively. The first of these is frequently
represented upon Assyrian and Babylonian seals,? and
bears a general close resemblance to the primitive
altars and table upon the Assyrian slabs.? In a large
number of cases it is shaped like a square stool, often
with several cross-bars, though instances are by no
means wanting where the legs cross transversely, not
‘unlike the construction of the modern camp-stool.

These shapes are found in the ancient classical world and were
probably borrowed from the East. The Greek term for them,
Sidpos, is used by @ to render &iss? in 1S.19413 182 K. 410,
and in accordance with Gr. usage occurs in 3 5, 2323 to render
mittàh. On the use of beds, couches, and divans, cp BED, $ 3.

Representations of the second and third variety
are likewise found in Assyria where they are often

accompanied with a footstool; cp the analogy of the |

Gr. θρόνος and its θρῆνυς.

The OT references to the footstool (44457, Dî1, (5 ὑποπόδιον,
always metaphorica!) would show that the Hebrews were well
acquainted with seats of this nature. On ζόδεξ (0733), 2Ch.918,
see helow, n. 6, .

The two last-mentioned varieties lent themselves to
decoration and elaboration to a greater extent than the
sella. They were frequently of the finest workmanship
and adorned with gold and plaques of carved ivory (see
Ivory, $ 2).8 An overspread or baldachino was often
added, and a reference to this is perhaps rightly seen in
the #askrir (Kr., but Ktb. msg) of Jer. 48104 A
common form of ornament was the representation of
animals or men, to support the arms or seat.

If Benzinger is correct in his suggestion that Solomon's
throne (situated in the Porch of the Throne, 1 K. 77)
was the work of Hiram, it is natural to suppose that it
was based upon the familiar Egyptian or Assyrian
models. The throne was decorated with ivory and gold,
and was approached by six steps (cp Is. 61 ‘a throne
high and lifted up‘), at each end of which was the figure
of a lion. The back appears to have been adorned with
heads of bulls. ‘The second Targ. on Esther adds many
fanciful details which are devoid of value.

On the text of 1K.1018,7, 2 Ch.9.17/2, see the Comm. of
Ki. and Benz. In xK. 10 19 the reading ‘rounded top' (head-
rest) appears obvious, but we should probably read Say "gian
‘the heads of bulls” (& προτομαὶ μόσχων). In 2Ch.918 the
words have been seriously misunderstood.6

The meaning of 744224, EV ‘stays’ (lit. hands, & χεῖρες,
mants [K.], ἀγκῶνές, brackiola [Ch.}) is not clear. Jos. Anz.
viii. 5 2 offers ἐνήλατον, which means (2) the slats of the frame.
work of a bed, (2) the tungs of a ladder, and (0) axle-pins (cp
1K.732). Following (2) we might think of the slats forming
the seat of the throne, but the idiomatic ‘on either side' (nm
91), and 6'% ἀγκῶνες ἴῃ Ch. points rather to the arms. Such
arms are represented, e.g., upon the throne of ASur-bani-pal
(Perrot and Chipiez, A7i in C4ala. 1108, fig. 28), and of
Sennacherib before Lachish (14. ἃ τοῦ, fig. 47, cp Ball, Lig4s

45011 the East, 193), What is meant by the ‘two lions standing
by (near) the stays’ is also obscure; the words are omitted by
@A in 1K, 1010, perhaps rightiy. S.A. Ὁ,

1 See Menant, La Giystigue Orientale, 1, and cp 8. 1. Curtis,
Prim, Sem. Rel, 267-276 ρου,

2 Cp the table in TENT, fig. σ᾿

3 For details see Perrot and Chipiez, 47%. in Chal4. 2313321.

3 Bee Holfinann, ZA TW, 1882, p. 68, and on verss. see Field,
ad loc.

5 1/K.1020 pet elsewhere mon. In a Phaenician inserip.
tion from Citium in Cyprus (Ὁ 151, no. 10) mention îs made of
the offering of an altar and two imw—#2, perhaps (on the

analogy of our passage) ‘Lions’ (ὈΥ δ).

9 È:33, footstool” (GL ὑποπόδιον, scabellum) is for WII, a
variant of 939 in xK. (emended text). Sce, primarily, Geiger,
Urschr. 343.

5063

THYATIRA

THRUM (πξ), 15. 8812 RV®8 See WEAVING.

THUMMIM (DMN), Ex. 2830. See URIM AND
THUMMIM.

THUNDER (DYI, Ps. 77 το [18] 8187] 1047 Job 2614
13.29 6; βροντή ; also, much more frequently, ‘* bip, Ps. 293
15. 8030, cp'Jer.1013, plur. nibip, Ex. 923, or pmba ndp 928;
in NT pera βροντῆς, Rev. 61142196 (βροντῶν), φωναὶ καὶ
βρονταί Rev. 45 8 5 11 19, εἴς.

This most sublime of natural phenomena is repre-
sented by a poetical echo of primitive myth as the voice
of God, Ps. 1047 Job 374/, 409 Ps.18:3 [14]. and
especially Ps.29, In Ps.£4a (cp v. se} as his laugh
(see Del. and Che. 25.3). When, however, in Ezek.
105 the sound of the wings of the cherubim is likened
tautologically to ‘the voice of El Shaddai (EV God
Almighty) when he speaketh,' we naturally ask whether
this is not some error in the text, and the result is
interesting, for itopens up a vista of possible rectifica-
tions of early mistakes (see SHADDAI1) And if we
lose the traditional reference in Ezek. 105 (and 124), we
have still enough to show that thunder to the ancient
Israelites had a special sanctity as the expression of the
divine omnipotence (Ps, 293), and of the terrible divine
vengeance (15.210 Ps.1813 [14] Is. 3030). Thunder
în summer-time was peculiarly awful (1 S. 12 17),
though perhaps the case mentioned is but a poetical way
of stating that with God nothing is impossible ; Tristram
(NHP 33) says, ‘it is unknown in summer.’ ‘The
wise men oflater times, such as the poet of Job, were
well aware that thunderstorms did notoccurcapriciously,
but were subject to laws appointed by the Creator (job
2826 3825, cp Ecclus. 48 17).

‘Right aiming thunderbolts” (Wisd. 5 2) has been changed ἴῃ
RY into ‘shafts of lightning (βολίδες ἀστραπῶν) with true aim.”

In Ps.78 48 “hot thunderbolts” remains, though D'91 more

probably means here ‘buming sicknesses’ in accordance with
the requirements of parallelism. Another peculiar phrase, ‘in

the secret place of thunder' (0Y1 ἽΠΌΣ, ἐν ἀποκρύφῳ καταιγίδος),

still remains in the RV of Ps.817[8]. Duhm explains, ‘in the
cloud which hides the thunder and at the same time veils God
from sight (Job 22 13/).' This isno doubt a worthy explanation;
but the Hebrew phrase does not appear to suit the parallelism.
On che so-called. Bath-kol, see Voice, and on the title given
to James and John, and rendered
BoaxERGES,

THYATIRA (ovateipa [Ti.WH],! Rev.lirj ἐν
@uarelpors [Ti. WH], Rev. 218 and 224; πόλεως Θυα-
τείρων, Acts 16.14).

Thyatira was a town in northern Lydia, so close to
the indefinite borderiand between Mysia and Lydia that

sti some preferred to reckon it to Mysia
Pa (Strabo, 625, ἣν Μυσῶν ἐσχάτην τινὲς
" φασίν). It lay east of the Lycus, a

tributary of the Phrygius, which river itself falls into the
Hermus from the north. Thyatira thus was placed
almost exactly midway between the Caicus (Ν.} and the
Hermus (S.), on the great road which crossed this region
going to the SE., into the valley of the Mzeander. [15
geographical position is the key to its historical import-
ance. The watershed in which it lay was, in fact, of
the utmost importance strategically, as it was the line
of demarcation between the territory of competing
sovereigns. For in 301 R.c. Lysimachus, king of
Thrace, and Seleucus I. {Nicator), king of Syria, had
partitioned Asia Minor, which they had taken from
Antigonus, in such wise that Lysimachus had the western
portion, as far as central Phrygia, whilst the remainder
fell to Seleucus {see SELEUCID&, $ 2), When, subse-
quently (from 283 B.c.), hostilities broke cut between
the two monarchs, the district in question would be of
great military importance ; and, still later, when in 277
B.C. the Gauls (Galatia) invaded Asia Minor and founded
their robber state in north-eastern Phrygia (cp GALATIA,

“sons of thunder," see

1 Neut. plur., tà Θυάτειραν but the 7.7 in Rev. στ, εἰς
Θυάτειραν, is “well attested' (WH 2 App. 163), Cp the case of
LystrA (9.0.). The form 7àyatciva gradually gives place to
Thyatira, The place is now called Ak-4issar, "a large town
dî ud houses” (Murray, Hdbk ἐ AM δῷ.

5064

THYATIRA

8 1), its importance was enhanced, Consequently, we
find established here a group of so-called ‘ Macedonian
colonies'; and Strabo describes Thyatira as such a
colony (625, κατοικία Μακεδόνων). 1
The word Macedonian in this connection undoubtedly
implies, firstly, Macedonian blood and descent, and
secondly the nucleus of the standing armies kept on
fooi by the Seleucid:e, Ptolemies, and other kings.
‘This nucleus of trusted troops was in reality the remnant
of the soldiers of Alexander the Great, or their children,
their numbers being continually recruited by drafts of
volunteers from Macedonia itself.?
In course of time many men who were not of Macedonian
blood would doubeless find their way into these select corps of
uards. It îs in this sense that the term ‘ Macedonians' is used
in 2 Macc. 820 (see Macebosia, τ; THRACE), It is abund-
antly clear from the extant inscriptions from the region in which
Thyatira stood that the bulk of the colonists were ‘Macedonians*
both in the sense of being men of the standing army and also as
being of Macedonian blood.3
The date of the foundation of Thyatira as a military
colony is uncertain ; probably it was subsequent to 277
B.C. ‘The name is a compound ; -/eira= ‘village’ or
‘town,’ and the whole name signifies ‘the town of Thya'
(for Thya, cp the town-names Thyessus, Thyassus [see
Ramsay, Mist. Geog. 114, 148, 437}. We are told
that previously the place was called Pelopeia, or Semi-
ramis, or Euhippa (Plin. 74/531) —names which scarcely
sound historical. According to a piece of false ety-
mologising based upon mere similarity of sonnd, it was
said that the name ‘[hyatira was derived from Thygatira
{Qvydrepa), because Seleucus heard here of the birth
of his daughter (θυγάτηρ). {See Steph. Thes. s.0.; and
cp Rams. 05, cit 127, note.)
‘The town became of importance owing to its favour-
able position in two respects.
(2) It was here, for example, that Antiochusthe Great assembled
his troops for the campaign which ended so disastrously for him
at Magnesia (see SELEUCIDA, $ 7) a few
2.Importance: miles to the S. In consequence it submitted
military. to che Romans as a matter of course, and
was included within the territory made over
by them to their ally the king of Pergamus, Then followed a
long period during which Thyatira does not appear in history ;
not until the time of the empire, in fact, does it seem to have
realised to the fill the natural'advantages of its position as above
described. Naturally it was only in a peaceful direction that
such could, under the empire, make themselves felt, as ît was
not until the later Byzantine period that strategic advantages
came again in question. A glance at the network of Roman
roads in western Asia Minor is sufficient to revcal the importance
of Thyatira at this time. Starting from Pergamus, an important
road ran through Germe and Nakrasa 48 R. m. to Thyatira,
thence 36 R. m. to Sardis, and so through Philadelphia and
Hierapolis to Laodicea on the Lycus (Rams. Mist. Geog. 167).
When we take into account the fact that an important road runs
northwards along the coast from Ephesus through Smyrna to
Pergamus, we see that the order of names of the seven churches
is capable of easy and rational explanation, quite apart from
any question of political or ecclesiastical ‘precedence. The
order is in fact simply that of the occurrence of the towns as one
follows the main road from Ephesus in a great loop through
Pergamus, and so down to Laodicea (Rev. 111)
(3) Thyatira owed its importance to its connection
with the wool trade, or rather the manufacture of
τον Woollen goods, and more especially to
3. Commercial. \ha; of dyed fabrics. ‘This was always
a staple industry in Lydia.4 The ‘certain woman
named Lydia’ (so EV in Acts 1614; perhaps ‘called
the Lydian' would be more correct) was a 'seller of
purple,’ ‘of the city of Thyatira'—that is to say, prob-
ably an agent of some great house of dyers and manu-
facturers in Thyatira (Rams. St Paz, 214).
, The dyers and other handicraftsmen in Thyatira were united
in guilds (called ἔργα in inscr. from Thyatira, ἐργασίαι else-

1 This is confirmed by inscriptions ; see Bull, de Corr, helle,
1886, p. 398; 1887, p. 456; C/G 3496.

2 Cp Diod. Sic. 18.12, ἐσπάνιξε καὶ ἡ Μακεδονία στρατιωτῶν
πολιτικῶν διὰ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν ἀπεσταλμένων εἰς τὴν ᾿Ασίαν ἐπὶ
διαδοχὴν τῆς στρατιᾶς- speaking ofthetimeofAntigonus Gonatas.

3 See on this Schuchhardt, ‘Die Maked. Kolonien zwischen
Hermos und Kaikos' in Mit24. Axck. Inst, zu Athen, 1888, p.1f

4 Cp Hom. 72 4141, ὡς δ' ὅτε τίς 7° ἐλέφαντα γυνὴ φοίνικι
μεήνῃ | Μῃονὶς ἠὲ Κάειρα. Cp Claudian, De Last. Pros. 1270,
“non sic decus ardet ebumum | Lydia Sidonio quod femina
tinxerit ostro.'

5065

THYINE WOOD

where, as, δι.» at Hierapolis), as was the case at other As
towns (e.g., Smyrna, Ephesus, and Philadelphia), The Thya-
tiran guild of ‘dyers' (Bageîs) is known to us from inscriptions,
as well as the guilds of ‘cloakmakers” (ἱματευόμενοι), ' potters®
(κεραμεῖς), ‘brass-workers' (χαλκεῖς), and numerous others (see
Clere, De rebus Thyat. 92, quoted by Rams. Cities and Bisk,
e Plirygia, 1 τος n. 2. Cp Bull, Corr. Hell. 10 407, and 1900,
P. 592/).

In the epistle to the Thyatiran church (Rev. 218 Δ)

there docs not seem to be any reference to this promi-

nent side of the life of the town, such as
# Rev.218/ lies on the surface of the epistle to the
Laodiceans (Rev.314 £). Nevertheless, in Rev. 220
the reference to ‘that woman Jezebel'? points to some-
thing distinctive and characteristic of the place. From
the context it is clear that under this figure is concealed
some form of teaching or practice, or some intellectual
movement, which presented itself as a rival or per-
version of Christian teaching.

‘The following interpretation has been suggested.
Outside the city there stood the Σαμβαθεῖον or sanctuary
of Sambatha ἰΣαμβήθη), a Chaldean or Persian Sybil
or prophetess.? Apparently this was some form of
eastern superstition, of great popularity, if the reference
in Rev. 220 is to this shrine. ‘ Jezebel,' if {(Schirer and
others) a definite person, must be the Sibyl of some
shrine connected with an eclectic {pagan- Hebrew.
Christian) system. It appears more probable, how.
ever, that we should interpret the denunciation more
broadly, with reference to the prevailing tone of Thyatiran
Christianity rather than to a superstition idolatrous in
origin and general content, which could hardly have
infected the majority of the church. In other words, the
expression in the message obtains full significance only
if we understand the church of Thyatira io have developed
some heretical or impure form of belief or practice, such
as might naturally be typified by a notorious figure drawn
from OT history (cp 2 K. 922). We here touch upon the
relation of the Jewish settlers and colonists in Phrygia
and nelghbouring districts to the mixed population amid
which they dwelt. “Fhe evidence of the Talmud is clear,
that these immigrant Jews were divided from their
brethren and failed to maintain their peculiar religious
position (see Neub. Géogr. du Talm. 315; and Rams.
Cities and Bish. of Phrygia, 2674 7). Τῆς population
of Asia Minor was undoubtedly attracted to the religious
system of the Jews; but the other aspect of this fact was
that the Jews became merged with them (see Rams. Sf
Paul the Traveller, 142 f.; Comm. on Gal. 189 f.,
where the position of the Jews in S. Galatia is treated at
length). Such syncretism must have had its dangers
for the Christian churches, based as they were in general
upon proselytes and containing a more or less large
admixture of Jewish elements. It is to some form of
gross degeneration of Jewish practice and belief that
reference is made in the episile to the Thyatiran' church
(see art. by Schirer, ' Prophetin Isabel in Thyatira' in
Abhand, Weizicker gewidmet, 39 f.). In Cyprus {Acts
136) and Ephesus {Acts 1913) also we find that certain
Jews had abandoned themselves to the practice of magical
arts forbidden by the Mosaic law.

For a parallel to the church factions produced by a question
about pagan institutions, cp the case of Corinth (1 Cor. 10 15/1;
cp Ramsay, Z.xzos. 19007; Zahn, Find 2608 [also Nico
LAITANS, (0]. 3411)), W. 1. Ww.

THYINE WOOD (ZyAon @yion [Ti WH], Rev.
18:21) is mentioned among the precious wares sold in
the market of the apocalyptic Babylon. The wood
intended is no doubt that of the tree called @via or θύα,
by the Grecks, and c/#r4s by the Latins (cp Hehn,
Aulturpflanzen, 386). The former name would seem
to refer to the fragrance of the wood; and ci/rus is
probably a corruption of κέδρος and so points to a tree
of aromatic, antiseptic wood.

r ναῖκα ᾿Ιεζάβελ [WH]; τὴν γυναῖκά σον Îs a reading
which led to the interpretation that the denunciation was directed
against the bishop's wife. Cp JezEBEL, ad fin.

2 Cp CIG 3509, ἐπὶ τόπον καθαροῦ, ὄντος πρὺ τῆς πόλεως πρὸς
Σαμβαθείῳ ἐν τῷ Χαλδαίου περιβόλῳ,

5066

TIBERIAS

The θυία (or citrus) far excellence was a N. African tree
(Theophr. 53, $ 7, Plin.1315, $ 29), probably to be identified
with TAxia articulata, Vafl. which, according to Sprenger
(Erlauterungen sum Theophrast. 203), is a tree E sembline the
cypress and growing to a height of 24 ft. In accordance with
Pliny's statement (4.c.), it is found in the region of Mt, Atlas.
In the days of Roman luxury the citrus was much used in the
making of costly furniture ; the phrase ‘4/7 thyine wood' (Rev.,
Ze.) probably alludes to the great variety of objects constructed
from it,

TIBERIAS (tiBepiac), on a narrow strip of plain
under a hill, on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee,
was founded by Herod Antipas, apparently not before 26
A.D., and so was quite a new place at the time of the
public life of Jesus in Galilee. Its founder named it in
honour of his friend and patron the emperor Tiberius.
Though it became the capital of Galilee, it was at first a
purely Greek city, which accounts for its not appearing
among the scenes of the Galilean ministry. It joined in
the war of liberty, but yielded without resistance to
Vespasian, and was restored by him to its master
Agrippa, on whose death in 1oo it fell directly under
Roman rule. ‘The place came to be a great seat of
Jews and Jewish learning; it was the residence of R.
Judah, the editor of the Mishnah; and, though the
schools of Palestine were ultimately overshadowed by
those of Babylonia, the school of Tiberias was still
famous in the time of Jerome. On Jn.612321: see
GALILEE, SEA OF, $$ 1, 4f

Half an hour to the S. of the modern Ζαδαγίνελ (a
town of some 4ooo inhabitants) are the famous hot
baths {now e/-#ez:m:eh) which are mentioned by Pliny
(ἸΝ δας [71]; Tiberiade aquis calidis salubri) and by
Josephus (τοῖς ἐν Τιβεριάδι θερμοῖς ὕδασιν, BI ii. 216).
In Ant, xviii. 23, B/iv.13 he alludes to the θερμά as
not far from Tiberias and as being called ᾿Αμμαθους,
‘which being interpreted is θερμά.᾽ It seems to be the
Hammath of Josh. 1935. See HAMMATH. This
Hammath is mentioned in Egyptian records (see
PALESTINE, $ 15, no, 16). The Talmud of Babylon
identifies Tiberias sometimes with the biblical Hamath,
sometimes with Raccath {see also Talm, Jerus.), some-
times with Chinnereth. See Neubauer, Geogr. 208;
Schiirer, ΟΡ (Ὁ 21267 ; ET ii. 11437

TIBERIAS, SEA OF (H @aAacca THC τιβεριᾶδοσ
[Ti. ΝΗ), Jn. 211. See GALILEE, SEA OF,

TIBERIUS (τιβεριος [Ti. WH]) is mentioned only
in Lk. 31, where the commencement of the ministry of
John the Baptist is assigned to the fifteenth year ‘of the
reign of Tiberius Cresar’ (τῆς ἡγεμονίας Τιβερίου
Καίσαρος).

Tiberius Claudius Nero succeeded Augustus as
Emperor of Rome in 14 A.D., and reigned until 37 A.D.
He was son of Tiberius Claudius Nero and Livia, so
that he was only the stepson of Augustus. The two
chief authorities for his life are Suetonius, who revels in
court scandal, and Tacitus, whose political views marred
his historical accuracy. Hence little justice has been
done to Tiberius. The A4rr24s of Tacitus have been in
fact maintained to be ‘ almost wholly satire ' (Merivale,
Hist. of the Romans under the Empire, ch. 64),
and it cannot be denied that the satiric tendency,
‘to take extreme acts as typical of the man, and ex-
treme men as typical of the age,’ is a conspicuous
feature of the book. Consequently, his portraiture of
Tiberius, the most elaborate analysis of character in his
writings, is most often attacked as untrustworthy. We
have in fact, in accepting the picture in Tacitus as
historical, this problem before us—to explain how
Tiberius, who up to the age of fifiy-five (when he
became emperor) had shown himself a commander with
more than ordinary talent, an orator of no mean calibre,
and an administrator of acknowledged sagacity, de-
generated from the moment of assuming the purple until
he became that monster of cruelty and vice and
impotence which perhaps for all time he is în the
imagination of mankind. This is not the place in which

5067

TIGLATH-PILESER

to attempt to review either the private life or the public
acts of ‘Tiberius. ‘Thus much is certain, that his life
cannot be disposed of in a ‘cascade of epigrams'
(Beesly, Caziline, Clodius, and Tiberius, 115), such as
compose the summary in which Tacitus gives his most
deliberate judgment on ‘Tiberius (47%. 651).

Furneaux, Annals of Tacitus, vol. 1, Introd. chaps. 4 and
8 gives a careful review of the evidence, with an unfavourable
verdict. Beesly's Caziline, Clodius, and Tiberius is a vigorous
defence. Champagny, Les Césars, an unmeasured invective.
See also Boissier, L'Ofpesifion sous les Césars. For the
chronological questions in connection with the NT, see Ramsay,
Was Christ born at Bethlehem ? and the articles CHrRONOLOGY,
Lvysanias, QUIRINIUS, εἴς, ἍΜ}

TIBHATH (NM30; meraBHyac [BN], mareBeo
TA]. raBaa@ [L]; Pesh. ἐγδαλ), a city of Hadadezer,
1 Ch. 188. See TERAH.

TIBNI (295, $ 79; see helow on meaning; cp Ass.
Tabri, Tabné'a, Phon. MIN, Tobrithi Gamnteli
[BA], daBennei [L]; Z&e6r?), Ὁ. GINATH, a com-
petitor with Omri for the throne of Israel after the death
of Zimri (τ K. 1621 ft). See ISRAEL, $ 29, OMRI,
A

Like so many other successful adventurers, including his rival
Omri (=Imri= Jerahmeeli), Tibni seems to have been of Jerah-
meelite origin. " His name is a gentilic in form, and probably
should be read 95) (Nebatite) or 505} (Nebaiothite). ΟἹ
1 Ch. 5 15, where (în the original form ofthe text; see SHAPHAM
Guni is a clan-name in the southern Gilead (temp. Jeroboam îi.).

T.K.C.
TIDAL (5YTN: θαργὰλ [EL], θδλγ. [D? and A
in 59], θαλγὰ [A]; Pesh. ἐγ" δὴ, ‘king of Goiîm,' an ally
of Chedorlaomer (Gen. 1419). Nothing has yet been
made out either as to a king called Tid'al {or Tar'al) or
as to the ‘Goiim* or ‘nations’ over which, according to
MT and &, heruled. The identification of Tid'al with a
supposed ancient name in a very late cuneiform tablet is
in the highest degree precarious {see King, Letters gf
Hammurdbi, 1 p.liii; and cp Haupt, note on Gen. 141in
Ball's Gezesis, Heb. text, 5807). Sir H. Rawlinson
thought that ‘ Goiim'’ was a corruption of Gutium, the
situation of which district (see KoA) accords well with
the mention of ‘Goiim’ after Elam. It is certain (see
inseription quoted by Rogers, Ouflines gf Bab. Hist.
10) that Gutium was early subject to Babylonian
influence. If 'Goiim' comes from ‘Gutium,' ‘Tar'al
{if we may follow (551) may conceivably be a Baby-
lonian name. The only word which approaches it,
however, seems to be farg#/, ‘rudder’ {Deluge-story,
97), which is sometimes a title of the god ‘ Ninib' (see
Jensen, Aoswo/. 422). But ‘seductive’ as Rawlinson's
theory is, it is too hazardous (see Hal. Rev. σάνε, 1894,
Ρ. 279) to make g correspond to y in “pit (agamari)
and to 1 in vv (= gutium?).

So far we have assumed that MT and (δ correctly represent
the original text. But in the general failure of critical theories
based on this assumption, it becomes reasonable to suppose that
Tidal and the other names in Gen. l4r are deeply corrupt,
that ὕγτῃ (EV Tidal) is a corrupt fragment of Supra» (Ferah-

meel) and that ps (Goiim) as often has the same origin. See
Sobom, 1. T.K.C.

TIGLATH-PILESER MONDE bin, 2K. 15291620,

spada, 1 Ch. 56 2 Ch. 2820, ἼΟΣΕ MIN, 1 Ch. 526).

€'s readings are: in 2 K.1529, σλγαθφελλασαρ (BA]; 167,
θαλγαθφ. [B], om. A; 1610, θαλγαλφ, [B]; ἀγλαθφαλλασαρ [A];
θεγλαφαλασαρ [L] throughout; in xCh.56, ϑαλγαβανασαρ [8];
θαγλαθ᾽ φαλνασαρ [A]; 5 26, θαγναῴαμασαρ [B]; θαγλαθ'. Φαλ-
vagap [A]; 2 Ch. 28 20, θαλγαφελλαδαρ [B]; θαγλαθ'. φαλνα | σαρ'.
{A]; θεγλαθφάλασαρ [L] throughout.

In the Zenjirli-Inscriptions nbbenbin and spbenbin,
Assyr. Tukulti-dpil-&sarra, 'My help is the son of

Sara." ÉSarra, ‘the house of the
multitude,' was the name of the temple
of Ninip, who was therefore called ‘the son of ESarra.'
The strange form in Chronicles is, according to Kittel
(Chron. Heb. SBOT 68), ‘merely an accidental cor-
tuption of a familiar name at the hands of the
Chronicler or of his Midrashic source.’

5068

1. His name.

TIGLATH-PILESER

The biblical Tiglath-pileser was the third of the
Assyran kings of that name, and came to the throne
4 in 5 B.C. Nothing is known of his
2. Possible μεῖς and parentage, but as he is called
OTIBIB» in the Babylonian Canon Pulu (Put, 2 K.
1519, etc.), it is thought that he was not of royal race,
but was probably a general under ASur-nirari, his pre-
decessor, and that he called himself Tiglath-pileser on
coming to the throne on account of the renown attaching
to this royal name.

‘The chief sources of the history of his reign are the
inscribed slabs found in the remains of his palace at
Caah, and two tablets which appear
to have been copied from records on
stone similar, in some respects, to the
slabs. With regard to the latter, several
‘of them are only known from squeezes now in the British
Museum, where also the clay tablets referring to his reign
are preserved. The chronology of his reign has been
placed beyond a doubt by the Eponym Canon with
historical references [ΑΓΒ 1 212-213), from which it appears
that he mounted the throne on the 13th of the month
Iyyar (April-May) of the year 745 B.C., as successor τὸ
A8ur-nirari (IT.}, in the last year of whose reign there was
a rising in Calah; not improbably Tiglath-pileser seized
this opportunity to assume the supreme power. Whether
the fact that the Eponym for the next year was the
governor of Calah supports this supposition or not, is a
matter of opinion.

The first campaign of this king, which took place in
the ycar of his accession, is stated to have been ‘ into
the midst of the rivers’—:.e,, ‘to Baby-
lonia.' His object was, not so much
to conquer the country as to break the
excessive and dangerous power of the
Aramzean tribes, In this he was fully
successful, and the Babylonians themselves, who suffered
from the tribes in question, thankfully acknowledged his
suzerainty. Owing to this success, he seems to have
assumed, from the first, the title of ‘king of Sumer and
Akkad.'

The next year (744 B.C.) Tiglath-pileser turned his
attention to the mountainous district on the E. of
Assyria, inhabited by wild tribes who had
always been troublesome to the Assyrian
kings. This district, which was called Namri {cp
Zimri ii.}, he wasted with fire and sword, annexing a
portion of it to Assyria,

In 743 B.c. affairs in the W. claimed his attention.
The state of which ARPAD (g.7.} was the capital, sup-

6. Arpag, Ported. to all appearance, by the king of
Kullani, οἷο. Urartu {ARARAT), seems to have thrown

" off the Assyrian yoke; it had to be re-
duced again to submission This probably gave an
opportunity to Sar-durri, king of Urartu, to march
towards Assyria. It was therefore necessary to put off
the subjection of Arpad, and proceed against the northern
foe, who was completely defeated. În 742 operations
against Arpad were resumed, and in 741 (to judge from
the Eponym-list) the city was taken, though the Assyrian
army remained in the same district in 740 B.C. One
result was the annexation of Unki (identified by Tom-
kins! with ‘Amk), a district which had already felt the
Assyrian might.

In 739 B.c. Tiglath-pileser carried on war in Ulluba,
on the N., taking several cities and founding another,
which he called Asur-iki3a (' Afur has presented’). It
was apparently during this period that the Assyrian
subject-states in Syria and northern Phcenicia rebelled.
The operations into which the Assyrians were thus led
resulted in the capture of Kullani—i.e. (according to P.
Rost), the CALNO (g.v.) of Is. 109° (738 B.C.).

3. Sources of
history, and
accession,

4. History of
his reign.
The Aramwan
tribes,

5. Namri.

1 ‘Geography of Northern Syria' in BO 86. For the extent
of Unki see Rost, Ziz/244-si%eser, 1 p. καί, n. 1.
2 With regard to the identification there given, ἔς may be

noted that Kullani would seem from WA ii. 536 to be one of

5069

TIGLATH-PILESER

The question now arises whether Azriau or Izriau
{Rost)—i.e., Azariah of Judah—came into touch with
io Tiglath-pileser on this occasion. It must

1. Azariah. Lo confessed that the frequent mention of
his name in the exceedingly mutilated portion of the
annals which seem to refer to this period gives Tiele
justification for replying in the affirmative (246 230/;
on the whole question, however, see UZziaH). ΑἹ]
the princes of middle and northern Syria now submitted
and paid tribute, including Rasunnu (see ΒΈΖΙΝ) of
Damascus, Menihimme{Menahem)of Samaria, Hirummu
(Hiram) of Tyre, and others, including Zabibi queen of
Arabia (see OkEB and ZEEB}. ‘There is no statement,
so far as the texts are preserved, that the Assyrian king
penetrated as far S. as Samaria, but the fact that he
received tribute from that country (cp 2 K.15197.}isa
sufficient indication that he at least threatened it, and
had to be bought off {see MENAHEM). The policy of
deportation was on this occasion resorted to extensively.
The following year (737 B.C.) the state of affairs on
the E. called the Assyrian king to Media {m4f ἡ7αδα)
and the district, where he set up images

ali media of himself, and peace again reigned αἱ
AIB. least, as far as the Assyrians were con-
cerned. This left Tiglath-pileser free to march, in

736 B.C., to the foot of the ΝᾺ] mountains, on the N.
of Assyria, where he took a large number of cities, thus
preparing the way for the conquest of the land of
Urartu, which, in the following year (735), he pro-
ceeded to carry out. He penetrated as far as Sar-
durri's capital, ‘l'uruSpà, and though, on account of its
maturally advantageous position on the lake Van, he
was unable to take the city, he nevertheless broke the
power of the kingdom of Urartu for many years to
come.
For the year 734 B.C. the Eponym-list has this entry :
‘to the land Piliîta'—ze., ‘to Philistia.” Schrader in
iiutia 1878 (AGE 126), in consequence of
9. Philistia. 7,/4/135 n. 1, 11, considered this to
involve a campaign against Judah, Samaria, Phoenicia,
etc. Rost, however, thinks differently, contending that
the mere reception of tribute from the countries men.
tioned in W7A4/, /oc. cit., would sufficientiy account for
the references to the southern districts. As, however,
the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser, where they speak of
relations with Judah, bave no date (the text being
defective at the important points), he follows the indi-
caticns of the Eponym-list, which makes Philistia (£.e.,
the small states on the shores of the Mediterranean) the
chief object of the campaign. In proceeding thither,
Tiglath- pileser, like the Assyrian kings in general,
would take the coast-road from N. to 5. ‘The name of
the city which was first threatened is broken away, but
Rost conjectures it to have been Ashdod or Ekron. Its
prince bought his reinstatement only by means of heavy
tribute. It was Hanùnu of Gaza, however, who was to
all appearance more especially aimed at by Tiglath-
pileser, and, feeling this, he lost no time in seeking
refuge in Egypt.! Gaza then fell an easy prey to the
Assyrians; its treasure and its gods were carried away,
the worship of ASur was introduced, and the royal
throne and image set up in the palace of Hantinu.
The entry for 733 and 732 B.C. is ‘to the land of
Dima3ka'—é.e., Aram-Damascus. No doubt it was
part of the king's plan to subjugate the
10. ALAE. siates of the W., but he was also induced
to make this campaign by the appeal of Ahaz of Judah
for help against REZIN and PEKAH. The appeal was
supported by the sending of gifts in acknowledgment of
vassalage, It would seem that the allied kings despaired
of resisting the advance of the Assyrians, and retreated
to their own territories. They thus played into the

the towns along the Taurus, implying an extension of operations
in that direction. ἣ

1 For another view see Wi. Agri, 5034/, and cp IsAIAH,
Book or, $ τ, n. 1; Mizraim, 828,

3070

TIGLATH-PILESER

hands of Tiglath-pileser, who may perhaps refer to this
in his annals (11 227 /.) as follows :—

‘In my former expeditions, I had connted (as spoil) all the
cities (of Pekah) and had carried off his... and he forsook
Samaria alone . . . theirking .. ν᾽

Rost completes the last phrase ‘(they overthrew Pekah), their
king,' which is not impossible, and is supported by his revised
text of #77 3 10, no. 2, 5028

Previously to this, however, as it would seem, the
king paid a visit to the Phcenician states to assure
11. Rezin. himself of their fidelity, and on this occasion
᾿ " he may have annexed wide tracts of Israel,
including ‘all the land of Naphtali' (2 K.1529), No
reference to this, however, occurs in his inscriptions
(though, perhaps, as Hommel suggests, the -ἀξ of 17
of WAI 3, pl. 10, no. 2 may be the end of that word,
for the preceding line refers to Bit-Humria or Israel).
Rezin of Damascus boldly resisted the invader, but
on this occasion fortune deserted the Aramacans;
Rezin took to flight, and fortified himself in Damascus.
A siege of the city followed, during which the sur-
rounding country was completely devastated. A suc-
cessful expedition was also made against Samsi, queen
of N. Arabia, which led to the submission of other
tribes of that region, as far as Sa'ba (Yemen). Damascus
itself fell at the end of 732B.C.; it is not again
mentioned as an independent state. The fate of Rezin
is related in 2 K.169. See Damascus, $$ 10; REZIN.

‘The relations of Hoshea, who seized the crown of
Israel, to Tiglath-pileser are treated elsewhere {see

HosHEA). A third rebel against Assyria

12. Terne] now claims our attention, namely Mi-
: ino tinti of Ashkelon, who had been joined by
neighbouring \icienna of Tyre, According to Rost,
the Assyrian statement is! that Mitinti
went mad on realising that he might soon have to share
the fate of Rezin. His son Ròùkipti now mounted the
throne on account, as it would seem, of his father's
mental state, and hastened to reconcile himself with the
Assyrian conqueror by means of tribute and gifts.
Tiglath-pileser now sent his rab-sakè {see RAB-SHAKEH}
against Metenna of Tyre, who, finding no other course
feasible, decided to submit and pay tribute. The rab-
sak& was also successful în bringing about the submis-
sion of Uassurmi, chief of ‘Tabal, who, however, was
deposed, and a man named Hulli set in his place.

To all appearance, affairs in the W. had reached a
satisfactory settlement for the Assyrians. Leaving that

<q district in 732 Β.6., Tiglath-pileser

15. Operation8 found vroudle awalting bim Mm the
in SabylolL following year in Babylon, owing to
the restlessness of the Chaldaeans and Aramzeans.
Nabonassar had been succeeded by his son Nabù-
nadin-zéri, who was killed after a reign of two years.
His murderer, Nabù-Sum-ukîn, made himself king, but
was deposed after rather more than two months rule by
the Chaldgan prince Ukîn-zèr (Chinziros) of Bit-
Amukkani. At this period, the Babylonians proper had
but little love for the dominion of the rough Chaldaans,
and probably encouraged an Assyrian intervention in
order to get release from a thoroughiy distasteful rule.
Tiglath-pileser therefore entered Babylonia, and besieged
Ukin-zér in his capital Sapia, but without result. He
wasted the territory of the other tribes, however, and
carried Zakiru, prince of Bit-sa'alli, into captivity.
According to the Eponym Canon, the Assyrian king
did not engage in any campaign in 730, but remained
at home ‘in the land.” Apparently his army continued
the siege of Sapia, which fell in the following year.
The result was, that Ukin-zér lost his throne, and the
other Chaldzean chiefs submitted, including MERODACH-
BALADAN (g.v.), prince of the land of Tàmtim (‘the
sea-coast'), Tiglath-pileser could now celebrate one of
his greatest triumphs. He proceeded to Babylonia as
the saviour of his people, and was universally acknow-
ledged as king ; in the Babylonian Chronicle, and on at

1 The preceding passage is very defective.
5071

TILE

least one contract-tablet, he is called Tukuli-ipil
&Sarra. {This has a bearing on the question whether
Put [9.v.] was his official name at Babylon, or not.)

The next year (728 B.c.) found the king again în

Babylonia, performing the ceremony of ‘taking the hand

f Bel,” i

14. Last years ὃ Bel, vhich would thus seem to have
and death, been 2 yearly duty for one who claimed
to be ruler of the land. The Eponym

Canon mentions the name of a city, which may be Dir;
it may be surmised that a rebellion had taken place
there. It is probably to this city that the entry in the
same document with regard to the expedition of 727
8.c. refers; after which it is stated that Shalmaneser set
himself on the throne, The death of Tiglath-pileser, as
we learn from the Babylonian Chronicle, took place in
the month Tebet, thus closing a reign, than which none
was more glorious for Assyria or more fateful for Israel,

Turning now to other signs of progress, we note that
the material prosperity of Assyria was well maintained,

sai and one can see from the extant sculp-
15. Buildings. tres of the period that Assyrian art,
too, had not declined, 7/hen at home, the king seems
to have generally resided in Calah, but also in Nineveh.
Being more of ἃ warrior than a builder, he apparently
contented himself with rebuilding and changing the
great central palace at CALAH, which had been founded
by his predecessor Shalmaneser II, copying the Hittite
style, and adornifg it with the objects sent as tribute
by Hittite and Chaldaean princes.! Unfortunately, this
building was for the most part demolished by Esar-
haddon, so that the sculptures and inscriptions. were
partly destroyed, partly mutilated. This, added to the
ravages of time, has deprived us of much valuable
material, rendering the records of Tiglath-pileser very
fragmentary. Happily the order of his campaigns
is well preserved by the Eponym Canon with historical
references, though the meagreness of the entries leaves
one or two points still uncertain.

{As in the case of the articles SARGON and SENNACHERIB, it
is necessary to warn the reader that the basis of the ordinary
representation of the history of Israel needs to be tested afresh
by textual criticism, and that one result of this is that the în-
fluence of the N. Arabian neighbonrs of Palestine is seen to.
have been at least as strongly felt as that of Assyria. In Pro-
PHET, $ 35, Ît is shown that the captivity foretold by Amos was.
most probably a N. Arabian one, and the region which was to.
bear the brunt of the invasion was that part of the Negeb which
was în Israelitish occupation. Similarly in 2.K.1529 ît is not
the Assyrian king commonly called Tiglath-pileser, but Jerah-
meel king of Ashhur in N. Arabia who carries away captive the
people of certain places and districts, which places and districts.
are not in N. Israel, but in the Israelitish Negeb. The critical
proof of this is both interesting and suggestive. [ entirely clears.
up the mystery of the three names, Pul, Tiglath-pileser, Tilgath-
pilneser. See Cozt. Bil.—T.K.C.]

Rost, Aeilschrifitexte Tiglat-Pilesers LIT. (1893); Ὁ. Smith,
Assyria (Ancient History from the Monuments), 74 {7

"“" Rogers, ist. of Bab. and Ass. 2 104-138;

16. Bibliography. Miirdter- Delitzsch, Gesch. von Bab. τις

Ass. 177.}} (801); Hommel, GRA 648,7

(1885); Schrader, “Zur Kritik d. inschr. Tiglat-Pilesers Il”

(εξ Pr. Akad. der Wiss. 1881); COT 1213 πη. KB
vol, 2, T.G, P.

TIGRIS bom, Gen, 214 RV®8, Dan. 104 RVme.;
EV HIDDEKEL (g.v.).

TIKVAH (M}?R ‘hope, $ 74: θέκογε [AL]—i.e.,
TEKOA).

1, FatherofSHALLUM (2), 2K. 2214 (θεκκοναν [B], “κκουε [Α}}.
Cp Τικνάτη.

2. Father of Jamazian, Ezra 10x15 (cAxcca [BN]); in 1Esd.
9x4 he is called Tupocaxus, RV Thocanus orazon [8] du.
1).

TIKVATH, RV ΤΟΚΒΆΤΗ (ΠΠΡῚΠ, Kt; NPA,
krs), father of StraLtu (2), 2 Ch. 8422 (καθοναλ [B], Baxova®
[Δ], θεκωε [1.}. See Trkvan,

TILE. (1) For MIIÒ, δδῥηαλ, mAINGOC (Ezek.
414), see BRICK. (2) For κέραμος (Lk. 5 19), see HOUSE, $ 4.

1 According to Frd. Delitzsch, however, the palace built by
Tiglath-pileser III. was on the W. side of the great terrace of
Calah, beside that of Shalmaneser I.

5072

TILGATH-PILNESER

TILGATH-PILNESER (ome ha;
5626 2Ch. 2820. See TIGLATH-PILESER {with ap-
pendix).

TILON (fin. Ke pon; incon [Β], θιλων [A],
θωλειλ [L]), son of Sarmon a Judahite (1 Ch. 420}).

TIMZUS (τιμᾶιος [Ti WH]), Mk. 1046 ΕΝ,

AV Timeus. See BARTIMEUS.

TIMBREL (ΠΏ, 4094), Ex, 15 20, οἷς, Cp TABRET,
and see MUSIC, $ 3(1).

TIME. See ChronoLoGYy; also DAY, MONTH,
WEEK, YEAR.

TIMES, OBSERVER OF (1702), Dt. 1810, οἷο,
See DIVINATION, 3 (2).

. TIMINA (PIP, VIDA, ὃ 54; Gamna [BADEL]) in
Gen. 36 12 ranks as the concubine of Eliphaz Ὁ. Esau
and mother of Amalek; but in 1 Ch. 136 Timna and
Amalek are among the soxs of Eliphaz (so @*; but (58,
καὶ τῆς θαμνα ἁμαληκ;; GA Paura δὲ ἡ παλλακὴ ελιφαΐ
ἔτεκεν αὐτὴ τὸν ἀμαληκ). Timna appears, however, as
the sister of Lotan b. Seir (see LOT) in Gen. 3622 1 Ch.
139 (αιλαϑ καὶ ναμνα [Β], ἀδελφὴ δὲ λωταν θαμνα [A],
καὶ ἀ.λ.9. [L]); and as an Edomite phylarch or rather
clan in Gen, 3640 1 Ch. 151: (θαιμαν [B], θαμανα [A];
in Gen. EV, against rule, gives TIMNAH).

These inconsistencies are not surprising (see GENEALOGIES,
$ 1). Perbaps, however, Gunkel is right în supposing that Gen.
36:22 (Timna a concubine) is a later insertion in P. Cp
AMALER, $ 4.

TIMNAH (INF; Gamma [BAL]; also MMon,
Josh. 1943 Judg. 14125; fe, ‘allotted portion ').

τ, A town in the hill-country of Judah, in the same
group with Maon and Carmel (Josh. 1557; θαμναθα
[B]). and therefore not to be identified with 7iéze4 or
Tibnah, 4 h. ἍΜ. of Bethlehem. There must have
been a Timnah SE. of Hebron. Most scholars have
supposed this place to be intended in Gen. 3812-14
(θαιμνα [A] in v. 12; θαμναν [L] in ©. 14), but
the emended reading of the first place-name in ὧν 14
{sce TaPPUAR, 1) favours the view that the Timnah
(see below, 2) of Josh. 1510 Judg. 14: is meant. The
gentilic of this Timnah, ‘ Timni,’ seems to occur, mis-
written as ‘TEMENI (g.7.), or Tim&ni, in 1 Ch. 46,

2. (AV Timnath, and once, Josh. 1943, THIM-
NATHAH, where & varies as in 1557 {see above], In
Judg. θαμναθα [BAL]. The gentili "χρη, θαμνέι [B],
θαμναθαιου [AL], Timnite, Judg. 156.) A place on
the northern frontier of Judah (Josh. 1510, where
6 has ἐπὶ λίβα [BL], ἐπὶ νότον [A]), assigned to
Dan in Josh. 1943. but according to Judg. 14 in-
habited by Philistines in the pre-regal period. The
latter narrative describes most graphically an occasion
on which Samson ‘went down to Timnah' (Judg. 141)
from Zorah. The Chronicler includes it among the
cities taken from Ahaz by the Philistines {2 Ch. 2818;
om. (58), and the contemporary evidence of Sen-
nacherib in the ‘ Prism-inscription® (A°8 292 £ ) records
that king*s capture of Tamna after the batiJe of Altaku
before he laid siege to Amkaruna or Ekron Timnali
is now represented by the village of 7idxe4, on the S.
side of the Wady Sarar, 2 m. W. of ‘Ain Shems (Beth-
shemesh} and a little farther to the SW. of Sarah
{Zorah). The site, however, has been robbed of three-
fourths of its ruins by the builders of a neighbouring
village (Guérin, Jud. 230£). But cp ZoRAH.

3. A third Timnah {possibly the same as TIMNATH-
HERFS) may be recognised in the THAMNATHA of
1 Mace. 950 (on the readings, see PIRATHON}, which
was one of the Judaean cities fortified by Bacchides. It
is doubtless the ‘Thamna mentioned by Josephus (87
iii. 35) and Pliny (4 v. 1470) as giving name to one
of the toparchies (the Thamnitica) of Judzea, and in-
correctly described by Fusebius and Jerome (0.5 2603
1566) as being in the district of Lydda on the road to

5973

TIMOTHY

Jerusalem. The topographical notices in Jos. A/iv. 81
confirm the view that this ‘Timnah or Thamna is the
northern 7ire%, a village about 10 m. NW. of Bethel,
with extensive ruins which have been described at
length by Guérin (Sez, 289 7). Cp Clermont Gan-
neau, PESO, 1875, p. 169; Schirer, GI 2138.

TIMNATH-HERES (DIM NIN, as if | Portion of

the Sun," see Naars, $ gs; Judg. 209 θαμναθαρες [BL],
Gapvadap'ews (A), also called in’ Josh. 1950 2430 Timnath-
serah (ΠῚ moon; θαμαρχαρὴς [BI], θαμνασαραχ [Ba mg.),
θαμναθσαρα [A], θαμναθασαρ [L] in 1950; θαμναθασαχαρα [Β],
θαμνασαχαρ [A], θαμναθσ. [1.], in 24 30).

A locality ‘in Mt. Ephraim on the N. side of the
Mt, GaasH' (9.v.). According to the book of Joshua
it was assigned to Joshua at his own request; he
fortified the city, dwelt there, and was buried there.
‘The place has been identified with the modern 7 ἔδνελ
{see TIMNAH, 3), where, on the N. slope of the hill to
the S., are some remarkable tombs described by Guérin
{ϑανε. 289-104). This, however, assumes that there is
only one Ephraim, whereas the probability is that there
was a second Ephraim (=Jerahmeel) in the Negeb.

The alternative identification with Kefr Harith (a small
village NE. of Tibneh), proposed by Conder, has only the
support of a late Jewish and Moslem medieval tradition (see
ZDPV2:3 $ 6195 f#, and cp Goldziher, PEFO, 1879, pp.
19327). It also implies the correctness of «Aeres, whereas Josh.
(#c.) gives «sera4, which is hardly to be treated as a de4/0erate
metathesis (so Moore).

But possibly my (whence by error mp) comes from sne—i.e.,
“int (this also accounts best for ‘ Mount Heres®) This will

become still more probable if ‘Nun’ in ‘Joshua son of Nun'
should really be Nahshon! (apparently a Rehobothite or Jeral
meelite name). . Joshua surely represents a clan of the Negel
see Josuua. ἔτ isalso important that Eleazar son of Aaron (appar:
ently a kinsman of Joshua), is said τὸ have been buried in Gibeath-
pînehas, ‘which was given him [omit yy] in Mt. Ephraim,' for
dIrlas is not improbably another corruption of Jerahme'el.
See PHINEHAS. : τι κι ς.

TIMON (τικῶν [Τὶ. WH]), one of the seven
deacons (Acts 65) He has a Greek name and was
perhaps a Hellenist. Traditions contained in Pseudo-
Dorotheus and Pseudo-Hippolytus make him bishop of
Bostra in Arabia, and according to the former he
suffered martyrdom by burning at the hands of the
heathen.

TIMOTHEUS (timo@eoc [ANV]). τ. An ‘Am-
monite' leader ; whether an Ammonite with a Greek
name, or a Greek who had been put by the Syrian
general in command of the Ammonites is unknown.
He was defeated on various occasions by Judas the
Maccabee ; first in the campaign which resulted
in the capture of Jazer, and again in that which
included the battles of Dathema and Raphon and
the relief of Bosora, Bosor, Alema, Casphor, Maked
and Carnaim (τ Mace, 56-12 24-4). He is also men-
tioned in 2 Mace. 830 32 93 1024 32 37 122 10 18-21 24,
where the scene is transferred to Western Palestine and
a chronology implied which has suggested to many
scholars that a different person must be intended. The
most probable explanation of the discrepancies, however,
is that suggested under MACCABEES (SECOND), 88 2, 3;
col. 2870 middle, col. 2871, viz., the inadequacy of the
sources, and the uncritical character of the compiler, of
that book.

2. See TimoTHY.

TIMOTHY

Birthplage, etc. ($ 1).
Circuncision 8 2).

5).

Jow (885-5)
mera Gip

An author?
Traditions (8 7).

This Hellenistic name (see TimorHeus) is in the
NT (tIimo@eoc [Τὶ ΝῊ) borne by one of Paul's
younger companions who was connected with, and
probably born at, LysTRA ($ 3) in Lycaonia, where the

apostle first came across him.
In Acts161 ἐκεῖ is epexegetic of καὶ εἰς Aorpar, and the text

1 For a parallel cp da in ax bm, which may represent bain;
see Trt-antn,

5074

TIMOTHY

0f204 is too secure to justify any alteration which (Ga1us, 2)
would connect Δερβαῖος with Τιμόθεος, identifying this Gaius
with the Macedonian of the same common name (19 29) from
whom in all likelihood the epithet Δερβαῖος is expressly intended
do disinguish him. Cp Holtzmann, Die Pastoralbriefe, 65 f
1880).

The diminished strictness of local Judaism (PHRYGIA,

$ 3) is betrayed by two features in the Lystran house-

x hold where Timothy was brought up ; his
1. Birthplace Jewish mother had married a pagan,
and family. nd their son was allowed to reach man-
hood uncircumcised. His father, it bas been con-
jectured, died during the boy'5 early years; this is
corroborated at any rate by the absence of all reference
to him as weli as by the strong influence assigned in
reliable tradition to the lad's mother (EDUCATION, $ 5)
and (maternal?) grandmother, even though we hesitate
to lay stress on the slight textual evidence for Eunice's
widowhood (Acts161, add χήρας 25: x. for Ἰουδαίας,
gig. fu.), or even on the tense of ὑπῆρχεν (fuerat,
Acts163; ὑπάρχει would have been used, had he been
alive [Blass]) Whether her husband was among ‘the
men that worship God’ (σεβόμενοι τὸν Θεόν) or not,
Eunicé {Acts16r, cp z. 15} seems to have become a
Christian at Paul's first visit to Lystra (Acts146 Καὶ
20-22). Later notices, embodying a tradition which
there is no reason to suspect, indicate that her mother
Lois had assisted her to train! the lad in the knowledge
and piety of the OT previous to their joint conversion
(2 Tim.15314/, cp 1 Tim. 54); and it may be inferred
that their influence subsequently brought Timothy over
to the new faith some time before the return of Paula
couple of years or so later. Passages like 1 Cor. 417
(contrast ὦ, 15), 2 Tim.21, etc., refer to kinship of
spirit, and Phil 222 expressly identifies Timothy's
‘genuine sonship' with his loyal service to Paul, not
with spiritual parentage. Αἱ any rate his intimate
connection with Paul dates from the latter's second tour
with Silas, when he, found the young Lystran not a
neophyte but a full member (ua@771s) of the local
church.

The allusion in 2 Tim, 810 £ (a genuine fragment) simply
means (Lk.13) acquaintance with the facts and experiences
narrate —an acquaintance involving moral imitation (1 Tim.
46)- ἀπά does not imply that Timothy accompanied Paul on the
journey described in Acts 1314-1420. In this flight, according
to Aefa Petri et Pauli, etc. (ed. Lips. 1897, pp. 235), Paul is
accompanied by Demas and Hermogenes ὁ χαλκεύς, ὑποκρίσεως
γέμοντες, καὶ ἐξελιπάρουν τὸν ἸΤαῦλον ὡς ἀγαπῶντες αὐτάν.

The language of Acts161 (καὶ ἰδοὺ, cp 110 827 1017
127) is intended to denote a remarkable and happy

A episode in the tour {cp Hort, Ckrisfiar
2. Gircum- £.c/esie, 178 7.). It seemed providential

SI8ION. that another youth was found willing and
fit to join Paul's company and enterprise, after the
defection of John Mark and Barnabas. Characteristic-
ally (cp 63 1022 2212) an excellent reputation is singled
out as one essential feature in his moral equipment ;
Acts162 suggests also, though it does not necessatily
imply, that he had already preached în the neighbour-
hood. However, as his father's nationality was
notorious in the locality, Paul had him circumcised.
He carried out this long-deferred rite upon the eve of
proceeding farther on a tour among the Phrygian
churches with their Jewish surroundings and partialiy
Jewish atmosphere, his object being to prevent people
taking needless offence either at Timothy's connection
with Paul or at his entrance into Jewish circies.

Acts16.34 is often taken as an editorial gloss (ει, Clemen,

iingst, Hilgenfeld, and Wendt), and on different lines the
fast-named critic and McGiffert (Apostolic Age, 232-234) have
attempted to explain the whole passage as the popular and
later misstatement of an actual fact, in opposition to the
dominant view (cp Acrs, $8 4, 7) which—apart from minor

1 As the nearest synagogue was at Iconium, the religious
instruction of the child devolved on Eunîc&, who probably

ossessed a copy of some part of the OT scriptures 25 well as

the little parchment rolls, specially for the use of children, con.
tainingo «go, the Shéma", the Hallel, the history of Creacion
down to the Flood, and Lev. 1-8 (Edersheim, Skeiches e/ Jewish
Social Life, 114-117).

5075

TIMOTHY

variations—-generally regards the story as an invention of the
author, introduced in order to illustrate what he conceived was
or should have been Paul's deferential and conciliatory attitude
towards Jewish-Christian, scruples. But the existence of a
strong Timothy-tradition in the later church makes it hard to
believe that a strange story like this could he spread not long
after Timothy's death, if it-did not correspond to fact. And

jsychological reasons can be adduced which render the tradition
BOE acceptable (cp Renan, S. αι, 125, 313; Hort, /r4.
Christ.85/). Paul, either before or after the conference at
Jerusalem, was independent of petty scruples against or for
Circumcision, which he probably regarded as among the
adiaphora (t Cor. 18). Particularly in the case of a half-caste
or semi-Jew like Timothy, where no principle was at stake,
Paul could not have felt bound to abstain from circumeision, if
it promoted effectiveness, any more than to insist upon it
uniformly. His liberal views (cp Rom.2 28. 1413-21) left him
free to act upon his own judgment and to decide any case upon
its merits, free even to accommodate himself to scruples felt by
Jews when such accommodation could not fairty (yet cp Gal.
δια, and Rams. Zist. Comm. Galat., $ 8) be misunderstood.
Timothy's circumcision was a matter of convenience, not of
principle; and Paul would make that perfectly clear before
permitting his friend to become legalîy a Jew to save the Jews.1
Upon the whole, therefore, there is a distinct case to be made
cut on behalf of the historicity of this paragraph, as against
the plausible but somewhat arbitrary view that it represents a
make. weight to Gal 23/ The case of Titus was entirely
different. And it is one thing for a writer to omit an awkward
fact, another and a much more serious thing—requiring greater
motives and historical justification than can be reasonably
brought forward in this case—deliberately to invent a story
which hundreds of contemporary Christians (cp Heb.1323)
could have readily refuted. This forms an almost insuperabile
difficulty in the way of accepting the ordinary hypothesis of
criticism upon Acts 16 1-3; and it seems therefore more natural
to regard Paul's action as somewhat exceptional, though it
depends on the view taken of the date of Galatians (cp 52)
whether we suppose Paul deliberately made this exception
afterwards(so Weber, A4fassung des GalaterBriefes,17.f. {1900)),
or advanced to a clearer and more consistent line of action.

In sketching at a later date some personal traits of Timothy,
the author of the pastoral epistles, cither drawing upon Acts or
upon independent oral tradition, lays characteristic stress on
the questions of good character and reputation as a requisite
for the ministry (exe., 1 Tim. 37), preserves the names of Funk
and Lois (2 Tim. 15), suggests timidity and backwardness as
qualities of Timothy (e Tim.17_£), and refers to several cir-
cumstances attending Paul's selection of the younger man.
There is no reason to doubt the substantiai accuracy of such
notices or of the tradition that this momentous event {1 Tim.
118 414) was due to some local Christians, possibly including
Paul himself, who felt themselves inspired in the assembly to
single out the youth as ἃ fit companion for Paul. The statentent
agrees at any rate with phenomena such as those noted in Acts
18 3, etc., and merely implies that the local prophets and leaders
felt themselves divinely guided în selecting Timothy, or in
ratifying Paul's judgment on a matter which may have already
occrpied his mind. — But ecclesiastical tendency of a later age is
felt in the further description, throughout these passages and
elsewhere (e.g., 2 Tim. 16, cp TimorHy AnD Titus [ErISTLES],
$ 7), of a Supernatural χάρισμα due to solemn ordination:
although the fact of the laying-on-of-hands at such a time iîs in
itself quite credible (cp Acts18 3 1423).

Accompanying Paul and Silas on their European
tour (PAUL, $ 20), Timothy apparently took a specially
in keen interest in the Macedonian
8. In Macedonia. churches which he helped to found
at Philippi and Thessalonica, although it is remarkable
that the narrative in Acts only mentions his name quite
incidentally (Acts17 14 185). With the former church
(Phil. 2 20-22) his relations remained singularly close and
warm, but it is impossible to see him {with Vòlter,
Th.T, 1892, p. 124) în a second-century allusion (43)
to σύν ζυγε (cp SynzyGus). His subsequent movements
between Bercea (BeREA, 3) and Corinth are not quite
clear owing to the loose and general statements of Acts
at this point. The probability is, however, that (1 Thess.
32 being parallel to 35) Timothy rejoined Paul soon at
Athens, and was sent back (perhaps with a letter, cp
Rendel Harris: £xzos., sth ser., 8 161 Καὶ 4o1f.) to
Thessalonica to confirm the local Christians and bring
back news of their condition to their anzious apostle.
Returning from this errand Timothy, now accompanied
by Silas, found that in despair Paul had gone across
from Athens to Corinth. Cp THESSALONIANS, $ I fi

1 Zahn (Ein4,1479/) subtly traces an allusion to this
characteristic of Timothy in the ἡμεῖς of Phil.3.3, which he
insists on taking (es in 2. 17) as a reference to Paul's coadiutor
(Phil. 11). Sec further K. Schmidr's Af.gescd. 358,/ (1882).

5076

TIMOTHY

The ‘awkward and badly constructed’ (Ramsay, S& Pawd
233) narrative of Acts1710/ shows that the author, or the
source which he followed here, was ignorant of this Macedonian
mission; he offers no explanation of the extraordinary delay
which —on his own statement—-transpired between 17 13 and
185, imagining that Silas and Timothy had simply remained
in Beresa. Whereas it is probable that the visit of Paul's
two emissaries extended to Philippi as well as to Thessa-
Ionica, and that they conveyed from the former church to Paul
(a Cor. 119? Phil. 4 15) a gift of money.

At Corinth and throughout Achaia, Timothy, as an
‘apostle’ (τ Thess. 11 26} in the wider sense of the

τ term {cp MINISTRY, $ 17; McGiffert,

4. ξηδνυσλως Apestolic Age, 6487), shared Paul's
and else * pioneering work (cp 2 Cor. 119) and
was associated with him in the epistles (epistle Ὁ) to
Thessalonica, which were written in the earlier part of
the apostle's stay on the Isthimus—for although the
mention of Athens {1 Thess. 31} does not exclude the
possibility of that city as the place where they were
composed (see 1 Cor. 1532 168), it is plain from other
allusions {cp 1 Thess, 18) that they presuppose the
apostie's entry into Achaia, From Corinth two years
later Timothy seems to have accompanied Paul as far
as Ephesus, where he became known to the churches
in the neighbourhood (Col. 11) and to local individuals
{Philem. 1}.! Atanyrate(cp CHRONOLOGY, $ 68) towards
the close of the two or three years spent by Paul in
Ephesus and the surrounding district, Timothy and
Erastus (Acts 1922), as two assistants of Paul upon the
spot, were despatched to Macedonia and Achaia (possibly;
ἐὰν ἔλθῃ, 1 Cor. 1610) in advance of their leader, who
intended to follow up his letter to Corinth {despatched
by sea after March 5, when navigation became open)
by a personal visit, It is plain, from 1 Cor. 417 1610/.,
that there was a chance of Timothy failing to arrive
until after the letter reached its destination; for Paul
bespeaks a courteous reception for his young representa-
tive. The absence of any greeting from the latter, and
the temporal aorist ἔπεμψα (‘I have sent, 1 Cor. 417),
show that he had left before the epistle was despatched.
His instructions were to return with some other Christians
directly (i.e., by the sea-route) to Paul at Ephesus
{x Cor. 161), after instructing the Corinthians afresh
upon Pauline methods and views (1 Cor. 417) and
generally consolidating their faith.

The obscurity of the Corinthian episode at this stage (cp
Titus, $ 2) renders it difficult to decide whether Paul's silence
in 2 Cor. upon the mission of Timothy and any results attendin
it forms a tacit proof that Timothy did nof manage to reacl
Corinth (so, e,g., Lightfoot, Weiss, and Ramsay), or that he did
arrive and then, falling to cope subsequentiy with the fresh
trouble, retumed to Paul or simply sent him word of the crisis.
On the last-named hypothesis he may have been either (s0
Beyschiag, Pfleiderer, G. G. Findlay) in person, or with Paul
on the latter’s painful visit (2 Cor. 215), actually the man
insulted (ὁ ἀδικηθείς ; 7 12) by the recalcitrant majority at Corinth.
On the whole intricate question see Schmiedel, #/Cii. 1 220-223.

Whatever happened to Timothy in the interval, Paul
at last met? him somewhere among his favourite
Macedonian churches (2 Cor.1: 75) whither he had
retired from Corinth probably to find a more congenial
sphere ; unless we are to suppose that he accompanied
Paul thither from Fphesus. Evidently he had not
been in Achaia lately (2 Cor.75/ 13). But when
Paul went on to Corinth, Timothy accompanied him
(Rom. 1621), and formed a member of the apostle's
entourage on his return to Asia in the spring of the
following year.

Whether he accompanied Paul to Rome or was

δ. Later Summoned o) him afterwards, the scanty
movementa, lata available do not permit us to deter-
mine ; the latter conjecture (cp TIMOTHY

AND Tirus [EPISTLES], $ 12 £) fits in well with the

1 If the note to Ephesus, incorporated in Rom.18, extended
(85, eg, Weizsicker and McGiffert suggest) to 2. 23, the mention
of Timothy in v, 21 would be highly appropriate. But the note
probably contained vv. 1-20 and no more. [Cp, further,
Romaxs, 8 13.]

2 Or, sent for him; if one plausible reconstruction of the

eriod, based on a critical view of 2 Tim. 49 11-1820/ {see

'imorHv aND Trrus [EPIsvLES], $ 12), could be established.

162 5077

TIMOTHY

tone of 2 Tim.413-15 21-22 when that fragment is
assigned to a genuine note sent by Paul either late in
the Cresarean or early in the Roman imprisonment,
urgiug his friend to join him. At any rate it is obvious
that Timothy did stay beside him at Rome for a con-
siderable period (Col. 1: Philem. 1 Phil 11). Later
on, however, Paul's concern for the Philippian Christians
led him to arrange for the disinterested and zealous
‘Timothy paying them a visit (Phil 219-22) in order to
relieve the apostle's mind by bringing back news of his
old friends. Timothy bad a tried’ character by this
time and his ‘ solicitude for the Philippians had become
a second nature' (Lightfoot). ‘ Clearly he was not a
a prisoner, but free to come and go. His journey may
have detained him; or he may have proceeded farther
to Ephesus.® At least a genuine fragment preserved
in 2 Tim. 15-18 46-12 16-19 shows that at some subse-
quent period Paul had been forced to abandon his hope
of release and now, in view of a martyr’s death, wanted
to have Timothy beside him again in his isolation.
We do not know if the summons was obeyed in time,
or at all A final glimpse of the envoy is afforded,
some twenty years later, by a casual remark in an
epistle apparently addressed to some Christians at
Rome (Heb. 1323), from which it would appear that
Timothy, who was familar to this circle of readers (cp
Rom. 162:, HEBREWS, $ 9), had been recently released
from imprisonment somewhere and might possibly
revisit Rome în company with his friend the writer.

Apart from a hypothesis, which needs only to be chronicled,
that he actually edited the two pastoral epistles bearing his owa
name, three lines of critical reconstruction

6. As author. connect Timothy with authorship_ either
independently or as an amanuensis of Paul.

(.) Least probable of ail is Spitta's ingenious attempt to find in
him the author of 2 Thess. (Zur Gesch. wu. Lift. des Ur-
christenthwns, 122/), an epistle written by him in the name
of his companions (2 Thess. 1 1)—-hence its somewhat formal
and official tone—and saturated with apocalyptic fantasies of
Judaism peculiar to himself (cp Acts161 2 Tim.315/ 1 Tim.
1447). See THESSALONIANS, $ 14. (ii.) When 2 Cor. 10.18 is
accepted as part of an intermediate letter to Corinth, written
previous το 2 Cor. 1.9, it is natural (Pfleid, Das Urc4ristenthuni,
106/) though far from necessary to suppose that these four
chapters were preceded by a part (no longer extant) written by
Timothy or by some other companion of Paul interested in the
local church. On this view the αὐτὸς δὲ ἐγὼ IadAos means that
Paul now strikes in to speak alone and independently, (iii.) With
more plausibility the composition of the © We-journal® in Acts
has been assigned occasionally to Timothy (e.g., by Konigsmann,
Ulrich, Beyschlag, de Wette, Rieek, and [9] Weizskcker),
although the threads of positive proof are extremely βαθεῖς (cp
Acts, $ 94) and the genera! probabilities point rather to Luke
as the diarist. Besides, even if the Bezan reading in Acts1127£
be rejected, a passage like Acts 20 4-6 (unless we are to suspect
a serious dislocation of the text) tells against the composition
ofthe journal by Timothy. Sorof, however, has followed ἃ modi-
fied form of Mayerhoff"s theory in attributing to Timothy the task
of editing Acts în its extant shape from (6) a Lucan sketch of
early Cheistianity in connection with Paul and (4) a rather
legendary Petrine source (Die Entsteknng der Ap.-gesch. 1890).
The widespread belief of Christian tradition (47, Cosst. 746,
Euseb. #34, Photius, 4754 254), that Timothy was appointed
by Paul δὲ the first bisbop of FFphesus,

Τ In tradition, is probably nothing better than an infer-
ence from the pastora] epistles (1 Tim.

13/5), which, however, may echo some historical relationship.
The story is occasionally improved by some circumstantial
details: £.g., that he was succeeded in his episcopate by the
apostle and the presbyter John, suffering martyrdom (Jan. 22,
Greek church; Jan. 24, Latin; Sept. 27, Ephesus) during the
former’s exile at Patmos towards the ciose of the first century
A.b. (see Nicephorus in AZ3 11). No miracles are narrated of
him in the fifth century Acta 7iothei (ed. Usener, 1877).
For these and other legends see further Lipsius, Afo#7, Af.-
gesch. (1884), 372-400, and, for the traditional connection’ of
Timothy and Ephesus, Zahn, £7r/ 14265 His martyrdom

1 If so, this would be the basis for the literary setting adopted
by the later author of the pastoral epistles in his third com-
position (1 Tim.13/, cp TimorHy Anp Trrus [EFISTLESI,
$ 11) The casual way in which Timothy's connection with
Ephesus is assumed there, may be pure fantasy ; but it is more
likely that it may reflect some actual tradition of his career after
Paul's removal; certainly (although the far from exhaustive or
accurate nature of Acts as a record of Paul's later life does not
make this an insuperabile objection) there is no recorded period
ìn Acts when Paul started for Macedonia leaving Timothy to
superintend matters at Ephesus.

3078

TIMOTHY AND TITUS (EPISTLES)

(α Tim.6 12 £) is connected in one tradition with wild orgies

în vogue possibly at the local festival of Diana, the mob having

clubbed him to death for protesting against their licentiousness.
1 Mo.

TIMOTHY AND TITUS (EPISTLES)

Contents of epistles (88 1-3).
Period and object ($ 4).
The errorists (8 5).
Paulinism (8 δ).
Sub-Pauline elements (8 7).
The faithfu! sayings (ἢ 8). Pseudonymity (8 17).
Style and diction ($ 9). Bibliography ($ 18).

These three epistles commonly form a group! in the
NT canon,? and the general similarity of their diction, |
aim, and atmosphere makes it convenient to discuss |
them side by side. Their contents are as follows :—

1 ‘Tim. is somewhat Ioosely knit together; the
contents are miscellaneous rather than orderly, as if the

4. 1 Tim, Yriter had had no single topic dominant in

% " his mind, But in spite of this desultory
character the general trend of the epistle is not obscure,

After the usual greeting (1 1,7) the epistle opens by describing
the commission already given by Paul to his licutenant at
Ephesus and now urged afresh upon his attention that he may
be able to counteract local errorists of antinomian proclivities.
This commission enforces sincerity and moral earnestness,
according to the Pauline standard presented as an apostolic
trust and tradition to which Timotheus is naturally heir (3-22).
Here a digression occurs, suggested by the closing words of
v.115 Paul claims to be the staunch though unworthy representa»
tive of this evangelica! standard, and summons Timothy to
unflinching loyalty (12-20) în view of some recent instances of
aberration (HYmen4:us and ALEXANDER). The epistle then
passes away from polemic and personal allusions into the first of
its two sections (2 /). Directions are laid down for the
regulation of church-life in general: (4) for whom (2 17) and
by whom (8) prayer is to be offered in church—both paragraphs
expanding into slight digressions upon the universality® of
salvation in the Pauline gospel (3-7) and upon the subordinate
piace of women (9-81). The writer then proceeds from Christian
worship to the more vital question of (4) organisation, laying

Second imprisonment (β το),
Genesis of pastorals (8 17).
Critical analysis (88 12-14),
Order of composition (8 15).
Author (ἢ 16).

down the moral criteria (see EpucaTION, #8 16/) of efiscogi
@ 2-7) and diaconi (8-13, incidentally deaconesses are included),
and closing the whole section! with a lofty stanza or fragment
of a primitive confession upon the incarnate Christ (3 14-16).
The second section (4-6), which resumes the tone of polemic,
is thrown into the form of rules for the personal conduct and
ministry of Tim. in view of serious moral aberrations fostered
by the ascetic tendencies of certain Christian teachers; these
sophistries and superstitions he is authoritatively to refute
(41-16). He is further advised upon his attitude to the practical
problems created by differences of age and sex within the
membership af the churches (δ 1 Δ), and some space is devoted
to the maintenance and control of two special classes of officials—
widows4 (3-16) and presbyters (17-25). After® a word on the
relative duties of slaves and masters (61. Δ), the epistle comes
round to lash the errorists, attacking them with considerable
vigour for making a trade of religion. Naturally this suggests
a warning to Christians in general4 against tile passion for
money (3-10), and with an impressive charge addressed to the
‘man of God) the epistle dies away în a doxology {11.π6λδ In
a postscript, some words to rich people are appended, together
with asupplementary warning to Timothy against contemporary
γνῶσις (17-21).
In 2 Tim., after the greetiag, Paul gives thanks for Timothys
inheritance and experience of faith (ἃ 1-5), He then warns hi
friend against false shame, urging his own life and
2. 2 Tim. teaching to the contrary (6-14),645 well as a recent
example of energy and fearlessness on the part of
an Asiatic Christian called Onesiphorus (15-18). Especially for
one who like ‘Timothy is heir to the Pauline trust and tradition,
endurance for Christ's sake and adherence to the Pauline gospel
(of wich, indeed, endurance is a note) form a pressing duty ;
the former is certain of a reward (2 1-13), whilst the latter is the
one useful and honourable course of action open for a Christian
teacher (14-26) amid the heightening temptations of unpractical
controversy and immorality. After vigorously exposing the
rinciples and methods of these errorists (3 1-9, ste JANNES AND
pammnes), Paul bids Timothy maintain the principles of the
nuline gospel, even when they involve suffering and obloquy,
and at the same time adhere to the OT scriptures (10-17) :? then
follows a résumté containing his final charge and the swansong
of his own confession (41-8). Data of personal information and
private messages close the letter (4 “πος
After a somewhat elaborate greeting (1 1-4), the
8. Titus. epistle to ‘L'itus opens by reiterating Paul's instruc-
tions with regard to the choice and dutiesì of

1 As ‘personal’ letters (‘pro affectu et dilectione,” Murat.
Can.) they usually share with Philemon the last place in the
list of Pauline epistles. After the Murat. Canon, where for
some reason Titus precedes the other two, the normal arrange»
ment is 1 Tim., 2 Tim,, Titus,

2 The allusions and citations in early Christian literature
simply prove the existence and (by no means. unanimous)
acceptance of these epistles during the second and third centuries.
Neither their rejection by writers and leaders outside the
catholic church, nor their welcome within it, can be supposed to
tbrow independent light upon the question of their actual origin |
and authorship. Errorists usually refused to admit what was
in more or less plain conflict with their own tenets, and one bas
always to suspect the bias of moral dislike (Clem. Alex. Strowz,
2x1) behind their so-called literary verdicts upon authership.
But as little do the employment and the approbation of such
writings by church-authors tell in favour of their reputed |
authorship. When admiîtted to the canon as documents bearing
Paul's name, they were judged healthy in religious tone,
practically serviceable to the church (in honore ecclesia
catholica in ordinatione ecclesiastica discipline sanctificata
sunt” Murat, Can.), and generally congruous with the Pauline
tradition and temper. Those who thus stamped them. with
approval had no independent knowledge of their composition ;
it was enough that the epistles contained nothing which jarred
with what was judged to he apostolic or Pauline; and the early
Christian attitude towards ‘Hebrews' is abundant evidence of
how loose that judgment could be. The modern critic is there-
fore justified in going behind such ecclesiastical tradition in
order to face directly problems of origin and avthorship which,
in the nature of things, could hardly have been present to the
consciousness of those who with sound instinct preserved
writings handed down by religious usage from the past. No
one would dream of challenging the verdict of the Homeric
Χωρέφοντες, simply because în common with antiquity generaliy
Aristotle (with the same facts before him) found no difficulty în
treating the Iliad and the Odyssey as products of the same
mind. And the identification of canonicity or worthiness with
direct apostolic authorship, which tacitly controlled nearly all
early Christian discussions upon the primitive literature of the
church, is a literary convention which it is needless at this time
of day to spend space in refuting. Consequently, in the case of
the pastoral episties, there need not be any besitation în con-
centrating attention upon their internal evidence when problems
such as pseudonymity are raised. This is just one of the
instances in which the naive presuppositions of carly Christianity
imposed limitations upon its judgment, when that Judgment was
exercised upon the remote literary and historical sources of its
treasures.

8 J. Turmel, ‘Histoire de l'interprét. de x Tim.24' (Revue
d'Hist. et de Litt. Rélig. 1900, Sept.-Oct.).

5079

1 The personal reference elsewhere in the NT (Gal. 29, Rev.
312) does not justify Bois in bracketing ‘which is the church
of the living God' (ἥτις... ζῶντος : $14-16) and connecting
“pillar’ (στύλον) with the subject of ‘bchave’ (ἀναστρέφεσθαι).

ὃ The concern to keep the widow-class under the bishop's
control is thoroughly sub-apostolic (cp Ignat. 44 P044. 4, 5).
See Misty, $ 41, and Hastings 284 916/

8 The interpolated remark (5 23), if not an aside suggested by
‘pure (ἀγνόνν, may have originally lain between 43 and 44 or
412 and 4 13, from which it has got displaced (instances of this
in Z7ist. New Test.) pp. xxxix 676; also Jahn on Juv.812 16 and
Che. on Is, 3822). Its insertion after 5 22, which must have taken
place very early, would thus be due to a copyist who read the
sentence as a qualifying definition of ‘ pure’ (&yvé»)—Christian
purity being no Essene-like abstinence, Epictetus (2iss. 822)
similarly regards bodily health as a necessary part of the true
Cynic's religious equipment ; ‘for if he has the appearance of a
consumptive, pale, and thin person, his testimony has not the
same weight.” Jillicher and Bacon group vo. 23-25 together,
and von Soden links 25 to 23, 24 to 22, whilst Calvin plausibly
suggested that 5223 was a marginal note οἵ the author.

In particular to teachers who found Christianity a lucrative
trade (cp Did. 11, Barn. ro, Ignat, E$kes. 7, Tit.ln).

5 The absence of any greetings to members of the Ephesian
church, together with the paucity of personal allusions, shows
that the epistle is not a letter in the strict sense of the word.
The author is writing with his eye on the Christian church of
his own day, as the phrases (2 Tim. 422 Tit. 815 τ Tim. 621)

rove for ali three epistles. In Philemon, the one genuine

private' note of Paul extant fcp, however, PHcemon], the
‘your’ ὑμῶν) in 2. 25 refers to the different persons associated
with Philemon in the introduction. Cp also the variant ‘know
ve' (γινώσκετε : Lachm.) in 2 Tim. 31. The alternative open to
the traditionalists is the gratuitous assumption that passages
like 1 Tim. 21-3 13, εἰσι, were meant to be communicated by
their recipients to wider circles (Zahn) ; which of course destroys
the character of the writings as private letters. Cp xTim.28
( Cor.7 17). ᾿

δ On the contents of 16 see below ($ 7). But even if ‘us’ in
v.7 referred to Paul and Timothy (which is not absolutely
certain) it would simply allude to them as the persons immedi-
ately under consideration, not as officials.. The passage, there-
fore, does not in itself betray the narrowing of the Spirit to a
class; and the contents of the Spirit are distinctiy ethical:
vigour issuing in love to others and n self-control,

On 313 cp Aristides616 (Wendiand, Réein. δέκα, 1894,
I curi ; ;
"The curious antipathy of the writer to second marriages on
the part of presbyters, episcopi, diaconi, and ' widows' (χήραι,
see Winow), is quite un-Pauline, but corresponds to the more
general cast'of feeling prevalent in the second century throughout

5080

TIMOTHY AND TITUS (EPISTLES)

presbyters or episcopi in Crete,ì in order to sharply check !
erroncous teaching and immoral practices on the part of some
Judaising propagandists who were upsetting the churches
(5-16)2 Titus is then instructed how to enforce the moral
obligations of Christianity upon aged men (21 Δ}, aged women,
and married women (3-5), younger men like himself (6-8), and
slaves (9./.). Paul insists on this moral life as an essential of the
Christian faith (11-14, see PecuLIAR PeoeLe), and urges Titus
to press home the positive duties of obedience to authority and
of pure conduet, instead of wasting time over controversialists and
sectaries (215-311; cp ExcommUNICATION, $ 3; HerEsv, $ 2),
With some brief personal notices (12-15) the epistle closes ; the
mention of the jurist Zenas and the evangelist Apollos is perhaps
intended to suggest that it was conveyed by their hands to its
recipient,

The cluster of problems offered by these epistles is
intimately connected with the dual nature of their

A contents. Within a setting and alongside
ai aeriod cf material which, npon all available
99Je0% criteria of internal evidence, must be

pronounced distinctly sub-Pauline,4 the reader meets
passages apparently alien which have high claims to be
considered as directly due to the apostle whose name
the letters bear. The task of criticism is to do justice
to both of these elements. The sub-Pauline element
is primary, and in view of it any reasonable appreciation
of the whole question, not merely of isolated details,
leads almost inevitably to the conclusion—one of the
best established in NT research—that the three epistles
are pseudonymous, composed by a Paulinist in Asia
Minor5 not earlier than the close of the first century,
and not later than the second decade of the second
century, based in part upon genuine fragments from the
apostle’s pen as well as upon more or less reliable oral
tradition, and intended to express and instruct the
common Christianity 5 of the day in terms, as far as
was possible or useful, of the great Pauline tradition.
Substantially they were written and circulated early in
the second century, as is evident from their employment
in the epistles of Ignatius and Polycarp. During the
period go-120, and during that period alone, they possess
a career and object which corresponds to their own

the churches (e.g., Athenagoras, Leg. #r0 Christ. 33, ‘respect
able adultery,' εὐπρεπὴς μοιχεία, Herm. Mand.d14; Clem.
Alex, Strom. 31). See Jacoby, Newtest. Ethik (1859), 378-399.

1 The concrete and bitter description of the Cretan character
—with its prevalent traits of falsehood, avarice, drumkenness,
and restless sedition—does not favour the ingenious hypothesis
that Cretans in this epistle are an allegorica? equivalent for
Philistines (Κρῆτες, cp CRETE), whom tradition occasionali.
connected with the island. ‘There ἰς no evidence for stci
personification in the pastorals as would represent the church
under the figure of the twelve tribes scattered în the dispersion
(Jas. 1 1) and opposed Ly enemies of the true Israel.

In 2. 16 ὁμολογοῦσιν (EV ‘profess) is (as Heb. 11 13) ‘to
make public avowal,’ especially when called upon (1 Pet,8 15).
The writers point is, not that the errorists made extravagant
claims, but that they did not act up to the normal profession of
the Christian faith.

3 For πρεσβῦτις in carly Christianity see Achelis, ΖΜ ΤῊΣ
1900, pp.92/; ‘young men (νεώτεροι came to mean ‘laymen,'
25 ‘presbyters' {πρεσβύτεροι) passed into an official term (see
Mucistry, ὃ 43).

4 It is only fair to the ascertained results of criticism to adopt
this position, although one stil! meets statements like the follow-
ing: ‘It may be asserted without fear of contradiction that
nothing really un-Pauline has been proved in any of the dis-
puted epistles' (Sanday, /espirazion, 338. 363/. 370/, 1896,
Ὁ discussion characterised by Dr. Hincks of Andover thus:
*General assertion, bolstered up by the opinion of those like-
minded—this is not the way in which an intelligent man, who
has solid arguments at his disposal, maintains an imperilled
cause”).

ὅ Cp von Dobschiitz, Die urcAristZichen Cemeinden, 127-139
(1902), Harnack, Ausbreit. d. Christ. (1902) 461f

$ The motto of the pastorais lies în a sentence like (RV) ‘For
the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men,
instructing us' (Tit. 9 τι, ἐπεφάνῃ γὰρ ἡ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ σωτήριος
πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις παιδεύουσα. ἡμᾶς). In their age Christianity |
had to fighe for its life against a subile spirit in the air rather
than against civil persecution; visionaties and sophists were
more deadly than proconsuls ‘and lictors. Thanks to_the
moderation and steady sense of writers like the author of the
pastorals, however, ordinary Christians came safely through the
struggle with four truths 46 a secure possession ; the unity of
the Creator and the Redeemer, the unique and sufficient value
of Jesus for redemption and revelation, the vital tie between
morals and faith, and the secure future assured to the church of
God.

5087

internal evidence as well as to the data afforded by
more or less contemporary literature, ‘The latter point
is minor though real. Their literary affinities are
beyond question with Lk.-Acts, Ciem.Rom., Barnabas,
and the cpistles of Jude and 2 Pet., as well as with the
fourth book of the Sibylline oracles (Asia Minor, circa
80 A.D.) which, like 4 Maccabees, reiterates the term
‘ pious' (εὐσεβής). Unlike Paul, the author also makes
copious use of the vocabulary of 2 Maccabecs, and, at
least in Titus and 1 Tim., there are traces of acquaint-
ance with 1 Pet.

The distinctive element, however—. the promin-
ence assigned to Timothy and Titus, is intelligible only
upon the supposition that the author had specially in
view the ulterior end of vindicating the legitimate
evangelic succession of contemporary episcopi and other
office-bearers in provinces where this was liable for
various reasons to be challenged. The pastorals were
composed, says Tertullian, to expound church affairs
{* de ecclesiastico statu'). The craving (visible in Clem.
Rom.) for continuity of succession as a guarantce of
authority in doctrine (and therefore în discipline?)
underlies the effort of this Paulinist to show that
Timothy and Titus were genuine (γνήσιοι) heirs of
Paul, who himself (as the author goes out of his way to
repeat and assert) was a divinely commissioned herald
ef the gospel. Inferentially, the successors appointed
by Paul's lieutenants possessed the true central deposit
of the faith. Conscious of this inheritance, and alive
to its value, they are urged even as novices to instruct *
the churches personally upon the faith in a peremptory
and positive manner,4 instead of allowing converts to
lie exposed to unreliable teachers or false leaders.
Such teachers and leaders abound. Indeed, one note
of the age is the flaunting confident temper of the
errorists (2 Tim. 223 31/ 43/. Tit.li0f 8πο τ Tim.
17 41} 524 Acts2029f Judc8-101219 Rev. 220 1Jn.
415 27n.7 3Jn.9; Ign. &phes.7, Trall.6, erc.).

Open attempts, as well as cunning intrigues (2 Tim.36
Jude 4), are on foot to exploit the principles of the faith, and

the new tone of overbearing petulance, among

5. The other traîts, answers to the tradition preserved
errorists. by Hegesippus (circa 160 A.n.)S that such a

phase occurred first of all during Trajan's reign
(Eus. HE 3 32), previously to which the church δ had remained ‘a

1 Cp von Soden, Theol. Abkandiungen, 133-135 (1892). A
comparison of the pastorals with Lk.-Acts, etc., establishes not
their priority or literary filiation, so much as the relatively late
period at which all were composed. Diction, ideas, stand.

int—all indicate onmistakably the sub-Pauline period, with
its stereotyped expressions and current phraseology.

@ The concern of the pastorals, less avowed yet none the less
real chan in Ignatius and Clement, is to vindicate the authority
of the elders or bishops over the enthusiasts and ascetics in the
church; the second century reveals this perennial struggle
going on particularly in Asia Minor. Hence this Paulinist is
forward to claim Paul's authority on behalf of the organised
discipline of the churches.

3 The prominence given to ‘teaching’ qualities shows that
one danger of the contemporary churches lay largely în the
vagaries and crude speculations of unanthorised teachers (24.
151), The authors cure is simple. Better let the episcofus
himself teach! Better let those in authority themselves be
responsible for the instruction of ordinary members! Evidently
teaching was not originally or usually (1 Tim. 5 17) a function of
the presbyters; but abuses had led by this time, as the Didackhè
proves, to a need for combining teaching with organised church
authority. A contemporary spirit of contempt for young
episcopi (Ignat. Magn. 3 etc.) is answered by the repeated
encouragements of Paul in 2 Tira, 222.7 Tit. 26 1 Tim. 411
51; these are effective from the writers standpoint, though
such a tone would have been singularly inappropriate from Paul
to lieutenants of mature experience. Here, however, they are
types of loyalty to the Pauline gospel ; that is all.

imothy (2 Tim. 4 5), e g., is not an evangelisti, but he is to
do an evangelist’s work as part of his full service. See Evan»
ceLIST, MINISTRY, $ 306, and Dieterich in ΖΝ ΤῊ, 1900, pp.
336-338. The whole evidence from the allusions to ecclesiastica]
organisation points to the period immediately preceding that of
Ignatius (MINISTRY, $ 54).

5 Also to the statement of Clem.Alex. (S?x077.7 17) that
Gnostic heresies first became threatening about Hadrian's reign,
whilst the apostolic age and teaching ended with Paul's
ministry under Nero.

9 Emphasis on che visible church as a bulwark of morals

5082

TIMOTHY AND TITUS (EPISTLES)

pure and incorruptible virgin” (παρθένος καθαρὰ καὶ ἀδιάφθορος),
er seducers lurking somewhere in obscurity (ἐν ἀδήλῳ ποῦ
exére:). ‘This comparatively virgin purity of the church Îasted
not merely til! the death of the apostles, but till the close of the
next generation, “of those thought worthy to be immediate
listeners τὸ the very words of the divine wisdom' (τῶν αὐταῖς
ἀκοαῖς τῆς ἐνθέου σοφίας ἐπακοῦσαι κατηξιωμένων), when the
deceit of teachers of other doctrine (τῶν ἑτεροδιδασκάλων, cp
1Tim.13 63) produced impious error in the communities.
‘Since none of the apostles survived, these [ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι]
now attempted, unabashed and openiy, to preach ‘so.called
Ἐποεῖς "(τὴν ψευδώνυμον γνῶσιν ; cp 1 Tim. 620) in opposition to
“the preaching of the truth' (τῷ τῆς ἀληθείας κηρύγματι ; cp
2 Tim. 417 Tit.13). Ofthese Marcion1 was the foremost.

In the pastorals, as in Jude and 2 Peter, this move-
ment in its incipient stage is met by equally frank
methods, which seem denunciatory merely because we
no longer possess any statement of the other side and
are, therefore, prone to forget that such rough and
decisive ways are at times the soundest method of con-
serving truth. Popular applications of gnosticism were,
as a rule, brilliant and poisonous fungi. Instead of
writing a botanical treatise on their varieties, this writer
felt the simpler and more practical plan was to make
people either avoid or destroy them. It was a short
and easy plan, and probably effective at the time,
although its expression in literature runs the natural
risk of being reproached for containing more heat than
light. Firmness and even ridicule have their own place
as ethical weapons of defence, and the opening of the
second century offered Christianity some admirable
occasions for their use.

The physiognomy of the errorists is indistinct, for
several reasons. The author had to preserve the veri-
similitude of a Pauline situation, for one thing; and
the desire of avoiding undue anachronisms prevented
him from being more explicit about the details of errors
which had arisen in his own later age. Besides, the
errors were familiar to his audience and might be taken
for granted on the whole. It is even probable that he
abstained purposely from confining his range to any one
set of visionaries and opponents, inasmuch as his letters
were intended (like 1 Peter, James, and 2 Peter) to be
manifestoes to the church in general, rather than homi-
lies for any local audience. The numerous forms of
opinion and conduet in and around contemporary
Christendom, which by a sound instinct he regarded as
a menace to the faith, had certain common features ;
and to describe these as due to a syncretism of Gnosti-
cism and (Tit. 110 f 39 1 Tim. 17) Judaism, is to go as
far as the evidence of the pastorals warrants.

The environment (as in Rev. 3. Δ, and the Ignatian epp.) îs
marked by the incipient phases of what afterwards blossomed
out into the Gnosticism of the second century : an amalgam of
tendencies towards dualism? and docetism (1 26316, as in
1 Jn.), the multiplication of media between God and man
(ἃ Tim.23,), a distinction between the God of creation and
the God “of redemption (1 Tim.43-s, cp Herm. Vîs.13), a
depreciation of the OT' (2 Tim. 3 16), nd! a penchant for magic
and superstition (2 Tim. 3813; cp Acts89-24 1911-19 for Ephesus,
18.6-12 for Cyprus). These tendencies were allied to ascetic pre:

(= Tim. 219 etc.) îs accompanied by its elevation to the rank
of foundation (θεμέλιος), hitherto reserved for Christ (1 Cor.
3.12), or, at least, for the prophets and apostles (Eph. 2 20), The
church now takes her place in a fairly stable world; the old
anxious outlook for an immediate return of Jesus is no longer
central. The really pressing questions concern not the next
world but the present. and institutions are brought forward as a
means of moral discipline and religious settlement.

1 Marcion's omission of the pastorals from his canon tells
heavily against their origin as preserved in tradition. Philemon
was accepted by him, though far more of a private note than
any of the pastorals ; and the presence of elements antagonistic
to his own views need not have made him exclude them, since
he could have easily excised these passages în this as in other

2 Cp von Dobschîitz, 180-187, 189.
Re Tack of homogeneity în the description of the errorists
prevents this trait from telling against the reference (GENE-
aLoGies, ὃς; Hort, Judaistic Christianity, 135/) of_the
‘genealogies' (yereaXoyiai) in Tit.39 1 Tim.14 to legendary
pedigrees of Jewish heroes. But the phrase came to have a
conveniently appropriate colour afterwards in view of the
interminable series of 2eons and emanations developed especially
by Gnostic sects like the Valentinians. The Jewish legalism of
Tit. 124 89 1Tim.17 recalls Cerinthus decidediy.

5083

dilections (like the probibition of marriage among the Encratites,
of marriage and flesh among the Satumninians and the Mar-
cionites), which as usual bordered on antinomian license, to an
aristocratic exclusiveness (opposed in non-Pauline fashion, τ Tim.
24/410), to a semi-philosophic evaporation of primitive beliefs
—-é.g., on the resurrection1 (2 Tim.218; so Menander and Dosi-
πους, to induigence in superficial thecriec and rhetorio, and τ
qu To our authors eye these errorists were heterogeneous.

“For there are 2any insubordinate people, chatterers and
cheats, esfecially those who have come from the circumcision”
. Το. The mischievous feature about them was their
Cino within the churches and their combination of plausible
errors with apparent, even ostentatious, fidelity to the principles
of the faith —a trouble elsewhere reflected (Acts2029/) in
connection with the Ephesian church towards the close of the
first century.

Even if the author had any single system of error in
mind (which, in view of the contemporary fusion of

paganism and Judaism, is unlikely),

8. Paulinism. 110 vague and somewhat indiscriminate
fashion in which he endeavours to confute their pre-
tensions, renders it impossible to reconstruet any
coherent picture of his opponents. Several traits
suggest influences similar to those which fostered
Essenism ; others? recall the picture of Cerinthus
sketched in later tradition, others again the errorists
Carpocrates, Menander, and Dositheus. The two in-
disputable facts are, that the collective evidence of the
early Christian literature, as well as of later tradition,
places the origin of such phenomena (upon any con-
siderable scale) not earlier than the close of the first
century, and that their /oczs was primarily Eastern, in
Syria and particularly Asia Minor, where we find the
pastorals, like the Ignatian epistles, pouring a scattered
fire upon manifold forms of antagonistie theosophy.

Against the seductive influences of local paganism,
with its ethical miasma and religious cravings, the
author assumes a moralistic standpoint based upon the
popular conception of Paulinism.

No writer after Paul's death could maintain, even whent—as
in Marcion's case—he happened to sympathise with, the deeper
aspects of the apostle’s thought, which survived mainly, so
far as che subsequent literature was concerned, but in altered
form throughout the Fourth Gospel. As a general rule
Paulinism was either misunderstood or modified. The sub.
Pauline epistles, like the Roman symbol (Kattenbusch, Das
Apostolische Symbol, 2 498.f. 596/ 720 [1900]), show instances
of both attitudes, and the pastorals are a vivid proof of how
even a devoted Paufinist had to alter the emphasis at many
points of his masters teaching upon religious and practical
topics în a restatement of it for some later age—-being forced,
for cxample, to meet the common objection to Paul's severe
view of the Law, and to admit the high estimate of its value
throughout che diaspora as an ethica! code and check (1 Tim.
15-11),4 as well as to correct abuses and misunderstandings of
certain Pauline ideas (e.g., the resurrection, 2 Tim. 2 18).

The author righily felt that Paul was essentially anti-
Gnostic, and that the tenets of the incipient Gnostic

τοῦς theosophy would have been repugnant
7. Sub Panlinie (0 the man who had theoretically and

"practically attacked its precursors at
Colosse. But his own practical bent and prudent
sense of the situation prevent him from developing in
reply Paul's peculiar theory of gnosis as a special
endowment, superior to faith, and mediated by the

1 This notion is either ultra-spiritualist (cp Jn. 524, qualified
carefully by 528/, etc.) and due to Gnostic tendencies, or
chiliastic—-the reign of Christ, eternal life, has already begun;
therefore there can be no marrying (Lk. 2035 £ 1 Tim, 43).

2 If Cerinthus and Carpocrates really rejected the virgin-
birth (Iren. Adv. Acer. i, 261 25 1), it is strange that neither the
author of the Fourth Gospel nor the author of the pastorals
defended this point. The former, probably, had reasons of his
own: but the latter, who had no semi-philosophic christology
to state, seems to have omitted the virgin-birth from his
rhythmic summary (τ Tim.316/) owing to his genuine!
Pauline standpoint. This adherence to the older view is all
the more remarkable side by side with the eager insistence on it
in Asc. Isaice, 11 2-22, and Ignat. ad ΕΑ. 19 (where a Pauline
citation occurs, 1 Cor. 28), both contemporary writings,

Note, e.g., the varying proportion of the two currents—one
spontaneous and prophetic, the other veering towards order and
organisation. The former is in some writings of this age almost
wholly subordinated to the latter (Clem.Rom., Past., even
Ignat.); in others it is dominant, almost exclusively important
(Barnabas, 1 Jn., Rev., Jude, 2 Pet.),

4 Antiphanes (Fragm: Com. Gracc.), ‘ He who does no wrong
needs no law' (ὁ μηδὲν ἀδικῶν οὐδενὸς δεῖται νόμου).

5084

TIMOTHY AND TITUS (EPISTLES)

spirit. Such methods would not have been appropriate.
Popular Christianity had always been wider and more
varied than Paulinism, even during Paul's lifetime, and
the new period which found Christianity in fresh re-
lations with the wider empire in the generation following
Paul's death, stimulated fresh energies and fresh methods
of expression, native to the age but more or less an
advance upon all previous conceptions. ΤῸ the author
of the pastorals, loyal to the apostolie and especially
the Pauline tradition, but none the less free to interpret
afresh his Christian consciousness, God appears—in
un-Pauline fashion—as a Saviour ; Jesus not as the son
of God but as a mediator,! or rather ##e mediator;
baptism (Tit. 35) as almost a sacrament of salvation,
the Law simply as a useful code of morals. Anthropo-
morphism is carefully avoided, as in the Fourth Gospel ;
God is the Absolute—his unity, awe (1 Tim. 616, cp
En. 14217), and eternity, his universal purpose, but
not his fatherly love, being prominent.# The pressing
question of religion is the consolidation of the churches
rather than the extension of the gospel to those as yet
unreached. We are in the age of the Zpigori, when
the creative genius has almost disappeared and is
yielding place to practical activities which are mainly
devoted to conserving ground already gained. ‘The
spirit of defensiveness has increased. Christianity is
now more self-conscious than ever. Her outlook is not
eschatological so much as secular, directed to a useful
though troubled career in the world. The church has
behind her a sound body of religious truth, which it is
her business to teach and enforce ; and this is presented
by the writer in brief, crystallised phrases and para-
graphs, which recall the incipient liturgies and symbols
of the church.3 Faith consequently is tending to become
more than ever fides gue creditur. ΤΙ is predominantly
the confident apprehension of the truth or the conviction
that the gospel-message is authentic, sometimes the
virtue of fidelity ; but neither the author nor his age has
any intelligent sympathy with Paul's characteristic idea
of faith as the warm tie between Jesus and the re-
deemed Christian. Nay more, the old Pauline anti-
thesis of faith and works (like the idea of justification
by faith, or of salvation from sin's guilt) is put into the
background, evidently as misleading or apt to be mis-
understood. ‘Piety,’ nourished by sound teaching,
is the root out of which all human virtues spring ; and
the conceptions of reward, a good conscience, and the
value of a respectable reputation, come to the front.
In effect, this is practically the ethical result of
Paulinism. But how differently5 the apostle and the
Tater church reached even the same conclusions! Here
eternal life is the boon granted to good works, and
‘faith’ {πίστι5) is a man's relation to the ‘truth’ of
* the teaching.’

1 Sub-Pauline idea (Heb. 86, etc.) In 7est Dan. 6, the
angel of peace is the mediator between God and man.

The heaping up of predicates, especially in the negative,
recalls carlier attempts by Jewish thinkers (eg., Philo and
Josephus) to define God semi-philosophically, as ἃ reaction from
ie garlier realism and its love of theophanies.. Passages like
x Tim. 117 6 16 mark the sub-Pauline transition from this to the
later efforts of the Greek spirit, as in the ‘ Preaching of Peter”
and Aristides. The pastoral ‘Trinity' corresponds, however,
to the apocalyptic (e,g., Rev. 14 Lk. 926, etc.)—-.e., God, Jesus,
and the angels (elect); while Christ's appearing (1 Tim. ὁ 14/)
is stated in Pauline terms of subordination, and with the substitti-
tion of epiphany (ἐπιφάνεια) for the Pauline parousia (rapovata).

3 The pastorals, like Ephesians, are absorbed in an un-
Pauline devotion to the church which ignores the local churches.
This trait, absent even from Ignatius, significantly illustrates
their authorship and real aim as tracts for the officers of the
Catholic church. Timothy and Titus are portrayed as receiving
instructions and ideals which were to control the contemporary
teachers and other office-bearers of the author's age.

4 This un-Pauline use of ὑγιαίνειν in διδασκαλία ὑγιαίνουσα
{sound doctrine) is anticipated în the Philonic phrases ‘sound
learning ' ὠγιαίνουσα μάθησις), and ‘sound words" (oi ὑγιαίνοντες
λόγοι» Ὁ it tends occasionally to become almost equivalent to
*rational,' or “sane.”

5 Paul could have written Tit.21114; but he would have
had something to say also about peace with God and re-

5085

Similarly the church, to this unmystical author, is no longer
the bride or the body οἵ Christ but God's building, or rather πὶ
farnilia dei, quite in the neo-catholic manner. _It'is begiuning
to assume the place occupied by the Holy Spirit in Paul's
theology, the latter doctrine having become liable to abuse as
well as proving too profound for later generations. As in books
like the Apocalypse, Jude, and 2 Peter, the Spirit in the
pastorals is essentially prophetic ;1 as a means of union between
the individual and Jesus, it is almost if not entirely ignored.
“l'he exceptionst—and they are apparent or partial exceptions--
are Tit.85/ Tim. 114; even the personal relation of the
believer to Jesus is not cardinal (2 Tim. 112211).

These and other items of the creed, now rapidiy
erystallising in Kome and Asia Minor, are conveyed
party in hymnal fragments? which, like

«Be gFhe | those in the Apocalypse of John, sprang
Aibhful from the cultus of the churches; partly in
sayings.

the shape of aphorisms such as the terse
and weighty axioms called the five ‘faithiful sayings'
(cp Ps. 11177). These are like proverbs ; they mark
a comparatively advanced stage of experience, ex-
pressing in concentrated form the outcome of prolonged
reflection.

(Ὁ 2 Tim. 21r-13€,— Here the ‘faithful saying' {(τιστὸς
λόγος) ὃ resembles a fragment of some primitive hymn or con-
fession, if it is not—_like the rhythmica] snatches (cp also Rev.

226, λόγοι πιστοί) in the Apocalypse—an outburst of the
Splrit-raptures in the early church (cp Weinel, Lie Wirk. des
Geistes, 80£. [1899]. (ii.) Tit.38.—As the phrase implies a
condensed and pregnant statement, it seems better in Tit. 88 t0
find its contents in 7, 7 rather than in 4-7, which it is sometimes
supposed (e.g., by von Soden, Bernard, Weiss) to recapitulate,
Git.) τ Tim. 1 rs.—Here the phrase not merely is expanded by
the non-Pauline addition4 ‘and worthy of all acceptation’ (καὶ
πάσης ἀποδοχῆς ἄξιος ; as in 49), but also precedes its contents
which are in this instance introduced by ‘that’ (re). (î
1 ‘lim. 31—The use of the phrase in this verse, which of course
refers back to 215 (‘saved in child-bearing'; Cheysost, Erasm.
etc.)—a wife's salvation being worked out în her own sphere of
motherhood (despite the associations of Jewish tradition), not
in ecclesiastica] position—is remarkable foî the variant (accepted
by Zabm. £24.1.482) ‘human '(v9piorewos)! in D*g (Ambrosiast.
Sedul,). In 115 as here, ‘save’ (σώζειν) has an indirect eschato-
logical reference. (v.)1 Tim. 49.—În this verse (which Bois and

conciliation. He ‘could no doubt have said all this' (Ze., Tit.
147) also, but ‘probably he would have said it otherwise, and
ποῖ ΔΙ] δὲ a time." Practically it is the use of such stereotyped
and almost formal language which makes it reasonable to say
that ‘St. Paul was inspired, but the writer of these epistles is
sometimes only orthodox ' (Denney, 7%e Deal of Christ, 1902,

. 203).
PR ὦ Τίπι 116 414, where a symbol is trembling into a
sacrament (cp Acts 2028, not 13 1-3 which denotes a commission
for some special service), divine inspiration prompts the Christian
prophets, of whom Paul is one, to select men for office in the
church, and to confer upon them a supernatural charism
φχήρισμα) by means of the rite of imposition of hands (see

ANDS, LavinG ὉΝ ΟΕ, and SrikiTuaL GieTs, also MINISTRY,
$ 374,6). The idea of such a special rite, even in the form of
2 Tim. 16 (1 Thess. 59.1), could hardly have come from the man
who wrote 1 Cor. 12 4 (diversities of gifts), 11 (dividing to every
man), and represents the water:mark of later catholicism ; the
semi-official tinge lent to a primitive ceremony is palpabile (see
Gunkel's Wirkunger des heilig. Geistes,2) 7 [1899], and especi»
ally Weinel's Wix4. des Geistes und der Geister, 140-142, 216-
218 [1899], with the conveyancing of influence through physical
contact as traced by Volz in ΖΑ͂ ΤῊΣ 2193 [r90x]). The other
function of the Spirit in the prophets—ze., prediction of woes
and perils (1 Tim, 41 2 Tim.81/)—is naturally referred by the
sul-apostolic age (Acts 20 29 £ Clem. Rom, 441 Jude 17,7. 2 Pet.
2.1) to the apostles. 7'ey foresaw what their successors suffer.
Hence the pseudonymous pastoral epistles credit Paul with
anticipations of the errors current in their own age.

2 In 1 Tim. 3.16 the statement of the resurrection (“justified in
the spirit,' ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι) is an un-Pauline development
of Rom. 14 (cp Iren. ii. 3237) after 1 Pet.3 18 46 and Jn. 1610,
as that of the incarnation is un-Pauline and distinctly Johannine
(1 Jn.358, cp 1 Pet.120); ‘seen by angels’ is a sub-Pauline
development (Eph.310 1 Pet.l12 3187), ‘world’ (κόσμος)
appears τὸ have its sub-Pauline emphasis of ‘evil,’ and ‘was
taken up in glory® (ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ), if an allusion to the
Ascension, 15 thoroughly un-Pauline. On the Messiah as the
copestone of this new temple of Truth, see Briggs, Messiah of
Afpostles, 228-232 [1895].

3 The reference is neither to τ. B (Weiss) nor to what im-
mediately precedes (Chrysost.), but to 118-132 which, like Tit.
88 and 1 Tim. 49, looks ont directly upon the future and final
hope of the Christian disciple. 136 is probably an explanatory
comment; but there is no need to regard 13 (with Ewald, Hesse,
Hilg.) as a gloss or interpolation.

4 Cp En.941, ‘the paths of righteousness are worthy of
acceptation.

5 Sor (Aumanus), 115.

5086

TIMOTHY AND TITUS (EPISTLES)

Baljon delete) the contentsof the ‘saying’ (A6yos) might be either
v.8(Chrysost. Weizs. Hilg. Weiss, von Soden, Horton) or v. 10
(Bengel, Schleierm. Holtzm., cp ‘for’ [γάρ] and ἀγών. 2 Tim.
211), It is noticeable that of these sexzerziz (i.) alone is in
thought and style somewhat parallel to Paul,1 who never as.
sociates ‘heirship' or ‘hope’ (as Tit.37/) with ‘eternal life”
(ζωὴ αἰώνιος). The colouring of (ili.), as of Tit, 3 5 (e Tim. lio
1Tim.242613/ Tit. 11/ 16) is Johannine, whilst (iv.) contains
the pastoral triad of /a/e%, love, and soberness, and the dr. λεγ.
childbearing, which is besides an idea generally strange to Paul's
mode of thought (particularly if childbirth is considered as a
inwans of salvation), In (v.) characteristically un-Pauline terms
abound (e.e., ‘bodily’ [σωματικός], ‘ bodily exercise [γυμνασία],
profitable’ [ὠφέλιμον], τ΄. 7/5 σωτήρ of God, τ. ro). The
faithful sayings,’ therefore, not merely are characteristic of the
pastorals, but betray an essentially un-Pauline conception of the
regula fidei3

This difference in ground-work is endorsed by the
difference in style and diction between Paul and the
9. Style and author ofthe pastorale, an argument which

diction. forms a cumulative and almost final proof

of the sub-Pauline origin of the epistles.

Outof the 176 hapax legomena, a proportion two or three times
as great as in che Pauline epistles, nearly 80 are in LXX and were
therefore consciously neglected by Paul. Favourite Pauline
phrases and words are totally wanting (e.g., ‘unjust' [ἄδικος],
uncleanness’ [ἀκαθαρσία], ‘adoption ' [vioeata], ‘our Father'
{πατὴρ ἡμῶν], ‘covenant” [διαθήκη], ‘reveal’ [ἀποκαλύπτειν),
‘free’ [ἐλεύθερος and compounds, ‘be operative’ ΤἐνεργεῖνἾ,
‘perform’ [κατεργάφεσθαι], ‘boast’ [καυχᾶσθαι], ΤΟΙ γ᾿ {uwplal,
‘tradition’ {παραδοσις], ‘persuade’ [πείθειν], "abound' Πἱπερισο
σεύειν), ‘do’ πράσσειν, -- ποιεῖν, in past.], ‘perfect’ [τέλειος],
‘be gracious’ ἰχαρύξεσθαι], ‘think [φρονεῖν], with ‘ordinance’
[Suxalwua}, ‘greater’ (ueidiov], ‘small* {μικρόε], ‘body’ [σῶμα],
‘good'[xpnarss], etc. ; also particles like ‘then’ [ἄρα], ‘where:
fore’ [διό], ‘because [διότι], ‘then’ [ἔπειτα], tell” (er), ‘be
hold [i5e, ἰδού], etc., ete., prepositions like ‘ with' [ovr=perd of
pastorals], ‘instead of' [ἀντί], ‘until’ [ἄχρε, ‘before’ [ἔμπροσθεν],
beyond [παρά, a Many fresh terms are coined, new com-
pounds and Latinisms are introduced, whole families of words
appear for the first time (cp those in d privative, διδασκ-, οἶκο-,
awdp-, φιλο-, etc..), and others are used with unwonted frequency
(eg., κάλ). The extent and significance of this change in
vocabulary cannot adequately be explained even when one
assigns the fullest possible weight to such factors as change of
amanuensis, situation, or topic, lapse of time, literary fertility,
or senile weakness ; for the wider evidence of syntax and style,
to be felt even through a translation, comes in to verify the
irapression already made by the vocabulary. Particularly where
the writer is most himself and least dependent on previous letters
(as in rTim.), the idiosyncrasies δὲ is composition appear,
neither accidental nor trivial by any means. The comparative
absence of rugged fervour, the smoother flow, the heaping up
of words, all point to another sign-manual than that of Paul.
In short, the relative proportions of likeness and unlikeness
(especialiy to Romans and Philippians) between the style of
Paul and the style of these three letters, are explicable only upon
the hypothesis that the writer of the pastorals modelled his
diction in part upon that of his master, but not slavishlyt-
certainly not to the prejudice of his own originality and cast of
thought. ’Fhese proportions are precisely what we should expect
in such a literary relationship. Upon any other hypothesis they
do not seem credible or reasonable. Questions of style are pro-
verbially delicate, but che linguistic data of the pastorals and
the Pauline epistles may be said to resemble those of the Apoca-
lypse and the Fourth Gospel ; both ratify the conclusion that we
have to do with kinship, not identity, of authorship.4

1 Yet ‘cleny' (&pvetoda4) is non-Pauline, and the stanza reads
like a popular version of Paul's own words, adapted to the
reguirements of a martyr-period. See Denney, 202.

The knowledge of God or of the truth=salvation or eternal
lifeGn. 1725 17); cp Jn. 17 3 with 1 Tim. 2 5, the same combina-
tion of monotheism ‘as against polytheism, and of Christ's
unique and sufficient position as against Judaism or Gnosticism,
besides (‘the max Christ Jesus’) a Johannine protest against
the Gnostic or Docetic tendency to resoîve Christ into a phantom
of abstract spirit. On the Christology of the epistles (1 Tim.
3.16), see A. KiGpper in ΖΗ Τ᾽ (1902) 339-361.

8 No possible change of circumstances could make Paul
oblivious (through three separate letters) of God's fatherhood,
of the believing man's union with Jesus, of the power and
witness of the Spirit, or of reconciliation. They might be taken
for granted? But surely în enforcing the ethical requirements
of the pastorals, Paul would never have demanded the blossom
without ‘urgently pressing the need of these spiritual facts as its
root !

4 There îs no ground for the idea that the prosaic tone of the
pastorals is due to their preoccupation with the practical steps
of organisation, whilst în Bits earlier letters he had been mainly
employed in sketching the ideal of the church. A letter like
1 Cor,; to say nothing of passages in the other letters, is enough
to refute this explanation and to show how Paul would have
dealt with the problems of organisation and church order, had
these met him in an acute form. It would have been different
from the method of this Paulinist, for Paul ever came down upon
ethical tasks from a spiritual height.

5087

Still further proof in corroboration of their un-Pauline
origin flows în from the impossibility of placing the
10. The second epistles within Paul's lifetime. | With
; τ Ὁ, practical unanimity! defenders? of the
Imprisonment. ;r.ditional hypothesis abandon all
attempts to fix them previous to Paul's Roman imprison-
ment; but their conjecture of a release, followed by a
further extension of activity and a second imprisonment,
is quite gratuitous and hardly furnishes a more tenable
ground for the pastorals. It is not indeed bound up
with the acceptance of their Pauline authorship ; the
two positions are independent and may be held separately.
But even apart from the evidence of the pastorals (which
never mention Spain, nor allude to so momentous a tour
in the Western Mediterranean), the evidence for this
second imprisonment must be pronounced inadequate
(CHRronoLOGY, 8 79f., PAUL, $ 31), resting mainly on a
vague rumour (λόγος ἔχει) reported by Eusebius, and the
allusion in the Muratorian Canon {possibly derived from
apocryphal Acta) which is simply an expansion of Rom.
1524 28—the devout and imaginative fantasy of later
tradition being convinced that because Paul proposed a
visit to Spain, he must have carried it out. No such
tradition lingered in Spain itself, whilst the express state-
ment of Acts 20 25 38 and the significant silence of Clemens
Romanus imply that the tradition nearest to Paul's life
knew of no return to Asia Minor. The very passage în
Clemens Romanus (5), which has been supposed to refer
to this western journey, tells against it. Charged with
rhetorical feeling, as Baur pointed out, it narrates (like
Rom. 159) the sweep of Paul's career from Jerusalem
to Rome: ‘after teaching righteousness to the whole
world, and reaching the limit of the West, and bearing
testimony before the authorities, so he left the world.'
Paul's sun had ended its course (Acts 1347). Clement
is speaking from the standpoint of his Eastern readers
who would naturally take ‘the limit of the west' (τὸ
τέρμα τῆς δύσεως) as the Imperial capital (cp ‘east’
[ἀνατολῆς] and ‘west' [3/06] of Syria and Rome in
Ignat. Roz. 2), and incidentally clinches the proof by
‘adding that the Neronic martyrs of 64 were ‘gathered
unto Paul and Peter," implying that the latter had
already died. Were the ‘earlier’ chronology adopted,
which brings Paul to Rome early in the sixties if not
even earlîer, space would of course be won before 64
for the two or three years' interval required by the
traditional hypothesis of the ‘ pastorals ' (CHRONOLOGY,
8ὲ 64-66). Otherwise no time is left, and it is almost
incredible that the ‘ pastorals," if written after 64, should
breathe no hint of the shock produced upon the Christian
consciousness of the age, especially at Rome, by Nero's
massacre which outraged even the Roman conscience.
But even chronological resetting only makes the hypo-
thesis possible ; its acceptance or rejection rests on other
grounds, and—to put it mildly—these do not seem at
any point secure.
The genesis of the pastorals is therefore sub-Pauline.
To account for the Pauline, or presumably Pauline ele-
11. Genesis of !PENt including not merely phrases and
torale, SONCEPtIOns such as could be gathered
pas from the extant letters of the apostle
or from tradition, but also private details and personal
matters affecting about sixteen new figures (some of
whom are not mere names) —recourse must be had to
theories- of compilation, whose common feature is the
presupposition that the author was in possession of
genuine reliquie Pauline. No doubt a pseudonymous
writer would endeavour to stamp his figures and scenery
upon the reader's mind by means of circumstantial

1 Bartlet, Bowen (Dates 0/ Pastoral Letters, 1900), and Lisco
(Vincula Sanctorusi, 1900) are the chief exceptions recently.

ὦ Especially Spitta in Zur Gesch. und Litt. des Urchrist,
121061 also Lightfoot (4/40) Escayo, 215-233), Zahn (2inZ
1435 7), Steinmetz (Die zuweite rim. Gefang. des Afostels
Paulus, 1897), C. H. Turner (Hastings, D& 1427, etc.), and
Frey (die uveile vom. Gefang. und das Todesjahr des Afostels
Paulus, 1900).

5088

TIMOTHY AND TITUS (EPISTLES)

details, especially when (as in this case) the authentic
letters would suggest the introduction of a certain
quantum of personal matter—though in the sub-Pauline
letters {Eph., Heb., 1 Pet.) this quantum is noticeably
small. But, while it is conceivable that this may be
sufficient to account for 1 Tim.,} it fails to afford an
adequate rationale for 2 ‘lim. ‘The latter is flooded with
items which by no means fall under the category of
romantic ornament or literary vrasserblance, and lift the
letters guite above the level of later Pauline romances.

Even when such passages do not part from their context, they
suggest to a critical inquirer the advisability of admitting that
they are based upon authentic tradition and that they reproduce,
with more or Jess freedom, information still accessible to the
immediately sub-Pauline generation. It may be allowed, still
further, that genuine notes have been incorporate, although
these cannot any longer be deciphered. But the advocates of
compilation attempt the subrler task of actually separating
original notes from the strata in which they lie embedded,? upon
the hypothesis that, whilst the author's direct aim was to instract
and move the church of his own day and not to preserve literary
relics, he was able to use certain Pauline notes in the composition

im. at least and even Titus. The preservation of such
far from incredible,$ Paul was the first ‘man of letters’
in early Christianity, and the extant canonical collection repre-
senes only a part of his actual correspondence. In the nature of
things, private notes would be more likely to remain overlooked
than others, unless, like the letter of recommendation to Phebe
Rom. 16 1-20), they were attached hy late editors to some larger
epistie,

In addition to this, the pastorals have suffered accre-
tion as church documents, and thus three stages of their
composition must be distinguished : (i.) the primitive
notes from Paul's lifetime, (il. ) the incorporation of these
by the author of the pastorals in his epistles, substantialy
composed about forty years after Paul's death, and (iii. )
glosses added to these epistles by subsequent copyists
to render them more suitable than ever for the needs of
the second century. The last-named process naturally
ceased by the time that the letters passed into the canon,

Whether the letters are substantially Pauline and only
interpolated by some editor,* or whether--as ìs highly
probable, in the case of 1 Tim. at any rate—the Pauline
element, such as it is, has been submerged in later work,
cannot be decided till each letter has been separately
examined upon the principles of literary morphology.
As the amount of presumably authentic material is
‘obviously largest in 2 Tim. and least in 1 Tim., it will
be advisable to discuss the epistles in that provisional
order.

Second Timothy.-—Although the address of 2 Tim.

sm. (1: 7) is fairly® Pauline, the strange

12. 2 Tim.: hasi he fi d ε
‘analysis. eMPhasison the fact and purpose οἵ stand»
ard of Paul's apostolate (‘according to

the promise' [κατ᾽ ἐπαγγελίαν]}) in a letter to one who

2 3 Tim, 13/ might be developed from the hint in Philem. 22
(the Asiatic locus being shown in the failure to use the companion
allusion in Phil, 224 to a retum visit to Macedonia). . The
personal matter here is principally meant to furnish a suitable
setting for an epistle dealing with general questions of church
life and work in the Asiatic provinces, and refecting that cardinal
importance of Ephesus as a centre of early Christianity to which
Lisco has rightly but extravagantly called attention (Roma
Peregrina, xg0x). Cp Hamack, Ausbrzitung, 333 462 482.

2 Perhaps 2 Pet. also contains material worked up from earlier
sources; certainly it has incorporated parts of Jude, And the
canonica! 2 Cor. Îs a compilation of two separate Îetters in reverse
order. But even were the pastorals, as compilations, without
any analogy in the NT literature (cp, further, JAMES [EPISTLE],
$ 5), this would not of itself discredit the analytic hypothesis:
The pastorals present quite unique features, and ît is only
reasonable that the complexity of their structure shouid demand
somewhat unique and exceptional methods of treatment.

8 E.g the correspondence of Cicero and Atticus, the letters
of King Agrippa II. (Josephus), etc. See Peters, Der Brigfi
der ròmischen Litterattur (5901), 27 f. 78 δ, and Wehofer,
* Untersuch. zur altchristliche Epistolographie* (SWWA177: 211:
hist. Klasse, 143, 1901).

4 Ménégoz, for example (Le Ῥδελδ et la Ridemption, 5 £),
treais them as authentic, but supposes that copyists under the
direction of bishops subsequently added glosses ; these, however,
affected only questions of discipline and order, leaving the
gendinely Pauline spirit unimpaired.

The insertion of ‘mercy* between ‘grace’ and ‘peace’ (so
2Jn. 3)isun-Pauline, Deletingit among other phrases Hausrath
(Neulest. Zeitgeschichte, ET, 1895, 460-163) finds a genuine
letter to Timothy in 1x7 15-18 4g-18, Sabatier in 1 r-18 4622.

5089

could hardly have doubted it, at once reveals the real
genius of the writing and corroborates the general
evidence afforded by all three epistles, especially by
1 Tim. and Titus. ‘They are not private letters at all,
noi even semi-private, and the very form of a private
letter is not strictly preserved, They resemble rather
‘ pastorals' in the modern sense of the term, and find
their real audience among people (primarily teachers
and officials, it may be)! inclined to doubt the validity
and misunderstand or misapply the tenets of the Pauline
gospel. As even Liddon admits (Axplaz. Amalrsis of
1 Zim., 1897, ad lec.), of Paul's apostolic authority
‘ Timothy did not require to be reminded ; St, Paul has
other readers of the epise—perhaps false teacher:
in view.’ Behind 13c-6e lies a tradition of Timothy's
temporary absence (Phil.219 £) from Paul during his
last captivity; but neither here nor elsewhere is it
feasible in 13-14 to disentangie any written source. On
the other hand, 115-18 is perhaps a displaced (after 410
M'Giffert, 413 Knoke),# and at any rate a genuine,
fragment, probably written from Paul's Roman captivity.
So most editors and critics {Lemme,! Hesse," and
Krenkel® omitting rather needlessly τοῦ and 180).
Again, 27 hardly seems homogeneous” (cp 216 313
with 39); 22 seems a gloss (om. Hesse, Hilg. ZW7,
1897. pp. 1-86); 214 f. is awkwardly introduced, and
the thoroughly un-Pauline passage 31-9 may well be a
later insertion, due to the process of accretion. 30-12,
however, is an interpolated genuine fragment; its iso-
lated position and contents mark it off from the surround-
ing context. Furthermore, the bulk, if not the whole,
of 4 (6)9*22is gencrally allowed to have come directly
from Paul's own hand (9-18a, except ‘having loved this
present world' [ἀγαπήσας τὸν νῦν αἰῶνα] 0116, Bahnsen;?
9-15 19-22, Ewald ;19 9-18, Immer ;11 9-21, Pfieid.). But
it is not homogeneous ; evidently r1a and 218, like 6-8
and 9-15, reflect different situations in Paul's life, and
the whole passage offers an admirable proof of the
composite character of even the directiy Pauline strata
in the pastorali epistles. Following the various dates
and moods, one can detect approximately in 115-18
46-12 16-19 a note (or part of a note) written after
Philippians ; the situation has become more grim, and
Paul pines in loneliness for his younger ally. Again,
413-15 ar-2z4 go back?? to a still earlier period, when

1 ‘Les communautés vaudront ce que valent leurs con.
dare i γοῖα l'idée générale qui se dégage de ses instructions*
U. Révitie).

3 Cp Asc. /5.820 f. (before 100 A.p.) for the contemporary
feeling that an apostasy would precede the latter days, when the
disciples of Jesus would desert ‘the prophecy of his twelva
apostles and ἐπεῖς faith (cp 1 Tim. 119, etc.) and love and purity
{x Tim. 4 19), and there shall be many sects, etc.’ (τὴν προφητείαν.
τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν πίστεν [cp 1 Tim, 1 19, etc.]
καὶ τὴν ἀγάπην αὐτῶν, καὶ τὴν ἁγνείαν αὐτῶν (1 Τίπι. 4 15] καὶ
ἔσονται αἱρέσεις πολλαί x.

3 Praktisch-theol. Comm. su den Past. 1887-1889.

4 Das echte Ermahnungsschreilen des Ap. Paulus an Tim,
1882.

5 Die Entstek. der NT Hirtenbriefe, 1889.

8 Beitr. sur Aufhellung der Gesch. und der Briefe des Ap.
Paulus, 395-408 [1890],

Τ Chap. 2 contains two passages paralleled în Epictetus (Dis.
810, “God saith to thee, Prove τὸ me whether thou hast contested
according to requirement' [ei vopiuws 0Anoas]}=2Tim.23
[°good soldier']; and 822 where, as the Cynic is in an army
azrayed for battle, it is urged that he should not be ‘entangled'
[ἐμπεπλεγμένον] but wholly devoted to God's service—cp 2 Tim.
24 ['entangleth himself," ἐμπλέκεται} -απά free from distraction ;
ἀπερισπάστως, 1 Cor. 735) Five parallels to the pastorals in
Seneca are cited by Lightfoot, P4slApiars, 290.

8 Upon the difficulties of geography in 2. το, see CRESCENS,
DaLMaria, GALATIA $ 35. “The figurative expressione
is paralleled by an old proverb that one should ‘visit the poor
în his affiction ἀπά spesi of him în the Sultan's presence and do
one's diligence to save him from the mouth of the lion’ (Rendel
Harris, Story ef Ahika», p. lxv The conjecture ‘ Melita”
[MeAirp] for ‘ Miletus® [ Μελήτῳ] is neither probable nor helpful.

9. 7). T'imothews (1876).

10 Sjeden Sendschreiben (1870).

τι T'heologie des NT, 399 (1877).

12 These “commissions and cautions' at least are ‘unlike a dying
man; the writer is in a hurry for T'imothy to come simply because
he is old and lonely,’ not because he fears his friend will be too

5090

TIMOTHY AND TITUS (EPISTLES)

Paul had left Troas on some journey; 420 (cp Acts
21 29) seems to belong to Acts 1818 f., though the his-
toricity of Acts 2129 is not above suspicion (cp AcTs,
Gir, TRoPHIMUSs; with ]. Weiss, Ueder die Absicht τε.
4. literar. Charakter der Ap.-gesch. 39 f. [1897]).

A dual analysis of 2 Tim. has been carried through by several
eritics from Credner onwards. Hesse, δι. (pp. 170/), regards
it as the compilation of a genuine brief letter of recall (1 36-4 16,7
188c 49-222) with a later peesdonemous letter (1 1-36 5-10 23-22
14-26 318 117 415). Lemme's reconstruction af the genuine
letter underlying 2 Tim, is even more intricate (see O. Holtz-
mann's critique, ZW/7; 1883, pp. 45:72) and less convincing
(=11.9 except ‘ pity” [ἔλεος 2 31 οὖ, “and a sound mind’ {rai
σωφρονισμοῦ! 7, “in Christ Jesus before the world began [tv .
αἰωνίων 79, 10, except ‘but is now made manifest by cheappearing*
βανερωθεῖσαν, . . | ἐπιφανείας), τι except ‘and a teacher ' [καὶ
S:ddoxados), 12 except ‘against that day’ [εἰς . - - ἡμέραν), 14
except ‘that good thing which was committed’ ἐτὴν . . . @uA.]
152 16/ 1845 213-582 9/, except ‘with eternal glory! [perà
δόξης αἰωνίου], 4 ὁ 7: except ἐν ἐκ. τ᾿ ἡ.» 9-22), while Hilgenfeld's
analysis of the epistle ἢ into two sub-Pauline notes is quite in the
ἰτ (A—11/, except ‘according to the promise of life which is
in Christ Jesus’ Ixer . . . Ἰησοῦ], 34 5-10, except ‘hefore the
world began ; but is now made manifest by the appearing of our
Saviour fn Christ, who hath abolished death and hath brought
life and immortality to light’ [πρὸ χρόνων... ἀφθαρσίαν], 11
122 16-182 21 3-84 9-12 19-26 3 1-4 10-12 14/417. 6-819-22; B=
118 3b-4 ge-10 12/-15 1842284 13.188 5-9 13167 43-59-18). More
is τὸ be said for M'Giffert's hypothesis that the epistle is a
redacted version ofone written by Paul towards the close of his
Roman imprisonment (11-12 2 1-13 41, 5:8 16-19 218 τὸ 1 15-18)
(o Clemen for 115-18; from Rome ἐσ A.D.), whilst 2 Tim. 49
11-18 20-212 represents an earlier note written from Macedonia
before 2 Cor, which was composed (1 1) after Timothy had obeyed
his summons. Similarly Bacon places 49 11-18 20-214 228 in the
period immediately previous to 2 Cor. 212, when Paul was in
Macedonia, whilst von Soden takes 115-1849-19 216 22 as a note
written after Philippians from Paul's Romari captivity. Hitzig
had already found ἃ letter of Paul written about $8 A.p. fora
Caesarea in 1 15 4 13-16 20-222(50 Clemen : 49-18, about 60 A.D. ?),
and another letter written from Rome about 63 A.D. in 46-12 19
1 16-18 4228; whilst Bartlet recently has distinguished (in 49-13
321-222) a note written between Ephesians and Philippians, the
rest of 2 Tim. being the swan-song ofthe apostle, Less probably
Clemen puts 4 19-21 into 57 A.D. (from Jerusalem, previous τὸ
his imprisonment), dating the epistle as a whole slightly earlier
than ‘Fitus (cisca τος A-b.), which again preceded 1 Tim. (100-
110 A.p. Asia Minor) and the author’s interpolations in 2 Tim.
(1137 214-26 41-8) and Titus (17-11 3r-11).. ᾿

Titus. —The attempts to find in Tit.11-4 a genuine
address interpolated by some redactor are not con-
:,3, Vincing. But, even when the epistle asa

15, TTIbUS: yhole is taken as sub-Pauline, 17:9 certainly
y8ls, appears a further gloss (so O. Ritschì,
TLZ, ‘85, 609; Knoke; Harnack, C4ror. 710 £. ;
Clemen, and M'Giffert), The sudden transition from
presbyters to episcopi, and the general contents of
the passage, mark it off as the insertion of some later
editor who was interested in promoting the monarchical
episcopate. Hesse and Clemen carry the gloss on to
the end of 11; but, although τὸ connects with 9 (which
partly explains the insertion of the gloss at this point),
12 would be abrupt after 6, for κακὰ #. are not an
antithesis to dvur., nor ‘slow bellies' (γαστέρες dpyal)
to ‘riot (ἀσωτίας), much less ‘liars' {ψεῦσται) to
‘faitbiful' {πιστά which here= believing, not reliable or
trustworthy). ‘The passage 7-9, then, was inserted, per-
haps from the margin, in the original text which ran :
*unruly, for there are many unruly' (ἀνυπότακτα.
Εἰσὶν γὰρ πολλοὶ ἀνυπότακτοι, x.T.A.), No man could
discharge a presbyter’s duties effectively, if the members
of his own family were tainted with the local disease of
insubordination and profiigacy. 2-14 and 215-87 are
somewhat parallel (cp 25 and 82, 214 and 31); but no
analysis of the passage into a Pauline and a later source
is plausible. The ‘genuinely Pauline ring’ of much in
3:-7 {M'Giffert) is not very audible, though Sabatier
detects genuine material in it and 312-15. The latter
passage certainly, 3 12-13 [14] το, contains an authentic
fragment, as is admitted upon almost all hands (e.g.,
Weisse,? Ewald, Krenkel, Knoke, Hesse, von Soden,
Clemen, M'Giffert). Hesse {pp. 1507) finds further
in Titus (11 f 4-6 12-130 16 3 1-6 12 Κὶ 15) a complete letter

late (G. A. Simcox, £x/0s. 7 10 430-432, finding in Heb. 13 also
two commendatory letters),
1 Philosoph. Dogmatik, 1146.

5091

of Paul, written shortly after he left Crete ; it has been
expanded by the addition of passages which, although
rising out of the original text {with the possible exception
of 2), are intended as a proviso against heresy. Simi.
larly M‘Giffert regards the canonical epistle as a redacted
version of some letter (11-6 partly, 31-7 12.) written to
Titus before Paul reached Corinth in Acts 202. The
alternative to these dual hypotheses is to reconstruci
(with Krenkel) out of 2 Timothy and Titus three letters
of Paul; (4) one written to Titus at Crete, perhaps from
Iliyricum during Paul's second journey to Corinth (Acts
201-3)= Tit. 312 2 Tim. 420 Tit 323; (6) another, from
his Cassarean imprisonment, to Timothy at or near
Troas=2 Tim. 49-18, subsequent to Colossians and
Philemon; (2) a third = 2 Tim. 419 116f. 183 4a,
written from his Roman imprisonment to Timothy at
Ephesus. The Casarean date of Colossians, however,
is untenable ; and otherwise this ingenious resetting of
the îragments fails to explain satisfactorily how such
notes came into their present curious position.

First Timotky.—In spite of its unwieldy anacoluthon
(cp Rom. 11-7) 1 Tim. 1 is probably a unity as it stands,

14 1 Tim.: modelled on Pauline feners and tradition,
analysis, though ve. 12-17) resemble in part some-
thing more definite. Certainly 13-11 and
118-90 hang together. After 1: 7. a thanksgiving would
naturally follow, in the Pauline manner ; but when the
thanksgiving does come (+. 12-17) it is occasioned riot by
the person addressed but by Paul himself. Even the
‘therefore’ (οὖν) of 27, resuming either 13-11 or 12-17
ΟΥ̓ 18-20, forms a loose transition ; but it illustrates the
zigzag course of the epistle rather than any phenomena
of compilation Similarly with subsequent passages
like 264-7, which has a poor connection with its context
and only repeats the protestation of 1 12-17 (so Holtzm.,
Hesse, Hilg.), 29. (the odd juxtaposition of rules for
prayer with a sumptuary regulation for women) 41-8
which would readily part from its context, and 5 which
has suffered accretion towards the close. No fragment
of the epistle can be referred, however, to the apostle
‘himself with much confidence. The incidental allusions
to Paul's personality (314 f 413) merely betray the
writer's consciousness that there was a certain awkward-
ness in such elaborate commissions and instructions
upon the commonplace regulations of a Christian com-
munity being addressed to one who was not merely
himself in mature life but ex Aypo/Zesi separated from
his superintendent only for a short time. In such
touches we feel the author's literary conscience and his
taciful attempt to preserve the vraisemblance of the
situation or t0 justify the existence and point of such an
epistle.

As it stands, in fact, 1 Timothy is a free composition ;
it consists of a sub-Pauline letter which has been subse-
quently enlarged by interpolations, especially in chap. 6.
67-21 îs plainly an addition (Hamn.), in thought and
diction perbaps the least Pauline paragraph in all the
pastorals ; its contents and context are against it as an
integral part of the letter. The ‘antitheses’ of 620 are
not the casuistic subtleties of dialectic in the Halacha,
but the tabulated passages from the OT and the gospel
arranged by Marcion to prove the diversity of the two
dispensations and the superiority of the later. Such
arguments are dismissed as secular and verbose and
pseudo-scientific. See 2 Tim. 316, ‘every scripture,' εἴς,»
and the significant collocation of an OT sentence and
an evangelic saying in x Tim. 518, Another un-Pauline
element is of course the connection between eternal life
and almsgiving (vv. 17-19) as already between salvation
and religious work or personal conduct {215 313).
Hence, like Tit. 17-9 and some other passages în

1 The motive of this section is to throw the glorious gospel
into relief against the unworthiness and weakness of its original
bearers, asin Rarn, 59: ‘he chose for the preaching of his gospel
his own apostles ὄντας ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν ἁμαρτίαν ἀνομωτέρους, that

he might show he had not come to call the righteous but
sinners’ See Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis (1903), 107 £

5092

TIMOTHY AND TITUS (BPISTLES)

1 Tim. (31-13) 517-20?) or even 2 Tim. (2.20-26?), 6127-01
shows the process of accretion familiar in documents
bearing on church organisation and discipline.

Here again Hesse, admitting (like Schleiermacher) the
irregular course of the epistle, attempts acufins quem veries
to disentangle an original letter of commission (11-10 18-20 4 1-16
63-16 20) containing the duties and rights of an episcopus at
Ephesus. This is conjectured to have been enlarged by the
addition of independent pieces bearing on the work of the
episcopate : eg, 1 11-17 (justifying the apostolate to the Gentiles),
arrangements for the worship (268-7, so Hilg., and 296-10,
glosses) and the officials of the church (814-154, ἃ further
insertion to justify the author dilating on such topics ; 3 156-16,
to connect with 41), a general mandate for bishops (5; 5.23,
however, being genvinely Pauline), and extracts (δ 1-3 17-19) from
atable of ethical duties. Knoke pushes the epistle much nearer
Paul by his hypothesis of two letters from Paul's pen, one—an
instruction (rapayyeAia) written to Timothy from Corinth (1 3
18-20 21-10 412 513 466 11-12 19-23 24/2), another—more
doctrinal în character— composed in his Casarean imprisonment
@ 12-17 34-16 4r-11 13-16 212-15 57/4 617-19 15-11 820-16
20/.?). These have been combined with an un-Pauline church-
directory (3 1-10 12 211597 16 426 17 δτ £), whilst passages
like 3 rx and 5 18 are to be regarded as marginal glosses. It is
not easy, however, to see adequate psychological motives for
this sort of extensive compilation, and the criteria of style are
by no means equal to the inferences drawn from them.

Hypothetical and contradictory as such conjectures
may appear to be, however, a not inconsiderable agree-
ment prevails even amid the most independent analyses
of these epistles, All partition-theories presuppose an
editorial function which certainly is unexampled în
previous early Christian literature, even in Acts and the
Apocalypse. But this is not an insuperable objection ;
and whilst it is idle to dogmatise upon the particular
and original setting of verses, or at every point to dis-
tinguish precisely between redactor, author, and source,
the composite nature of these epistles and (within general
limits) the main strata of their contents have been sub-
stantially proved. Such analytic criticism is upon the
right lines, and as a working hypothesis it is historically
superior to the conjectures which attribute the writings
en Hloc to Paul'or as unpromisingly set down the Pauline
element to vague tradition or the inventiveness of a
literary artist.

As the titles formed no part of the original autographs,
the early church naturally argued from the internal

-vidence tha im., with its reflection
15, Order of Νὴ eee that 2 Tim Va iis το lec °
composition. οἱ ἃ climax and rich individual references,

represented the last phase of the apostle's
life, and that 1 Tim. was earlier. But the comparative
study of the epistles suggests that 2 Tim. is the earliest,
and 1 Tim. the latest production of the author.?

The relative amount of hapax legomena (46 în 2 Tim., 28 în

Tit,, 74 in : Tim.), the increasingly sub-apostolic colour of |

Haith° (πέστι:) and “saviour’ (σωτήρ), the diminution of fresh-
ness and intimate feeling în the allusions to Paul, the predomi-
nance of ecclesiastica] interests and church organisation in Tit.
and 1 Tim.,4 the gradual shifting of emphasis from the person

1 Among the qualifications of the Jewish s424 ρέῤόπν' (ny
‘92°, the man who on any given occasion offered common
prayer in the synagogue) were : “to have many children and no
money . . . to be of sound age, and humble, popular, well-
mannered τος to be practised In the study οὐ the law, the
prophets, and the psalms; able to expound the allegoric mean-
ing, traditions, and histories, etc.’ (R. Jehuda, quoted by
Selwyn, Christian Prophets, 208 f).

2 The difficulty of μανθάνουσι (0.13) would certainly he cased
by the adoption of the attractive conjecture λανθάνουσι (Hitzig,
Naber, Baljon, Clemen).

3 See AcTS, ἢ 16, and MinisTRY, $ 31. Besides Mangold,
De Wette, Reuss (La 2iMe, 7 243 / 307/), and some others,
<he main advocates of this order are denoted by an asterisk in
the bibliography at the close of the present article. It is of
course possible that che author himself rearranged the epistles
in this order, having written them otherwise, as Vergil is said to
have composed the various books of the Exeid irregularly (e.g.,
the third before the second) and subsequently placed them.

4 The pronounced element of ‘ecclesiasticism’ in 1 Tim.,
which in several passages is simply a manual of church order,
betrays its more advanced situation. For some not insignificant
details of style, see ‘certain men (τινὲς ἄνδρωποι), or ‘certain’
(rie) (7 times in x Tim., never in others], ‘faith’ (riortis) in
objective sense (4 times in 1 Tim., once in Tit. 1 4), ‘saviour’
(σωτήρ) of God alone in 1 Tim. (in the second-century piety “no
one could any longer be a God who was not also a soir,” Harn.,
Dogmeng:, ÈT, 1118); cpalso 2 Tim.217-20 as preceding 1Tim.

5093 ᾿

ality to the sheer authority of the apostle, the gradual increase
of severity towards errorists, evident as the epistles proceed—
these and other traces form a cumulative and sufficient argument
for this order of composition. When the author wrote 2 Tim.
he had considerable Pauline material at his disposal. Even in
the epistle to Titus, he falls back on genuine tradition, and
Pauline material preponderates though to a less degree. But
in 1 ‘Tim. the situation has become more advanced; he writes
more freely and less under the influence of his master, confutes
errorists with greater sharpness, assigns more dictatorial powers
to the officers of the church, and elaborates the various ecclesias-
tival canons with unprecedented care. The third epistle (1 Ti
is thus, as Schleiermacher was the first to point out, an expansion
and in some respects a repetition of the others, further from their
Pauline background of reminiscences and tradition, but more
characteristic of the writer himself. The superiority of 2 Tim.,
with its ample personal allusions and less formal tone, is quite
obvious; and superiority means here priority. That ît comes
from the same pen as the others, need not be doubted, although
în it che writer is more of an editor than an original author.
"The general sub-apostolic style and spirit of all three is fairly
uniform and affords no adequate evidence for suspecting a
plurality of writers.

Like most of the NT writings, the pastorals have a
communal origin. In them a current of the age be-
comes articulate, and hence the incon-

16. Author, spicuous personality of their author!
cannot be rightly deduced from his writings. It was
an age when, as în the days of Haggai, men had to
‘fetch wood and build the house,' while others had to
encourage and direct their efforts. To furnish such
inspiration may not have been a very heroic task, de-
manding writers of exceptional insight and pioneering
ardour like Paul, but it was timely and serviceable ; and
after all ‘edification’ (οἰκοδομεῖν) was the criterion and
aim of early Christian literature. This Paulinist had
singular capacities for the labour of instructing the
churches of his day. Thoroughiy convinced that he
had a message for it, or rather that in Paul's teaching
and life lay the pattern for true doctrine and gedliness,
he addressed himself to the duty of curbing and stimu-
lating his contemporaries in the spirit of his master,
writing like a shrewd and experienced man of affairs
who feels (unlike his contemporary, the prophet who
wrote Rev.2/) that the moral plight of the age de-
manded consolidation— consolidation as opposed to
speculation in belief or looseness in organisation. If
he lacks the authority of intuition, he at least possesses
the intuition of authority. He has much in common
with the unconciliatory element in Paul. Unlike the
later apologists, he refuses to discuss points of disagree-
ment or to meet objectors on their own ground, but is
content with the more congenial method of insisting in
a rather dictatorial fashion upon the fixed truths of the
faith. In this he is a precursor of Polycarp, yet in all
likelihood the majority of his opponents, perhaps even
of his readers, were none the worse for being somewhat
sharply reminded that the ultimate proofs of religion
lay open to faith and the moral sense; there may have
been an effectiveness in the resolve of this censor to
assert and enlighten, not to argue. The genuine faith
is to him a ‘tradition’ (παράδοσις) or a ‘ deposit’
(παραϑθήκη).3 involving ‘testimony’ (μαρτυρία), which
lays a moral responsibility upon the officials of the
church especially. The tone of his instructions to them
reminds one often of Butler's famous Ckaezge fo fhe
Clergy (1751) not to trouble about objections raised by
‘men of gaiety and speculation,' but to endeavour to
beget a practical sense ‘of religion upon the hearts of
the common people.’ This task demands moral purity
above all things, together with teaching ability in the
higher officials. True to his master, this mentor is

120, and the heightening scale of 2 Tim, 223 Tit. 39 1Tim.14,
of 2 Tim.l1r and 1 Tim. 27, of 2 Tim.81 and 1Tim.41/, οὕ
Tit. 17 and 1 Tim.32.

1 The pastorals in fact voice a tendency of popular Christianity
rather than any individual writer's cast of thought ; cp Wrede,
fiber Aufgabe und Methode der sog. NT Theologie, 35 /. (1897)
Authorship is here quite subordinate to function.

2 Cp Herod,945: ‘Men of Athens, I leave these words with
you as a trust’ (ἄνδρες ᾿Αθηναῖοι, παραθήκην ὑμῖν τὰ ἔπεα τάδε
τέθεμαι κιτ.λ.) with 2 ΤΊπι. 1 τ Δ, etc.

5004

TIMOTHY AND TITUS (EPISTLHS)

‘utterly indifferent to the sacerdotal heresy! which was
already beginning to tinge unhealthily the primitive
ideas of the church (MINisTRY, $ 59 ὦ, PRIEST, $ 8}.
In resisting incipient Gnosticism with its attempt to
Hellenise the faith into an evaporated intellectualism,
the pastorals refuse to employ the tendency, which
ultimately seculariscd the Catholic church, of Hebraising
the religion of Jesus by means of a retrograde movement
to ritual and priestly conceptions. Indeed the impres-
sion made by these letters is revealed in nothing so clearly
as in the fact that they came to be cherished by those
who more or less unconsciously were either ignoring or
modifying or defying their principles under the con-
straining influence of the Zezigeist.
Like the authors of Matthew's gospel, Barnabas,
Hebrews, the Fourth Gospel and 2 Peter, the author of
the pastorals belongs to the great anony-
no mous period of early Christian literature,
* The religious life of the primitive church,
as of ancient Israel, was ‘at certain periods very intense,
and at these periods the spiritual energy of the nation
expressed itself almost impersonaliy, through men who
forgot themselves and were speedily forgotten in name
by others’ (Dav. 70, Ixvii.). His work, too, was
pséudonymous.? To write under Paul's name was, for
a Paulinist, quite a Iegitimate literary artifice ; and al-
though pseudepigrapha in the second century — that
period rich în rhetorical forgeries (Jebb, Homer, 87)—
ranged from mere fabrications to high-toned composi-
tions, the pastorals, like 2 Peter, belong to the latter
class, breathing not a crude endeavour to deccive but
self-effacement and deep religious motives. Hence the
oblivion in which the writer chose to work and has been
allowed to remain. It was due not merely to the
necessity of throwing a certain air of mystery round the
situation in order to secure the circulation of letters long
after their putative author's deatùìi, but to a sort of
Pythagorean fceling that unselfish piety required a
pupil's work to be attributed to his master—-a canon of
literary ethics not unfamiliar to early Christianity itself
(Tertull. adv. A/are. 45). This author wrote from what
he conceived to be the standpoint of Paul.3 But it would
be unjust to estimate him by the measure of the man
whose spirit he endeavoured to propagate and apply in
his own way. The correct standard is to be sought in
the sub-Pauline literature. And if the author of the
pastorals is inferior to the genius who wrote the fourth
gospel, even in appreciating some of the more inward
aspects of Pauline thought, he is superior in range and
penetration to those who wrote Barnabas, Jude, the
ignatian epistles, the Christian section of Ascersio /suie,
and 2 Peter. The prevailing deference shown to the
apostles and to Paul by contemporary and later writers 4
who disclaim all pretensions to equality with them, as
well as the fact that mere literary ambition was utterly
foreign to the carly Christian consciousness at this
period, may serve to guarantee the ethical honour of the
pastorals and to corroborate the impression left by them-
selves that their author 5 was right in feeling himself not

1 Louw, ef ontstaan van het Priesterschaaf in de Chris
telijbe Kerk, γε. 85. 79£. 110-126 (1892),

£ See EristoLary LITERATURE, $ 4; ΜΙΝΙΞΤΕΥ, 35 οἷ! and,
to the literature cited in ZZisf. New Test. 597, 619-624, add
W. Christ, P4zlologische Studien zu Clem.Ale+. 30:39 (1900),
and (for the pseud- spigrapha, mainly Gnostic, of the end cent.,
de.) Liechtenhan in Κ᾿. ΤΡ 1902, Hofte γ᾿

3 He is least successful in reproducing what would have been
Paul's tone and temper to colleagues like Timothy and Titus, The
curt, general instructions put into the apostle’s mouth are often
incongruous with the character of their primitive recipients as
well as with the situation presupposed by the episties in question.

4 £.xg, Ignat. Rom. 4, 1 do not order youi, as did Peter and
Paul ; they were apostles, I am a convict'; also Acta Phoc. 4,
οὐκ ἀπαντομολῶ τῆς τῶν ἀποστόλων τοῦ Θεοῦ εὐαρεστίας.

5 His success, undoubtediy deserved, becomes all the more
remarkable where failure was so easy. The Asiatic presbyter
who halfa century later composed the (ἐς of Pauland Thekla
no doubt acted witha sincerity equal to his affection (14 se anrore
Paxti fecisse), but failed to appreciate the vital elements of
Paulinism and was deposed—-not for using an illegitimate

5095

TIN

merely justified but obliged to sanction and support his
message by his master's name. Notlong before, another
* Paulinist” had composed speeches for Paul which
were based on oral tradition and yet were indubitably
free products of a historian who had skill and sympathy
enough to give fairly faithful transcripts of the situation
in question (Acts 1316-41 1722-31 2018-35, εἴς.). It was
but a step from this to the other recognised method cf
literary impersonation, which chose epistolary rather
than historical expression to gain’its religious end.
Since Schmidt and Schleiermacher almost a century ago sug-
gested a sub-Pauline date for 1 Tim., a conjecture which Eich-
horn amongst others speedily (1812) extended to
18. Litera- all three epistles, there has been ἃ remarkable
ture. continuity of criticism, starting from *F. C.
Baur (Die sogenannten Pastoralbriefà. des
dpostele Paulus, 1835). For the critical work up to 1880 see
Ἢ. 1. Holtzmann, Die Pastoralbrizfe kritisch und exegetisch
dehandelt (1880), a monograph which is far from being super-
seded. Subsequent contributions in general support of Baur
and Holtzmann, with modifications and adaptations, have coi
along three main lines (2) editions : ΚΗ. von Soden (770 iii.

+ 1155254, (2) 1893); *Moffati (Zistor. Neto Testament, 556-575

f190n)); Ὁ. Cone (/usernat. Hdbks. to NT, vol. 3 [igor]. (δ
monographs and essays on—(1) general criticism of epp.: Renan
(S.Pawl, xxiti.-lii., l'iglise Chrétienne, ch. 6); *Harmack (Chrono
gie, 480-485, g10.7 11); *Piieiderer (P'audinismus, ET, 2.196-214,
Das Urchristentum, dor-823 (1687)); *M. A. Rovers (Nic
fest. Letterkunde, 1888,() 66-78); van Manen (OLD-CHRIST.
Lir., Put); *Bruckner Qi Chrono!. Reihenfolge der Bricfe
des NT, 277-286 [1890]); Prof. E. Y. Hincks, 72,2, 1897, pp.
EL Réville (Les or riineo de ppiscopat, 136 Gf, and the
T introductions by Hilgenfeld (1875); itzmanni8
(272-292 [1892)); *S. Davidson,(®) 1-75 [18 ΜΗ Β, W. Bacon
(427-139 ligool): Balion, Geschiedenis 7. d'bh. di, NO (1901)
-174 3 *Jilicher @ 136-156 [xgo1]) and Sabatier, art.
’astorales, ων ency. Sciences rel.,10 550. (9) textual features i
Pasi Bois, /P7' (1888) 145-160 “zur Exegese der Pastor:
briefe'; *Clemen, Zinkeit. d. paul. Briefe, 142-176 {18943
P. Ewald, Probabilia δεῖν. d, Text des x Tim. (1901).
Discussions on special phenomena of «pp. :—(1) ecclesiastical
organisation i See Under MINISTRY and add (ὁ lit. there cited)
defences of conservative e sand οἶπε in Hort, Christian Ecclesia
(1898), Da = and 1. W. Falconer Zvom Apostle to Priest,
109-146 (1 against Kiihl (Die Cemernde-ordnung in den
Pastorali ΟΝ ἤν, 1885) see Hilgenfeld (Ζ ἩΨ77, 1886, pp. 456-473);
and on their connection with Agosto/. Constituttons, Harnack,
Texte und Untersuch. ii. 549. Gi.) the errorists; Hilgenfeld
(EWT, 1880, pp. 448-464): Havet, Le CAgistiamisme ct ses
origines, 4376-380 (1884); and Bourquin, Éfwde crifigue sur
past. ἐρξένες, 51-04 (1890). vii.) general setting and religious
standpoint: Hatch (£50), Paul’ and ‘Pastorals’);
+*Beyschlag's Newest. 5), 2 501-517, Holtzmann's
Neutest, Theol. 2 239-
dretations, 327-338 |1893]); W. Mackintosh(Waf. Wist. ofChrist.
Rel. 465-490 πῆρα Weizs. Das. Apost. Leitàlter1® (ET)
2163-165 329, A. C, M'‘Giffert, The Afostolic Age, 398-423
(1897); È. P. Gould, Bibl. Theol. gf NT) 142-150 (1900), also
Harnack, Dogmengeschichte (ET)1156-162 189-192 235 /. 223/,
and Wernle, Die Anfinge unserer Religion, 347-368,380./ (1902).
Although the general critical position, cutlined in these con-
tributions, is unquestionable, it is unhappily not unquestioned.
‘The traditional view survives, with more or less hesitation and
a far from uniform presentment, in the editions of KGlling (1882-
1887 ; on 1 Tim.), Weiss(-Meyer, (01893, also Die Paulin. Briefe,
τό), 604-682 {1806]), Riggenbach-Zickler (1897), and Stellhorn
(1900), and in the representative NT introductions of Weiss,
Godet, Zahn, and Belser ; so still most English commentators
(Ellicote, Plummer, J. H. Bernard, Horton, J. P. Lilley),
writers on NT introdaction (Salmon, Gloag, and Adeney), and
others, e.g., Ὁ. G. Findlay (appendix to ET of Sabatier's
L'apbtre Paul, 34x-402 [1891], Hastings' 28 8 714-716), And
Rams. Church; δ) 248/, Expos. gth ser. 8110£, εἰς. Add
Bertrand (Essai critique sur l'authenticité des 6pitres Past,
1886), Ruegg (τὰ Schri, ὁ und Geschichte, ΕΣ 108 [1808]}; Roos
(Die rig des ap. Paulus und die Reden des Herrn}esu,156-
202), G. H. -232 (80); and ὦ. T.

articles ‘

ΣΟΥ ΣΤΟΝ 1. Mo.
TIN (512, 22427, lit. ‘that which is separated ' [from

precious metal], see 15. 125, where render ‘alloy’ [RVmg. Che.,
see (5]; κασσίτερος [4 times], μόλιβδος [twice], stann47:), Ezek.
22 18 20 (Israel to be cast into the furnace like one of the baser
metals), 27 12 (exported from Tarshish}, Zech. 4 τὸ (material of
plummet, κασσιτέρινος), Nu. 31 22 (cleansed by passing through
fire).

method so much as for employing it to promote notions which
the common sente of the church iciected as palpabiy alien to the
faith. . Pseudo-Pauline epistles (‘fictae ad hoeresim Marcionis”,
were widely circulated during the second century ; the superiority
of the pastorals to all such is a difference of degree rather than of

kind.
5096

TINKLING ORNAMENTS

Being a component of bronze, tin was used as a metal
from a very early date {see CopPER). A ring froma
tombat Dahshdr (dated about the third dynasty} contains
8.2 per cent of tin; a vase of sixth dynasty 5.68 per
cent of tin. When the unalloyed metal was first
introduced cannot be ascertained with certainty, All
we know is that about the first century the Greek word
κασσίτερος designated tin, and that tin was imported
from Cornwall into Italy after, if not before, the invasion
of Britain by Julius Coesar. From what Pliny says
(ΗΝ 3416 339), it appears that the Romans in his time
did not fully realise the distinction between tin and
lead; the former was called p/umdum album or
candidum to distinguish it from p/umbum nigrum (lend

proper)! The word stanze definitely assumed its
present meaning in the fourth century. (See Jer. on
Zech. 4το).

TINKLING ORNAMENTS (D°D3P), Is 818. AV,
ἘΝ ANKLETS (9.7).

TIPESAH (MNDDN; wanting in the true @ but
pade1[B]in1K.246£; Gapa[A]; solpis—i.e., Tahp-
anhes [Pesh.]; s4apasa [Vg.]).

1. A place în the Eber-han-nahar (see EBER) men-
tioned as the NE. boundary of Solomon's empire (1 K.
424 [54]), corresponding to Gaza in the SW. It is
generally held that Tiphsah is the ancient Thapsacus,
and that Solomom's occupation of this piace was con-
nected with his commercial enterprises, Thapsacus
being the great zeugma, or place of passage, of the
river Euphrates alike for caravans and for invading

armies.

It was there that the Ten Thousand first learned the real
object of the expedition of Cyrus the Younger, and crossed the
stream (Xen. (πα. i.411) There too, Darius Codomannus
crossed after the fatal battle of Issus, and Alexander after him,
In the sixth century A.. it passed out of knowledge.

The true site was identified about the same time by
J. P. Peters (Nation, May 23, 1889) and B. Moritz
(Ber. der Berl. Akad., july 25, 1889) with &'e/af
Dibse, a small ruin ‘at the bend of the stream where it
changes from a southerly to an easterly course, 8 m.
below Meskene, and 6 below the ancient Barbalissus.'
Among other points in which the situation of Dibse
agrees with the statements of Xenophon and Strabo is
the existence of a camel-ford at this very spot. There
is no phitological objection to this combination, but
excavations still wait to be made (cp Peters, Nifpzr,
1964) . .

At che same time, there are good reasons for testing this theory
afresh. The realm of Solomon was not as extensive as a tradi-
tion based on incorrect readings of the text has represented (see
Soomon, 8.9), Tiphsah and ‘Azzah are most probably places on
the frontier of Solomon's dominion in the Negeb. ‘The former

may come from ‘Tappuah (= Nephtosh), the latter may perhaps
represent the strong city Zarephath. These points are doubtful.

2. A town in Ephraim which opposed the pretensions
of Menahem, and was punished by him {2 K. 15164),
identified by Conder with 44. 7ajsaA, on an old site 6 n.
SW. of Shechem (ΘΑ σεν. 2169) The ‘Tiphsah'
of MT is as much conjecture as the ‘Tirzah' (ϑερσα)
οἵ 685 (θαιρα (A]). ‘The right reading, as many think,
is that of @t—viz, TAPPUAH (ragwe) So Thenius,
Klostermann, Renan (/7is4 2450), Kéhler (8642 Gesch,
3 399), Guthe. There were at least three places called
Tappuah (or Nephtoah). Whether this Tiphsah or
Tappuah was really in the neighbourhood of Shechem,
and not rather in the Negeb (cp 1), is one of the most
recent critical problems. See Cri 236. on 2 Κα. 1516.

τι κι΄.

TIRAS (ΟΥ̓; elelipac [BADEL]), son of Japheth,
mentioned after Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan,

Tubal, and Meshech, Gen. 102 (P),

1. A morthera ; Ch 1s. It is usually assumed ea
People? he must be the representative of a
northern folk. ‘The older commentators mostly think

1 So in & the distinction between κασσίτερος and μόλιβος is |

uncertain.

5097

TIRHAKAH

of the Thracians (Θραξ ; Jos. “πὲ i. 61). But after
removing the Gk. nom. suffix s, we get a form which
has no similarity to ‘liras. Hence Tuch, Néldeke
(88 5519 7.), and W. Max Miller (As. % Zur. 382/)
think of the Tyrseni, who are spoken of not only as
Etruscans but also as pirates on the Zgean Sea {cp
TTARSHISH, $ 6, and note quotation from E. Meyer on
the probable distinction between the Etruscan Tyrseni
and the TuruSa of the Egyptian inscriptions). This is
certainly plausible, and has suggested (to the present
writer) that after correcting pwn in 7. 2 into pin, the
latter word should be substituted for wwsn in 2. 4. The
order of the names in 7, 4 seemed to favour this, and
granting that 'Tarshish’ is the Hebrew name for
*Tartessus or S. Spain, no better course seems to be
open, for one cannot expect "Tartessus to be inclosed
between Elishah (2.e., S. Italy and Sicily [Lag., Di.,
Kau.]}, and Kittim (i.e, Cyprus?) The Tyrseni,
however, might naturally enough be so grouped. How
easily Tiras (or Tures?) and Tarshish might be con-
founded is suggested by the fact that in Judith 223 [13]
Vg. actually gives Alios Tharsis where Vet. Lat. gives
δος Thiras et Rasis. Cp RosH. A better view,
however, can possibly be found (see $ 2).

Jensen connects Tiras with the Hittite T(a)r3= Tarzi
{so Shalmaneser II.)=Tarsus (Jensen, ZZZ, 4th Feb.
1899, col. 70), but see TARSHISH, $ 6.

The increasing evidence (see Cif. 862.) that many parts of
the OT, which came dovm to the jate editor or editors in a
2. A corrup- accordance sich incorrect views ol gebgraphy

jon οἱ

and history, compels us to consider, as we pass
Asshur 7 through the Table of Nations, what may have
been the origina! form of each ethnic or place.
name that we find there. [1 has already been suggested by
others (see JaPHEeYH) that Japheth in the original legend meant
either the Pheenicians or the Philistines. It may be added here
that there is great reason to doubt whether either the J portions
‘or the P portions of Gen, 10 in their original form extended their
range beyond Palestine and Arabia.

It is a characteristic of P's lists (and to P 22. 2-4, according to
the critical analysis, belong) that he in naive ignorance repeats
the same name in different corrupt and independent forms.
“Thus ‘Tiras'in 2. 2 is ultimately the same as ‘Tarshish' in
24; Gomer,’ ‘Magog,” ‘ Madai'* Javan,' and ‘ Togarmah' are
all most probably corrupt and independent forms of ‘Jerahmeel,'
“Tubal' (cp Tasear), as the connection in which the name
oceurs in Ezek. 3226 ought sufficiently to show, is a Palestinian or
rather a N. Arabian name! ‘Meshech' (3g) should be
‘Cusham’ (C#2)-ie., the N. Arabian Cush (see Cus, 2).
«Elishah’ in ». 4 should be ‘Ishmael’; “Kittim’ probably
comes from ‘Rehobothim'; ‘Dodanim’ should be Dedanim.
1f these emendations are in the main right—and the evidence
referred to above would seem to make this a reasonable contention
τοῖς follows that ‘ Tiras' as well as ‘Tarshish' (see TARSHISH,
$ 7), is most probably a corruption and distortion of the N

Arabian ethnic name Ashbur or Asshur (=Geshur). Cp
GESHUR, 2. T.K.C.
TIRATHITES (D*NYW). 1 Ch. 25. See Japez.

TIRE. τ. DINE, ἑαλάνγδνεῖνε, Is 318 Judg. 82126
ἘΝ ‘crescents.’. Sce NECKLACE, 2.
, Ezek, 24 17 (AV), 23 (EV): see Tursan, 2.
$$; Ezek.1610 RVmg. translates ‘a tire of] fine

A headtire seems to be meant. See ΤΌΝΒΑΝ, e.
4. μίτρα Judith 103 168 (AVmg. ‘mitre’) Bar.52 (EV
‘diadem’). Sec Diapem.

TIRHARAR (MAMA: Gapaxa [A in 2K., Bin
15,7, 6ap@ax [11], τρὰ {B in 2K.], -paga [NAQ* in

1. Name, 18] Ve. Treraca). According to Is. 379

τ * =2K.199, the Assyrian general(rab-shakeh)
had heard that Tirhakah, king of Ethiopia (@ of [the]
Ethiopians), was coming forth to fight against. the
Assyrian armies occupying Judah before the siege of
Jerusalem {701 8.c.) in order to assist Hezekiah.

‘This is the third king of the twenty-fifth (or Ethiopian)
dynasty of Egypt (EcyPT, $ 665). His name is written

, 1 CElam ‘of course should be © Jerahmeei”(as probably always
in 91), and most probably (if ποῖ certainly) ‘Zidonians‘ should
e ‘ Mibrites,”

5098

TIRHAKAH

in Bieroglyphic signs 7-4-72-$1 The vowels (a and
Ὁ} are written quite constantly, although they appear to
us unintelligible and useless. ‘The cuneiform tran-
scription is 7ar#4. Manetho gives 7αγζος or Tarakos,
Strabo, i. 821, ZeerZo (he strangely makes the king a
great conqueror, who reached the pillars of Hercules;
cp Megasthenes, Fragm. zo, in Strabo, 686), The
biblical rendering would seem to need a transposition ;
Teharko, Teharka (apr).

‘The king seems to have been an usurper," who
legalised his crown afterwards by marriage with the

2, Date, Widow of king Shabako. When the usurpa-
ti "tion took place, can be determined with
certainty (see So). Tirbakah reigned, according to a
stele of the Serapeum, twenty-six complete years;
according to Assyrian sources he died in 668/67;*
consequently his accession to the throne was in 694/93
B.C. ‘This shows at once that in the biblica] account
there is an impossible conjunetion of facts, Either the
original form of the text did not give the name of the
‘king of Ethiopia’ referred to—later scholars would
then attempt to identify the king and insert Tirhaka-
Taharko instead of Shabako who reigned in 701 {see,
however, So on the improbability of Shabako's attack-
ing the Assyrians)—or Taharko was mentioned as the
Ethiopian governor of Lower Egypt, and the later re-
cension made him a king. Otherwise, we should have
to acknowledge a confusion of the events of 701 with
others of the time between 693 and 676 B.c. The first

ian Expedition of the Assyrians against Egypt,

8 Aseyrian in 676, was în all probability caused by

i such a provocation as military aid from

Egypt to Palestinian rebels against Assyria. Esarhaddon

mentions indeed that Ba'al, the king of Tyre, was in-

duced to rebellion by Tarkî. This may have occurred

earlier ; but 693 is, as has been said, for Tirhakah the
superior chronological limit,

Tirhakah, however, could not really play the part of
an aggressor în Syria, The difficulty of maintaining
Egypt and keeping the nomarchs in subjection must as
a rule have absorbed his whole strength. An Assyrian
army penetrated into Egypt in 676 and seems to have
occupied a considerable portion of it, but in 675
was annihilated.# In his tenth year, 671, king Esar-
haddon secured the road to Egypt by an expedition
against the Arabs, invaded (then, or by another army Ὁ)
Egypt by way of a city in the desert called dfagdali or
Migdol (see MignoL), and met and defeated the forces
of Taharko near a place called /sfagri. The Ethiopian
king had finally, after losing the third battle, to withdraw
from Egypt. The Assyrians marched as far as Thebes,
which capitulated and was mildly dealt with. The
country was divided among twenty nomarchs, descend-
ants of Libyan generals. Some of these may have called
in the Assyrians to tree them from the Ethiopian yoke,
and submitted to the Assyrian supremacy without resist-
ance, Nevertheless we read of a conspiracy with
Taharko against the Assyrians by the three most influ-
ential leaders (Nikù-Necho L of Sais and Memphis,

arludari of Tanis and Pakruru of Pi-saptu) Ἐνὶ-
dently, they felt too weak to resist the Ethiopians when
these threatened to invade Egypt again, and therefore
tried to maintain good relations with them. In point
of fact Taharko invaded Egypt again in 669. Esar-
haddon hurried to the rescue of his vassals, and died on
the expedition. His army, nevertheless, entered Egypt,
defeated Taharko's army, coming from Memphis, at

__4

3 See Maspero, /istoire, 8 36:, on this point.
the inscription of Tanis (de Rougé in Méanges d'Archéologie ἡ
Ezybtienne, 121, etc ) ‘he went to the Delta at the age of
twenty years’ do not point, however, τὸ revolution necessarily.

The words of

3 Cp Winckler in KA76 93. Why he places (p. 87 and
A0FÌ 482) his accession to the throne în 691, does not appear.
4 See XA 78) 88, for the report of the ‘Babylonian Chronicles.”

5099

TIRSHATHA

Karbanit {near Canopus?), and forced him to retreat as
far as 'Thebes. ‘The cities Sais, Mendes, and ‘Tanis
were cruelly punished for joining the Ethiopians ; prince
Necho, however, when sent to Nineveh as a prisoner,
obtained a pardon and his dominion. Evidently, the
Assyrians needed his influence. They even gave the
city of Hathribis to his son Psametik and thus furihered
the rise of the next dynasty (the Saitic). Taharko, in the
meantime, fortified a camp near Thebes and, while the
Assyrian troops were engeged in the Delta, forced this
city to surrender. At first, the prince of Thebes seems
to have closed the door to the fugitive Ethiopian king.
Preparing for a new invasion of northern Egypt,
Tirhakah died there. His step-son Ten(wa)t-Amon
{Tandamani of the Assyrian reports), son of Shabako,
became king, and made the last attempt to expel the
Assyrians (668/67).ì

On the Egyptian monuments, nothing of this warlike

activity of the king can be observed. Tirhakah left

san Many buildings and restorations, especi-
4 E&yptiaD ἀν in his residence Napata (mod.

“ Gebel-Barkal) and at Thebes. North
of Thebes, the difficulties caused him by the nomarchs
seem to have prevented him from building much; but
inscriptions bearing his name have been found at Tanis,
and at Memphis his name is represented at the burial of
an Apis bull in his tenth and twenty-fourth year (directly
before the Assyrian conquest?). ‘ Nominally, also, the
two years following 668/7 seem to have been counted
to him in Egypt, so at least later by Psammetichus I.
At Thebes, the nomarch Mont(u)-m-hé't was in the time
of the Assyrian invasion practically independent (he
built considerably at Karnak) and does not seem to
have always been faithful to his suzerain in Napata (see
above).

A (rather conventionalised) portrait of Tirhakah is
given elsewhere (ETHIOPIA, fig. 1, right-hand picture) ;
the Negro blood is more strongly indicated in several
other portraits; the fuli Negro type on the Zinjirii-
stele of Esarhaddon is therefore no caricature.

[The view expressed elsewhere (SENNACHERIB, $ 5}
85 to the possibility of a confusion between an Assyrian
and an Asshurite {N. Arabian) invasion of Judah may
possibly require a reinvestigation of the meaning of
15 Ὁ in 2 K.199=1Is. 879. ‘Cush’ may be, not
Ethiopia, but a region in N. Arabia (see CUSH, $ 2).
If so, apmn (Tirhakah) will bave to be admitted into
the group of personal names which have (according to
the new theory) been modified by redactors to suît their
own limited historical knowledge. See Crit. 255. on
2K.199 and other parts of 2 K.] W.M. M.

TIRHANAB (MMM; Gapam [B]. Gapyna [A].

Gapaana [L]), a son of Caleb by his concubine
Maacah (1 Ch. 248).

TIRIA (NM; om. B. θηριὰ [A], e@pia [L]), the
name of a son of Jehallelel (1 Ch. 416), may have arisen
from Ἴπ' in the following verse.

TIRSHATHA (RDEAN: either = farfatd, Pers.
partie. = ‘feared' [Meyer, Ryssel, and most scholars],
or an official title from Old Pers. antare-Ashathra, ‘ royal
representative in the province,” Lag. Symmzicza, 160;
a4fapac@ac[L generally]), a title like ‘ Your Excellency*
(Meyer), or an official title (Lag., Stade) of the Persian
governor of Judah, or perhaps a corrupt form of a
personal name, or of a gentilic, of Semitic origin. The
article is always prefixed,

(@) Ezra263 ζαθερσαα [B], -σαθα [A], -a09as [L)= Neh. 765
(ἄσερσαθα [B], αθερ. [RA])=1 Esd.540 (sce next small type);
(ὦ Neh. 7 70 (om. B, a@apoava [xa mg. ΑἹ}; (2) 89; (A) 101 [2].

The sense ἰῇ (a) Ezra 263=Neh. 765= 1 Esd. 5.40 and
(3) Neh.77o depends on the critical view adopted as to
the origin of the list of ‘sons of the province,’ If, with
Meyer, we admit it to be a list of exiles who returned

1 So far after Winckler's arrangement, AA TH) 90-94
5100

TIRZAH

with Zerubbabel, the Tirshatha will of course be Zerub-
babel; to Kosters, however, it is a list of post-exilic
residents in Judah and Jerusalem, and the Tirshatha is
Nehemiah.

Cp 1 Esd. 540 (= Ezra 269), where we find ν. [Ὁ] καὶ ardapias
(BA), arapaodas [L], AtHARIAS, RV ATTHARIAS).

In (c) Neh. 89=1 1154. 949 and (d) Neh.101 [9].
Nehemiah is mentioned by name as the Tirshatha, but
is it certain that the text is correct? Guthe (5380 7}
points out that τ Esd. 949 (= Neh. 89) gives simply καὶ
εἶπεν arrapary ([B], ardaparms [A], αθαρασθας [L],
ATTHARATES)—ze., ‘and the Tirshatha said,’ and
infers that wr mom is a gloss. Smend, however (Lister,
18), prefers to omit ‘that is, the Tirshatha' (so &
[BNA] in Neh.), whilst Meyer (Zx5st. 200) omits both
‘Nehemiah' and ‘ Tirshathe.” In (4) Guthe (5307)
and Wellhausen (GG, 1895, p. 177) omit ‘the Tir-
shatha,' because it separates the proper name from the

patronymie (@SN4, but not €, supports this). Very
possibly here as well as in (c) both ‘ Nehemiah' and
‘Tirshatha” are intrusive {cp Marg. Fre. 34). The
two laymen, Nehemiah and Zedekiah, are very isolated
just before the names of priestly classes (see ZEDEKIAH).
Nehemiah's usual title is ns, ‘governor. It is not

certain that Nehemiah had yet returned. To this it
may be replied that Nchemiah's change of title may be
connected with a limitation of his jurisdiction during
his second period of office to matters connected with
a religious reformation. For the grounds of this hypo-
thesis see NEHEMIAH. On the name see, further, Cris,
Bis. T.K.C.

TIRZAH (NY? ‘agreeable,'$ 102; Gepca [BAL];
but in Josh. 12 24 θαρσα [BF], θερμα [A], in τ K.1417 γῆν σαριρα
IA ; sce ZARETHANI], in 2 K.15 14 θαρσειλα [Β], θερσιλα (A), in
Cant, 6 4 εὐδοκία [BNA], in Targ. SN°WIN).

1. An ancient city of Mt. Ephraim {see below) which
had a king of its own before the Israelitish conquest
(Josh. 1224), and was the residence of the N. Ìsraelitish
kings from Jeroboam to Omri {r K. 1417 1521 1868.
151723). According to Klostermann's emendation of
has-Sérédah in 1 K.1126 (and of the σαρειρα of & in
1 K.12), Jeroboam was a native not of ‘ Zeredah’ but
of Tirzah, which place he fortified while still nominally
in the service of Solomon (see JEROBOAM, 1, ZARETHAN,
$ 2). Shortly afterwards we read (1 K.1224/) that
on Jeroboam's return from Fgypt he built ἃ castle
(χάρακα -- κ519) at Sarira. Whether Klostermann is
tight in holding Tirzah to be the original form of the
name of Jeroboam's city, will be considered later; at
any rate, we may follow him in his statement that
Zeredah (mis), or has-Séredah, σαρειρα, and Tirzah are
fundamentally the same. ‘The next fact recorded of
Tirzah is that, when, after a reign of seven days, Zimri
saw that he could not hold Tirzah, he burned the
citadel, and himself perished in the flames (1 K.
1617 x8); the usurper Omri then took up his abode in
‘Tirzah, Even after Samaria had supplanted ‘T'irzah as
the capital, it continged to be a fortress of strategic
importance. Menahem Ὁ, Gadi won Tirzah first and
then Samaria, when he slew Shallum b. Jabesh and
mounted the throne of Israel. From the context (on
2 K.15:6 see ΤΙΡΗΒΑΗΣ) Tirzah appears to have been
not far from Tappuah (in Ephraim, but on the border
of Manasseh). In the Book of Judges too there is one
more reference in the narratives, which, if based on fact,
should come first in chronological order. Nor must we
omit a famous poetical reference in the ordinary text.
In Cant. 64, as given by MT (6, however, has ὡς εὐδοκία),
we find the Shulammite compared to Tirzah. But
whether a methodical criticism can accept this reading,
is doubtful (see CANICLES, $ 14, and cp Rose), We
need not therefore discuss the question whether Tirzah
really was as beautifully situated as the ordinary text of
Cant. 64 seems to imply. It is enough to find out sedere
this northern city lay.

5101

TITHES

There are three current identification. (1) Robinson
| and Van de Velde thought of Tallaza,! a picturesque
village on a hill 2040 ft. above the sea-level, E. of
Samaria, and slightiy N. of Mt. Ebal. ‘he phonetic
resemblance, however, is but slight, and the description
of ‘Thersa quoted by Robinson from Brocardus {on a
high mountain, three leagues from Samaria to the E.')
suits ‘Tubas (Thebez?) better than Talluza. (2) The
Midrash represents Tirzah as ‘Tir'an (cp CANTICLES,
$ 14, note) and the Targum as Tar'itha. Hence Buhi
(Pal. 203) suggests that Tirathana, a village close to
Gerizim (Jos. Azz xvili. 41), may be intended, and
he (doubtfuly) identifies this with ef 7#rek, on the W,
side of the plain of Makhneh. But this is not a
sufficiently important site. (3) Conder {PZZ47 2216)
suggests the village Teyasîr, r1 m. N. of Shechem, and
12 m. E. of Samaria (see ASHER, 2}. The site appears
not unsuitable ; but nothing can be based on the name,

But is the name Tirzah really the correct form? 15 it likely
to have been corrupted into Zeredah or has-séredah? And is it
| the most natural name for an important foriress? Add to this

that another corrupted form of the same original may be Zare
THAN (9. v.). The problem is to find a name out of which all these
forms can have been corrupted. Such a name is ns ΠῚ ‘Beth.
zur' (see col. 2405); such a name, too, îs ΠΡῚΝ, ‘Zarephath. It
so happens that all the OT passages referred to above most prob-
ably, in their original form, referred to the Negeb (Cant, 6.4 of
course is excluded). It wilî therefore be safer to pronounce in
favour of Zarephath.

2, One of the five daughters of ZELOrHEHAD —the fifth (Nu.
2833 271 [om. 1.] Josh. 17 3), or the second (GBL the first),
Nu. 36 τα, perhaps= Zarephath. T.K.c.

TISHBEH OF GILEAD (bi *atin; εκ θεοβων
THe γ' [BA], o εκ BecceBoN THe r. [L}), τ K.17:
RYVmé, AV ‘inhabitants of Gilead,’ RV ‘sojourners of
Gilead.' See TisHBITE and reff.

TISHBITE (3Φ 132 gecBl(e)itHc;? Tiesbites), i.e.,
a native of Tishbeh, 1 K.17: 211728 2 K.138 936.
See ELIJAH, $ 1, and n. 1; ΠΑΡΈΒΗ, $ 1; and especi-
ally PROPHET, $ 6, and Cril. Bi6., where it is conjec-
tured that Elijah and Elisha both came from Zarephath
in the Negeb, then perhaps the extreme limit of the
southern dominions of N. Israel. Cp Tiliske.

TITHES* (9205, pi NP: AekatH; decima).
1. Terme; The tenth, aa rate of taxation, secular

history. or religious, is found among many ancient

peoples.

See Ryssel, PAZ) 17428, and for che Greeks, Pauly»
Wissowa, Rea/-Encyc]. 424237; Romans, îb., 2306 γα: Cartha-
ginians, Diod. Sic. 20 14; Justin, 187; Egyptians, Maspero,
Struggle of Nations, 312 (spoil of war, tribute, etc., to Amon)!
Syrians, 1 Macc, 103111 35; Sabzzans, Plin. //1263: Lydians,
Herod. 189; Nic. Damasc. frg. 24 (#/G3 371); Babylonians,
Jastrow, Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, 668; Chinese,
Legge, Chinese Classics, 1 119, εἰς.

The oldest use of the word seems to have been
secular, designating a tax or tribute in kind levied by a
ruler from a subject or vassal people, or from his own
countrymen. The obligatory offerings to the gods were
ἀπαρχαί, primitie, Heb, γῆ, bikkarim. ‘When
these offerings came to be regarded as a tribute due to
the deity as the ruler or the proprietor of the land, the
name ‘tithes’ was applied to them also. The dedica-
tion of a tithe of the spoils of war, an early and wide-
spread custom, may have contributed to this extension
of the use of the term.

The ‘tenti,’ doubtless, originally roughly expressed
the proportion exacted; and in later times also, for
example in Sicily under Roman rule {Pauly-Wissowa,
42307 73), was the actual rate of taxation; but fre-
quently the notion af tax or tribute predominated, so
that the term ‘tithe’ might be used in cases where the

2 Probably the Tarlusa of the Talmud (Neub. Géogr. 268).

2 Kénig (Zz4. 7) 12383 [r901]) explains the «in the Gileadite
place-name »2wn as a radical (ap)

3 Aom. in 1 K.171, BAL om. τ K.2128; © has θεσβίελιτης
also in 1 Κι 1827 [BAL], 29 [L] Mal. 44 [823] [BRAOT].

4 The tithe in relation to other sacred dues is discussed else-
where (see TaxatION; see esp. 88 9/7, to which the present
article is supplementary).

5102

TITHES

rate was different—as in Moslem law the ‘tithe' is
sometimes xy or nor where there was no fixed per
cent. Thus in the religious sphere ἀπαρχαί and δεκάται
are often synonymous : so, e.g., in Dion. Halic. 123 f,
cp δεκάτευσις, ἐδ. 24, for the payment of a vow of first-
lings ; so Philo calls the tithe which was to be paid the
priests out of the Levites’ tithe, ἀπαρχῆς ἀπαρχή (De
mutat. nom. 1607, Mangey).

Similarly in the OT : to exact a tithe from the grain-
fields, vineyards, and flocks is a royal prerogative (1 S.
81517). The oldest laws prescribe that the aparchee
(reStt4) οἵ the first fruits of the land shall be brought to
the house of Yahwè (Ex. 3426,1 cp Dt. 184 262 Ezck.
4430). The term ‘tithe’ was in use, however, in the
northern kingdom in the eighth century for religious
dues {Am,44, cp Gen.2822, E), In Dt. the word
occurs repeatedly (1261117 1422 7; 28/. 26127); the
tithe of grain and wine and oil is to be brought to
Jerusalem and—as in Amos—used for a feast; in the
third year, however, a tithe is to be reserved for charity
(see ‘TAxATION, $$ 97). Together with the tithes
Dt. 1261117 names the ἐδγανεᾶλ (féramatàh yddka ; EV
*heave offering'; more accurately ‘reserved portion ᾽),
by which it is commonly thought that the first fruits are
intended (see Dillm. #2 /oc.), but this is doubtful ; more
probably the terms are to be taken as synonymous ;
cp Nu.1824. In Ezekiel we find rei and #ramdh
(2040), which are assigned to the priests for their
support (4430); but no mention of tithes. ‘There is
nothing on the subject of tithing in H.

It seems probable, therefore, that the name ‘tithe*
was employed at some sanetuaries în the period of the
kingdonis, while elsewhere other names were in use.
It is not improbable, moreover, that the nature and
quantity of the obligatory offerings, and the use made of
them, differed at different places as well as times.
When the fragmentary remains of old sacred laws were
brought together with later rules (P) in one code, these
various terms were treated as so many different dues,
and combined in one system of religious taxation.
‘The critic, on the other hand, sometimes falls into the
hardly less serious error of assuming that all the laws
lie in one serial development.

Until the aparche were offered to God, the crop
might not be used by men in any way (see, e.g., Lev.
2. Use of 28 14). The presentation was the patural
the tithe, OCCASION of a feast at the holy place. This

" is the use of the tithe in Dt. (126 1423).
The portion dedicated to the deity may at some time
have been actually consumed upon the altar; or, as inthe
case of the voluntary minZ44, a representative part may
have been thus consumed ; but în the rituals we possess
the offering is symbolical (cp the wave sheaf and the
two loaves, Lev. 23977 1577); God ceded his share to
the priest (Nu 1811). At the feast given by the offerer
the priest had a place by custom; and thus from early
times the offerings of first-fruits or tithes indirectly
contributed to the support of the clergy. The poor,
also, shared in the feasts by a religious guest-right.

The deuteronomic reformers foresaw that the sup-
pression of the village high-places would deprive both
the country priests and the poor of the community of no
small part of their living. ‘They provided, therefore, that
every third year the land-owner, instead of taking his
tithe to Jerusalem, should set it aside for charity at his
own home. Here, again, it is not improbable that they
found a precedent in earlier custom; there are many
examples, e.g. among the Arabs—of sacrifices left
wholly to the poor, this being a work of superior piety.

The new model of Ezekiel provides for the support of
public worship, including the feasts at the great seasons,
by the prince, out of the proceeds of a general tax
(itramak, 45137) at a fixed rate. The old re5H4%
bikkirim and #rimdah are all assigned to the priests

1 Ex, 23 19 is brought over by a redactor from 8426.
5103

TITHES

for their support (4430). Ezekiel's programme was
never put into operation, but in the Persian period the
tithe seems to have been converted to the use of the
temple (Mal. 38-10), Some such provision must have
proved necessary, not only for the support of the priests
but also for the maintenance of public worship,

In P all sacred dues, under whatever name, go to
the support of the ministry (Nu. 188-20}; the ‘tithe’ is
specifically the portion of the Levites {τ 21-24); of it
they in turn make over a tithe to the priests (vv. 25-32).
See NUMBERS, $ 11, According to Neh. 10377
(Chronicler), the plan was for the Levites to collect their
tithe in all the cities and villages, under the supervision
of a priest, and then deliver the tithe of the tithes into
the storehouse in the temple for the priests. There is com-
plaint, however, that the tithes were not paid, so that
the Levites had to support themselves (Neh. 1310 7).

It is impossible to say whether this system was ever
actually worked. It is often inferred that Neh. 10377
represents the practice of the Chronicler's own time;
but it is quite as likely that it is one of the many zia
desideria which he projects into his ‘ history as it ought
to have been.’ The fortunes of the Levites in these
centuries are involved in dense obscurity (see LEVITES,
$ 7). What is certain is that at the beginning of the
Christian era the tithes were collected by the priests for
themselves (Jos. Wife, 12 15; Ar4xx.88 92) This
departure from the law is recognised in the Talmud:
Ezra took the tithe away from the Levites because so
few of them were willing to return to Palestine (A02/42-
bith, 6a; Vebamotk, 86a δ᾽ Hullin, τ τὸ, etc.).

The deuteronomic laws name grain, wine, and oil
as subject to tithe (1217, cp 1422 Nu. 1827); Lev. 2730

A is more general: ‘all the tithe of the soil,
spinge whether of the seed of the ground or the
"fruit of the tree, is Yahwè's." The general
rule of the Mishna is; ‘Everything that is caten and is
watched over and grows cut of the ground is liable to
tithe! (34. Ma'dsé0th,1:). The scrupulosity of the
Pharisees in matter of garden herbs—‘ mint, anise, and
cummin'-is commented on în the NT (Mt. 2323 ΓΚ.
1142}; the Mishna and the Palestinian Talmud go into
minute details and discussions of what should be tithed,
and when, and how, The tithe of agricultural products
paid to the Levites or to the priests, is called by the
Jewish writers on the law ‘the first tithe,”

Lev. 2735 5 puts by the side of the tithe of seed crops
and fruit (vv. 30 7, }a tithe of animals of the flock or herd;
every tenth one, as the flock is counted, shall belong to
Yahwè. The complete parallel between ον, 30 and
32 f. naturally suggests two inferences :; first, that it is
the increase of the year that is to be tithed (so 27.
Bèkorotk, 937, ete.); and, second, that the tithe of
cattle, like that of the fruits of the earth, was to go
to the priests. This is the view of Philo {De proemiis
sacerdot. $ 2, 2234, Mangey; De carît. $ τὸ, 3301);
so also Tob. 16 (cod, N) and-—what seems not to have
been noted—Jubilees, 3215 {on Gen. 2822): ' 811 tithes of
neat cattle and sheep shall be holy to God and belong
to his priests, who eat them year by year before him,'
On the other hand, the legal authorities unanimously
take the whole'passage, Lev. 2730-33, t0 refer to the
‘second tithe'; the animals were sacrificed by their
owners as thank offerings (4444), or as ‘joyous peace
offerings' {πεν Simhah) at the feasts.! Modern critics
generally assume that the chapter is a late supplement
to the ' Priests' Code,’ and that the tithe is therefore to
be understood in accordance with Nu. 182: 7 But if,
as is more probable, it be a supplement to a body of
law which included Dt., the rabbinical interpretation is
equally possible (cp vv, 9-15). There can be no doubt
that the Mishna and Siphrè represent in this particular
the practice of the first century. And it is not difficult

1 Siphre, Dt. 8 δι M. Hagrzah, Va; M, Menahoth, 3,
etc. See Schiirer, G/770) 2251 n. Soalso Maimonides, Rashi,
and the Mishna commentaries.

$104

TITLE

to conceive that the claim of the priests to all the
firstlings-—once the accompaniment of the tithe of corn
and wine and oil (Dt. 126, οἵ.) —made it necessary to
make some other provision for the sacrificial feasts ; the
tithe'of cattle is a natural form for this provision to
take. Itis, therefore, not so certain as has sometimes
been thought, that Lev. 2732 f. is the last monstrous
demand of a greedy priesthood or the fiction of an
imaginative scribe,

On the basis of the Pentateuch as a whole, the system
included three tithes: the ‘first tithe,' a tax of one
tenth of all edible vegetable products collected by the
ministry for its own support (Nu. 1821-24);

ἜΡΧΟΜΑΙ (he ‘second tithe' of the same products,
tithing. which, together with the cattle tithe (Lev.

2732 /.), furnished a feast for the owner and
his guests at Jerusalem {Dt 1422-27); and the ‘ poor
tithe,' set apart every third year for charity {Dt. 1428 f
2612). The last, in the original intention of the law
probably only a particular use of the tithe every third
year, was in later times made, at least by some, a
‘third tithe' falling twice in every seven years, in the
third and sixth years of the Sabbaticai cycle (Tobit,
17/; Jos. Ant. iv.822; Trg. Jer. Dt.2612f); see
Geiger, Urschrift, 176 f; Schilrer, G/V®) 225:

Spencer, De legibus ritualibus, lib. 3, diss. 1, cap. 10; Selden,
History of Tithes; Reland, Antiguitates sacre, lib. 3, cap. 9

reprinted with extensive notes by the editor
δ. Literature. in Ugolini TAesawrus, 210317; a
Hottinger, De decimis Hebreorwm, also in
Ugolini T'Aesawrws, 20 233-490 (valuable for its Rabbinical
erudition); Riehm, 7472; art. ‘Zebnten’; Ryssel, 'Zehnten
hei den Hebréera,' PR ΕἸ ῚΤ 428 # lit. sh. 444); A. S. Peake,
*Tithe’ in Hastings 2847807}; W. R. Smith, Rel Sem.)
244.2; Nowack and Benzinger, ZA ; Schiirer, G/V/8) 2507
G.F.M

TITLE. 1. ΛΚ, siyyza, 2 K. 2317 RV ‘ monument.”
See MASSEBAH, $ τ (e)

2. τίτλος, Fn. 19197 See Cross, 8 4.

TITUS (rimoc: on the accentuation see Winer-
Schmiedel Grazie. Th. i., $ 62) is the name of a rather
enigmatic minor figure in the apostolic age, who is known
almost entirely from Paul’s allusions to him (in Gal,
and 2 Cor.) as a friend and trusty lieutenant. He is
not associated with Paul in the address of any extant
epistle, and nothing is known of his birthplace, age, or
nationality, except that he was a pagan by birth {("EA\nv
ὧν) and apparent)y a native of Asia Minor (cp Gal. 21-5).

1 At Later tradition (‘Tit.14) may be correct
Jerusalem. in hinting that he was brought over to
* Christianity by Paul himself Αἵ any
rate he appears at an early stage of the apostle's public
career (possibly in 49 A.D.; cp CHRONOLOGY, $ 74,
Paui., καὶ 16) as a private individual who accompanied
Paul and Barnabas (cp Acts 152) at the former's request
upon their visit to Jerusalem, evidently to represent the
success of the Pauline gospel outside Judaism. The
burning question at the conference of Jerusalem was the
value and validity of Christian faith if unsupplemented
by circumcision, and (as Paul had foreseen) the case of
us inevitably came up for discussion. Whether it
was made a test case or not, it led to bitter feeling
between the conservative party and their challengers.
Paui and Barnabas, however, stood their ground against
the orthodox centre and repudiated any compromise in-
volving their companion; ‘not even Titus,’ says Paul
trinmphantly, ‘as obliged to get circumeised '—much
less (as the Judaising Christians appear to have insisted)
Gentile Christians in general, who were not (like Titus)
in direct daily touch with a circumecised Christian.
Nothing is said of what Titus himself thought and felt.
His attitude is passive. The natural inference, however,
is that he left himself in Paui's hands, sharing, or at
least sympathising, with that ‘inward impulse' of Paul's
spiritual nature, which ‘went straight to the results of
its principles . . . and thus carried him past a form of
Christianity which was simply another form of Judaism*
(Baur). Cp COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM, $$ 4, 7.

5105

TITUS

e textual problem raised by the omission of οἷς οὐδὲ (Gaì.
2 3) in some western MSS is not serious (cp Lightf. Gal 121-123,
and Klostermann's Probleme im Apostel-texte {1883], 54 /);
besides, even were the external evidence more considerabie, the
internal probabilities of the case put the matter beyond doubt.
‘The curious silence of Acts pon this notorious controversy
(Acrs, $ 4) is due to the irenical tendency of the author or of the
sources which he edited at this point of his story. Even if he
did not know the Pauline Epistles, ‘Titus must have been familiar
to him, as familiar at any rate as several of the minor figures
who flit across his pages, But by the time he wrote, the circum-
cision-question was obsolete, and he probably deemed it prudent
to pass by allusions which might revive unpieasant memories
better left unstirred. Some such explanation is distinctly prefer-
able to Ramsay's hypothesis that the Antiochian Luke omitted
the name of Titus because he was his relative (δὲ. Paul, 389/).
Further, the disinclination to report so discreditable and un-
edifying an episode as that of the local dispute at Corinth natur-
ally led to the omission of any later reference to Titus, who thus
had the misfortune to he sacrificed to the special aims and
interests of the first historian of the early church.
Three or four years elapse before Titus reappears, in
connection with the Corinthian church.! His lack of
sap Circumeision would raturaily prevent
2. Ab Corinth. Lim from being a suitable companion
during Paul's second tour (49-52 A.D.) which embraced
as a rule—for so much is visible even under the religious
pragmatism of Acts—an initial attempt upon the syna-
gogues in almost evèry city. But, since Titus is found
at Paul's disposal in Ephesus, it is possible that the
apostle took him from Antioch, after the dispute with
Peter {Gal. 211-51}, upon his third tour through Galatia
and the Phrygian highiands as far as the Asiatic metro-
polis—a ‘carefully planned stroke of policy,’ accord-
ing to Ramsay, which effectualiy answered the unfair
deductions drawn by Judaisers in favour of Judaic
Christianity from Timothy's circumcision previous to
Aîs promotion, Be that as it may, the keenest interest
shown by Titus was in the Achaian Christians, an interest
only equalled by that of Paul himself (2 Cor. 816), who
stamped him as ‘my comrade and fellow-worker in your
interest’ (2 Cor. 823), ‘my brother' (2 Cor. 213), and a
colleague actuated by the same high motives (2 Cor.
12:18)—an estimate borne out by the record of what
transpired during the Corinthian episode, where Titus
proved himself a prudent, active, and reliable com-
missioner of Paul. His connection with the Achaian
Christians appears to have begun upon the occasion of
a visit paid either at the despatch of 1 Cor. (which he
may have carried, as one of ‘the brothers': 1 Cor. 1611;
cp 2 Cor. 15 18) or shortly afierwards, when he set on
foot arrangements for a local contribution to the great
collection (cp Rendall, £x705.4) 8321-336, and E. Lom-
bard, Rev. d. TAdol. et Philos., 1902, p. 1137) on behalf
of the Judzean Christians which Paul was negotiating
throughout the Gentile churches, partly as a timely act of
charity, partly as a tangible evidenge of sympathy between
the two branches of the church, and partly to show his
own belief and interest in their unity. Acquainted with
the instructions already given by Paul to the Galatians in
this matter of the λογία (τ Cor. 1681), Titus was well
adapted? for this financial work, which began in the year
previous to that in which 2 Cor. 8 10 92 were written.

1 On the movements of Titus and Timothy at this period
see especially and variously Lightfoot (2544 Essays, 273 7),
Schmiedel (/7C ii. 1 82-86 267-269), Heinrici (Dev zueite Briefan
die Kor. [Meyer, 1900), 46-51), and A, Robertson (Hastings”
DB1 492-497). The scantiness of the available data renders any
outline rather hypothetical at more than one point; upon the
whole the most satisfactory view of the episode în general and
δὲ its extant literary evidence scems to. lie somewhere among
those which are based upon an acceptance of 2 Cor. 10-13 as the
“intermediate letter* (literature in Moffatt's ist. New Testa»
ment, (2) 1901, Pi 174/0).

2 In describing the collection of temple tribute among the
Jews, a custom which no dovbt suggested to Paul the idea or
at least the form of this collection, Philo notices the periodical
assignment of the funds in each district ‘to men of good standing
whose duty it ìs to convey them to Jerusalem. For this purpose
it is always men of the Tighest rank who are chosen, as a kind
of guarantee that what forms the hope of every Israelite may
reach che Holy City untampered with ' (De monarchia, $ 3, cited
by Schir. ist. ii. 2239), Evidence for such collections in Egypt
is displayed by Wilcken, Grieck. Ostraka (1899), 1553... δτ κα
See DispeRsION, $ 16, and Harnack's Ausdreitung, 133-135.

5106

TITUS

As the context implies (2 Cor. 12 13-17), 2 Cor. 12 17 / (érAeo.
νέκτησα) refers to the collection ; neither in person, Nor by my
agents (Paul retorts), did I overreach you. ἴῃ view of this ît
seems inadequate to deny (with Zahn, Zin/.1244 0) that the
collection is the topic of 2 Cor.86. As Titus had previousl
made a beginning (rpoenjpfaro) with this bounty, so (Paul urges)
let him coniplete it now In addition to (xaé) the other local tasks
—such as that of acting for Paul during the estrangement—
which, as 2 Cor. 1-9 implies, he had brought to a happy issue.

‘Then and there he won the esteem of the Corinthians.
Along with some other agent, he supported himself as
Paul had done, thereby putting his disinterested zeal
beyond suspicion ; as Paul's language indicates {2 Cor.
1218), he was evident!y the last man in the world whom
the Corinthians would have dreamed of accusing {cp
1. H. Kennedy, Τάα Second and Third Epistles of Paul
to the Corinthians, 1900, p. 119). The business of the
collection prospered famously (2 Cor. 91 £). Butit was
rudely interrupted by the painful, discreditable, and con-
temptible affair which led to a rupture beween Paul and
the Corinthian church. At this cutbreak of bad feeting
Titus in all likelihood returned to Ephesus, although
this is one of several details which are far from luminous
or coherent. It is possible that he contented himself
with simply reporting the crisis. Αἱ any rate, he scems
to have borne somewhat later to Corinth from Ephesus
the vehement, severe letter (preserved in whole or part
in 2 Cor.10-1810) which Paul precipitately wrote with
caustic and passionate indignation, his aim being to test
their loyalty and bring them to theîr senses (e Cor. 213
76 f. +3 5). The misgivings and apprehensions! of
Titus on this errand proved happily unfounded. He
was received and obeyed heartily by the majority, and
eventually found himself able to rejoin Paul with good
news of the Corinthians’ repentance and affection. Some
delay occurred, however, and meantime the outbreak at
Ephesus (PauL, $ 25) had driven the apostle to Troas.
Dismayed to hear at Corinth of the grief produced by
his sharp letter (2 Cor. 78), he felt driven by restless
eagerness for further news across to Macedonia. There
at last he met his friend returning by land, and in an
access of delight and relief at his favourable report com-
posed 2 Cor. 1 1-9 13 11-13, which he concludes by planning
to have the collection resumed and completed under
charge of Titus accompanied by two anonymous but
able subordinates. The former was not onìy willing
but eager to return to Corinth (2 Cor. 816 23), so satisfied
had he been with his recent experience of the church’s
temper {2 Cor. 76. 13-15). Thus Titus disappears from
the scene. He probably returned with the letter to
Corinth and reorganised the λογία or voluntary assess-
ment throughout Achaia. For although no Corinthian
deputies are mentioned among those named in Acts 204,
it is evident from Rom.1526 that the long-promised
liberality of the Coririthians (2 Cor. 95) had not been
withheld, and that the financial labours of Titus (2 Cor.
86 92) were crowned with success. Curiously enough,
among the virtues of the Coriathian church celebrated
some forty years later, liberality (ἥδιον διδόντες ἢ λαμ-
Bawvovres) is reckoned as one of its leading and traditional
characteristics (Clem. Rom. 1: 23).

The genuine fragment incorporated în Tit. 3 τῷ Καὶ (cp Curon-
oLocy, $$ 68, Timornv axp Trrus [ErIsTLES], $ 13) probably
belongs to the period after the composition of

3. Later 2Cor.1.9, vriten gither from Macedonia (see
itions. NicoraLis, $ 3) when Paul was on his way to
traditione. πηι ον cn his way back (Act6205). How
the connection with Crete arose, and whether Titus managed to
rejoin him or not, it is impossible to say. The only light thrown

1 Asa personal friend of Pau! and as a Gentile Christian over
whom an acrimonious feud had been already waged (Gal. 23 /),
Titus cannot have felt comfortable at the prospect of confronting
the Jewish Christian intriguers who were busy at Corinth. Prob.
ably it was dislike of them, if not their active malice, that had
driven him away. At the same time his diplomatic qualities, no
less than his organising capacity, made him evidently a more
capable man than Timothy to deal with a difficult situation of
this kind, and Paul's generous confidence in the sterling qualities
of che Corinthian church (e Cor. 7 14), as well as his sagacity in
the choice of a new envoy, must have been amply justificd by
events.

5107

TOB

upon his subsequent movements is afforded by a remark two years
later in a genuine Pauline fragment preserved in 2 Tim. 430,
from which it appears that ‘itus, who must have turned up
during Paul's captivity in Rome, had left {on a mission?) for
DALMATIA (9.7). The trustworthiness of this notice need not
be doubted, although the phrase ‘this present world (τὸν νῦν
αἰῶνα, cp τ Tim. ὃ 17) is un-Pauline. Nor is a substantial basis
to be denied to the tradition (reflected în Tit. 15) that links
Cretan Christianity to Titus at any rate (whatever may be
thought of the allusion to Paul), although the tendency and
object of the sub-Pauline author is naturally to suggest that the
anarchic condition of the local Christians ‘was one considerable
cause of the evidentiy low mora! condition to which they had
sunk' (Hort, Christian Ecclesia, 176), and characteristically to
lay stress upon organisation as a safeguard.

Titus has been occasionally, but unconvincingly, regarded as
the author of the ‘We-journal’ in Acts (Acrs, $ 98)—e.g., by
Krenkel, Kneucker, Seufert, Jacobsen, O, Holtamann (ΖΗ,
1889, p. 409), and Bartlet (Agost. Age, 69, 100 [1900]). But
all that the curious silence of Acts enables us to adduce in favour
of such a conjecture is the wholly inadeguate fact that Titus was
a companion of Paul, possibly—though only possibly—during
part of the time covered by the diary in question. Besides, it
is significant that no writing, canonical or extra-canonical, is
assigned to him în tradition, which is content ta elaborate his
connection with Crete and—by a strange shift of fortune, after
the Venetian régime— with Venice. The meagre allusion to
Crete which happens to occur in the Epistle to ‘l'itus, may quite
well rest upon a nucleus of historical fact; but the luxuriant
fancy of later generations proceeded among other developments
to make him the first bishop appointed by Paul over Crete (412.
Const. 46, Euseb. Y7£ 8.4, Theod., Theophylact, Jerome, etc.),
dying indeed ac Candia, as archbishop of Bona, în his ninety*
fourth year (Fabric. Cod. Agecr. NT 2231 £) Cp Tozer,
Islands ofthe Egean, 655. Ta the Roman legends of the gnostic
πράξεις Tlaiaov,Titus is connected with Paul,and playsalong with
Luke a réle in the Passio saneti Pauli Apostoli and Martyrium
Pauli, 114-117 (cp Lips, Acta Apost. Afocryph., 1891, 123-44).
Like Timothy he is of course reckoned among the seventy
disciples by C4rom. Pasck. 420 (ed. Bonn), and, according to
Acta Pauli εἰ Thecle, 2 /., he gives information regarding Paul
to Onesiphorus at Iconium. One of the epistles of the pseudo-
Dionysius Areopagita is addressed to Titus as bishop of Crete.
The rather slight contents of the Acta Titi (see Lips. Apocr,
Abd.-gesch. 3 401-406) are as legendary as the panegyric on Titus
pronounced hy Andreas of Crete (ed. Paris, 1644).

Like Timothy, Titus also has had some ado to preserve his
individuality. "But it seems needless to do more than chronicle
even the attempts made to identify him (see Wieseler) with the
Titius (Térov [NE])Justus of Acts 187_or with Silas (Silvanus);
against che latter as advocated especially by Zimmer, see the
conclusive statement of Jilicher, /P7, 1882, pp. 528-552, also
Sinas, $ 5/1. J. Mo.

TITUS ‘(EPISTLE) See TimorAr AND Tirus
{EPISTLES).

TITUS JUSTUS (tirioc ioyetoc [Ti. WH])
Acts187 ΕΝ, AV Justus (g.v., ii.)

TITUS MANLIUS, Εν Titus Manius (tITOC
MANIOC), 2 Mace. 1134. See MANLIUS.

TIZITE (NM; 0 teacei [BN], o θωώοδει [A], ὁ
ἀθώοι [L]; 7 οταξέος [Vg.], all presupposing the form
SSA); a gentilic attached to the name Jona (τ Ch.
1145). David's warriors were presumably, like himself,
from the Negeb. ‘Shimri,’ the name of Joha's father,
also favours this, If TIRZAH {g.v.) was really a place
in the Negeb, we might suppose corruption from ‘nn
‘a Tirzathite.* T.K.C.

TOAH (MA), 1 Ch. 634 [19]; in 1 S. 11, Tonu.

TOB (2) : twB[BAL]), a region in which Jephthah
‘the Gileadite' took refuge (Judg. 1135), and whence
the Ammonites obtained allies in their war against
David (2 S.1068, RV; cp IsH-ToB). Sayce plausibly
identifies it with Tubi, a place conquered by Thotmes
III., and mentioned a little before Astiratu—i.e., Tell
‘ASterà (RP 545; cp Maspero, 4°, 1881, p. 124). This
does not, however, suit the original story which underlies
Judg.11:-33 (see JEPHTHAH); a district of HaurAn
is not to be expected here, Tubibi is much more
appropriate (see TIBHATH); this very ancient city was
probably in the Lebanon district, NW. of Damascus.
The identification also suits the mention of Tob in 2 S.
1068 in connection with -ΖΟΒΑῊ (g.v.}. The same
region may be meant by the land of TuBIAS (AV TOBIE;
@ τουβιου) in 1 Mace. 513, the people of which appear
to be called TUBIENI {2 Macc. 1217; see CHARACA}—

5108

TOB-ADONIJAH

î.e., the men of Tub or Tob. These identifications,
however, only suit a fairly conservative view of the ΜΊ
If the Gilead originally meant in Judg.11 and in
1 Mace. 5 be a southern Gilead in the Negeb, and if the
Zoba originally meant in 2 S. 10 be Zarephath in the
Negeb, we must consider whether np may not be a
mutilated form of ὅπη (see TUBAL).

The # in the Gk. and Syr. forms (τουβεινους [A], rovBravovs
I, fun fis clearly not radical. See GAS. A7G 587, n. 5,
who agrees, it may be added, with Conder (Hetà and Moab,
176) in identifying Τοῦ with mod. ef Tayyibeh, NE. of Pella.

ΤΌ K. €.

TOB-ADONIJAH (ΠΡ DIV: TWwBaAwBera[B}
“Ania [AL]), a Levite temp. Jehoshaphat {2 Ch.
178). Note that Pesh. omits the name and that of the
preceding Adonijah and Tobijah ; &*4 omits the second.
If not a corruption (e.g., for imap or og vap—y and
Ὁ are very similar in Samaritan script) the name should
probably be omitted ; a scribe may have begun to re-
Write imm» and then invented the most suitable name
he could think of. [But cp γέ Zib., ed /oc.]

S.A. Ὁ,

TOBIAH (1309), Ezra 260; see TOBIJAR, 2.
TOBIAS (twBlellac—i.e., MIN). 1. The son of

TOBIT (g.v.).

2. The father of HYRCANUS (9.2).

TOBIE (toyBioy [ANV]), 1 Macc. 513 AV, ΕΝ
TuBras, See Tom. .

TOBIEL(T”WBIHA[BNA]—Le., DANIÙO; cp Tabeel},
the father of TOBIT {Tob. 11). Cp TORIJAH.

TOBIJAH (MINO, once WIRÎD, ‘Yahwè is good,
8 28, but ultimately, like TOBIEL, perhaps from Tubali,
‘a man of TuBaL'; TWwBiac [AL]).

1. A Levite temp. Jehoshaphat (2 Ch. 178; 17:30; om. BA).
All the associated names in 2 Ch. (Δ4.) admit of Being traced to
Negeb ethnics or gentilic ᾿ i

2, EV Toziau, a pest-exilic family, unable to prove its
pedigree : Ezra 260 (τωβεια [B], τουβιον [L])=Neh,7 62 (rwfia
[B8A))=1 Esd, 5 37 where the name is corrupted to Ban, RVmg.
Barnan (Baevav [Β], fav {A}), and he appears as the father of
Ladan (see DELAIAH) See GENEALOGIES Ì., $ 3, and note the
place-names in Ezra 259= Neh.76r=1Ksd.5 36 (e.g., Tel
MELAH, TEL-HARSHA), all of which may plausibly be viewed as
Negeb.names.

3. One of a party of Jews from Babylon @), temp. Zerubbabel
(Zech, 610145 @ translates χρησέμων [-ots] αὐτῆς [-ῶν], Ze,
2'pò), See ZERUBRABEL.

4. EV ἸΌΒΙΔΗ (the form τωβ[ελια is a constantly re-
curring form for no, 4 instead of τωβιας. The form rwfis
[N*] occurs în Neh. 43{9]). An ‘ Ammonite,’ one of the
chief opponents of the fortification of Jerusalem by
Nehemiah {Neh. 2 1o, etc.), Whether ‘Ammonite’ isa
race-name {cp AMMON, $ 8) or means ‘ native of Chephar-
Ammoni’ (see BETHHORON, 8 4} is uncertain. The latter
view is superficially plausible through Tobiah's connec-
tion with leading Judeeans {Neh. 617-19), from one of
whom--the priest Eliashib—he received a chamber in
the temple formerly used by the Levites, for his own
special purposes. But we incline to think that ‘ Ammon-
ite.’ as often, =‘Jerahmeelite‘; a connection between
nobles of Judah and Jerahmeelites is historically probable.

The title ‘the servant” given him in Neh. 2 τὸ 19 (‘the servant,
the Ammonite '), but nowhere else, is expiained as meaning ‘the
officer of the government’ (Ryssel), or, ‘one who had formerly
been a slave’ (Rawlinson). Both explanations are forced. 33417
is almost certainly corrupted from »nyn, ‘the Arabian,* which
the scribe in Neh.2 19 (65* omits Tobias altogether) wrote as
a gloss on +31, ‘the Ammonite.” From this passage ît made
its way into Neh, 2 ro (through the harmonising of an editor),
most probably also into Neh. 41 [7]; if ppm n'ampm (regarded
by Guthe as an addition of the Chronicler, or a later gloss) is
miswritten for »pya vanyn. In Neh. 2 τὸ 19 the senseless "ΡΠ
became 3upr1; in 4117] (as we have seen) ît went through another
transformation, Later, în 41, peas (not in GEN*A) was
added, not by an ill-timed reminiscence of Neh. 13 23, hut (read-
ing ‘98M, ‘the Asshurite ”), as a second gloss on "Myn. Here,
as in Neh. (/.c.), not Ashdod, but Asshur (Ashhur), the name of
a N. Arabian district, is most probably referred to. Cp Che.
Das Relig. Leben nack dem Exile (by Stocks), appended note.

τ. κι.

168 5109

TOBIT
TOBIT

Various recensions (8 1). 11. Conjectural reconstruction

1. Interpolations ($$ 2-10).
Ahikar additions (8 2).
Hist, of Ahikar story (8 3).
Various forms (8 4).
Common matter ($ 5).
Stages of growth (5 6).
Story foreign ($ 7).
Ultimately mythical (ἢ 8).
Didackc additions (8 9).
Summary (8 το).
II. Uninterpolated text (811/)
Not original ($ τὰν
How redacted (8 12)
Tobit (twBl[elit [ΒΑ], τωβειθ [N]: 7odie5) is one
of the books of the ΟἿ APOCRYPHA (g.v., $ 5, 3. In
the first sentence of the work itself it is called ‘ Book of
the words [=doings: see CHRONICLES, $ 1] of Tobit,
son of, etc.’ (βίβλος λόγων Tufer [BA; N -βειθ}).
More than in the case of the other apocryphal writings
of the OT the investigation is complicated by our having
various groups of texts.
1. To begin with, there are three Greek forms: (4) that o
ΒΑ which the Syriac [Syr.] follows down to 79: (6) that of

- &%, which is for the most part that followed

1. Various γν the Vetus Latina [Vet. Lat.1; and (c) that

Tecensions. of Codd. 44, 106, 107 (Tob. 69 188) From

11 t0 68 the text of these codices agrees with

&45; and the continuation of the Syriac version (from 7 10
onwards) coincides with it exactly,

2. {ποπιον version is independent of all these; he tells us
that he made ît from an Aramaic original (pref ix vers. Libri
Tob.). Here it is noteworthy that the whole story of Tobit is
told in the third person. ᾿

3. The same is the case with an extant Aramaic text edited
by Neubauer.l This text, however, to judge by its language
would appear to be recent? and cannot therefore be identified
With the MS used by Jerome, but is to be classed with three
Hebrew versions which are also extant, as productions of a later
date.

The recent essay by Margarete Plath ‘Zum Buche
Tobit' {in St. A7., 1901, pp. 377-414), which gives an
analysis of the book with special reference to its stylistic
peculiarities, will be found singularly helpful towards a
right understanding of Tobit. As, however, it simply
takes &4 for its basis without any discussion of the
originality of that text, this essay, which otherwise
might be regarded as final on the stylistic features of
the book, as a matter of fact is valid only for one of the
traditional forms in which it has reached us. Before
entering upon an analysis of style, therefore, it will be
necessary to go înto the question as to the original form
of the book. In the first place we must examine the
versions and seek to ascertain the form of text to which
they carry us back; next, this form will have to be
examined with a view to testing whether it be original
‘er whether rather it does not show traces of having been
worked over; the approximately original form will
then have to be analysed; and finally the ultimate
source of the materials will have to be considered.*

I, INTERPOLATIONS

In the first place we may be sure that the Ahikar-
episodes do not belong to the original form of the book.
(a) In 120 we are fold that all Tobit's goods were
forcibly taken away and there was nothing left to him
2. Ahikar- SVE his wife Anna and his son Tobias. In
ad ditions. 21, however, we read that on his return
" home these two were restored to him, The
contradiction is manifest, but becomes explicable if we
consider how it arose: this good deed also had been
attributed to Tobit's protector; and the supplementer
has betrayed himself by his incorporation of the Ahikar-
episode. The original sequence in 121, though ît has

been smoothed down in @4, is observed in @8: ' And
Sacherdonos, his son, reigned in his stead—and in the
reign of king Sacherdonos I returned to my home."

1 The Book of Tobit, a Chaldee Text from a unigue MS în
He Bodleian Library, ed. by Neubauer, Oxford, 1878.

2 So Dalman, Gram, des jitd.-palkstin, Avamdaisch, 27-99.

3 [On some special points relative to the original form of τ
text of Tobit, see Ογέξ δὲδι, and cp THISBE.]

5110

13).
Recorstruction ($ 13).
Hist. : time of greatest

vogue ($ 14).

IV. Ultimate sources ($$ 15-20).
Final redactor ($ 15).

His work (8 16).
Basis in folk-lore (8 17)
Armenian form ($ 18).
Feature common (8 19).
Foreign origin (8 20).
Bibliography (8 21)

TOBIT

Underlying this we have the truly oriental idea that a
new accession generally, an accession after a revolution
always, brings with it a complete change of system.
By N, Abvikar is represented as having been cupbearer
and keeper of the signet, steward and overseer of the
accounts, as early as in the time of Sennachereim
(Sennacherib, 705-682), whilst @4 and (55 have it that
he first received his appointments from Sacherdonos
(Esarhaddon, 682-669). δὲ has the older reading ; that
it is the older is shown by the whole structure of the
.sentence. In the other Greek text the statement that
Ahikar was, even in the reign of Sennachereim, the most
influential person in the kingdom has been deleted so
as to avoid making Ahikar în any way responsible for
the expedition against Judeea and the resultant cruelties
of the Assyrian against Ahikar's own people. Thus we
perceive that the original story of Ahikar needed a
rectifying hand in order to connect it with the story of
Tobit with as little inconsistency as possible : again a
proof that it was not from the first an integral part of
it. Our opinion of the text offered by Jerome may be
a poor one, yet when we note that to all appearance the
story of Ahikar seems to have had no place in the
authority that lay before him, we may perhaps venture
to say that, even if it has been greatly manipulated,
Jerome's text still points back to a form of the text
which had not yet passed through the hands of the
supplementer.

(5) Ahikar, the protector, afterwards becomes the
supporter of the blind Tobit. Here the episode is
brought in to lead up to an effective climax; first a
relative takes care of the unfortunate man, afterwards
his wife has to support him by doing work for strangers.
In N even the duration of this period is given; it îs
two years. In the same text, all his brethren are
represented as sorrowing for Tobit, though to judge by
the scorn shown by the neighbours at his burying of the
dead we should rather expect the opposite. In fact,
the original story itself seems to have been so con-
strueted as to exclude the notion of compassion by
outsiders. His toiling wife is the blind man's only
support, and when even she turns against him he longs
for death. This Ahikar feature also is wanting in
Jerome,

It cught not to surprise us if even so secondary an authority
should still be able to show us something original. In other
cases as well as în that of the present book it will gradually
come to he recognised that we must emancipate ourselves from
the gratuitous assumption that all forms of an extant text can
always ultimately be traced back to one of these which must
accordingly be regarded as the original,

(e) Abikar appears again in 1118, this time as a
wedding-guest ‘along with his nephew Nasbas. N
mentions Ahikar and Nabad as Tobit's nephews. That
some wedding-guests should be specified ought not to
seem strange in a book that deals so lavishly in names ;
and if we consider how insecure the tradition of names
is, we cannot lay much stress on the fact that one of
the wedding-guests bears the same name as Tobit's
quondam protector and supporter. Moreover, Jerome
gives Achior, like Syr. (124, ῥαλων Perhaps, there-
fore, the mention of two wedding-guests by name
may be original, one of them, however, having been
transformed into that of Tobit's patron and supporter.

{d) Lastly, the story of Ahikar is introduced în order
to give Tobias an example of what compassion can
accomplish. So € Syr, and Vet. Lat. adduce ît as
showing the depravity prevalent at the time in Nineveh.
N has it in both connections. One sees from this that
uncertainty was felt as to the purpose of the story in
Tobit's discourse to his son, and that various con-
jectures were made. The story was, therefore, no
origina! part of the organism. Here again Jerome
supports our inference.

The wording of his version leads to the conclusion that possibly
it goes back to a form of the text which bore no traces of the

work of the Ahilar supplementer. If we arrange the text
recensions by reference 10 their attitude towards these inter-

BILI

TOBIT

polations, we shall find that Jerome's original stands in contrast
with thar of all the others. ‘The latter already has the Abikar
interpolations. Whilst the paths by which A and B on the one
hand, and Syr. and Vet, Lat. on the other, were reached are
quite independent, x seems to represent a union of the divergent
forms of the text at a certain stage of the development.

The introduction of the Ahikar episodes shows that
his story was widely known"; it was possible to adi

- weight to an admonition by a reference
A Eietory of +0 what had happened to him. Like

SIKAI-BtOIY. the story of Tobit, that of Ahikar
relates to the period of the exile.

The present writer has elsewhere 1 endeavoured to show that
among the Jews of the exile there gradually arose a cycle of
exilic legends. The individual legends belonging to this cycle
have reached us not in original but în revised form ; the persons
figuring in them who of old maintained their fidelity amidst the
most trying circumstances are exhibited by the various editors
to the people of their own time, in circumstances of renewed
distress, as conspicuous examples of Jewish piety and of Jewish
patriotisn. Our attitude indeed may well be sceptical,
regards the sources again and again cited-—in Esther dii
chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia, in Tobit the relater
of the wonderful experiences in 12z0—but we are not thereby
Justified in refusing to believe in the existence of widely circulated
collections of legends from which the present texts had their
origin, especially when we bear in mind the passion for writing
which characterised those times.

The peculiar way in which the stories of Tobit and
of Ahikar are worked together points also in the same
direction. ‘The supplementer has made
out the two men to have been kins-
men ; this was all the easier as Tobit
himself is represented as having once upon a time held
an important position at the Assyrian court. So also
Abikar, the son of Anael, is represented as already cup-
bearer, keeper of the signet, steward and overseer of the
accounts under Sennachereim, and confirmed in his
offices by Sacherdonos, N makes mention of his
journey io Elymais (Elam); A and B, which make
Tobit go there himself, present an unwarranted altera-
tion of the text, and, we may be pretty certain, are
hardly to be corrected in conformity with Vet. Lat, with
which they otherwise in these episodes have but little
affinity. Perhaps the circumstance may be taken as an
indication that both forms of the text come from a region
where the allusions to Ahikar would have been unintel-
ligible, his story being unknown. ‘The chief event of
Abhikar's life is touched on in chap. 1410. It will be of
interest to place in juxtaposition the various forms in
which it is given.

4. Its various
forms.

Suri Ver. Lar. ΒΩ) κ

So, my son, Βαξ πον, τῶν, Bur And now, my
afterthou hast | son, do thou decentiy an and child, leave
buried me and | leave Nineveh, [thy mother|thou Nineveh,
thy mother, |and tarry no|with me, and|and tarry not
do thou leave | longer here, |dwell ye no|here. On the
Nineveh, for]but on the day longer in|day thow hast

there ” are |that thou hast | Nineveh. Be-|buried thy
many un-|buried thy: hold, my child, | mother beside
righteous per- | mother beside | what Adam me, on that!

sons there, |me tarry no|(Haman) did [same day stay
For there|longer within |toAchiacharus|no longer in
‘Akab evilly | her' territory ; | that nourished |her_ territory.

requited ‘Akt-|for I see that|him, how out|fForI see thatj
Xar who had|there is muchl of ‘light he |there is much
nourished him | unrighteous-! brought him |unrighteous-
for happi|ness there and |into darkness | ness inherand
ness (2): for] much decep-|and how he|much decep-!
no cause did|tion is prac-|requited him;|tion is prac-!
he bring himitised, and her |and indeed, he | tised, and they
down into the] people will not |saved (there | are not asham-
earth. And|be moved | was saved) | ed. Behold,
‘Akab desItherefrom,]Achiacharus,|my child, what,
cended into! Behold, my 'but that other | Nadab did to!
darkness, andison, what had hisrecom. | Achikaruswho ‘
fAkikar ‘went | Nadab did to] pense, and he | had nourished j
forthinto light | Ahikar — who: himself went |him; was he
out of the|had nourished down into|not brought:
snare which | him, whom he|darkness.|alive down

1 Die Purimsage în der Bibel: Untersuckhungen ilber das
Buch Ester und der Estersage verwandte Sagen des spateren
Judentuns (1900), 45-59

Sita

TOBIT

ΕΝ Ver. Lar. BA) | x

into the earth?
And God re
quited his in-
famy to his
face; and
Achikarus_as-
cended into
light, and
Nadab des
cended into
eternal dark-
ness, because
he had tried to
kill Achikarus.
Since he
showed merey
to me, he es-
caped rhesnare
of death which
. Nadab had set
for him, and
Nadab fell into

Manasseh

| 'Akab had set | brought down
practised

for him, andjalive to the
i this one went earth. But!mercy and es:
! down into the! God fequitedicaped the
earth. |that man's |snare of death
wickedness be- | which he had
fore his own|set for him,
face, andibut Adam
Abikar went |(Haman) fell
forthintolight, | into the snare
but Nadabland perished.
went down And now, my
into eternal children, be-
darkness, be-[hold what
cause Nadab|mercy does,
had songht teland how
Kill Abikar. |righteousness
doth deliver.

Qeath)
stroyed him.
And now, my
children, ’ see,
i ‘what mercy!

does, and what |
iunrighteous.
ness does, for
it kills.

The various recensions agree in the following points:
Ahikar brings up a youth who, however, drives him
down into the earth (darkness). Ahikar in
the end is saved, and the other has to suffer
the fate he had contrived for his benefactor.
The young man's name is given variousiy :
‘Akab, Nabad, Nadab, Adam, Haman. A and B un-
expectedly call Ahikar Manasseh. ‘Akab is probably a
corruption of Nakab and may perhaps go back to one
or other of the forms Nabad, Nadab, as also may
Adam. On the other hand the names Manasseh and
Haman point to a separate tradition which, to all
appearance, first came out in A and B. In this the intro-
duction of the story of Ahikar has its motive in the refer-
ence to the value of mercy. The characteristic phrase
of this variant is: ‘the snare of death which was set.’
This phrase must have had a definite meaning in the
narrative as well as that which occurs in the first: ‘he
was brought to the earth (darkness) This is shown
by the fact that, doubtless independently of A and B,
the other variant has also found its way into N; this
becomes evident if we consider that here it is plainly
not original. It has already been brought into con-
nection with the story of Tobit ; what is accentuated iîs
that the showing of compassion has brought deliverance
to ‘fobit. Moreover, the original names have given
place to those which we-now find, Along with this
variant the new motive for referring to the Ahikar
episode has made its way into the N text. Accordingly
we shall have to imagine the steps in the

e Suoces process of interpolation somewhat as
pese μῆς de follows. With the formula: ‘ Behold,
gr my child!’ a supplementer introduces a

Nineveh story with which he is acquainted. Afterwards
it is endeavoured to bring it into connection with the
book of Tobit, first by means of the moral it supplies
‘Such wickednesses are done in Nineveh,' and next
{with the view of securing a still closer connection) by
introducing a variant which lays stress upon the virtue
of compassion.

Whilst the first variant deals with the ungrateful youth
and with the punishment of his ingratitude, what is
emphasised by the other is that an act of compassion
saves him who is lost. The two are not mutually ex-
clusive ; both may have their origin in one and the same

5113

TOBIT

story though in different aspects of it. The important
thing to observe is that they are taken from different
forms of this story, and în point of fact, as the introduc-
tion of the various separate elements occurred at differ-
ent dates, we are thus enabled to gain an insight into
the history of the story amongst the Jews. First we
find the story which tells of Ahikar and Nadab. The
names are, to all appearance, foreign, and show at once
that this material had been appropriated by Judaism
comparatively recently. Next, the names, and especially
that of the hero, give place to Jewish ones, and so the
process of appropriation is completed. Nor are the
new names insignificanti or chosen atrandom; Manasseh
is the name of the husband of the brave heroine of the
Book of Judith, Haman is that of the notorious enemy
of the Jewish race. By the alteration of the names of
the chief actors the story of Ahikar itself received a new
stamp of nationality, and so became an integral part of
the cycle of exilic legends.

‘That the story of Ahikar is not native to Jewish soil
is shown by its wide diffusion (cp the literature of this

subject in The Story of Akikar by

TA lar story F. C. Conybeare, }. Rendel Harris,
of foreign origin. _ nd A. Smith-Lewis, London, 1898).
lì is found in Syriac, Armenian, Arabic, Greek, and
Slavonic redactions, and is to be met with in the Arazian
Nights and in the fables of /Esop (cp ACHIACHARUS).
It runs somewhat as follows :—

The vizier and privy councillor of the Assyrian king Sen-
nacherib, Ahikar by name, having no child of his own, brings
up his nephew Nadan and recelves from the king the assurance
that Nadan will be his successor in the offices that he holds so
advantageously for the kingdom. Nadan receives from his
unele in wise discourse the ripe fruits of a rich experience.
Scon, however, he begins to abandon himself to a loose and
dissipated life, so chat Ahikar finds himself compelied, with che
kings permission, to disinherit him. Nadan then begins to
intrigue for the overthrow of his unele, and at Îast with success;
by means of forged letters Abikar îs made to appear a betrayer
of his country. The deluded Sennacherib condemns his faithful
vizier to death and charges an executioner to carry out the
sentence în front of Ahikars own house. But with the help of
his devoted wife the vizier is able to induce the executioner, who
is grateful for a former act of kindness, to spare him, and to
substitute a criminal slave în his piace. He himself is hidden
in a cavity beneath the door of his house, and secretly fed by
the executioner and his own wife, whilst overhead his ingrate
nephew begins a reckless life. At this juncture the king of
Egypt sends a letter to Sennacherib in which he challenges him
to solve a problem. In the event of his succeeding, the king of
Egypt wil! pay him tribute ; should he fail, Assyria is to become
tributary to Pharaoh. Sennacherib is to get a palace high up

the air built for him in Egypt (the same motive is found also
among the Suaheli in a story Dl Abunawas).i. In Assyria verse
one is helpless ; if onìy Ahikar were still alive Whereupon the
executioner comes forward and tells the king the truth. Sen-
nacherib is overjoyed. Ahikar is fetched from his den and
brought before the king; his unshorn, unkempt hair reached
down to his shoulders, and his beard to his breast, His nails
were like eagle’s claws, and his body had become withered and
disfigured. The fashion of his countenance was changed, and
was like ashes (cp Dan. 4.30). Carefuily tended he is speedily
restored, takes the problem in hand, and sets out for ξυρὸν
where he is able to meet cunning with cunning and Pharaoh is
compelled to acknowledge defeat. Crowned with glory the
hero returns home, and now condign punishment overtakes
Nadan. First he is scourged, and next he is thrown into a foul
den near his uncle's door: and as often as Ahikar went in and
out, he railed at him, his words of chastisement still taking
proverbial form. ‘As Nadan heard these words, in that same
moment he became inffated like a leather bottle, all his members
and bones swelled. and he split open and burst. Thus he came
to his end and died” (cp as to this manner of death the account
of Marduk's triumph over Tiamat in the Babylonian creation-

ali Jensen, Ass.-5ad. Mythen u. Eten, Berlin, 1900, p. 26

The manner in which the story is told in the Book of
Tobit points very clearly beyond the legendary form in
8. Ultimately which ἢ has pren Randed down to an
mythical. original which exhibited mythologica]
motives. Some one is delivered from

the snare of death—so a legend says. This is the latest
shape the material receives ; it is at the same time also
a new interpretation and explanation. We meet with

1 Lieder und Geschickten der Swaheli, transl, and introd. by
Bitener, Berlin, 1804, p. 89,7

sII4

TOBIT

the characteristic colouring of myth, however, when we
read of someone being brought down from light into
darkness, how he reascends to light, and how his
adversary is plunged into eternal night. These are
characteristic features of the original form which first
are gradually smoothed down and then continue to be
carried along as a metaphorical manner of speaking for
a considerable length of time, but finally the bold myth
is toned down til it becomes a mere illustration of a
popular proverb : ‘He who digs a pit for others falls
into it himself,’ or: ‘Behold, what mercy does, and
how righteousness delivers,' or: ‘ Mercy delivers from
death, and will not suffer him who practises it to go
into darkness.'

‘The appropriation of this story by Judaism through
a change of names, depends on a primary affinity of
material which made it possible and easy. Manasseh
in the Book of Judith, who is struck down by a burning
wind in the days of the barley-harvest, and so deeply
lamented by his widow (Judith 827}, and Haman the
persecutor of the Jews are both of them figures which
Judaism found and appropriated în foreign lands. They
afterwards became typical figures for the whole cycle of
exilic legends ; but originally it was between mythical
figures that the struggle lay as to which should thrust
the other down into everlasting darkness.

From the fact that the Book of Tobit contains refer-
ences to the story of Ahikar, we must not, with Μ,
Plath, draw the inference that the Tobit material is the
later: ‘The story of Tobit is set forth in full detail
whilst the other may be taken for granted as known
already.’ On the contrary we here see in operation the
natural desire to bring the characters of legend into
relation with each other and with contemporary life.
In this way Judaism is exhibited, even by its legends
dating from those days of oppression which had become
classical for subsequent post-exilic times, as a close and
mutually coherent community in which each individual
‘helps his neighbour. It is in a similar manner that, on
German soil, the figures of Siegfried and Dietrich have
been brought into relation with each other in the ‘Great
Rosen-garden.' But whilst the Jews help one another
the German heroes are at war. The former sort of
legend circulates among a people that finds itself in
adversity, the later in a nation that finds its delight in
battle and tournament,

There can be no doubt that the didactic portions of

.. .. Tobit have also received interpolations ;

9. Didactio this is evident from the extant texts.

additione. Chap. 4, which contains Tobit's exhortations

to his son before his departure, is shortest in
x, fuller în Jerome, most copious in A, B, and Vet. Lat.
Whilst in Jerome there is prefixed an exhortation to attend to
what is about to be said, and lay it to heart, in the other MSS
Tobit, starting from the actual situation, begins with an ad-
monition to Tobias to attend to his fathers burial and care
suitably for his widowed mother. This admonition is all the
more effective, and 0 7/50 shows itself to be an integral portion
of the story, because shortly before the blind old man has
had to listen to bitter reproaches which almost, drove him to
despair from the very wife whom he now so thoughtfully
remembers. Natural, too, in like manner is the admonition,
generalising as it were the fundamental thought of what pre-
cedes, to be pious and to keep God's commandments. The
prospect of a happy life is held out as a reward for such
conduct, .

The climax of the exhortation having thus been reached, the
conclusion we expect is ‘ Remember these commandments, and
suffer them not to be effaced from thy heart!” Only w, how-
ever, closes thus; assuredly it represents the original rounded
form. We cannot suppose any omission or shortening; for
elsewhere x is much the more detailed and copious. _

The other texts have forcibly introduced into this rounded
text manifold pieces of good advice : (1) Practise compassion,
for this will give the best results: (2) Live chastely and marry
within your own people as the patriarchs did, for this brings
great blessing in îts train; (3) Be not proud, above all not to
any of your own people : pride brings ruin ; (4) Give the hireling
his wages; be well-bred in all γοῦν actions, and refrain from
doing to others what would be unpleasing to yourself; (5) Be-
ware of drunkenness; be compassionate; (6) Walk with the

righteous and the wise.
Jerome has a like number of separate counsels, but they

5115

TOBIT

are more concisely worded, and it is noteworthy that the advice
to marry within one's own kin is absent.

Thus there has been a gradual interpolation of this
apparently favourite chapter of the Book of Tobit.
People liked to read how the old man instructs the
youth. More and more words were put into his mouth,
of the sort which the various redactors would like to
impress upon the minds of readers, It is interesting to
sce that the Ahikar story also exhibits the same mixture
of the epic and the didactic styles. Certain of the actual
words too in the rules of wisdom it contains echo those

of ’l'obit. ‘The following examples are among the most
noticeable :—
ΠΝ n
Sio | Ver Lar. | Jerome, Anand B.
My on] Pour out! Place thyi Dispense
Tee Car ἘΣ (funde) — thy wine and thy freely thy food

wine and thy
bread on the
tombs of the
just, and give
it (illud) not
to sinners.

bread uponlat the buria!
the tomb ofjof the just;
the just; but(but, give not
eat and drink|to sinners,
not of it with

sinners.

|tombs of the
just, rather
than drink it
with wicked
and base
people.

The original meaning of this saying, which has refer-
ence to libations at sepulchres, has gradually been
toned down until at last what has come out of it is an
exhortation to prepare a funeral repast. ‘Ihus we can
clearly see that the counsels which by degrees found
their way into ‘Tobit's exhortation have in part at least
been taken from the general oriental stock of quota-
tions. On the other hand the accentuation of definite
Jewish precepts of morality is deliberate. The time,
from which their introduction dates, loved to inculcate
them at every possible opportunity. Apparently it had
every need to do so.

The peculiar circumstance that the advice to marry
within one's kin is wanting in N and Jer. raises the
question, whether this element, upon which much weight
is sought to be laid in the history itself, be original.

There is the further fact that in 6x6 [ἡ] Azariah reminds
Tobias of it, although the admonition itself has not been pre-
viously recorded in this form of the text. The verse in question
must therefore have been introduced by way of correction from
the other forms of the text. We are confirmed in this infer-
ence when we observe that Jerome makes no mention at all
of Azariah's reminder. But as in the dialogue between Azariah
and ‘Tobias, he deviates much from the other MSS, his evidence
would not be so μοῖραν as it is if we did not read in the third
Greek recension simply these words: ‘ Dost thou not remember
all thy fathers commandments?' thus without express allusion
to the particular exhortation now in question.

Further, the statement that Tobias is related to Raguel
disturbs the whole structure of the story. If Raguel would
indeed become by the Mosaic law guilty of death shuuld he give
his daughter to any other than Tobias, —an assertion of the
angel’s which în point of fact is not correct,--then it becomes
inconceivable how the narrator could possibly have found any
excuse for his having already previously betrothed her to seven
suitors in succession. Sara herself, before abandoning herself
to despair, must surely have had some thought of the one possi-
bility of escape from her sad predicament—that, namely, of
being married by the man whom the law required. Her prayer
must have been that God should send her this deliverer. Nor
is it possible that Tobit in receiving his daughter-in-law into his
house, could have failed τὸ recall the ties of kinship that united
them, Raguel himself must have given thanks to God not
merely ‘for having had mercy upon two only children’; he
would also have had every reason for pointing out how a faithful
keeping of the law had found its reward.

Finally, the scene which above all others must determine as to
the relationship between the two families, that namely in which
Tobias enters the house of Raguel, îs not always rendered in
the same way. According to one version of the story the two
travellers first meet with Sara and are afterwards led by her to
the house, and according to another they first find Raguel
himself sitting at his house door, and are hospitably welcomed
by him: according to the one Tobit's loss of sight îs already
Known to those in Raguel's house, whilst according to the other
they first hear of it from the travellers, Also, g shows a much
greater interest than A and B in the relationship (cp 6 18 and
7 10), although it does not contaîn the exhortation mentioned
above. The editor therefore. we may be quite certain, would
not have omitted it if he had found it lying before him.” —

‘This want of agreement shows clearly the smoòthing

5116

TOBIT

touches of later hands. It is plausible to conjecture
that without all arriving at one and the same result
they all sought to incorporate the discovery by Raguel
and his family that their new arrival was their nearest
kinsman. This addition, intended to exhibit in con-
crete form by means of the story of Tobit the blessing
which such marriages of kinsfolk bring, must have been
made in a time which was trying to set aside this
ancient Jewish custom, People ‘turned away with
haughty minds from the sons and the daughters of their
own nation, nor took they wives from amongst them
(413 [A]. ‘In pride—such was the teaching of this
addition—lies destruction and much confusion On
the other hand the progeny of those who are true to the
customs of their forefathers ‘inherits the land." We
see that political and religious hopes were believed to be
affected by such deviations from traditional practice.
If we take a comprehensive survey of the work that
has been expended upon the Book of Tobit, so far as
can be judged from the extant forms of
10, SuMmMATY the text, it becomes plain that the intro-
perfe bin] duction of certain episodes points to a
*heightening of the didactic character of
the story, and to a desire to give it more and more the
character of a family tale. In other respects, though
the various MSS vary from each other in many ways,
they never do so to such an extent that the course of
events is changed, But copyists and translators seem
to have treated their text with a good deal of arbitrari.
ness ; they might almost be called redactors, They
have fully exercised what they deemed their own pro-
prietory rights in copy or translation. The various
forms of text thus produced were again compared at a
distinctly later period, and here and there we find un-
mistakable attempts to harmonise them. It is therefore
difficult to define in any brief formula the nature of
their mutual relationship. We can do so, however,
quite definitely so far as their attitude towards the Ahikar
episode is concerned,

II. UNINTERPOLATED TEXT

At this stage there arises at once the question

whether the text to which the various extant MSS go

io back presents us with the original
11. Not original. form of the Book of Tobit. In the
opinion of the present writer it does not. Various
indications go to show that what it offers us is a redac-
tion of a story previously fixed in writing.

In the speech in which the angel makes himself known he
declares the part he has taken in the events in the life of Tobit
(rad). He it was who brought the memorial of his prayer
before God; who was by his side when he buried the dead;
likewise when he did not delay to rise up and leave his dinner
in order to go and cover the ‘dead' (sing. în x, pl. in A), The
allusion to Tobit's activity în burying the dead in the times of
appression cansed by Sennacherib is abrupt ; to say the least it
stands in the wrong place, the events being enumerated in
reverse order of their cocurrence. It has the appearance of
being an element that has been introduced at a late stage into
the text with the effect in 2. 13 of making ‘the dead man’ into
‘the dead” (pl.). If this impression be correct, the originality
of the introduction would then come into question, And in
point of fact it is given as the hero's own account of bimself in
the first person whilst everywhere else the book is written in the
third person. At a very early date this difficulty was felt.
Jerome and the Aramaic (ed. Neubauer) give the introduction
in the third person. M. Piath indeed points to the similar
change between the first and the third person in the Aramaic
version of the story of Ahikar. In the latter case, bowever,
it would seem as if we had to deal with an oversight or slip of
the Chronicler rather than with a peculiarity of style. ‘Ifthe
editor of the Book of Acts, skilled in literature as he was,
placed in immediate juxtaposition the we-passages and those
written in the third person, his intention was that the impression
of dependence on ancient sources which gives his narrative the
stamp of authenticity might be left unimpaired. Thus M.
Plath's reference to Acts goes rather to prove the opposite of
what io intended; the inference is that here niso as well as in the
Book of Acts the manner in which the subject is presented
enables us to discern the traces of a second hand.

Again, the mention of the various Assyrian kings, and the
references to the history of that period altogether are quite un-
called for so far as the remainder of the narrativeis concerned.
Only at the very close of the narrative are similar allusions at

5117

TOBIT

all met with; but here too the various versions do not agree
(eg, as to the ages of the persons),

ince more, Tobit's loss of sight is given as the sole reason for
his impoverishment. After the return from the flight before
Sennacherib he can afford to have a rich meal prepared ; thus
his poverty is not the consequence of the confiscation of his
goods by Sennacherib.

Lastly, it is left wholly unexplaîned why ît îs that the neigh-
bours say on the burial of the dead man at the feast of Pentecost
that Tobit ‘was no more afraid to be put to death for this matter.
No mention has previously been made that the Jew referred to
had been slain by King Sacherdonos. The corpse is lying in the
market place; but the Jews put to death by Sennacherib are
not, it need hardly be said, left lying in the middle of the town;
they are thrown outside the walls of Nineveh. The saying of
the neighbours just cited, therefore, being irreconcilable with
the narrative itself, and presupposing impossible conditions,
cannot be original. If not original, the things to which it
alludes, the Sennacherib story, are also brought into question.

We shall be safe, therefore, in excluding from the
original text of the Book of Tobit, both this Sennacherib-
story and the reference to the burials of the dead.
What we have here is simply a later reduplication of one
and the same motive—viz,, that of the burial of the dead
man—just as in the story of Esther the feast is redupli-
cated. In Esther the object is to interweave the Mordecai
episodes by means of which the book read at the Purim
festival was brought into harmony with the spirit of the
age; we may well suppose a similar motive to have
been at work in the case of the Book of Tobit. Preiss!
has placed its date in the middle of the second century
A.D., that is to say, immediately after the suppression
of the Jewish revolt, and the annihilation of ali their
national hopes. If now we endeavour to represent to
ourselves what it was that the redaetor of the original
text of the book of Tobit (possibly written in Hebrew}
aimed at and has accomplished we shall arrive at some
such conclusion as the following :—

The story, such as the redactor found it already
reduced to writing, as an edifying tale of family life,

was laid in the Assyrian times. © The
ΑΘ, ΕΘΝ redactor shows himself to be, for his time,
* a man possessed of a certain degree of
historical knowledge. He was acquainied with the
almost legendary story of Sennacherib's fruitless ex-
pedition against Judah; and this he blended with the
story of Tobit, perhaps after having first put it into a
Greek dress. With the adoption of so free a treatment
is explained also the stylistic character of the Greek text,
which led Néldeke to maintain its originality.*® The
redactor had along with his contemporaries passed
through the bitter experiences of the suppression of the
Jewish revolt against Rome. It had been a life-and-
death struggle. ‘In this conflict of races, that ended
in 135 with the complete subjugation of the Jews, the
fields were strown with dead bodies; πᾶν (as Graetz has
ît) ‘the whole Jewish nation lay like one huge corpse on
the gory fields of its native land ” and in Media al